Beauty and the Beast’s Gay LeFou Shouldn’t Shock Anyone

It shouldn’t really come as much of a surprise to anyone that the upcoming Beauty and the Beast revamp includes a gay rendition of the character LeFou. Disney has long been ahead of the curve when it comes to things like offering benefits to gay partners, despite the backlash they received from many. While others spent hours upon hours disseminating a subplot within the movie Frozen that proposed Elsa as Disney’s first gay character (or Kristoff as Disney’s first gay Prince, or the people in the steam room), it seems the director for this film has been a bit more candid about the homosexuality of the character LeFou.

Bill Condon is quoted, “LeFou is somebody who on one day wants to be Gaston and on another day wants to kiss Gaston. He’s confused about what he wants. It’s somebody who’s just realizing that he has these feelings. And Josh makes something really subtle and delicious out of it. And that’s what has its pay-off at the end, which I don’t want to give away. But it is a nice, exclusively gay moment in a Disney movie.”

But even still, this shouldn’t come as much of a shock for anyone who knows much about the man behind the music, Howard Ashman. Howard Ashman, prolific songwriter though he was, died prior to the original release of The Beauty and the Beast. However, it is quite clear from an interview on Den of Geek with the original producer, Don Hahn, undertones of Ashman’s own struggle with AIDS came through in his work.

Brew stated, “It’s the Kill The Beast song that gets me. ‘We don’t like what we don’t understand, in fact it scares us’… Incredible…”

Hahn replied, I know. And Howard was struggling with AIDS at the same time. The Kill The Beast song was almost a metaphor for that. He was really dealing with a debilitating disease, in an era when it was stigmatized. And so, there were so many of those underpinnings to the movie that people may not have seen. And shouldn’t have seen. It wasn’t about the HIV epidemic at all. But if you study the man, and his struggles, and then look at his lyrics, you understand what he was going through.”

To be quite blunt, I am a little shocked that Christians are shocked about LeFou being gay. The writing has been on the wall for years by this point and while I wholeheartedly agree that Christians ought to feel indignation against this, they shouldn’t be shocked in the least. For a culture inundated with placing identity in their sexuality, in a state that is alienated and estranged from God, and in constant rebellion toward Him, this is the logical next step. Homosexuality has long been normalized in our culture and there are no signs of this regressing.

But why shouldn’t Bible-believing Christians be shocked? Simply stated, the apostle Paul describes two distinct realms that believers and unbelievers operate in (1 Thess. 4: 1-8). The Christian, having been brought from death to life, has been placed in the realm of sanctification (that is, they have a vested interest in pleasing the Lord); the unbeliever operates in the realm of vileness and impurity. They exist in these two distinct realms of operation simply by the nature of what God has done – not on the basis of their heterosexuality or homosexuality.

What is simply meant by this is that there are many who have homosexual inclinations that are now operating in the realm of sanctification and surely, there are many heterosexuals operating within the realm of vileness and impurity. The obvious caveat is that for the sinner redeemed, genuine faith, repentance, and justification have taken place, and they are presently being sanctified. More clearly, it means that though they might have these urges toward a particular manifestation of sin, they are persevering in that process of sanctification, and abiding in Christ through obedience to His will, because they have been brought to love Him.

But the culture will continue on the path of continual rejection of these norms because they are in continual opposition to their Maker. More clearly, most people are all too happy to reject the biblical consensus on homosexuality because they have rejected God. Is it any wonder to us then that those who reject the God of this teaching will also reject the teaching..?

 

Where do we go from here?

For starters, Christians would do well to not be personally offended by everything the culture does in opposition to God. To put it more clearly, the system of beliefs this world holds dear, has always been in opposition to God. We shouldn’t be shocked that this trend continues. We shouldn’t be shocked in being mocked by those who disagree with the Christian faith. If we believe God is sovereign, He is yet sovereign over this. We shouldn’t be all that shocked to see indoctrination through the character of LeFou.

Secondly, we ought to be guided by the principle of letting the text itself become the stumbling block. If someone rejects a proper teaching on the sexual ethic, Paul makes it incredibly clear that they are not rejecting man, but the God who gives His Holy Spirit (1 Th. 4:8). Yet we ought not ever enter into this conversation without being prepared to give an answer for the hope within us. What this means is that the gospel is the primary issue. Always.

Third, we continue going about our business, preaching this gospel in love, standing firm for the truth contained within the scriptures. We do this by being a blessing to our enemies. We do this by refusing to capitulate to the ever-vacillating, cultural mores. Yet most of all, we do this by becoming genuine friends with those who don’t know God. We build gospel-centered relationships wherein the person is not a project, but someone we actually befriend, and demonstrate a genuine love for them. Spoiler: you have to actually love them to do this.

At some point, many will have to draw a more firm conviction on their choice in entertainment. Many Christian parents will need to think more clearly on these issues and develop criteria for what they allow to disciple their children. If you aren’t discipling your children, be sure to know, someone else is. Beauty and the Beast has not been the first children’s movie the secular culture has latched on to in propagating sexuality outside of the norms of scripture and it surely won’t be the last. LeFou is indicative of the larger movement that has been going on before the eyes of children for some time now, and other characters like LeFou will continue to be revealed. We would do well to be teaching them what a proper, biblical, sexual ethic actually looks like.

 

 

Image: Disney.movies.com; used under the Doctrine of Fair Use

"Experience of God in Christ and empathy for those who don't know him are the ..."

Scripture’s Sexual Ethic will Outlast Progressive ..."
"If scriptural tradition, Jesus' and his apostles' teaching is garbage for you then it is ..."

Scripture’s Sexual Ethic will Outlast Progressive ..."
"IF your argument is valid then promiscuity, adultery, incest, and (I won't go on with ..."

Scripture’s Sexual Ethic will Outlast Progressive ..."
""Bulverism is a logical fallacy. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent ..."

Scripture’s Sexual Ethic will Outlast Progressive ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • 92JazzQueen .

    I agree that we just have to talk to our kids about the issues, instead of always just getting angry.

  • NORMAN DOSTAL

    It would actually be best for bigoted Christians to accept that the bible was written by men and it is flawed. The REAL god clearly loves gays-he keeps making them and he has supported their fight for equality making it happen faster than any other civil rights movement tin human history. Get over the “bible is god” nonsense. Its time.

    • Gilsongraybert

      Norman, may I ask how you’ve come to speak with conviction on who you believe to be the “real god” and you might speak with any authority on the matter?

      I am curious because something seeming to be natural man may feel natural and right, but that doesn’t necessitate that it is right and that God approves of it. Rather, it squares wholly with the Christian worldview and shows that it is a product of sin, and that the necessity of repentance and faith in Christ.

      Sam Allberry, a man who has dealt with same sex attraction his whole life, says this, “That it feels natural to me is not a sign of how God has created me, it is a sign of how sin has distorted me.”

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        I don’t actually think there are any gods-im too educated for that. Remember, you are ONLY Christian because of the country you were born in.
        However, I am open to think there may be a god so when I say the “real” god I mean the one that would logically exist if there was one-that god would only care about loving each other-no other rules-just love. Love is love-gay love, straight love, interracial love-its all pure and good. No god would give us flesh and ask us not to cut our hair or not to eat shrimp or order women to marry her rapist-thats all man made nonsense.
        Sam is self hating and that is VERY sad that eh was raised to think that because of made up religious kookery. Can you imagine if that was how you were taught? That your love was sin and would make you burn in hellfire for all time?
        We must stop these lies. There is no mention of homosexual relationships as we understand them today in the bible-none at all.
        We are all born atheist-the rets is programming

        • Gilsongraybert

          Interesting; I didn’t grow up in a religious household – and I’m wondering how well the “you’re only Christian due to the country you’ve been born in” stacks up with places like China, which boasts of many Christians. I’m also curious to know how you feel, hypothetically speaking of course, your “real god” defines love. Is it based on the same criteria you would hold?

          And to be fair, you are correct. The Bible neglects to speak of the conventional terms “heterosexuality” and “homosexuality” and any other sociological category used since their founding in the late 1800’s (or so, not sure on the precise date). Yet you get what I’m saying there. However, the Bible is very clear on denouncing any type of male on male, female on female, or really another other variation of human (and creature) outside of the bounds of a marriage between one man and one wife. The Bible is explicit on that. The terms are generally helpful, as we know specifically what they refer to in this day and age – but I’m willing to concede that Paul in fact broadens it well beyond the terms we know it in today.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            China has had numerous missionaries but by and large my statement is true. One’s religion is mostly due to parenting and location. Of course its not 100%, but chance are if youre born in a Muslim country, youll be Muslim.
            Love would be kindness, respect, not purposely harming-just the basics that have held true throughout humanity’s existence. I know no god would care who we sleep with as long as there is no abuse. May I ask why you believe your god inspired a book? The inconsistencies do not bother you?
            The bible was written by primitive men who had no understanding of sexuality. The bible also doesn’t condemn polygamy-in fact, there are hundreds of examples of polygamy because at the time that was acceptable back then. Do you think polygamy is ok? Why no mention of it being bad in the bible if its supposed to be ne man, one woman?
            Thanks for the polite discussion!!

          • Ryan Dabian

            It’s not about moral fiber, charity, compassion or all the other junk.
            It’s all about who you share your naughty bits with!

            They try their hardest not to be obsessed over sex, but fail often and spectacularly.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Norman, I thank you as well for remaining polite in this – that helps us continue a good conversation! There are acquaintances I hold that were born in a Muslim country that are Christian, interestingly. While demographics play a role, obviously, it is not the litmus to determine whether or not a people group will embrace a certain religion. Christianity has never been solely a “white man’s religion”.

            I have been studying the scriptures for several years by this point and have not found inconsistencies that have yet to have a decent explanation. The difficulty is that many are predisposed to reject them on the basis that they reject the whole, meaning they won’t find satisfactory answers because they already don’t find the overarching ideas satisfactory. However, not only do I find the scriptures to adequately represent reality, I firmly believe that the original autographs were inspired. We don’t have those today – but the manuscript evidence on the accuracy of the Bible is astounding. If you haven’t done some research on this issue, I would greatly encourage it. Also, the men who wrote the scriptures were by no means primitive. Some prominent atheistic scholars will even plainly acknowledge the literary genius of many books within the biblical corpus. While some had a more common level of writing – others were incredibly profound and quite brilliant. Nonetheless, there is an incredible amount of discussion on sexuality within the Bible – and if we key in on ancient Rome – they were far more progressive than we in many instances when it came to sexuality (this is the realm Paul wrote in). To say they had no understanding of sexuality and were primitive is quite untrue. Do me a favor and go look up some stuff on Greek and Roman sexuality from about 500BC to 300AD. You’ll find much in common with what American sentiments are today, especially when you hone in on the philosophers.

            With your question toward polygamy, the Bible does in fact prohibit it with the simple terms with which it speaks towards the marriage. It always refers to them as one man and one woman – even in the Creation account. You won’t find a single text speaking toward marriage that does not refer to the singular usage of proper nouns and pronouns. Secondly, we have to ask if narrative literature means that it is normative, or more clearly, if what transpires within a narrative means there is express sanction of the event. While David and Solomon had many wives and concubines, there is not a single sanction of this. The OT and NT prohibit adultery, which again, is sex outside of a one woman and one man marriage. Yet going back to the point I am making on narrative, we find many examples of behavior taking place by individuals within the OT and NT that betray biblical commands, yet the specific book is telling the story, not sanctioning that behavior.

          • NORMAN DOSTAL

            What are you thoughts regarding God ordering women to marry her rapist In deutoronomy? Its passages such as these that convinced me the bible is the work of men. No god would order such a thing IMO.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Hi Norman, I can understand why the initial reading of the verse in Deuteronomy would seem to indicate that a rape victim MUST marry her assailant, but there are two verses (both upholding civil law revealed to Moses) that speak to this:

            “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days” (Deut. 22:25-19).

            First, we see right away that the rapist could easily face capital punishment due to his actions in raping a woman who is to be married – yet there is no guilt on her behalf. Secondly, the obvious question then comes up: why would the command be given for the woman who is not betrothed to be married by her rapist? Well, the idea behind this civil law is to do a few things, the most obvious one being to deter one from consequence-free rape. More clearly, a woman who was forcibly taken essentially had her life ruined, as she would rarely have been taken for a wife from others, meaning even more clearly, she would not have any means of survival.

            Yet we also have this case law from the book of exodus:

            “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins” (Exodus 22:16-17).

            Now ask yourself, how many fathers would allow their daughters to marry their rapist? Notice what the man is to do if the father refuses: pay the dowry. In either scenario, the rapist robbed what was not his and must repay. The culture of this time period was radically different than our own; women didn’t own property, if she had no father, husband, or son, her options were slavery or prostitution. Virginity was much more highly thought of in this period than our own – and there are instances in the scriptures where rapists were murdered due to their heinous actions (1 Samuel 13).

            But to the larger issue here we must ask if these laws were enacted to sanction rape, or if it was a means to deal with what had just happened and deter others from the severe crime.

            There are two terms used for the OT Law: apodictic and casuistic law. Apodictic Law refers to commands given by God for the express purpose of honoring Him; Casuistic Law is the same as we would see today as “Case Law.” The difference between the two being that these “case laws” were not intended in any sense to sanction or reward the criminal. They were a means to punish the evil doer and protect the innocent party and not leave them destitute. In either case with the rapist, we find that 1) they were put to death; 2) they were to care for and provide for the woman for the entirety of her life and could not seek divorce; and 3) they must pay a hefty dowry. Beyond this, there were several other Laws dictating proper civil responsibility, especially within the family – and the irresponsible one would meet severe judgment from the Law Giver (God) even if they meet severe capital punishment from men (death).

            Rape would very easily be seen as sexual immorality, which reserves an incredibly strict measure of judgment from God all throughout the OT and NT, and has been denounced and condemned universally.

          • NinjaMountie

            Very good response. Well written and accurate.

      • Ryan Dabian

        Oh please. Sam Allberry is the sad result of religious indoctrination.
        Bringing on self-loathers for Jesus only convinces the bigoted Christians. Sin only exists in the recesses of your mind, like the other thought crimes.

        What Yahweh finds appealing or holy is of no interest to gay people who don’t want to grovel to a Cthulhun Mythos deity and it’s sick mind games.

        • Gilsongraybert

          Ryan, it must be easier to outright dismiss people who have same sex attraction on the basis of self delusion rather than address the substance of the claim from them. It’s a pity you won’t think more critically through it, but oh well.

          • Ryan Dabian

            I do think critically, that’s why I am pitying the poor man duped into believing that his natural wants are deemed as an “abomination” and his entire life as a test for a monstrous cosmic entity with a 4chan sense of humor.

            There are active help out there for people with depression or other mental illness that doesn’t require you to hate a benign component of yourself.

    • Jack Lee

      Norman, the “gays still exist so God must approve” argument might be the worst for homosexuality I have ever heard. Do you approve all things that exist in large numbers in the world?

      • NORMAN DOSTAL

        its better than my god exists because my parents told me he does argument! I don’t believe in any fairy tale gods-I just believe in right and equality and so does our law

        • Gilsongraybert

          Another interesting tidbit: the scriptures teach that the faith of your parents isn’t sufficient to save you, meaning that the individual must come to grips with the Bible’s teaching, and accept it or reject it for themselves.

        • Jack Lee

          First, I don’t believe in God because my parents did. Secondly, how do you even know what right or good is? If there is no God and no divine measure of law, then all justice is subjective and all offensive behavior can be driven down to a poor social etiquette. To say that you believe in some moral code or standard that does not originate in something greater than you – that is a fairy-tale.

      • Donalbain

        This counter argument fails because Norman is not posited to be all powerful.

  • Tianzhu

    Yale scholar Sarah Ruden’s book Paul Among the People gives some superb insights into the pagan culture of the apostles’ times. While most people believe that pagans were tolerant of homosexuality, Ruden shows that this is not the whole story. They did tolerate homosexuality, within certain boundaries, but to say they “condoned” it or “celebrated” it would be a stretch. The literature of Greece and Rome is full of references to homosexuality, mostly negative. Effeminate men were frequently ridiculed in the plays and poetry of those days. The pagans did not punish homosexuality, but the whole notion of “gay pride” or “same-sex marriage” would have had them rolling in the aisles. America in 2017 is really at a much lower moral point than ancient Athens or Rome, because there the elites in America aren’t pushing for mere toleration, they are insisting on acceptance and even celebration of homosexuality. The apostles faced a pre-Christian pagan society. We face a post-Christian one, and it’s much worse.

    • 92JazzQueen .

      They preferred alpha males who dominated their partners. To be the passive member was an insult to one’s manhood.

    • Donalbain

      So, a society that mocks “effeminate” men is, in your opinion, morally superior to one that does not? Is a school bully who teases a kid who he considers to be gay better than the bullied kid’s friends?

      • Tianzhu

        The difference between you and me is that I do not wish to live in a repressive society that does not allow freedom of speech. I hear my religion, Christianity, mocked constantly, but I shrug it off, because I know that in a free and diverse society, people will say things that other people don’t like.

        It is not conservatives nor Christians who impose “speech codes” (i.e., censorship) on college campuses. Liberals do that. They claim to be tolerant, and yet when they have the power, they eagerly label anything they don’t wish to hear as “hate speech” or “bullying.” Homosexuals criticize Christians constantly (as is very evident in this thread), but, as your post indicates, you wish to make it illegal for anyone to criticize homosexuals.

        In other words: leftists are shameless hypocrites who would gladly take away the right of free speech. You want the freedom to criticize others, but you would deny others that same freedom. So your goal was never equality, your goal is to silence anyone who says a negative word about homosexuals, which means reducing us to second-class citizenship. That is not equality, nor is it social justice.

        • Donalbain

          I hope you feel better after that little rant. I notice you didn’t answer my questions, but hey ho. Have a lovely day.

        • Ryan Dabian

          Gay people criticize Christians for their ignorance surrounding human sexuality.

          It is increasingly unconvincing to quote the Bible as an authority regarding sexuality or much of anything. To the disappointment to the more zealous of believers.

          You are also wrong to state that liberals are in favor of squelching freedom of speech. Especially based on the actions of some anarchists at one university.

          The rest are your post is just martyrbaiting. No one is persecuting you or interested in silencing you. Please work that complex out.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    Also it looks like this will backfire on Disney due to the LGBT community finding this insulting due to LeFou being portrayed as a pathetic sidekick.

    • Gilsongraybert

      Not only that, but I’m sure many won’t be pleased to learn LeFou means “the fool” in French.

      • Lorenzo Fernandez

        It does not. Fou means mad, fool, as in buffoon is a bouffon.

    • Ryan Dabian

      I’ll say. I would’ve been far more impressed if they outed Gaston as the conflicted, overcompensating closet case that eventually opened up and married a cute, dorky nerd guy with the same penchant for strenuous exercise.

      • 92JazzQueen .

        That’s a draco in leather pants treatment that he doesn’t deserve, especially when they did the same treatment for Maleficent.

        • Ryan Dabian

          Then what would be the point of a remake if it’s exactly like the animation?

          Maleficent was a meh movie, but it at least tried to be different with her than the one-dimensional character in the 50’s version.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            I prefer her being a bad girl over her being pained as a tragic hero. In fact, I would have loved this to have been her rise to darkness and showed she was never good from the start. That would have been a better movie.

          • Ryan Dabian

            Probably, but it wouldn’t have been the feel-good movie a lot of people would flock to.

            I wonder how much the movie grossed. Maybe it would’ve been worth it to go all Descendant on the flick.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            I want a movie where the bad girl is bad, and not a misunderstood soul.

  • Donalbain

    This is pathetic.
    There is a character in a story who is gay. From that you say that Christians should be indignant, and then you spin a tale about rebellion and how you personally are being mocked. Newsflash: Not everyone cares enough about your imagined god to “rebel” and not every example of people who are different to you is mocking you.

    • Gilsongraybert

      To clarify, being indignant here simply means a righteous anger over sin being heralded as good and proper when it leads to death. I wish consistency would play out in many other various forms of entertainment, but alas, that is another blog post. The rebellion refers to all people who are in rebellion toward God. You don’t have to be cognizant of every step of that rebellion, but in the simplest form, unbelief is rebellion – and that is quite innocuous by most people’s standards. That’s the way the scriptures paint it though. And finally, I’m not saying anyone here (has yet to do so, at least) is mocking me. I am more specifically pointing out that rebellion, or more simply being opposed to God, is mocking God and truth. It is quite clear when you go to a pride event that there are many who openly and flagrantly mock Christ – as a simple Google search would suffice in showing signs, rainbow toting depictions of Christ with a strap-on, etc.

      • Donalbain

        And finally, I’m not saying anyone here (has yet to do so, at least) is mocking me

        We shouldn’t be shocked in being mocked by those who disagree with the Christian faith.

        Make up your mind. Don’t play the victim because a character in a kids film is different to you, that is just pathetic. But if you MUST do that, at least own up to it and don’t pretend you are not.

        • 92JazzQueen .

          Funny you come onto a blog post to whine how someone is playing the victim, when you are here to start a fight then get snappy when someone points out that you hate the message they send.

          • Donalbain

            If you think that is an accurate description of what I have said, then good luck to you.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Here is a blunt, “Yes”.

          • Donalbain

            Same question to you then. Do you think a society that mock “effeminate men” is better than one that does not? And on the micro level, who is better, the kid who bullies the “effeminate” boy or that boy’s friends?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            As pointed out, he wasn’t trying to make it out that pre-pagan society was better for mocking effeminate men, but pointing out how romanticized pagan society is by everyone.

          • Donalbain

            You: he wasn’t trying to make it out that pre-pagan society was better for mocking effeminate men

            Him: The apostles faced a pre-Christian pagan society. We face a post-Christian one, and it’s much worse.

            Good job that you have no problem with lying.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            It’s probably noting how post-Christian societies tend to try to pass themselves off as being morally superior while dressing up some questionable practices.

          • Donalbain

            No. It is stating that pre Christian societies are better than today. You can tell because that is EXACTLY what he wrote.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Worse than post-Christian societies doesn’t mean better.

          • Donalbain

            Ok. Now you are either pretending to be stupid or just are.

            Now being worse than pre Christian

            Means that

            Pre Christian is better than now.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Do be charitable, or we will block you from commenting. There’s no need to insult people.

          • Ryan Dabian

            That is completely incoherent.

          • Ryan Dabian

            Not many progressives Christians or atheists romanticize the Hellene Roman Empire. It’s mostly conservative Christians that bring it up as a “sinful” and decadent place and as a prove that society is regressing back to their “evil”, pre-Christian ways.

            All bullshit of course since society is by in large better than both the Hellene and Christian period and appears to be improving. Despite the melancholy of people like Gilbert who are nostalgic for the “Good old Days” that only existed in black-and-white sitcoms from the 50’s.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            You really underestimate how many times I have heard pagan Roman empire was more tolerant than the so called Christian periods. Also funny enough Gilbert probably didn’t live during those times, and probably grew up in the 70’s and 80’s.

          • Ryan Dabian

            Because they have reasons to.
            The Hellene Roman Empire was far more tolerant of diverging religious beliefs with the caveat that everyone of every religion pledged allegiance to the empire and its emperor.
            Something that the early Christians had problems with.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            On the surface it looked tolerant, but upon further exception it was just lip service. They cracked down hard on the Druids.

          • Ryan Dabian

            Yes, that is true.
            They thought they were completely beyond salvaging.

            Like I said, the empire was more tolerant before Christianity became the state religion.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Christians and Jews would love to have a word with you.

          • Ryan Dabian

            The Helinized Jews were generally okay with the Romans.
            And the empire tolerated the early presence of the Jewish Christians up until the point they became belligerent and disobeying civility.

            Though yeah, I agree with you. How they acted towards minority faiths was completely wrong and ultimately backfired on them.

            However the persecuted Christians had no problem destroying the other religions when it came to power.

            The old persecuted becomes persecutor situation.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Under some Roman emperors, they expelled them.

        • Gilsongraybert

          Addressing a plurality of people that share a common faith and are mocked for it by the broader culture and me saying I’m mocked by this film are two drastically different things – and I certainly made no claim to the latter. If you’d like to pretend I have, so be it.

          • Donalbain

            And another person in this thread refuses to stand by their own words. Pathetic.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Donalbain, you seem keen to simply read into what people are saying rather than what is actually said. If anything, it just shows you’re not being a very careful reader here. If you want genuine conversation with people, it might do well to not insert words in their mouths.

          • Donalbain

            I quoted your exact words. You pretended you didn’t say what I quoted.

          • Gilsongraybert

            You obviously did not accept the clarification of your misconception, nor the remainder of what was said in the post.

          • Donalbain

            Clarification. Denial of what you said.
            Tomato. Tomato.

      • Donalbain

        Do you think Christians should be indignant when a Hindu person is in a film? Or a Muslim person?
        Or does righteous anger over sin being heralded as good and proper when it leads to death only apply when the character is gay?

        • 92JazzQueen .

          There is a difference between the issue of homosexuality and people of different faiths.

          • Donalbain

            So you agree that righteous anger over sin being heralded as good and proper when it leads to death only applies when talking about gay people?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            There was Christian outrage over the depiction of abuse in Fifty Shades of Grey.

          • Donalbain

            So, righteous anger over sin being heralded as good and proper when it leads to death applies to sexy times, but doesn’t apply to worshipping the wrong god? Why is that?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            You really don’t get why that’s not the same as sins promoted by mainstream as good. No one tries to promote one faith over another, but for other sins they willing allow themselves to promote some stuff and favor it as being good.

          • Donalbain

            How does the existence of a gay character in a kids film about a woman loving a man promote anything you oppose?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            For a lot of religious people, they believe homosexuality is wrong and disagree with it being shown blatantly on something aimed at kids.

          • Donalbain

            For a lot of religious people, they believe HINDUISM is wrong.

            Where is the indignation about that?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Being another religion isn’t the same thing as practicing certain actions people agree with.

          • Donalbain

            Worshipping false gods is EXACTLY a thing that Christians disagree with. What is the first commandment?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            And the film isn’t promoting Christians worship other gods.

          • Donalbain

            And the film is not promoting Christians do ANYTHING!!

          • 92JazzQueen .

            It is promoting a view that people find contradicting.

          • Donalbain

            What view is it promoting and how?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            The belief that homosexual practice is right. I certainly won’t agree with the view, but on the other hand I do believe there should not be an overreaction to it. Culture is changing from Christian values, but I do have to remember it’s still my power to talk to kids about the differences between our values and society’s. On the other hand, I also want my kids to know not to be judgmental and learn to deal with children that might come from same gender households.

          • Donalbain

            How does it promote the idea that homosexuality is “right”?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            A blatantly gay character is mentioned LeFou.

          • Donalbain

            So if there is a blatantly gay character, that is promoting the idea that homosexuality is “right”?

            If there is a blatantly Hindu character in a film is that promoting the idea that Hinduism is “right”?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            The thing is you are completely not getting why that is not the same thing.

          • Donalbain

            Why not? What is the difference? Why is it OK to promote breaking the First Commandment, but not something that is way down in Leviticus?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            How about the fact the depiction of a Hindu character is not the same as a practice that is condemned in Scripture? It’s more like you are ignorant of why there is a big difference, and again bring up false analogies.

          • Donalbain

            What practice that is condemned in scripture is shown in the Beauty and ten Beast film?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            At this point, you are just being obnoxious.

          • Donalbain

            If you say so. I asked a very simple question. You refused to answer.

          • Ryan Dabian

            What exactly are they practicing in the movie?
            Seriously, what are straight people “practicing”?
            Disney is just throwing out crumbs to gay people by featuring a side-character in a (probably) mediocre remake of one their well-liked animations.

            But here we have Gilbert taking this as a personal assault to him and his beliefs.
            I am glad culture is moving away from the toxic ideas of his faith and representing people that aren’t all white, straight males. And having read some of your earlier posts, I think you would agree with that too.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Sorry, I always find it funny that whenever someone mentions homosexuality they always put in straight and male as if people still have mindsets from the 50’s. For all the talk of archaic thinking, ironically people on your side have outdated stereotypes about the general conservative outlook that is behind the times.

          • Ryan Dabian

            I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
            Your use of “practice” is equally applicable to straight people as much as gay people and means absolutely nothing.

          • Gilsongraybert

            Not in any sense do I see this as a personal attack against me – it is not about how I feel in any sense of that word. It goes far beyond little ol’ insignificant me. And I genuinely mean that. Personal offense matters very little, if at all in this conversation.

      • Ryan Dabian

        First of all, a large percentage of LGBT people are Christians. It’s just most of them aren’t the pathetic, self-hating kind. Mostly progressives types that you find a lot of them on Slacktivist. Maybe talking with them instead of condemning them might open your mind to other types of Christians. It might be even be a good idea to head over to the Progressive side from time to time.

        Second of all, the pride events represent gay people as much as Mardi Gras does straight people. What people do at these events are on them and them alone.

        Lastly, Biblical truth is not the same as truth. And as can be seen on the progressive Christianity side, the anti-gay component of Christianity may not even be that.

        • 92JazzQueen .

          Man, the part of about celibate Christians being pathetic, self hating kind is really telling a lot about you. For all the cries of love, you mask your so called tolerance as being more loving than your enemies.

          • Ryan Dabian

            Ever wonder what their reasons are for celibacy?
            They think their natural urges and desires are disordered. Frame it however you want. Pious, devout, holy. The root is all the same: religious-induced self-loathing.

            And the only reason why I mentioned the self-hating gay people is because people like Gilbert use them as props on how gay people should act.
            Besides that, they are free to live their lives however they like. Also referred to as tolerance.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Or how about the fact that maybe they have the right to go that path, and a lot of them are no the self hating types as you say.

          • Ryan Dabian

            Which is exactly what I stated.
            They can live however they want, but try to pass that off as how gay people should act…than we have a problem.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            And no one is forcing them to do it, but you are acting like people are.

          • Ryan Dabian

            Of course no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
            I was criticizing the celibate-for-Jesus types being paraded around as good examples of gay people “struggling” with their same-sex attractions.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Yet, you are treating them as being some poor victims when a lot of them actually choose to live a Biblical way of life.

          • Ryan Dabian

            Because I see them as such.
            Terrible ideas that make people hate intrinsic and harmless traits of themselves and depriving themselves of romantic/sexual contact.

            Oh and there are plenty of gay Christians leading perfectly happy lives.
            Though they would likely be the wrong Christian as far as this blog is concerned.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            It’s a disagreement of ignoring certain Scripture. It’s like a Christian group who support in favor of certain things like polygamy and that such.

          • Ryan Dabian

            Much like ignoring eating shellfish or wearing fixed fabrics?
            Or did Jesus hand wave those?

            But homosexuality is different since Paul wrote some obscure references to some cult fertility rites that totally refers to consensual, monogamous gay couples.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Whenever people bring those things up, it comes more of the fact that they downplay what is the difference between mandated practices and continued bans on certain types of behaviors.

          • Ryan Dabian

            So this isn’t ancient Israel? Huh…so dietary recommendations and sexual mores from a specific region and moment of history have changed and or been abandoned? Who would’ve thought.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Mostly because the fact if there is a practice that isn’t spoken of as being right in the NT then it’s pretty much still a sin. Also that’s the problem with missing point of these regulations is that some of them had nothing to do with sin, but societal practices to make the Israelite healthy.

          • Donalbain

            So, wearing mixed fabrics is still a sin?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            Again you really need to understand Leviticus and why the mixed fabric thing is really misinterpreted.

          • Donalbain

            I see. And how SHOULD mixed fibres be “interpreted”?

          • 92JazzQueen .

            There are ceremonial and civil laws. Mixed fiber is the former.

          • Donalbain

            Quote the part of the Bible that says that.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            How about do the research on why Mixed fabric isn’t in the same category as homosexual practice?

          • Donalbain

            You are making the claim. You defend it. Show me where the Levitical laws are divided into the two categories you claim.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            It’s due to the fact that ceremonial ones are not emphasized as carrying some kind of sinful proclamations.

          • Donalbain

            Still no actual quote.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            The problem here with you is that you are fed of mantra of crud about the Bible that only feeds your perception that homosexuality is a ceremonial practice like mixed fabrics.

          • Donalbain

            I have no perception that anything is a ceremonial practice. That is your claim. Her are a few commands from the Bible, what is the evidence that any are ceremonial and others are not?

            Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

          • 92JazzQueen .

            The problem is you see it all as being civil law, and it’s obvious that you can really tell jack from it.

          • Donalbain

            So, are you EVER going to say what the evidence for your claim is?

          • NinjaMountie

            You know, I truly have no issues with gay people. I don’t really care what they do. Still, I don’t understand the “gay Christian.” I’m not going to argue with you about the intricacies of Biblical law and what Christ changed. I will say this, there is absolutely NO WAY to read the Bible with any kind of real objectivity and not come away with the belief that the Christian God is appalled by any sexual sin, but has a special distaste for homosexuality. There just isn’t any possible way.
            I’ve read all the arguments that state that homosexuality isn’t against God and they are so convoluted that it’s laughable. I mean, huge, wild leaps and obvious desperation to make it okay.
            You’re correct. I can see how a person that isn’t well versed in Christian doctrine and scripture can be confused as to why some laws (like different fabrics or not planting some things next to eachother) aren’t practiced, or even promoted by Jesus. The thing is, while that may be confusing, it isn’t confusing God’s stance on homosexuality. It’s just not. The one doesn’t justify the other.
            Now, that being said, why do some gay people feel the need to distort a religion so they can feel good about participating. That’s like saying I’m going to decide to live my life as a tree but I’m not going to stay in one place, sprout leaves and grow bark. You conform to the precepts of a religion….not bend them to fit you.
            What gay people do is there own business. I’ll fight for them to have equal rights under the law….of the land. I don’t support the distortion of a religious faith.

          • Donalbain

            That’s a delightful little rant that contains zero evidence.

          • NinjaMountie

            You need to stop with the “gotcha” questions in regards to law in the scripture. Look, whether you believe in the Bible or not there is no denying that it is a complex book that has spawned several different cultures. You are going to have passages that are confusing in any book that deals with these issues and covers that amount of time. You have to study the ENTIRETY of the scripture to have any real understanding of it. Why is this surprising?
            These questions that you’re posting in an attempt to invalidate everything in the Christian Bible are, in all honesty, easily explained to someone with any real education in the matter. I could explain to you about the fabric. I could explain to you about the changes in law from OT to NT. It wouldn’t do any good because you’ll start asking about the son’s of God and the daughters of men, or something else unrelated to the question at hand.
            Why do you waste your time? You aren’t going to win an argument or prove a point with these “gotcha” questions. They are as lame as Christians excuses against global warming.
            Why not educate yourself if it’s that important to you? Why not pose the argument that Jesus wouldn’t want the civil rights of any group curtailed that didn’t endanger anyone. That’s an argument you can win with scripture.

          • Donalbain

            And still no evidence for any of your claims.

          • NinjaMountie

            There is no evidence for you because you don’t accept it. As stated, that’s understandable as you don’t believe.
            Again, and for the last time, go learn about the Bible if you wish to discuss it in an educated manner. If you don’t, just quit discussing it.
            I’m not going to play your game. It’s obvious that you have no knowledge of the Christian Bible (again, it’s okay)and you have no real desire to learn.
            Have a good day.

  • Laura Lee Torres

    I think im going to start watching purflix….tired of people pushing there views on my kids especially in movies..why even make him gay or not…ridiculous lil kids arent even thinking of this nonsense…God help us all!!! I really wanted to see this movie too….ugh…this world is awful…and whats wrong with actually wanted to please God and do what He wants us to…or atleast try…im sorry but if God says boldy in the bibke something…why am I wrong to believe and stand by it…why am I criticized about what I believe?? I love everyone but if you ask yes its wrong..period. Anyway Jesus rules!!

  • NinjaMountie

    Wow, didn’t realize this was a controversy. For the record, I’m a straight white male who was everything masculine in High School (when the animated version was one of my favorite movies), and I always thought Lefou was gay. C’mon…it was so obvious! There is bromance and there is unrequited love. Lefou was experiencing the latter.
    Now, I’m not going to say that the constant complaining from some groups to have a gay person in every single movie isn’t getting a little old, but this is a non-starter. There are gay people in the world so it makes sense that there will be gay characters in the movies.