LGBT News #GiveElsaAGirlfriend has an anti-movement now

Disney has a lot of female characters (in recent years) who don't "need a man" or love interest. Merida, Judy Hopps, Vanellope, etc. Elsa could easily be lesbian and I think that'd impart a much more powerful message than just having her be single.

 

It would be interesting if she marries a woman and becomes the princess consort and Elsa is the queen. Then, they can get into the nitty gritty on the rules of the crown and titles of the spouse of the monarch.

Or she marries a man who becomes the prince consort (like Queen Victoria and Prince Albert) and shows all the boys and girls that a woman can rule even if she's married to a man.

 

Honestly, I'll be interested to see how Disney handles the situation, no matter what it ends up being. Yeah, I'd prefer a lesbian Elsa, but with the massive support for the idea I'm curious as to how Disney's going to deal with it if they go with a straight Elsa. There's obviously going to be massive internet backlash either way, so that'll certainly be amusing at the very least.

 

I heard about this!
Secrets5 raised some good points about it maybe sending the wrong message, since Elsa wasn't created gay, it would be as if she were "choosing" to be gay since she would be made so due to audience pressure.
Personally, I wouldn't think this would be much of an issue since the Let It Go song did fit in with the plot of the first movie enough so that it wouldn't read as blatantly about being LGBT+ to other viewers, were she made gay in the second movie. There also wasn't really any other indication as to her orientation, so I think her finding a girl she likes in the second movie would still send a message that that's her orientation.

Although, I'm totally okay with her being single too because I think that's a great message as well (and Disney certainly has some catching up to do with that. The only mainstream single princess so far has been Merida (who is totally awesome)).

Bottom line, as long as they don't give her a prince I think they'll be doing something positive.

My prediction is that if they decide to make her gay/bi, they'd probably only have an implied romance/attraction because I honestly don't think they're Brave (get it) enough for a real homosexual romance, but time will tell.
I can't wait to see!

 

I thought Elsa was a queen though? I kind of like her being single as well but giving her a girlfriend would be pretty cool too.

 

Disney makes stupid movies anyway. Who cares.

 

What I don't understand is why we as a community have to label everything that isn't already labelled gay as gay.

First of all, it's a children's cartoon. Kids shouldn't be exposed to the idea of alternative lifestyles, or any sexual activity until they're at least 13. Second, why do we need to make something that's not gay or unlabelled gay? It's like when I hear other gay people talk about dead artists or musicians, they always, always say "Well I think [so and so] was gay, here's why..." Then they'll give a big spiel about how so and so was gay because of all these incidental reasons. We have this compulsive desire to take something innocent and apply sexuality to it. That's just not right.

Seriously, what is it that makes us watch a movie or read a book or look at a picture and draw these wild conclusions that two characters in it who aren't said or implied to be gay are gay?

 

Give me that old-time religion~

 

Ugh. The fact that 182,350 people have signed that petition upsets me. Now I'm sure not all of them are homophobic. But honestly I feel like a majority of them are.

And then the fact that they said "An idea that promotes solid family values to our children and represents the natural family." The "natural family" huh? Because gay/lesbian families can't possibly be natural and they should be hidden in the dark because people are so stupid and can't see out of their own little stupid close-minded world.

Honestly, in my opinion, Disney should make Elsa a lesbian, just to piss all those people off. I do agree that her staying single/asexual would also be good. But I just want to see Disney put a middle finger to all those haters and I just want to see all of them cry and bitch and whine because they can't even have decent human respect for people who are different and natural and can't help they way that they are!


Sorry for the ramble, haha. I was in a bit of a bad mood earlier and guess I needed to let off steam.

 

Woah, can you provide the link to the petition?

 

Here's the petition that they made: Disney: No Princess for Queen Elsa #CharmingPrinceForElsa | CitizenGO

 

You cared enough to make a post, apparently.

 

Don't mind him. Literally every single one of his posts are filled with negativity and/or passive aggressiveness.

 

Seriously, why do we feel the need to take something that's not gay-related and make it gay? What is it that compels the gay community to interpret something that has a clear definition as either not gay or not sexual/relationship based and turn it gay? Why do we keep speculating that historic artists and musicians or figures like Shakespeare or Aristotle or even Hitler were gay? Why do we have to take everything innocent like children's cartoons and then add a sexual twist to it?

 

I will just have to say that even classic Disney cartoons are filled with murder, attempted murder, animal cruelty, theft, robbery, witchcraft and sorcery, exploitation, marriage after a single date, etc.

 

Yeah, I hear that a lot. Why do we have to add homosexuality to that list? It's like witchcraft and animal cruelty aren't enough. You picked out that list with delight, didn't you? I'm not having any of it. Yes, there's a lot of weird stuff in cartoons, there's a lot of weird stuff in Disney. But the gay community has this need to apply the idea that a character who displays no sexuality is gay. And I'm not just talking about Disney. Look at Batman and Robin or Kirk and Spock. You can't even think of them without thinking they're gay because of what the gay community does with otherwise plain and straightforward (no pun intended) stories and characters.

As I said before:

And what about historical figures? I'm sure a lot of people on here are or have had arguments that Elvis was gay, or that Jesus or King David were gay. Buddha's gay. Everybody's gay to the gay community. WHY? I don't get this compulsive need to apply homosexuality where it has no place.

So when you go on about all the atrocities you listed in Disney cartoons, great. Why do we have to confuse kids even more? I'm holding back, here. I could go on about how wrong I think it is that there are in-depth conversations between people who insist that Shakespeare or Aristotle were gay, or applying gay ideology to things that have nothing to do with sexuality of any kind in the first place. I know they say gays don't convert people, but why do we feel the need to apply homosexuality to places it has no place in to begin with?

This isn't just about the cartoon here, I don't really care about Disney or the atrocities they display you so delightedly picked out to shield yourself from the initial argument. Why do we make everything gay?

 

#GiveFrozenARest

 

Meh, kids need a better LGBT role model than bloody Elsa, tbh. Actually, I think all the the Frozen characters lacked common sense in their own way- but Elsa being seen as a powerful role model always irked me a little because, the way I saw it, she spent most of the movie sulking and avoiding her problems, in fact, after running away and singing for a bit, she wasn't even considering confronting them! >.< Kids should feel as though they should confront their problems, imo.

Idk, maybe I'm just being a bit cynical, but I'd rather Disney genuinely made an LGBT character, rather than just tagging the "lesbian" label onto Elsa to pander to the people who want her to have a girlfriend- besides, I thought the point was that she could be independent?

Anyway, I won't be mad if she does get a girlfriend, I just want to clarify this, but I'd rather that kids had an LGBT character to look up to that is confident and will confront their issues- rather than just being scared of everything like Elsa seemed to me.

 

To be honest, in the society that we live in now, many straight people will make conjectures about "confirmed bachelors" who don't marry or have public sexual partners. I would say that in many peoples' minds: absence of proof is proof of absence. And it's not just the gay folk who apply this twisted rationale.

We all speculate about aspects of historical figures because they are no longer with us. Heck, we speculate about the living and they can set the record straight (no pun intended). That said, I leave speculation to the History Channel and their slipshod documentaries.

I guess this is what I take the biggest issue*. Confuse kids even more? Sure, let's show them other questionable moral acts, but never homosexuality. The parents who eschew showing kids any depiction of homosexuality but are willing to play fast and loose with their "morals" on other topics astounds me. But, it can all boil down to one issues: personal responsibility. Parents and people have the responsibility to research what their children consume and if they don't like it, they can vote with their dollars and not consume it.

Maybe we also shouldn't show gun violence on movies and TV shows because it "perpetuates a culture of violence," when in reality we all have a personal responsibility to not take works of fiction and treat them as facts. We don't get pissed when someone jumps off a roof thinking they are Superman and then crash and get hurt or die.

We have a personal responsibility to research what we or those under our care consume and if parents are to actually believe that film and media can so indelibly mar the innocence of a child, then parents have the personal responsibility to pre-screen every thing their children watch.

*The big issue being to actually put homosexuality on an equivalent level to the morally turpitudinous acts of murder, attempted murder, animal cruelty, theft, robbery, witchcraft and sorcery, exploitation.

 

Wait, we want to be lumped in with all of that? Because that's the impression I'm getting. In an age where homosexuality is no longer demonized in the same manner as say, animal cruelty and is fairly well embraced in the right area, why do we want to associate ourselves with debauchery? Is it out of some misplaced sense of wanting to be rebels? Then why do we fight for equal rights instead of superior rights? It seems to me that instead of fighting for equality we should fight for superiority:

Homosexuals don't reproduce the same way heterosexual couples do, which is a favor to the economy. We're typically more aesthetic, have better sensibilities and are more in touch with our feelings. Many homosexuals are wealthier than heterosexuals and have a higher quality of life. Many of us have achieved a higher level of education than most because of our fiscal responsibility. And while I argue against perceiving dead people who probably weren't gay as such, many gay people are successful artists, musicians and intellectuals. So instead of fighting for equality, we should fight for superiority, don't you agree? It's like that segregation thread, I don't see being treated better as a bad thing, I see it as an advantage, and right now we're at war with the heteronorm, which means we should take every edge we have to fight for superiority. Does any of this make sense? We shouldn't lump ourselves in with thieves and serial killers, we should put ourselves on pedestals that separate us from savages.