Why THIS Christian is Going to See “Beauty and the Beast”

There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the alleged “gay moment” in the upcoming release of the live action version of Beauty and the Beast. EXPLICIT! said The Telegraph. EXCLUSIVE! said The Guardian. DISNEY’S FIRST GAY CHARACTER! Even the Russians are upset (now we know it must be bad).

Amidst all this controversy, many Christians have decided to boycott the remake of an otherwise beloved classic. From cancelling their trips to Disney World, to signing petitions, to even banning the movie from a theater entirely–Christians everywhere are joining prominent leaders like Franklin Graham in their call to protest Beauty and the Beast.

There’s just one problem with all of the hype around this movie: This isn’t the first time Disney has inserted gay characters. In fact, one of the most popular Disney movies of all time turned its entire plot and main character into a gay metaphor, seeking to normalize the gay lifestyle and romanticize the process of “coming out” all within a children’s movie. Which obscure film would dare to contain this kind of message? FROZEN.

That’s right, folks! This wildly popular film–particularly among Christians–was a gay metaphor from start to finish. From the main character (Elsa) kept locked away in her “closet” for much of her childhood, to her sudden “coming out” and rejection by society, even to the final phrase “true love” which melted even the coldest heart that stood against Elsa’s acceptance into society.

Christians never boycotted Frozen–in fact, they celebrated it! I’ve even sat in church services in which Frozen was used AS THE SERMON ILLUSTRATION. The idea that Christians are now taking some kind of moral stand against the evil messaging behind Beauty and the Beast, is laughable in the face of the gay metaphor that many unwittingly celebrated when Frozen was released in 2013.

Now if you’re about to delete “Let It Go” from your iTunes over this, please wait. There is this notion that simply because the intent behind the production or messaging of a movie was bad, that must therefore make the product itself bad. This is simply not the case. There is no possible way that Christians can ever boycott every movie or every song or every message that does not promote Christian values. This is why I am going to go see Beauty and the Beast just as I went to see Frozen–not because I support or promote gay marriage or the gay lifestyle, but because my life cannot be ruled by the intentions of others. The only intentions anybody can control are their own; so I intend to see this movie, speak out about any minor negative aspects, and overall enjoy the film.


Gay Marriage: Detrimental to Society

This is one of my essays written in my first year of college–unedited, unabridged, and uncensored. Contains adult content.

One of the most heated issues in American society today is the issue of whether homosexual couples should have the same rights, privileges, and recognition as heterosexual couples.  One side of the argument sees the denial of gay marriage rights as bigoted and altogether unconstitutional; they feel that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have equal rights.  However, the opposing position sees gay marriage as a dangerous activity that produces adverse affects on the people of society.  The argument opposed to equal rights for homosexual couples the more logical, for gay marriage is detrimental to the health of society.

The first and perhaps most obvious reason why gay marriage is detrimental to the health of society is that it is unnatural and unhealthy for those who engage in it.  The legal definition of marriage as stated by Dictionary.com is, “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife.”  Dictionary.com also defines sex as, “either the male or female division of a species, esp. as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.”  In other words, males and females are defined by the fact that one cannot naturally reproduce without the other.  Heterosexual sex is the only kind that performs its natural function of reproduction—no other kind does this.  The consequences of attempting to perform the act of sexual intercourse in any other fashion are astronomical.  According to the North Carolina Family Policy Center, “Homosexual men who engage in anal sex are at a significantly high risk for numerous health problems. The high-risk nature of anal sex is simple: the rectum was not designed for sexual intercourse. According to amfAR [The Foundation for AIDS Research], ‘compared to the vagina, rectal tissue is much more vulnerable to tearing during intercourse and the larger surface area of the rectum/colon provides more opportunity for viral penetration and infection.’”  If humans were meant to practice sex in any other fashion than the traditional heterosexual method, then wouldn’t the body be able to successfully carry such actions out without injury or disease?  According to The North Carolina Family Policy Center, “Certain cancers are more common among lesbians, specifically breast cancer and various gynecological cancers (uterine, cervical, endometrial and ovarian).”  Should the American government recognize, uphold, and support behaviors that are by all evidence harmful to those who practice them?

Secondly, gay marriage is detrimental to the health of those who practice it but also to those who do not.  Specifically, when two men have sex via the “anal-genital” method a plethora of diseases—a number of which are contagious—are caused or likely to be caused.  The North Carolina Family Policy Center recognizes pediatrician Dr. Meg Meeker’s book Epidemic when she writes, “The anus opens into the rectum…which is not as well suited for penile penetration as the female vagina is. Both the anus and the rectum have rich blood supplies, and their walls, thinner than the walls of the vagina, are easily damaged. When penetration occurs, it’s easier to tear the blood vessels, which in turn increase the risk of acquiring or receiving an infection…”  According to The Catholic Education Resource Center diseases such as anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C, and syphilis, are more than likely to be caused through just the “anal-genital” method of gay sex.  CQ Researcher says, “Recent reports of rising syphilis and HIV rates in the male, gay community have some experts worried […],” with good reason.  “A recent rise in syphilis cases among gay men is raising concern that the trend may signal a return to promiscuous, unprotected sex and possibly to a new surge in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) reaching beyond the gay community,” continues CQ Researcher.  Are we promoting equal rights, or equal disease opportunities?

This is not to say that heterosexual marriages never cause undesirable health conditions.  “[…] anybody can get HIV,” states Roberto M. Ruiz, board member of Positive Action Foundation Philippines.  The North Carolina Family Policy Center states that, “[…] HIV can be transmitted through both vaginal and anal intercourse […].”  However, research shows that homosexuals are by far at a higher risk for diseases such as AIDS and HIV.  The North Carolina Family Policy Center follows up by saying, “[…] receptive anal sex without a condom is at least 10 times more risky for contracting HIV than vaginal sex without a condom, according to amfAR […] According to the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], MSM accounted for 72 percent of all HIV infections among men in 2005 […].”  This research provided by the Center not only includes gays but lesbians as well.  “Lesbians who only have sex with other women are still at risk for certain STDs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), “lesbian women can transmit STDs to each other through skin-to-skin contact, mucosa contact, vaginal fluids, and menstrual blood,” as well as through the sharing of sex toys. Common STDs that can be passed between lesbians include: Bacterial vaginosis (BV); HPV, Trichomoniasis, Herpes; and syphilis.[xliii] BV is more common in lesbian and bisexual women than in heterosexual women.”  Clearly, gay sex is by far more hazardous than heterosexual sex.

Third, gay marriage is detrimental to the health of society is because it promotes illegal activities—namely child molestation.  Now according to afajournal.org, “[…] homosexual orientation does not automatically lead to pedophilia.”  This is true in as much as when a criminal commits a felony, he or she probably committed several misdemeanors beforehand.  Statistically, it is homosexuals, not heterosexuals who commit the majority of child molestations.  According to The Family Research Council, “[…] a study of convicted child molesters, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, found that ‘86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual […].’”  According to the Family Research Institute, “Of the approximately 100 child molesters in 1991 at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third bisexual and a third homosexual in orientation […] Of 52 child molesters in Ottawa from 1983 to 1985, 31 (60%) were homosexual.”  The American government cannot ban child molestation and simultaneously uphold practices that promote such actions simultaneously.

Finally, gay marriage is detrimental to society is that it will lead to other unnatural forms of marriage.  Again, the convicted felon usually began his or her career with various unnoticeable misdemeanors.  Once people begin to practice forms of marriage outside of traditional heterosexuality without limitations, they will naturally desire to take marriage even further with, for example, marriages of humans to animals, humans to plants, or adults to children.  A convicted felon does not usually start out that way; rather the criminal usually starts out committing smaller misdemeanors which lead to a felony.  Using inductive reasoning, it seems only logical that when a person becomes accustomed to committing minor crimes regularly and gets away with, it is only natural that the person would attempt to increase and expand his or her crimes.  It is the same way with gay marriage—once people get used to being able to marry anyone they want, they will want to continue expand their abilities.  The Canada Free Press website provides a perfect example of what happens when the boundaries of traditional marriage are discarded. 

Buble obtained his 15 minutes of fame back in September 1999 when his father, Frank, then 71, struck him on the head with a crowbar and was charged with attempted murder. It seems the elder Buble, who shared a house with Philip, became sick and tired of seeing son Philip engaging in sex with Lady, the family pooch.  The Bubles live in Maine, one of 22 states in the US that have no laws prohibiting bestiality. Philip is a zoophile, or as he prefers to be called, an “ezoo”, who describes his relationship with his beloved Lady as an alternative lifestyle. After the attack, he boasted that he was the first out of the closet zoophile to be beaten because of his sexual orientation. When his father was to appear for trial, Philip wrote to the judge to ask if his “significant other” could accompany him to court. The judge, with obvious intolerance, responded that only guide dogs were allowed in his courtroom. Father Frank, appearing in a Lady-free court, received a sentence of 18 years, of which he will have to serve eight […] Philip Buble is just one of many zoophiles who think that they should be able to marry their four-legged loved ones. The argument that they raise to support their position is that since the definition is of marriage is no longer restricted to a union between a man and a woman, it need not be restricted persons. People like Buble should not have to endure discrimination and a loss of self esteem due to their sexual orientation and lifestyle choices.

If it is discriminatory to disallow legal recognition of homosexual marriages, then it is discriminatory to disallow legal recognition of any kind of marriage.  According to afajournal.org, “In the activist magazine Gayme, writer Bill Andriette said, ‘The only standard for moral sex…is that it be freely and equally consented to by the persons involved.’”  This definition could open up doors for any kind of sex or marriage to be considered acceptable in society.  Without any boundaries or limitations of any kind, any kind of marriage must be acceptable, leaving the country without any kind of sexual order.

Gay marriage is detrimental to the health of society because it promotes physical, mental, and unnatural unhealthy lifestyles.  The Catholic Education Resource Center cites the African proverb, “Don’t tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.”  Traditional heterosexual marriages have been the only acceptable form of marriage for generations simply because they are the only kind that the human body was designed for, and because there are serious consequences to the practice of any other kind.  Will humans stop and realize that now, or wait until it’s too late?

(Word Count: 1,701)

Works Cited

Diggs Jr., Dr. John R.  “The Health Risks of Gay Sex.”   Catholic Education Resource Center.  Corporate Resource Council (2002).  Retrieved March 6, 2010.  <http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html>

ElHage, Alysse  “The Physical Health Risks of Homosexuality.”  Family North Carolina Magazine—July/August 2007.  North Carolina Family Policy Council (2007).  Retrieved February 27, 2010.  <http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html>

Family Research Council.  “Do homosexuals pose a threat to children?”  Family Research Council (2010).  Retrieved March 7, 2010.  <http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01>

Family Research Institute.  “Child Molestation and Homosexuality.”  Family Research Institute (2009).  Retrieved March 7, 2010  <http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/>

Glazer, S. (2004, December 3). Sexually transmitted diseases. CQ Researcher, 14, 997-1020. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from CQ Researcher Online, <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2004120300.>

marriage.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 07 Mar. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage>.

Ruiz, Roberto M.  “Voices: ‘The Point Is that Anybody Can Get HIV.’”  The Foundation for AIDS Research (2002-2010).  Retrieved March 7, 2010.  <http://www.amfar.org/world/treatasia/article.aspx?id=6512&terms=aids+contagious&gt;

“sex.” Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 07 Mar. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sex>.

Vitagliano, Ed.  “Homosexuality and child molestation: the link, the likelihood, the lasting effects [sic].”  Homosexual Agenda (1999).  American Family Association (2000).  Retrieved March 7, 2010.  <http://www.afajournal.org/archives/23060000011.asp>

Weinreb, Arthur .  “And they call it Puppy Love.”  Canada Free Press.  Canada Free Press.com (2009). Retrieved March 8, 2010.  http://www.canadafreepress.com/2002/weinreb72202.htm

(Word Count: 1,912)

Warriorwoman91 Rules for Comments

Comments are individually monitored by the owner of this site (and the NSA). The following are the requirements that all comments must meet if they are to be published. (Note:  These are the owner’s rules, however the NSA may have their own set of requirements.)

1. There must be NO profanity in said comment(s). Profanity = anything that would be considered an FCC violation.

2. No comments with external links will be posted. Exceptions are links to other internal posts, or sites listed in the “News” tab.

3. Said comment(s) must be on topic. For example, if I post about Keynesian economics I don’t want to hear about your views on gay marriage.

How Liberals Argue

The way liberals argue about gun control is to refer to the gun, not the person, as the criminal. This gives them emotional license to regulate and ban guns or magazines however they want, because anyone in favor of the gun rights is therefore in favor of the criminal. This tactic of demonizing and disregarding a political argument is designed to effectively shut down all opposition to liberal perspectives on the issues.  If you identify, for example, the conservative position with the criminal’s position, you’ll never even consider their argument for fear you’ll be identified with the criminal.

This is similar to the gay marriage argument.  Liberals refer to gay marriage as a civil right, therefore by that definition if you are against gay marriage you are against a civil right.  This again gives them license to treat you and your arguments as bigoted, subhuman, and not deserving of any kind of respect or consideration.  This results–intentionally–in scaring away all who might consider the position against gay marriage, but fear to be identified with an idea that is associated with a heinous social sin.

So how do you successfully debate with someone using this kind of tactic?  Conservatives have to define the issue right from the beginning. Guns do not commit crimes, people do.  Therefore, the argument for gun rights is not to be associated with the side of the criminal. Likewise, gay marriage is not a civil right, it is a lifestyle choice.  Therefore, to be against the gay lifestyle is no more heinous than being against any other lifestyle such as that of a smoker or a vegetarian. Conservatives need to redefine the premise in order to win the argument, otherwise real political debates will cease to exist.