Should it be illegal to portray LGBTQ in a positive light in a movie or tv show?

On what things? Are you aware that the single scene causing such outrage consisted of an adult female character casually referring to "my girlfriend". If it had been "my boyfriend" instead, there would be just as much relation to "sexual attraction dynamics" (i.e. very little) and nobody would have blinked an eye.

Gay people exist. They're not evil monsters or warped perverts and they're not going to bring down society. They live their lives just like the rest of us, doing the exact same things the rest of us do, good, bad and indifferent. Trying to pretend they don't exist or hide them away to protect the children is irrational and itself more potentially harmful.

 

I've heard the opposite: that lesbians claimed they were MORE discriminated against and therefore in need of greater attention and protections (B came last as they were being least troubled as they can just chameleon as necessary. In theory. I hear they have their issues in the G and L community due to trust issues or so I hear). I think I heard that in youtube personality "Prince of Queens" piece. I have to find that one and post sometime as I thought it interesting. He linked the change to the AIDS crisis of the 1980s.

 

What do you mean? What sort of PDA would be sexual enough to definitively communicate 'these arent just friends' to a pre-pubescent, yet still be appropriate for them to be watching?

 

I was not aware of what specifically was causing the outrage. 'Girlfriend' is not even a necessarily 'lesbian' term as girls who are friends commonly call eachother 'girlfriends.' I just think references to dating, whether straight or LGBQ, should bump a movie rating up to PG-13, so parents who don't want their pre-pubescent children exposed to post-pubescent dynamics can be forwarned to check out the content.

Whats with the 'evil monsters' rant?

 

Kissing comes to mind. Not passionate younger ruling, but simple lingering smooch. Things is it's still the same whether same sex or opposite sex.

 

I don't think kissing is necessarily sexual. It would definitely depend on the context and portrayal.

 

It seems crazy to argue that lesbians are less accepted. They were probably coming from the angle that they lack male privilege, and so as an individual they may experience more discrimination, but it's not only because of being gay.

 

That's my point. You'd think people would want to understand the basis of the question before answering it.

FYI; "In the film, the brothers disguise themselves as their mother’s centaur boyfriend, Officer Bronco, and get into a conversation about parenting with a purple cyclops officer named Specter, voiced by Lena Waithe, who says, “It’s not easy being a new parent – my girlfriend’s daughter got me pulling my hair out, okay?”" - https://variety.com/2020/film/news/onward-banned-lesbian-kuwait-oman-qatar-saudi-arabia-1203526359/

That sounds really restrictive. It would cover many of the classic fairy tales for example - anything involving the classic "wicked stepmother" for a start.

I'd be slightly more convinced if you or anyone else had brought that idea up before this blew up anyway. I stand by belief that nobody, yourself included, would have be bothered in the slightest if the character has said "boyfriend" rather than "girlfriend". After all, the main characters' mother has a boyfriend who I suspect is much significant (given the film is about them looking for their missing father) but he doesn't get any objections.

 

People used to pretend to heroic deeds they did not do. Today, there is power in victim hood. I hear you on the lack of male privilege for lesbians but today, I think it is women that are a political majority. Economically, since 2015 they have and spend more than men and don't get me started on social standing particularly as evidenced in our family court.

 

It should be normal like in TV they've shown wildlife lions eating African antelopes, snakes devouring a goat, etc, things that are facts in life although taboo but existing and is a part of us, it should be learned as well for whether we like it or not we do live among them and they are really a part of us. The negative or positive aspects of responses is of course an exclusive right of the learner.

 

Censorship of ANY kind in media presentations is BULLSHIT! I detest censorship everywhere -- including right here in this Forum!

If the media entrepreneurs and their marketing experts want to show homosexuals "getting-off" with each other, that's OK with me... because I can always 'change the channel'....

Hell, we've already had the recent example of Chasten Buttigieg hugging and kissing his charming wife, Sweetie-Pete, on nationwide TV, right up there for all the world to see. And even if the sight of something like that made you want to bend over and puke, you weren't FORCED to watch it! Like we used to say decades ago, "Let it all hang out!"

 

If you have a problem with gays being portrayed on a show, don’t watch it.

 

If you can show a guy and a girl being romantic and in love, you can show a girl and a girl or a guy and a guy.

Don't worry, gay isn't catching.

 

No, but that life style is a low percentage of the population and it should not dominate movies and T.V. shows.

 

I voted yes, illegal for all. But it is clearly in vain and most likely unenforceable owing to the advancing corruption the movement has had on society. The best we can do now is choose to not watch that which is offensive. It will be our final sanctuary unless of course we reach a point where we are forced to swear fealty to that which we find disgusting and wholly wrong. If we ever reach that point, civil unrest will most certainly unfold as we will have been left no quarter in freedom.

 

Yes, but, for instance, also consider this: Blacks make up 13.8% of the population of the United States, and yet nearly every TV program you see, and nearly all the TV commercials and promos have Blacks in them. It's known as pushing (and SHOVING) "inclusiveness" and "diversity" on a population that is still overwhelming 'other-than-Black'... by about 85 to 15....

Entertainment producers have even adopted the ludicrous practice of casting Black actors and actresses in roles that explicitly call for Whites. This is an insulting manipulation, and pandering on the basis of RACE in the extreme.

Example: In the three-part adaptation of the War of the Roses entitled, "The Hollow Crown", a Black Nigerian actress plays the part of lilly-white Margaret of Anjou, the Queen of England! Why the hell would anybody do that?! It only causes a completely unnecessary distraction from the story by so obviously demanding that attention be paid to this pandering gesture....

It would be just as bad if, say, Sylvester Stallone was cast to play the part of Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay, Jr.) in a boxing film.

. "Hell, they wouldn't even cast me in the part of 'Peter Rabbit'...!"

 

I have to vote no because 'Murrica but I would rather vote yes because of the current trend to flood every aspect of life with it.

 

I have yet to see it dominating any form of media.

 

Anyone lunatic enough to think it should be illegal is already on the losing side of the battle. All half dozen of them or so are entirely irrelevant. They are fun to ridicule, but that's about it.

 

Should it be illegal to portray LGBTQ in a positive light in a movie or tv show?

Of course not but one would hope it would cause poor ratings. Like most Americans I don't want politics in my movies or TV shows.

 

I see a lack of portrayal of part of our society as politics in movies or TV shows. You might as well claim that showing blacks or other minorities as politics within entertainment media.

 

Well, this is going to be a great thread I already can tell.

Yes, because LGBT people need positive role models, and to teach people it's alright to be gay.

 

Using black and other minority actors isn't about politics. It is about performance.

 

No. TV/movie people can create whatever they want to. Doesn't mean I have to watch it.

 

Then using LBGT actors and characters is about performance and not politics.