“Michael Brown is promoting the idea that Christians are being victimized at the hands of evil LGBTQ people and their allies.”
According to hate monger, Michael Brown: Pixar targets your children with their first gay lead character. Brown is voicing the canard that the presence of gay people poses a threat to children. It is base bigotry.
The notion that gay people are a danger to kids is comparable to blood libel which accuses Jews of murdering Christian children in order to use their blood for religious rituals. Brown was Jewish at birth. He should be more circumspect.
According to Brown:
Leftists and LGBTQ activists and their allies have waged an effective ideological war on our children, proclaiming that gay is good, that biological sex is changeable, and that heterosexual unions are really no different than homosexual unions.
Brown should have more respect for truth. “Gay is good” is meaningless. According to medical science, sexual orientation is represented over a continuum or spectrum where every ray is a natural variant of human sexuality. The real message is that gay is not bad.
Mr. Brown is confusing a literalist view of ancient texts with science. Many theologians believe that the prohibition of homosexuality in the Bible is based on the fact that, in biblical times, gay sex meant the sexual domination of a male slave boy, a minor, by a patrician man. Such conduct was acceptable in Greek, Roman and eventually Ottoman societies.
No one claims “that biological sex is changeable.” Were that the case then no one would suffer from gender dysphoria and there would be no transgender people.
As for the unions that Brown refers to, people are free to believe what they like. Legally a same-sex marriage is as valid as an opposite-sex marriage.
Let’s cut to the chase
Personally I am in favor of imparting age-appropriate, scientifically accurate information to children. Doing so reduces prejudice while improving both intellectual curiosity and knowledge. Is Mr. Brown afraid of a societal reduction in anti-LGBTQ opprobrium?
Or is Brown afraid of, or promoting, something else? Is Brown trying to suggest that accurate knowledge of human sexuality has the potential to cause children to elect to be either gay or transgender? The idea is ludicrous.
As explained in the New York Times, “The animated film follows a gay man’s journey into acceptance as he prepares to move into a city with his boyfriend.”
And he comes out to his family with the help of his dog. How delightful!
To be sure, this is just a 9-minute film, but there’s not much of a leap from 9 minutes to 90 minutes.
There is a millions of dollars difference between a nine minute animation and one lasting 90 minutes and that does not include the cost of actors doing voiceovers.
You might say, “You need to chill! What’s the big deal? This is not some full-length release, plus you can’t expect Pixar to quote the Bible.”
Well, if it’s so insignificant why are gay activists so excited about the film? And why is Disney Streaming, where the film was released, touting it so highly? As the Disney tweet announced last week, “The latest heartwarming tale from @Pixar’s #SparkShorts. Start streaming Out tomorrow on #DisneyPlus.” (Yes, the name of the film is “Out.”)
The above is a grand non-sequitur. The fact that gay people are pleased with a film with a gay lead and the fact that Disney is actively promoting the film does not mean that viewing the film poses a danger to children.
This film is not part of a sinister conspiracy to compromise Christian children. Yet some people actually believe this crap.
But this is not simply a matter of allegedly gay children seeing themselves represented in a movie. This is a matter of little children being influenced by a narrative that some of them surely cannot understand. After all, what does a 5-year-old boy, who might really think he can have a conversation with his dog, understand about sexuality?
Influenced how and with what result? If the child doesn’t understand the content then he or she will not be influenced at all but back to the first question: Is Brown suggesting that a child might choose to be gay or does he perceive something evil if kids are influenced to be kinder to their LGBTQ peers?
In other words: What is Michael Brown’s malfunction?
Whatever the motivation might be, gay activists have certainly been targeting your children for many years now, from sex-ed curricula in the schools to drag queen reading hours in the libraries, and from Hollywood to social media platforms and beyond.
“Targeting” suggests adversely focusing on kids. Sex-ed curricula should be scientifically accurate and age appropriate. What’s the problem? Drag Queen Story Hour is attended by kids whose parents make a conscious choice for their children. DQSH promotes reading, the library as a resource and the fact that being different isn’t bad. What is Brown’s problem? Different is bad?
More LGBTQ characters in movies only acknowledges the fact that we exist and that we are not defined by our sexuality.
The headline to Daniel Villareal’s May 2011 Queerty article said it all: “Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?”
To quote Villareal directly, “They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, ‘NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.’ But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”
Mr. Villareal was responding to the talking point of National Organization for Marriage that marriage equality means that homosexuality will be taught in schools. I cannot speak for Villareal but I have advocated for teaching children the scientific realities of sexual orientation which teaches them to be kinder to their gay peers.
Is Mr. Brown asserting that kids should be taught that being gay is an abomination? Does he believe that there will be fewer gay people as a result? Perhaps. Does he realize that such instruction (religious in nature) would engender violence to, and bullying of, LGBTQ kids? Is that what he wants?
Yet here we are, almost 10 years later, and many LGBTQ activists still shy away from admitting that they are trying to indoctrinate or recruit our children. Really?
About two weeks ago, our grandson Connor, now 16-years-old, sent me the link to a Facebook page, celebrating a new, first of its kind, intensive, elective, LGBTQ history course for high school students. (He sent me the link because the program was being introduced in the county next to his, where my family once lived.)
And there you have it: “Recruit” which means to influence children to become gay. That is what recruit has always meant. The old religious line used to be: “Homosexuals cannot reproduce so they need to recruit.” Indeed, the homosexual agenda meant the supposedly intense desire of gay men to have sex with young boys.
We are indoctrinating kids to be nice and not to be prejudiced! There is nothing wrong with that unless one lives in fear that religious BS will be challenged with scientific realities. Moreover, I see absolutely nothing wrong with teaching kids that LGBTQ people are not defined by their sexuality and have made important contributions.
Bigotry of all kinds has historically been characterized by claims that the disfavored minority desires to take advantage of vulnerable people. Racism was underpinned by promoting the narrative that black men are obsessed with raping young white women. I have already discussed blood libel.
Brown has found a cause to champion:
But it’s a far cry from an elective class for high school students, as open and clear as its agenda will be, to a Pixar animated film for children telling the story of a gay man about to move in with his boyfriend.
Now is a great time to send a clear message to Pixar and Disney: If you want our business, please stop offending our values and please leave the culture wars to others.
Actually I think that the video is about a gay man finally admitting to his parents that he is gay. More importantly, Mr. Brown has no right to expect his demands to be taken seriously.
If you do not approve of a particular film then do not watch it. And just whose “values” is Brown referencing? Most Christians do not agree with him. He is in the minority. The film does not reference religion and does not offend religion. It does not portray religious people as evil. It does not display any bias.
Apparently Mr. Brown’s “values” are most prominently depicted by bigotry. Moreover, he has some nerve to substitute his judgment for that of other people. He wants to deny people the opportunity to view films that Brown does not approve of.
Meanwhile Michael Brown is doing what he falsely accuses Pixar of doing. He is fomenting prejudice based upon a threat that does not exist. Michael Brown is promoting the idea that Christians are being victimized at the hands of evil LGBTQ people and their allies.
I wonder if Michael Brown was reasonably rational before he converted from Judaism to Christianity. One thing that he has not considered is the fact that society would not have to be concerned for the safety of LGBTQ children and fairness for LGBTQ adults were it not for miscreants like Michael Brown.