Why do people get so triggered about introducing LGBT characters into movies?

[Chary]

If "being gay" is a character's main trait and personality, then there's no reason to have such a character in the first place, because that's lazy writing. If it's also just a "look! Look! We r brave and put gay person into movie!!!1 pls watch" then there's no reason to have such a character in the first place, as you're just being a tool and using it for a PR marketing scheme.

No regular person with half a brain is bothered by well written LGBT characters.

 

[yusuo]

I have more of a problem with a rapist actor than seeing an openly gay actor on screen. I threw away my copy of Advanced Warfare because of Kevin Spacey. Could have sold it but it's trash.

If you're serious that is pretty narrow minded.

It is possible to differentiate someones professional work from their personal life, the guy was a multi Oscar winner and a well respected thespian before said allergations arose

Edit. I will point out I in no way agree with what he done in his personal life, I was just merely pointing out that regardless this man has talent

 

[TotalInsanity4]

If you're serious that is pretty narrow minded.

It is possible to differentiate someones professional work from their personal life, the guy was a multi Oscar winner and a well respected thespian before said allergations arose

Edit. I will point out I in no way agree with what he done in his personal life, I was just merely pointing out that regardless this man has talent

Can we at least agree that regardless of acting talent, he doesn't deserve to have a career in acting going forward?

 

[kuwanger]

Her comic book counterpart is also bisexual, and even then conservatives lost their minds everywhere, and saw that a common argument of theirs was that liberals are trying to "make everyone gay/bi".

How about changing the topic title to "Why do bigots get so triggered about introducing LGBT characters into movies?" since it seems that's what the discussion is, unless we're nitpicking (reasonably) what most other people here are saying: if you're not a bigot, you're only triggered when LGBT is the character not a facet of the person. If you want to know why bigots are triggered by LGBT characters, it's precisely the "facet of the person" that they have issue with. They've a twisted view of Christianity that at some level associates sin with possession. They may or may not believe in exorcism of that sin, but they believe that any action to legitimize that sin as normal or that person as okay is a manifestation of evil.

I think that about covers it. Now if you want to talk about ways to counter bigotry? Mostly through what Hollywood has been doing: showing that this Christian sin is not evil to humanitarians. Then you have to accept that some bigots will become extremist because they feel threatened. No really way around that. *shrug*

 

[dpad_5678]

If you're serious that is pretty narrow minded.

It is possible to differentiate someones professional work from their personal life, the guy was a multi Oscar winner and a well respected thespian before said allergations arose

Edit. I will point out I in no way agree with what he done in his personal life, I was just merely pointing out that regardless this man has talent

He stil RAPED people. And by your comment, your saying that Kevin Spacey, as a then-knowm straight male, would be better than anyone playing an openly-gay actor/actress? Now THAT is pretty narrow minded.

Not that any of that really matters; he's a rapist like POTUS.

 

[yusuo]

Can we at least agree that regardless of acting talent, he doesn't deserve to have a career in acting going forward?

Oh damn right yeah, he lost that right

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

He stil RAPED people. And by your comment, your saying that Kevin Spacey, as a then-knowm straight male, would be better than anyone playing an openly-gay actor/actress? Now THAT is pretty narrow minded.

Not that any of that really matters; he's a rapist like POTUS.

What, where the hell did you get that from, I never mentioned his sexuality, I was merely commenting on someone else's silly statement

 

[RivenMain]

My opinions are quite crossed from most here, but I'll explain. I don't have a problem with people admitting their sexuality, but I don't condone homosexuality. I rather see it as a loss of culture than anything else. In a world of tradition and religion their acceptance is seen as giving up their honor to the family that they will not pass on their genes nor their family name. I respect their decision it's their life, but for the safety of other families those shun it as well for fear of it passing to their family and may see it a betrayal of their ancestors. It's that fear that disturbs them publicly displaying gay as good and it will always be that way.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

My opinions are quite crossed from most here, but I'll explain. I don't have a problem with people admitting their sexuality, but I don't condone homosexuality. I rather see it as a loss of culture than anything else. In a world of tradition and religion their acceptance is seen as giving up their honor to the family that they will not pass on their genes nor their family name. I respect their decision it's their life, but for the safety of other families those shun it as well for fear of it passing to their family and may see it a betrayal of their ancestors. It's that fear that disturbs them publicly displaying gay as good and it will always be that way.

If it makes you feel any better, the Greeks and Romans were just fine with homosexuality, and King James the First authorized the retranslation of the Bible exclusively so the Catholic community would back off about him having sex with his husband

 

[KingVamp]

The thing is, it is hard to tell when a group of people are saying "This is a missed opportunity to represent us here" vs "we want representation in everything, no matter what".

Also, "we don't like this forced representation" vs "we don't like this representation, at all".

To be fair tho, we have some forced heterosexual relationships, all the time.

My opinions are quite crossed from most here, but I'll explain. I don't have a problem with people admitting their sexuality, but I don't condone homosexuality. I rather see it as a loss of culture than anything else. In a world of tradition and religion their acceptance is seen as giving up their honor to the family that they will not pass on their genes nor their family name. I respect their decision it's their life, but for the safety of other families those shun it as well for fear of it passing to their family and may see it a betrayal of their ancestors. It's that fear that disturbs them publicly displaying gay as good and it will always be that way.

Do you shun everyone that chooses not to reproduce or can't reproduce?

 

[Minox]

If "being gay" is a character's main trait and personality, then there's no reason to have such a character in the first place, because that's lazy writing. If it's also just a "look! Look! We r brave and put gay person into movie!!!1 pls watch" then there's no reason to have such a character in the first place, as you're just being a tool and using it for a PR marketing scheme.

No regular person with half a brain is bothered by well written LGBT characters.

Imagine if a protagonist's main trait would be to be straight and nothing else? I mean, who would give a fuck about that character?

 

[RivenMain]

If it makes you feel any better, the Greeks and Romans were just fine with homosexuality, and King James the First authorized the retranslation of the Bible exclusively so the Catholic community would back off about him having sex with his husband

I can't call either bad today, but it's still a minority compared to the world around it. Romans were bad with culture rather than law, They do seem to both be connected though with Justinian I who was greek creating many of the laws today. (don't quote me on that as I don't know much of Rome was reading facts though.)

The thing is, it is hard to tell when a group of people are saying "This is a missed opportunity to represent us here" vs "we want representation in everything, no matter what".

Also, "we don't like this forced representation" vs "we don't like this representation, at all".

To be fair tho, we have some forced heterosexual relationships, all the time.


Do you shun everyone that chooses not to reproduce or can't reproduce?

I don't shun them, If we dream of evolution of humanity, to become greater than human then their is no place for the weak. Thats not to say they are any less than human of you or I, but there are many creatures in the world that just exist. Where and in places like Netherlands they use Euthanasia as a way to keep their economy in tact. We can see it as disgusting specifically if your an older being, but identically it's used within Greece and Rome so to a degree.

 

[Deleted User]

I don't care as long as:

• They aren't doing it to be inclusive
• They have a role which requires them to be LGBT
• They are actually LGBT themselves
• They aren't flaunting it every five seconds
• EDIT: They also shouldn't just throw a random gay person in there. If it isn't needed for the story, then don't include their sexuality at all.

That's it.

 

[ATofix]

No idea. They shoudnt

 

[FAST6191]

I don't care as long as:

• They aren't doing it to be inclusive
• They have a role which requires them to be LGBT
• They are actually LGBT themselves
• They aren't flaunting it every five seconds

That's it.

You want the actors to be that which they portray?

Equally an incidental trait can be done, but I would agree pandering is tasteless at best.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I don't care as long as:

• They aren't doing it to be inclusive
• They have a role which requires them to be LGBT
• They are actually LGBT themselves
• They aren't flaunting it every five seconds
• EDIT: They also shouldn't just throw a random gay person in there. If it isn't needed for the story, then don't include their sexuality at all.

That's it.

Why can't a character be gay "just because"?... I almost think it's worse if the role "requires" them to be gay, unless the show/movie is quite literally about the contrast between queer and straight people

 

[Deleted User]

You want the actors to be that which they portray?

Can't tell if sarcasm or not (off my game today). What I am saying is that I don't care if their character is gay or straight or bi or pan or whatever if for no other reason besides them feeling more comfortable in that role.

 

[sarkwalvein]

I saw "everything sucks" the other day, and I liked that Netflix series.
- almost off-topic

PS: But actually not off-topic.

 

[Deleted User]

Why can't a character be gay "just because"?... I almost think it's worse if the role "requires" them to be gay, unless the show/movie is quite literally about the contrast between queer and straight people

I can think of a time when the role requires that they be gay.

Spoiler: Beyond Spoilers

In Beyond, one of my favorite TV series recently, Shoemacher is a character that (I assumed straight) had never had their sexuality revealed. In Season 2, Charlie (one of the characters who came from the realm) was asked to get to know Shoemacher's partner through a pregnant mother yoga class. She then got information to break into Shoemacher's house since they live together.

I don't care if they are gay just because, but the last thing that I want is to feel uncomfortable sitting through gay sex scenes just for the case of them being gay. Sex scenes alone make me uncomfortable, and if they are just there to show the sexuality of a character, I wouldn't really like that. There are other, less showy ways of mentioning a character is gay.

 

[xpoverzion]

I just find it super ironic. Introducing LGBT characters into modern-day movies, is, somehow, seen as "forcing homosexuality and transexuality" on children and on any currently impressionable generation. In that insane logic, any movie with a cisgender person, or a straight couple, is forcing their heterosexuality on the LGBT community. Makes sense, right? No.

Being "gay" is, honestly, just as weird as being straight. It's not weird at all, so it sounds ridiculous.

- straight white male

I have always believed that being gay is just as much a perversion as pedophelia, beastiality, or incest. I know, I know... The argument is that gay people are not harming each other, or anybody else. and it's two consenting adults. If this is the case, then one must ask why incest is illegal and punishible up to 5 years in prison in most states?? In the case of incest between an adult brother and sister, or two cousins, are they not also two consenting adults that love each other, and are not doing harm to anybody, just as the gay couple????? So just as I would not want hollywood and disney promoting incest, pedophelia, beastiality, etc to my kids, I also don't want them promoting, and normalizing LGBT themes to my kids either. That's my opinion. Now I will sit back and experience the backlash by all of you for disagreeing with this perversion. This day and age is like sodom and gamorrah all over again. Really sad. And no, I'm not religious.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Incest (e.g. brother-sister) may be illegal in any case due to the strong probability of genetic problems children would carry.
Relations between cousins are not incest, and Americans are crazy, but that is common knowledge.