Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast - Part 2

Rate the Movie

  • 1/10

  • 2/10

  • 3/10

  • 4/10

  • 5/10

  • 6/10

  • 7/10

  • 8/10

  • 9/10

  • 10/10


Results are only viewable after voting.
well, the interracial thing would be clear racism.

I am of mixed ethnicity and thus a product of an interracial couple. so maybe I'm more intuned and sensitive to that issue.

As far I know, religion or the Bible doesn't promote racial intolerance. If it does, then I'm clearly mistaken. But, I'd like to think that most religious people, even those who are against gays, are not racist.

As for the distinction, I'm assuming it would have to do with biology or "nature's law." According to their religious beliefs, people of the same sex can't naturally procreate to have kids. therefore, that's considered "unnatural." At least that's the argument I seem to hear from that side.

With an interracial heterosexual couple, there would be no biological or "natural" reason why they can't procreate. So, you wouldn't be able to use the "nature's law" basis to oppose it.

At least, that's what I think the distinction would be, I guess.
It is the same thing. This what is weird about this. We are talking about things people do not control.

Are you saying you have never heard of some religious folks using religion to justify racism? Not uncommon at all to manipulate the words. And why even say the bit about liking to think most religious people aren't race even if they are against gay people?

Science and nature have shown the "unnatural" things just isn't true. Ignorance is not an excuse.

But even still, even if you are ignorant and consider it unnatural. That doesn't stop gay people from existing. Trying to act like they don't exist, avoiding films because they may have a gay character, is utter lunacy.
 
:funny:

tumblr_omcb3zxQjP1ujmwkuo6_250.gif
tumblr_omcb3zxQjP1ujmwkuo5_250.gif


He killed the ONLY girl that could break spell!
 
It is the same thing. This what is weird about this. We are talking about things people do not control.

Are you saying you have never heard of some religious folks using religion to justify racism? Not uncommon at all to manipulate the words. And why even say the bit about liking to think most religious people aren't race even if they are against gay people?

Science and nature have shown the "unnatural" things just isn't true. Ignorance is not an excuse.

But even still, even if you are ignorant and consider it unnatural. That doesn't stop gay people from existing. Trying to act like they don't exist, avoiding films because they may have a gay character, is utter lunacy.

who's saying that gays don't exist? if some people feel that way, and are teaching their kids that, then I agree that's utter lunacy.

but, like I said many times before, maybe some parents feel their kids are too young to be exposed to this issue. Maybe they'd rather wait until their kids are a bit older and until after they've discussed the issue with them first, then let their kids see the movie.

That's not them teaching their kids that gays don't exist. that's them waiting until the right time, place, and age to have the discussion with their kids. What is wrong with that?

I make a distinction between that and parents who do teach their kids that gays are abnormal and should be avoided and shunned. That is promoting hatred, bigotry, and intolerance.
 
Last edited:
who's saying that gays don't exist? if some people feel that way, and are teaching their kids that, then I agree that's utter lunacy.

but, like I said many times before, maybe some parents feel their kids are too young to be exposed to this issue. Maybe they'd rather wait until their kids are a bit older and until after they've discussed the issue with them first, then let their kids see the movie.

That's not them teaching their kids that gays don't exist. that's them waiting until the right time, place, and age to have the discussion with their kids. What is wrong with that?
If your kids can't see a movie because they can't know gay people exist, what the heck else do you call it then trying to act like gay people don't exist until the "right time, place and age"?

If you have no problem with gay people, what is "the issue"?
 
If your kids can't see a movie because they can't know gay people exist, what the heck else do you call it then trying to act like gay people don't exist until the "right time, place and age"?

If you have no problem with gay people, what is "the issue"?

no one's denying that these people have an "issue" with gays. clearly they do, otherwise there wouldn't be any problems letting their kids see the movie.

where we are disagreeing is to the nature of that issue.

you are presuming and making broad blanket assumptions that all of the parents who don't want to take their kids to the movie because of a gay character are doing so out of pure hatred, intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry.

I am not denying that such instances aren't happening. Only a fool would deny that.

However, I am not going to presume that all those people who have an issue with gays operate out of pure hatred and bad intent.

Like I said, some people may view homosexuality as an "alternative lifestyle." And they may not feel comfortable having their kids exposed to that at a young age in a Disney film. They may feel that it should be left to another movie or something to discuss when their kids are older.

Does that make them closeminded? to a degree, yes. But does not approving of the gay lifestyle mean they absolutely hate gays and think gays should be shunned? Not necessarily.

Now, you may still see that as hatred and bigotry. and that's fine. that's how you choose to see it.

I see more nuance in the situation and recognize that not everyone operates out of the same motives and intent.

I don't presume to know what's going on inside other people's heads and hearts, so I'm not always going to assign bad intent to them.

That's the main point I've been trying to make these past few days across these various posts. And I don't know how to make it any more clearer than that.
 
How long is this gonna go on, guys...?

Doctor Strange put them into a time loop.

I've tried to extract myself from the conversation many times.

I would like it to end, cuz we are just going around and around in circles at this point over what has turned out to be a minor issue blown way out of proportion.

However, when someone questions my positions, I guess I feel the need to respond. Guess I can't resist a good debate.....lol.

But, I will put an end to it if Darth agrees to do the same.
 
Last edited:
You'd think more people would have an issue with the whole human/animal love thing than the gay thing.
 
Are we sure the Prince isn't gay?

Or is he just really, really French?
 
He's really, really French. Actually men used to wear just as much makeup as women.

https://18centurybodies.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/male-make-up-in-eighteenth-century-england/

In the eighteenth century, men, women, and sometimes children wore make-up in order to match their social status. The aristocrats at court “painted” their faces, but also the bourgeoisie and even the middle-classes complied with fashion and followed the trend of the pale face with red cheeks and lips. Indeed, eighteenth-century men adopted the fashionable three-piece suit, the large powdered wigs and they also used a range of cosmetics they had at their disposal to complete their appearance. In order to reach a pale complexion they whitened their faces with lead powder, then they applied “rouge” in circular or triangular shapes on their cheeks and even on their lips. They also used beauty patches to contrast with their white skin and darkened their eyebrows.
 
Beauty and the Beast - Ariana Grande and John Legend

Official Music Video


[YT]axySrE0Kg6k[/YT]
 
He's really, really French. Actually men used to wear just as much makeup as women.

https://18centurybodies.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/male-make-up-in-eighteenth-century-england/

In the eighteenth century, men, women, and sometimes children wore make-up in order to match their social status. The aristocrats at court “painted” their faces, but also the bourgeoisie and even the middle-classes complied with fashion and followed the trend of the pale face with red cheeks and lips. Indeed, eighteenth-century men adopted the fashionable three-piece suit, the large powdered wigs and they also used a range of cosmetics they had at their disposal to complete their appearance. In order to reach a pale complexion they whitened their faces with lead powder, then they applied “rouge” in circular or triangular shapes on their cheeks and even on their lips. They also used beauty patches to contrast with their white skin and darkened their eyebrows.
Americans who were on the side of the British during the Revolutionary War also wore tons of makeup.
[YT]UZQpNlnKpRg[/YT]
 
So hey, who else is as excited as I am to see this movie?

I'm still amped. Got my tickets weeks ago, the girlfriend and I are seeing it next Thursday. The reviews don't look deterring to me. I just gotta see Logan, King and Get Out first.
 
So it looks like Watson is the most successful mainstream wise of the Potter trio at this point. Radcliffe is doing more indie and theatre stuff, don't know what Grint is doing.
 
So it looks like Watson is the most successful mainstream wise of the Potter trio at this point. Radcliffe is doing more indie and theatre stuff, don't know what Grint is doing.
Same. :woot:

tumblr_olzghrFRSR1qdv8mto3_500.gif

tumblr_olzghrFRSR1qdv8mto2_500.gif

tumblr_olzghrFRSR1qdv8mto1_500.gif
 
So it looks like Watson is the most successful mainstream wise of the Potter trio at this point. Radcliffe is doing more indie and theatre stuff, don't know what Grint is doing.

Selling ice cream.
AAEAAQAAAAAAAAZBAAAAJDBjYTJhZmFiLTI5MzEtNDM0YS04YzJmLTM2YmI0NGIwYWM1Mg.jpg
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,304
Messages
22,082,723
Members
45,883
Latest member
Gbiopobing
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"