seriallain85:

watched the movie with my daughter last week. She loved it so much! I had to look really, really hard for the gay part. To be honest, I dont think anyone will turn gay overnight from watch this...

pirate:

floppy:

Just to shamelessly keep this thread alive (now that the \"gay moment\" is gone):


http://mothership.sg/2017/03/yellow-ranger-in-upcoming-power-rangers-movie-is-gay-opening-in-spore-march-23/

Well, to be technically correct, she's a lesbian. I guess lesbian is ok because they don't have to use \"that\" appendage.

Power Rangers is a boy movie, so lesbians in the movie are ok. :siam:

Then again, Beauty and the Beast is a girl movie, so better not take boys to watch it in the first place, gay moment or not.

floppy:

Just to shamelessly keep this thread alive (now that the \"gay moment\" is gone):


http://mothership.sg/2017/03/yellow-ranger-in-upcoming-power-rangers-movie-is-gay-opening-in-spore-march-23/

Well, to be technically correct, she's a lesbian. I guess lesbian is ok because they don't have to use \"that\" appendage.

mum_sugoku:

jetsetter:

[quote=\"kwcllf\"]
kwcllf:

Good grief. You're still trolling?

No, I didn't set out to win or lose anything. Per my very first post in this thread, I clearly stated: I'm no fan of Disney fairytales, with or without any \"gay moment\". That was and still is my position.

You not only lost to the secular Govt, you're completely lost.

What is the purpose of your wasting time here in this thread? To pressurise the Govt to cut the \"gay moment\", to ban the movie or to give it a R21 rating? You achieved none of these as the Govt didn't cut anything nor ban it. The rating still allows minors to watch it under PG.

I imagine you to be filled with emptiness at this moment as the drama's ended as quickly as it's unfolded.

No wonder you've to resort to downloading explicit images of penises to fill that pathetic void within you. Let me sayang you. :snuggles:


+++

It's \"Khong\", not 'Kong'. First, you misread people to be arguing when they were not. Now, you imagine people to be criticising when they are not. You cannot even tell a rhetorical question? My post wasn't directed at Lawrence. Did you see I listed a handful of known proponents and opponents of the pink movement? Couldn't I wonder aloud why none from either side breathed a word abt the movie?

Rhetorical questions or straw man arguments?

Its clear who is trolling. Lol!

mum_sugoku:

jetsetter:

[quote=\"kwcllf\"]
kwcllf:

Good grief. You're still trolling?

No, I didn't set out to win or lose anything. Per my very first post in this thread, I clearly stated: I'm no fan of Disney fairytales, with or without any \"gay moment\". That was and still is my position.

You not only lost to the secular Govt, you're completely lost.

What is the purpose of your wasting time here in this thread? To pressurise the Govt to cut the \"gay moment\", to ban the movie or to give it a R21 rating? You achieved none of these as the Govt didn't cut anything nor ban it. The rating still allows minors to watch it under PG.

I imagine you to be filled with emptiness at this moment as the drama's ended as quickly as it's unfolded.

No wonder you've to resort to downloading explicit images of penises to fill that pathetic void within you. Let me sayang you. :snuggles:


+++

It's \"Khong\", not 'Kong'. First, you misread people to be arguing when they were not. Now, you imagine people to be criticising when they are not. You cannot even tell a rhetorical question? My post wasn't directed at Lawrence. Did you see I listed a handful of known proponents and opponents of the pink movement? Couldn't I wonder aloud why none from either side breathed a word abt the movie?

Rhetorical questions or straw man arguments?

Its clear who is trolling. Lol!

mum_sugoku:

jetsetter:

[quote=\"kwcllf\"]
kwcllf:

Good grief. You're still trolling?

No, I didn't set out to win or lose anything. Per my very first post in this thread, I clearly stated: I'm no fan of Disney fairytales, with or without any \"gay moment\". That was and still is my position.

You not only lost to the secular Govt, you're completely lost.

What is the purpose of your wasting time here in this thread? To pressurise the Govt to cut the \"gay moment\", to ban the movie or to give it a R21 rating? You achieved none of these as the Govt didn't cut anything nor ban it. The rating still allows minors to watch it under PG.

I imagine you to be filled with emptiness at this moment as the drama's ended as quickly as it's unfolded.

No wonder you've to resort to downloading explicit images of penises to fill that pathetic void within you. Let me sayang you. :snuggles:


+++

It's \"Khong\", not 'Kong'. First, you misread people to be arguing when they were not. Now, you imagine people to be criticising when they are not. You cannot even tell a rhetorical question? My post wasn't directed at Lawrence. Did you see I listed a handful of known proponents and opponents of the pink movement? Couldn't I wonder aloud why none from either side breathed a word abt the movie?

Rhetorical questions or straw man arguments?

Its clear who is trolling. Lol!

hercules:

I did use the word 'If you are a Christian' as I don't know whether you have any religion. So please don't get offended with that (and perhaps you can research on the meaning of 'idols' in the Bible just for knowledge sake).

It's not difficult to find pastor/s making fun of others for worshiping idols in youtube. Personally I have watched one whom I think he is a bad pastor for setting a bad example for his flock in his 'private moment' with his followers but in youtube for all to see. It will not be nice to post the link here as this is more sensitive but I assure you it exists and you can find it in youtube (Sporean pastor).

My late mum ever had Christians visiting her and told her that her KuanYin statue is 木头 and asked her don't be superstitious. She chased them out of her house. 'Idol' has this connotation of '木头' in that sense.

thsheng99:

hercules:

Dear thsheng99

I take it that you are really ignorant on how a Buddhist will feel offended when some said they worship 'idols' when they don't know what Buddhists are practicing. Such saying is as bad as if one were to criticise any part of a Bible.

If you are a Christian, I believe you know what 'idols' mean in the Bible. If one doesn't know enough of each other's religious practice, I think the best is just to practise what one believes and do not try to cross the line to other's territory. This is mutual respect as per the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

Whether you are really ignorant or feign ignorance, do go do some research before you want to engage in this 'idol' discussion further (I really believe you are ignorant and not trying to argue for argue sake in this matter).

Dear Hercules,

Please do not jump to conclusion that I am a Christian just because I want to maintain religious harmony. And I find it thoroughly offensive that you are implying that I feign ignorance.

As I have pointed in the Oxford dictionary, is there anything negative about the definition of 'idol\"

And pirate has made a serious allegation. To quote his message \"you should know that it is not permitted to refer to other religions as idol worship or to refer to their religious icons as idols, even in one's own \"private\" sermons.\" He is suggesting that the priests and pastor is referring to other religion as idol worship in their sermons. Does he has any proof of that ?

And I have also said if there is any mis-griviences or things that you are not happy, you can always write to the ministries or religious organisation.

Are you supporting what he says too?

hercules:

Dear thsheng99

I take it that you are really ignorant on how a Buddhist will feel offended when some said they worship 'idols' when they don't know what Buddhists are practicing. Such saying is as bad as if one were to criticise any part of a Bible.

If you are a Christian, I believe you know what 'idols' mean in the Bible. If one doesn't know enough of each other's religious practice, I think the best is just to practise what one believes and do not try to cross the line to other's territory. This is mutual respect as per the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act.

Whether you are really ignorant or feign ignorance, do go do some research before you want to engage in this 'idol' discussion further (I really believe you are ignorant and not trying to argue for argue sake in this matter).

kwcllf:

jetsetter:

[quote=\"kwcllf\"]
Oh, so you win huh?

Just to argue, you even resort to criticizing people like Lawrence Kong for being silent.

You win lor, but an empty one.

kwcllf:

Good grief. You're still trolling?

No, I didn't set out to win or lose anything. Per my very first post in this thread, I clearly stated: I'm no fan of Disney fairytales, with or without any \"gay moment\". That was and still is my position.

You not only lost to the secular Govt, you're completely lost.

What is the purpose of your wasting time here in this thread? To pressurise the Govt to cut the \"gay moment\", to ban the movie or to give it a R21 rating? You achieved none of these as the Govt didn't cut anything nor ban it. The rating still allows minors to watch it under PG.

I imagine you to be filled with emptiness at this moment as the drama's ended as quickly as it's unfolded.

No wonder you've to resort to downloading explicit images of penises to fill that pathetic void within you. Let me sayang you. :snuggles:


+++

It's \"Khong\", not 'Kong'. First, you misread people to be arguing when they were not. Now, you imagine people to be criticising when they are not. You cannot even tell a rhetorical question? My post wasn't directed at Lawrence. Did you see I listed a handful of known proponents and opponents of the pink movement? Couldn't I wonder aloud why none from either side breathed a word abt the movie?

thsheng99:

pirate:

Since you are aware of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, you should know that it is not permitted to refer to other religions as idol worship or to refer to their religious icons as idols, even in one's own \"private\" sermons.

And then pretend not to know the negative connotation of the word \"idol\" some more. I don't see people refer to their own religious activities as idol worship, or their own religious symbols or icons as idols.

Still got the cheek to lecture people about 'perspectives'.

Dear Mr Pirate,

The definition of \"idol\" from the Oxford Dictionary is as follows:

idol (noun)
1. an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.
2. a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered.

Please tell me which of the definition is negative. ? If you have a problem with the term, you are free to lodge a complaint to the relevant ministries or religious organisation but to continue to sow discord in a public forum is totally irresponsible.

The Maintenance of Religious Harmony act states that \" A restraining order may also be made against a person who incites, instigates or encourages any religious leader or any religious group or institution to commit the above acts; or a person who is not a religious leader who causes or attempts to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups.\"

Please do not persist to cause ill-will between different religious group.

pirate:

Since you are aware of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, you should know that it is not permitted to refer to other religions as idol worship or to refer to their religious icons as idols, even in one's own \"private\" sermons.

And then pretend not to know the negative connotation of the word \"idol\" some more. I don't see people refer to their own religious activities as idol worship, or their own religious symbols or icons as idols.

Still got the cheek to lecture people about 'perspectives'.

thsheng99:

I do not understand your purpose here in raising trivial issues on this particular religion...first is \"idols\", now \"gods\". I sincerely hope that your motive is not to sow discord between religious groups. In Singapore, we value religious harmony and thats why there is a Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act\"

hercules:

kwcllf:

[quote=\"lexis\"]I would beseech those who think there is really a pro-LGBT theme in the show to go watch it with an open and objective mind, and see if there's really anything in there!


I was hard pressed to find anything that is even remotely suggestive of LGBT, and had to go and google to see what scenes were the \"offensive\" ones.

Director of Beauty and the Beast said he would rip off the Bible if he find a one.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-wish-i-couldrip-pages-out-of-the-bible-beauty-and-the-beast-gay-director?utm_content=buffer7fc6d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=defendmarriage%2Bfacebook&utm_campaign=buffer

jetsetter:

kwcllf:

Oh, so you win huh?

Just to argue, you even resort to criticizing people like Lawrence Kong for being silent.

You win lor, but an empty one.

kwcllf:

Good grief. You're still trolling?

No, I didn't set out to win or lose anything. Per my very first post in this thread, I clearly stated: I'm no fan of Disney fairytales, with or without any \"gay moment\". That was and still is my position.

You not only lost to the secular Govt, you're completely lost.

What is the purpose of your wasting time here in this thread? To pressurise the Govt to cut the \"gay moment\", to ban the movie or to give it a R21 rating? You achieved none of these as the Govt didn't cut anything nor ban it. The rating still allows minors to watch it under PG.

I imagine you to be filled with emptiness at this moment as the drama's ended as quickly as it's unfolded.

No wonder you've to resort to downloading explicit images of penises to fill that pathetic void within you. Let me sayang you. :snuggles:


+++

It's \"Khong\", not 'Kong'. First, you misread people to be arguing when they were not. Now, you imagine people to be criticising when they are not. You cannot even tell a rhetorical question? My post wasn't directed at Lawrence. Did you see I listed a handful of known proponents and opponents of the pink movement? Couldn't I wonder aloud why none from either side breathed a word abt the movie?

stetan:

pirate:

[quote=\"stetan\"]

Please....The advisory was not even issued to the gays or to yourself.

If the imram was to issue an advisory to their muslims not to eat pork, will that be offensive to you too ?

If an imam were to issue an advisory to his flock merely because a film depicts a pork-eating character, it would be.

thsheng99:

pirate:

Me thinks that a scene depicting someone eating bak chor mee is a closer parallel to the depiction of LeFou in Beauty and the Beast than your \"influencing a Muslim boy to eat pork\". In other words, I am saying that your drawing of the influencing a Muslim boy to eat pork scenario is inappropriate because the depiction of LeFou is nowhere near that.

Firstly, you are neither a Christian or a Muslim and you would not be thinking from their point of view. You are thinking from your personal point of secular view. You mentioned that 针不扎在自己的身上不会痛 but yet you does not seem to adhere to this now ? The needle is not pricking you, you would not feel the pain right ?

https://s9.postimg.org/jenw84k73/perspectice.jpg\">

pirate:

,
How come certain religious groups' divine being gets to be called God, while other religious groups' divine being only gets to be called god?

I remembered when I studied History, under the chapter on Egypt, it says \"The Egyptians worshipped many gods\". This is a case of semantic. The Christian and Muslim worshipped only one god , that's why they referred it to \"God\".

I do not understand your purpose here in raising trivial issues on this particular religion...first is \"idols\", now \"gods\". I sincerely hope that your motive is not to sow discord between religious groups. In Singapore, we value religious harmony and thats why there is a Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act\"

stetan:

harvardalum:

Just in - I was told it's a touching movie. Good chance of staying awake throughout

It only scored 67 on the Rotten Tomato rating....so to me,it's only mediocre. Maybe that is why the director is creating this controversy so that his job will not be sacked?