Hollywood’s War on Heteronormativity

boxtrollsFor years, advocates of the gay rights movement have said that their goal is to make the world a more tolerant place for homosexuals. They have just as adamantly claimed that they had no intention of educating young children in the complexities of human sexuality. Not so in Hollywood.

Take, for example, the new animated film Boxtrolls, created by studio Laika. The film is a riff on the old Mrs. Doubtfire morality that suggests that all families are created equal, no matter what their composition. “Families come in all shapes and sizes,” the narrator of the preview says. “Even rectangles.”

This is not the studio’s first foray into same-sex material for children – in ParaNorman, one of the characters was a gay jock who comes out near the end of the film for no apparent reason.

Travis Knight, the 39-year-old president and CEO of Laika, says that this isn’t activism. “We’re not in any way trying to be activists,” he says. “We’re just trying to be who we are. All art and all artists have a point of view, a way of looking at the world. We want to make films that are bold and distinctive and enduring and actually have something meaningful to say.”

That is nonsense. Activism is pushing a point of view in your work. That’s what Knight says he’s doing. He should embrace his mission, so we can all have an honest conversation about material that is appropriate for children and material that is not.

The truth is that Hollywood is fighting a battle not only to normalize homosexuality, but to combat what it perceives as the power of heternormativity in society – the idea that the default relationship is heterosexual. Heteronormativity, according to many of the left, leads to discrimination against homosexuals. And the left has always believed, going back to Rousseau, that re-education of children is the place to start when leveling traditional societal institutions.

That’s why The New Yorker, in an obvious form of trolling, celebrated the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Defense of Marriage Act by showing a shot of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street watching tv, Bert’s head on Ernie’s shoulder, a picture of the Great Heroic Justices on the screen. The left universally celebrated this hijacking of beloved children’s characters, and labeled anyone who objected a homophobe.

It’s a form of rope-a-dope for the left, actually: they portray a children’s character as gay, wait for a rube right-winger to suggest that no children’s character should be gay, then point at the conservative and call him or her homophobic. The left has done this with the Teletubbies as well as SpongeBob Squarepants (CNN reported that Tinky Winky of the Teletubbies had become “something of a gay icon” a solid two years before Jerry Falwell criticized the Teletubbies).

Now, the left no longer even feels the necessity of playing games about the sexuality of children’s characters: it will simply create gay chidren’s characters. That’s their prerogative, of course, but it’s also just another sign that Hollywood is happy to stoke the flames of a culture war raging throughout the country, and driving a deeper wedge between Americans who are happy to live together, but don’t want their neighbor’s values shoved down their throat at the theater.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Eddie Lutz

    Sodomy has never produced offspring and never will, so heterosexuality will remain the default relationship. Hollywood has no power over a mother and father bent on protecting their children. Gay activism is snuffed out with a simple press of a button on a remote.

    • OfficialPro

      Although, and I kid you not, when I was in University, some old lady that had gone back to school said in one class, “Science has given us a natural way out” (i.e. science can make gay couples be able to have kids–like with lesbians and turkey basters).

      Uh, no. Science has given us a way to ‘cheat’…

      • torrentprime

        Is it “cheating” when infertile straight couples use the same techniques to have children?

        • Anonymous

          It’s kind of stupid if you ask me. If a lesbian doesn’t like men, then why she is sleeping with a MAN? She should just go straight, & get a man. Besides, the man+woman environment is better for the child. Homosexuals are liars & deceivers of truth & logic

        • ratonis

          It’s not a matter of “cheating.” It is a matter of paying necessary dues to heterosexual normality. A lesbian getting artificial insemination is getting something from a man, whether through physical or technological injection. The simple facts: heterosexuality is normal; homosexuality is abnormal and anomalous. It is not un-natural, as it occurs in nature, but it is clearly abnormal. Who can deny that? But, today simple truth is hate speech.

          • torrentprime

            Any one can deny that. “Abnormal: deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying”. Homosexuality is rare, yes, only a few percentage of the population. But calling it “undesirable” or “worrying” is just a function of bigotry and animus. And fortunately fewer and fewer people every year agree with such a negative label.

          • Smoking Hamster

            Have you ever looked up disease rates for practicing homosexuals? Search AIDS and MSM for a starter.

          • torrentprime

            You’re incorrect. STIs affect both gay and straight people at extremely high rates IF they choose to have unsafe sex. Disease has nothing to do with orientation; it is the result of a choice not to be safe.
            Far too many gays don’t choose to be safe and get infected, just as far too many straight couples aren’t safe and create a pregnancy they can’t support. Neither set of individual (bad) choices indicts either homo or heterosexuality.

          • Cui Pertinebit

            They do, however, indict recreational sex. Even if contraception slows the advance of physical disease, moral and mental diseases result en masse from the unseen damage people incur via promiscuity.

          • Cui Pertinebit

            Actually, your opinion is a function of bigotry and animus, since it is not based on reason, whereas – whether we agree with their arguments or not – there are people who advance their objection to homosexual behaviour on rational grounds not based fundamentally in mere opinion or emotion. It is very clear that the left’s histrionic shaming and vilifying of people with honestly held views on nature and morality, is far more emotion-based and prejudice-laden.

          • torrentprime

            “honestly held views on nature and morality” can still be bigoted and discriminatory. Many segregation defenders truly believed that God had set whites up as superior to blacks, that nature made it that way, that it was immoral to have whites marry blacks, etc. Those opinions, no matter how “honestly held” do not have to be labeled as anything other than bigotry, however unconscious.
            Please note: we are not discussing whether being gay is genetic. We are talking about peoples’ reasons for opposing another’s legal and civil rights, where that opposition comes from and how it should be handled – with or without kid gloves.

          • Cui Pertinebit

            An honestly held view is, by definition, not bigoted. Many honestly held views are discriminatory – but, so what? There is nothing wrong with being discriminatory; in fact, rightly discriminating between things is a mark of wisdom.

            Even your views are discriminatory: do you think it is “mean” and “bad” to disapprove of homosexuality? Then you discriminate against almost everyone, since the majority of the world’s population have always found it morally abhorrent.

            Your confusion, comes from misunderstanding the word “honestly.” I am not using “honestly held view,” to mean “anything I happen to actually think or feel,” because not every thought or feeling is honest. Many thoughts and feelings come from dark and broken places within us, which we little ken. In fact, that’s my view on homosexuality: I don’t doubt that people experiencing homosexual attractions “honestly feel” those attractions – i.e., they didn’t choose them, but they actually do feel them as automatically as I feel heterosexual attraction. But, I don’t think that the fact that they “honestly feel” them, means they are honest feelings. I “honestly feel” anger and irritation against people more frequently than I feel true love for them. But the anger and irritation is not an honest emotion; it is sin, dysfunction and brokenness.

            I am using “honestly held opinion,” to mean an opinion which is held after giving an issue due consideration, and which remains open to examination without an irrationally emotional investment in one outcome or the other. I used to be a liberal and a leftist. Even after becoming Christian, I continued to reject “homophobia,” as I thought of it, for a few years. But I sat down and looked at the situation objectively, finally, and have now come to a reasoned and emotionally cool position, such that even if I lost my Christian Faith tomorrow (which God forbid), I would still regard homosexuality as a psychological dysfunction which we should regard with compassion, not celebration and blanket permission.

            Still, consider the viewpoint you mention. If a white man looked at blacks at that time, and did not have many examples of blacks exhibiting intellectual achievement, it would actually be fairly easy to see how he could have believed that they were a lower race. He was not necessarily bigoted; he would only be bigoted, if he was stubbornly invested in being able to continue viewing them that way, and resistant to your attempts to show him men like St. Moses the Black, St. Augustine of Hippo, Popes St. Victor and St. Gelasius, Fredrick Douglas, et al., and so demonstrate to him that his view was based on a narrow knowledge and experience. Only when he irrationally rejected evidence that blacks were capable of the same kinds of intellectual and moral life as whites, would you be able to declare his view, definitively, to be bigoted.

            And besides, as you somewhat acknowledged, the argument is not at all analogous to that regarding homosexuality: nobody believes gays are inferior as human beings; they only believe that they are engaged in an immoral behaviour, toward which they are compelled by an inner defect and wound. There is no question of them being unworthy of human respect and equality; only an insistence that this wound and sickness cannot be celebrated and normatized. It is, in my opinion, bigoted to lump all those who disapprove of homosexuality, into the category of “bigots.” There is plenty of room for reasoned, responsible, rational disagreement on the issue.

  • Softly Bob

    “but to combat what it perceives as the power of heternormativity in
    society – the idea that the default relationship is heterosexual.”

    Well guess what, the default relationship IS heterosexual. Anyone with the common sense of a ten-year old could see that.
    Firstly, sodomy doesn’t create kids and secondly, to put it bluntly, that
    orifice that we often refer to as an a**hole is actually designed as an
    ‘Exit’ and not an ‘Entrance’. Think about what comes out of it!

    Of course, I don’t expect Liberals to grasp these simple concepts, because
    their common sense and rationality disappeared years ago – but I do
    expect people with some intelligence to realize that homosexuality is
    about as sensible as trying to ram a square peg into a round hole.

    • ltcdmward

      And the “round hole” hurts, burns. My Hebrew-Chaldean biblical concordance translates the word ‘Sodom’ to be “burn or burning”

      • Softly Bob

        I never knew that. It all makes sense now.

    • torrentprime

      More people – vastly more – are straight, of course. No one is arguing otherwise. What is being successfully combatted is the idea that having a straight relationship is somehow the only way, or the right way, or the expected way to be, that those kids who are gay are somehow not as normal as straight kids (if far more rare).
      The article is confusing an expectation to conform with population statistics.

      And straight people (both men and women) do that thing you find so bothersome, and they alway have.

      • Smoking Hamster

        Should kids even have sexual desires and be homosexual? Should they be encouraged to engage in the unhealthy gay lifestyle or encouraged by their parents to resist their desires?

        If your kid said he desired alcohol all the time would you give it to him? Alcoholism and homosexuality are both unhealthy behaviors that should be discouraged by society.

        Straight people do not practice sex in that way as often as gay men do by any means. And nobody is defending it for straight couples. Except in Islam where your wife[ves] is a field to be plowed however you wish.

      • Cui Pertinebit

        That’s a good point; it should be pointed out that our views do not apply only to homosexuals; we acknowledge that even straight people can be sodomites and deviants.

  • tagalog

    The entertainment world is free to create gay characters, and the rest of us are free to reject the kind of entertainment those folks produce.

    This has already happened to some gay-themed TV shows over the past year or two, getting dropped because of the small viewer base.

    Eventually they’ll get the message. The divide between homosexuality and heterosexuality and its attendant sense of dislike are not going to just disappear; they haven’t in the past.

    • torrentprime

      The shows weren’t “gay-themed”. They had gay characters. Lots and lots of shows that didn’t have gay characters were also canceled, and no one advanced even a hint of an argument that gay characters were in any way a cause of any show’s cancelation.
      And Modern Family and Glee seem to be doing pretty well.

  • Mo86

    “Activism is pushing a point of view in your work.”

    I’d disagree with this. Everyone has a point of view and everyone pushes a point o view in their work. That can’t be helped. Every story has some message being put forth. (Even if the message is that there is no message!)

    The difference is what type of message is being put forth, whether it fits within the story, and, in the case of kids’ movies, whether it’s appropriate.

  • dizzyizzy

    The whole question of gender is a mess right now, thanks to errors in multiple social movements. I tried to address the mess here:http://clarespark.com/2013/03/27/power-in-gay-andor-heterosexual-attachments/. “Power in gay and/or heterosexual attachments.”

    • $22691968

      I read the article, including some of the other ones. Good Lord, what a convoluted mess of sophistry! In spite of all the big words and the appearance of deep, intellectual thought, I still came away wondering what the hell the writer was trying to say?

      Here’s a thought: Write in a way that average people can understand. Simplify your sentences, and remove the verbal clutter. I also hope you get a hold of William Zinsser’s book, ‘On Writing Well.’ Perhaps you’re too smart for the rest of us, but one doesn’t have to force a scholarly air or write in complex ways to get their point across.

  • AmericaFirst

    Vice President Joe Biden, a shabbos goy if ever there were, had some interesting things to say about this: “Think — behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes [in support of the homosexual lifestyle and 'gay marriage'], whether it’s in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish [sic] leaders in the industry.”
    http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/biden-jewish-leaders-drove-gay-marriage-changes/#B5mx56xSstjgB9by.99

  • Ajax Dahgue

    Thanks for saying this Ben. I, too, have been troubled by having gay characters shoved in my face in every. single. show. SyFy is getting to be one of the worst. I really like Warehouse 13, but am mystified how gayness fits into it. Same with Defiance, which is pretty good, but the in-your-face sex and gay sex makes no sense, and really detracts from an interesting story.

    Waiting for Under the Dome to trot out the gay character. Oh wait…they did that last night.

  • tanstaafl

    Eeek! Gay folks in the entertainment industry! How is this possible!

  • http://www.MARVINFOX.com/ Marvin E. Fox

    It is possible to legalize same sex marriage; however, same sex marriages are not possible. A marriage is only possible between one man and one woman.

    Eroticism isn not necessarily sex just because the purpose of erotic action is to have an orgasm.

    The question to be asked is: are fellatio, cunnilingus, and sodomy sexual acts, or are they merely erotic acts to produce orgasm?

    The left will say whatever supports their plan to normalize those acts as sex in marriage.
    The Answers from the Right will be based more on the traditional view of marriage given by God, and shaped by many millennia of having babies.
    Marvin Fox

    • http://github.com/lyda Kevin Lyda

      So you agree that Bill Clinton didn’t have sex with Monica Lewinsky?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Marks/1266358046 Paul Marks

    While people keep spending their money on Hollywood propaganda it will keep getting made. Sadly the guild like nature of Hollywood (especially since the various parts of the industry were unionised) means there is little creative competition.

    • Jacobite2

      Several surveys have shown beyond doubt that “G” and “PG” Rated movies make a lot more money that “R” and “NR” or whatever it is now. Yet Hollywood continues to treat family-friendly films like duties performed under an indenture. Well, ‘Hollywood’ (if you know who I mean, and I know you do) is working to destroy this society (I refer to American/WASP society), and the shared religion of Americans is an important part of the societal foundation. With the ACLU on one side and pop culture on the other, normal life is being clobbered thoroughly. ‘Hollywood’ didn’t expect to earn a lot of money making “Mission to Moscow” either, but the fact that it was Soviet agit-prop was sufficient motivation. Just as today, the fr*kk*n’ ‘Hollywood elites’ are still making movies with Nazi villains. Hell, a drummer boy would be almost 90, who are they tryin’ to kid? Of course, if you were a ‘Hollywood elite’ your enemies would all be white Christians, and what’s the diff between some Methodist in fly-over country and Hitler?

  • Anonymous

    LOL Must be why California is suffering from so much. Many people there are tired of the homosexual agenda. I tell you, I will NOT be sorry when the state goes under the sea

  • Infovoyeur

    I quite agree with your article that homosexuality is inferior and not to be “normalized” even for homosexuals, and hence that civil rights etc. approval for integration (military etc.) and sex let alone “same-sex marriage” (and as you said, media infiltration) are dangerous to society. BUT the Far Left “visionary” stance denies all this , being harnessed to its “steamroller egalitarianism” plus “rubber-stamp respect.” What can we do against this ignoring of human nature? The Far Left naively accepting the prosletyzing gay “lifestyle,” is merely the latest “wave” in the left’s dangerous “social storm” of Unlimited Licence etc. It began by the Left’s (mis-)perceiving the lesser races as equal to the Whites as against needing help…. Then believing Blacks as capable of negotiating freedom…. As seeing women as capable of managing the vote competently plus certain jobs… As denying that interracial marriages are in fact a kind of unsavory mongelization… Overall, the Utopian Far Left denies that if you tamper with the Natural Law Order, and innate hierarcheries, even if you are well-intentioned (albeit unrealistic), then harm occurs to both individuals and whole social groups. But what real defense do we have against this media-splattering “inundation” of hyper-equalization, rubber-stamp “respect,” and the rest? This exposing to impressionable children, media characters who are inverts, is alas only the latest “splash” in the loss of protective realism which must be a bulwark against “inundation.” Your article at least offers “lifeboats” so to speak.