Thoughts on gay scene in Beauty and the Beast

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Suzie said:

 Because it looks scripted. But rest assured, if you (generally "you") are heterosexual, just because someone is gay and you happen to know the person, you will not become suddenly gay. Being gay is not contagious. Geez, I cannot believe I just had to type that.

Suzie, if people can't be peer-pressured into sexual experiences/relationships that of themselves they were disinclined to pursue; then doesn't that undermine an awful lot of the "affirmative consent" hysteria we've been seeing on college campuses over the past five years?  And as I hinted above--doesn't the rush to paint LaFou as "gay" even though his actions in the movie are apparently quite ambiguous, belie the notion that the LGBTQ crew is willing to let "questioning" folk explore their sexuality in a way that leads anywhere except to full-fledged homosexuality? 

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

?? Really.  No the reality of the world is not that we live in a multi-cultural world.  You need to get out more. The only "multi-Cultural" societies are the "modern" western world.  Go to South America, go to Africa, go to China, go to India. They take your multi-cultural world, chew it up and spit it out in your face.  Multiculturalism is nothing more than a facade to destroy Western Culture,aka traditional white culture.  Yeah, so what, I'm white, I like the culture I grew up in, I'd like to keep it that way.  If I grew up in India-I'd like that culture, if I grew up in South America I'd like that culture.  There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your heritage and wanting to promulgate that heritage and culture to the next generation. 

I agree, conceptually, that traditional Anglo-American culture (individual liberties, Judeo-Christian morality, rugged individualism, fair play, Protestant work ethic, natural scientific curiosity, Yankee practicality and thrift, civic-mindedness, entrepreneurial can-do spirit, etc) seems to be under attack on American soil by those who would seek to dilute that cultural identity and/or replace it with something else.

On the other hand, I think it's deeply unfortunate that many choose to associate this set of values with "whiteness".  This will probably sound terribly provincial/jingoistic/imperialist; but I happen to think that "American" culture was God's gift to the world--a set of values that could be adopted by any race/culture, that would yield the same stability and prosperity and social flowering that America was blessed to see during its prime.

I couldn't care three straws if America remains "white".  But I think that America's doom, when it occurs, will stem from its rejection of the values that have traditionally been associated with Americanness.  We can demonize swarthy migrants from foreign lands all we like; but the fact is that American values were being rejected by white Americans en masse fifty years ago.  I suspect the Church leadership's lenient approach to immigration reflects a belief that America's cultural and spiritual (if not economic and political) day of grace is already past and that, rather than trying to redeem America's national soul, the goal is now to  hasten the work to reach as many people as possible before the Pax Americana completely evaporates.  If that means importing people from countries where missionaries can't reach them, into places like the US and Europe where missionaries are active--so be it.  We are, I think, beyond the point where the spiritual salvation of this world depends on the cultural or political cohesion of the United States of America.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I think I've seen Finding Dory about 2,937 times since it was added to Netflix and I never even noticed that.

 Was thinking the exact same thing xD

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I think I've seen Finding Dory about 2,937 times since it was added to Netflix and I never even noticed that.

I would have never noticed it if a screenshot of the two ladies together hadn't been posted all over. Kids would never even put a thought to it.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

8 hours ago, Mike said:

I'm fascinated by this video and the claims it makes. I don't know that I've ever experienced something this pronounced.  ???

I agree with Suzie and MormonGator that being gay is not contagious, or something that you will be influenced to do based on peer pressure...as seems to be Yjacket's point in sharing this.  I don't see any connection between this video and homosexuality.  Rather I agree with Godless:

9 hours ago, Godless said:

The entertainment industry is a reflection and a celebration of our society in all of its many forms and subcultures.

Now, on a related note, if you are intrigued by the video, and the power of others to influence people to change their normal behavior you might also be interested in the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment.  
 

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Suzie, if people can't be peer-pressured into sexual experiences/relationships that of themselves they were disinclined to pursue; then doesn't that undermine an awful lot of the "affirmative consent" hysteria we've been seeing on college campuses over the past five years?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you JAG.  Yes, someone can put a knife to your throat, or take advantage when you are incapacitated by drugs and alcohol to make you 'participate' in a sexual act.  But you cannot force someone to be attracted to someone or to the opposite sex.  That's apples and oranges. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you JAG.  Yes, someone can put a knife to your throat, or take advantage when you are incapacitated by drugs and alcohol to make you 'participate' in a sexual act.  But you cannot force someone to be attracted to someone or to the opposite sex.  That's apples and oranges. 

My understanding of "affirmative consent", as taught on many campuses,  is that it goes well beyond merely preventing forcible or drug-fueled encounters.  I believe it is also intended to combat a host of persuasive/pressuring techniques that might induce a female to say "yes"--or at least, not explicitly deny consent--even when the encounter is not desired.

But as to the more general point:  I am frankly a little surprised to see you and @Suzie apparently falling back into the "either you're gay or you're not, and that will never change" paradigm.  Human sexuality is far more complex than what is generally being presented here.  By acknowledging the existence of "gender fluid" folks within their ranks, LGBTQ activists are implicitly conceding that, yes, sexuality can change or evolve over time.  My understanding is that there is some evidence suggesting that long-term sexual preference can be partially shaped by the sorts of sexual encounters one has in adolescence.  There can also be weird power dynamics at play in a given scenario (e.g., prison inmates); and of course there are those who describe themselves as "questioning" or "bisexual" who might find long-term happiness in a heterosexual relationship but instead find themselves being pulled in a different direction by external influences or social pressures.  

Then, too, it's not just about whether a kid "turns out gay"; it's the number of homosexual experimentations a kid might have before deciding that, actually, (s)he is a heterosexual.  Gay rights activists, one presumes, think it fine and dandy to have a bunch of straight kids/young adults dabbling in their sexual marketplace.  Those kids' parents--and the kids themselves, with the benefit of hindsight--may well see things differently.

Bottom line:  they want our kids to think it isn't wrong; and they don't particularly care if those kids' parents believe otherwise.

At any rate, bludgeoning conservatives with the purported immutability of sexual orientation, while simultaneously advocating that young LGBTQ folks should be free to "explore their sexual identities", strikes me as a logical equivalent of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My understanding of "affirmative consent", as taught on many campuses,  is that it goes well beyond merely preventing forcible or drug-fueled encounters.  I believe it is also intended to combat a host of persuasive/pressuring techniques that might induce a female to say "yes"--or at least, not explicitly deny consent--even when the encounter is not desired.

I don't know.  To me, affirmative consent is simply about preventing forcible or drug-fueled encounters.  Whether it has gone beyond that, I couldn't say.  

Quote

But as to the more general point:  I am frankly a little surprised to see you and @Suzie apparently falling back into the "either you're gay or you're not, and that will never change" paradigm.  Human sexuality is far more complex than what is generally being presented here.  

I definitely agree that human sexuality is complex. No doubt about that.  Where I am coming from is the many gay people I have known over the years (many of them in the church).  Being gay seems to be a source of great trial, not something anyone would willingly choose.  There are so many stories of people struggling with whether or not to come out, and the problems it causes with their families.  Until recently, there has been huge societal disapproval.  Everything I have learned about being gay makes it sound like a terrible burden---not something anyone would willingly choose.  

I don't know why people are gay.  I think some are born that way.  I don't know why, chemical issues?  I think it is possible that abuse or rape may affect some.  But I don't believe that any amount of acceptance or rejection by the public will change people's sexual preferences.  
 

Quote

By acknowledging the existence of "gender fluid" folks within their ranks, LGBTQ activists are implicitly conceding that, yes, sexuality can change or evolve over time.  My understanding is that there is some evidence suggesting that long-term sexual preference can be partially shaped by the sorts of sexual encounters one has in adolescence.  There can also be weird power dynamics at play in a given scenario (e.g., prison inmates); and of course there are those who describe themselves as "questioning" or "bisexual" who might find long-term happiness in a heterosexual relationship but instead find themselves being pulled in a different direction by external influences or social pressures.  

You seem to be assuming that Suzie and I agree with all of this based on the few things we have said here.  Perhaps I misunderstood you?  Because that seems like a huge leap.  I don't know how Suzie feels about it, I trust she can speak for herself, but as for me . . . I'm not in support of the idea of "gender fluidity".  I'm also not of the belief that sexual preference can change over time....if this were true, life would be so much easier for LDS people who struggle with same sex attraction.   There are so many of them in the church who try to do what is right i.e. keep the commandments, and marry someone of the opposite sex.  If changing your sexual attraction could be had for the wanting, they would certainly change.  And yet, they don't.  From what I can see this is a life-long struggle for them.  
 

Quote

Then, too, it's not just about whether a kid "turns out gay"; it's the number of homosexual experimentations a kid might have before deciding that, actually, (s)he is a heterosexual.  Gay rights activists, one presumes, think it fine and dandy to have a bunch of straight kids/young adults dabbling in their sexual marketplace.  Those kids' parents--and the kids themselves, with the benefit of hindsight--may well see things differently.

Again, this implies that I share beliefs with the LGBTQ community that I do not.  How many kids do you know that 'experiment" sexually?  None of my friends did, I didn't.  I do know one young lady who has, but she is an abuse survivor, so that takes us to an area of outside of the norm.  

The problem here seems to be that you see the LGBTQ community as being people seeking to convert more people to their numbers.  There maybe extremists who do hold this view, but by and large the LGBTQ people and activists are not.  They only seek acceptance from family members and friends.   I really don't think most LGBTQ people are out to convert the world.  They care about young people who struggle with feelings of same-sex attraction in a world that despises them.  They are trying to give those young people hope. 

For me the bottom line is that I can have compassion for what i see as a very difficult life challenge, without necessarily buying into everything they believe it or say.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Bottom line:  they want our kids to think it isn't wrong; and they don't particularly care if those kids' parents believe otherwise.

But why?  Because they don't think it's wrong.  That's not an agenda, but a different world view based on their experiences.  Our children are bombarded by messages from the world that we don't agree with every day.  That is why we, as their parents, have to teach them our beliefs.  

In any given day, children will likely hear swearing, at school, on TV, in media...
They may see commercials advertising alcohol, or see ads for cigarettes...they may have friends or family who smoke or drink...
They may have friends or family members who live together without being married
They hear all kinds of jokes making light about sex...

With homosexuality, as with anything else that disagrees with our values, I teach my children, "The world believes this . . . ., but we believe  . . .  Heavenly Father wants us to be happy so He gives us commandments.  Uncle Joe is not evil because he is gay, Aunt Sue is not evil because she smoke cigarettes...Heavenly Father loves them and we love them....but we know we will be happier if we don't do those things."  

[Suzie]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Suzie, if people can't be peer-pressured into sexual experiences/relationships that of themselves they were disinclined to pursue; then doesn't that undermine an awful lot of the "affirmative consent" hysteria we've been seeing on college campuses over the past five years?  And as I hinted above--doesn't the rush to paint LaFou as "gay" even though his actions in the movie are apparently quite ambiguous, belie the notion that the LGBTQ crew is willing to let "questioning" folk explore their sexuality in a way that leads anywhere except to full-fledged homosexuality? 

JAG, to be completely honest I am not sure if we have all the answers particularly because I believe there are many reasons why someone is gay (not just one factor). Having said that, I believe that what people perceive as a rise in homosexuality due to peer-pressure, society's acceptance of gay culture, etc is actually people feeling that they can now be free to express their sexuality. Homosexuals always existed, just because they felt they didn't have the freedom to express it and they had to live a fake life to adapt to society's standards doesn't mean they weren't gay. If someone is truly heterosexual, no amount of pressure and propaganda will "turn" them gay. Now, if someone has been struggling with their sexuality but tried to repressed the feelings then sure, I believe they will turn to either lifestyle upon experimentation but we need to start with the premise that the person wasn't truly heterosexual in the first place. Unless we go by the theory we study in psychology where it says no one is 100% heterosexual?

[Suzie]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But as to the more general point:  I am frankly a little surprised to see you and @Suzie apparently falling back into the "either you're gay or you're not, and that will never change" paradigm.  Human sexuality is far more complex than what is generally being presented here. 

So we are then exploring those studies that claim no one is 100% straight?

[Suzie]

11 hours ago, miav said:

I am still going to see it. And then I can watch the scene or scenes and judge for myself. I highly doubt that is will be anything really controversial. I kinda reminds me a the scene from "Finding Dory". So many articles came out about a scene in the movie showing the first lesbian couple in a Disney movie. I watched the movie and it was just two women together, one with short hair, the scene was less then a minute and there was nothing to really indicate that they were lesbians. Everyone made a big deal over nothing. I'll have to see if it's the same for Beauty and the Beast.

I believe that heterosexuals talk way more about homosexuality than evil homosexuals trying to push their agenda. So they see "gayness" even  in the alphabet soup.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Suzie

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

[1]. I definitely agree that human sexuality is complex. No doubt about that.  Where I am coming from is the many gay people I have known over the years (many of them in the church).  Being gay seems to be a source of great trial, not something anyone would willingly choose.  There are so many stories of people struggling with whether or not to come out, and the problems it causes with their families.  Until recently, there has been huge societal disapproval.  Everything I have learned about being gay makes it sound like a terrible burden---not something anyone would willingly choose.  
. . .

[2]. Again, this implies that I share beliefs with the LGBTQ community that I do not.  How many kids do you know that 'experiment" sexually?  None of my friends did, I didn't.  
. . .

[3] The problem here seems to be that you see the LGBTQ community as being people seeking to convert more people to their numbers.  There maybe extremists who do hold this view, but by and large the LGBTQ people and activists are not.  They only seek acceptance from family members and friends.   I really don't think most LGBTQ people are out to convert the world.  They care about young people who struggle with feelings of same-sex attraction in a world that despises them.  They are trying to give those young people hope. 

On 1:  Hopefully this doesn't come off as flippant, but . . . I don't choose to be fat; and genetics may well be a part of my corpulent state.  But I have also contributed to my fatness via a number of life choices.  In a similar vein, I didn't choose to be a porn addict.  Most sex offenders I work with, didn't set out to become sex offenders.  But by choosing not to repress certain instincts and making certain decisions about how to act and who to associate with; it is very much possible to change oneself into something one would never wish to become and thereafter find it nearly impossible to find one's way back in spite of having to endure trrribly high physical, financial, and social costs.

The fact that not everyone can deliberately change their attractions, doesn't change the fact that many people do so subconsciously through a prolonged self-imposed regimen of behavior and association and mental justification.

Re 2:  a 2005 study (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/us/nationwide-survey-includes-data-on-teenage-sex-habits.html) found that while 4% of men and 4% of women self-report as homosexual, 6% of men and 14% of women have had a same-sex experience.   (A National Health Statistics Report from the CDC dated March 2011 had figures roughly in the same ballpark.  I won't link, since this is a family website and it gets into some detail; but it is Googleable.). That means that of all the people who have ever been persuaded to participate in a gay sexual encounter, 1/3 of the males and almost 3/4 of the females weren't actually gay.

Re 3:. Lets be honest.  They want to give these young people hope of a future sexual relationship.  Let the young person announce his/her intention to live a life of celibacy, or even to pursue a fulfilling heterosexual relationship; and watch the knives come out.  "You can't do it.  It's not possible.  You won't do it.  You'll never do it.  No one does it.  Your life is going to be terrible.  Your life is going to be horrible.  You're probably going to have mental health issues.  You might even kill your self.  You'll never be truly happy.  There's no real point to your life if you aren't having sex.  Whoops--he committed suicide?  Must be his church's fault!"

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

[1] But why?  Because they don't think it's wrong.  That's not an agenda, but a different world view based on their experiences.  

[2] Our children are bombarded by messages from the world that we don't agree with every day.  That is why we, as their parents, have to teach them our beliefs.

[3] With homosexuality, as with anything else that disagrees with our values, I teach my children, "The world believes this . . . ., but we believe  . . .  Heavenly Father wants us to be happy so He gives us commandments.  Uncle Joe is not evil because he is gay, Aunt Sue is not evil because she smoke cigarettes...Heavenly Father loves them and we love them....but we know we will be happier if we don't do those things."  

1. Let's be theologically clear:. It's not just different; it is evil.  (To be clearer:  not the attraction; but acting on the attraction.)  It isn't that these guys don't know any better; it's that they have chosen to reject what was conventional wisdom (at least until 20 years ago) as well as the whisperings of the Light of Christ, because they thought sex was the bigger priority.

2.  . . . Such as, avoiding films that normalize and encourage gay relationships?

3.  Sure, Uncle Joe isn't evil; and it's not really in our purview to determine who is evil and who is not.  But I think, at an appropriate age and setting, it needs to be made crystal clear to kids that it's not just a matter of an alternative lifestyle that makes one less happy ('cause Uncle Joe sure seems happy!). It's a spiritually destructive course of conduct that cheats people of their exaltation by encouraging them to accept a cheap counterfeit of the sealing bonds on which exaltation is predicated. 

3 hours ago, Suzie said:

JAG, to be completely honest I am not sure if we have all the answers particularly because I believe there are many reasons why someone is gay (not just one factor). Having said that, I believe that what people perceive as a rise in homosexuality due to peer-pressure, society's acceptance of gay culture, etc is actually people feeling that they can now be free to express their sexuality. Homosexuals always existed, just because they felt they didn't have the freedom to express it and they had to live a fake life to adapt to society's standards doesn't mean they weren't gay. If someone is truly heterosexual, no amount of pressure and propaganda will "turn" them gay. Now, if someone has been struggling with their sexuality but tried to repressed the feelings then sure, I believe they will turn to either lifestyle upon experimentation but we need to start with the premise that the person wasn't truly heterosexual in the first place. Unless we go by the theory we study in psychology where it says no one is 100% heterosexual?

I do think that a paradigm of a sexuality spectrum is probably better (dare I say--more inclusive?  ) than a gay-or-not dichotomy; though I daresay we would probably still see folks on the extreme "heterosexual" end of that scale.  As with so many other social disagreements, the crux of the argument here may lie more with a minority at the margins than with the majority who are firmly ensconced within one demographic or another.

And both theologically and socially--I believe that regardless of how people choose to identify as gay; more gay sex (viz, more extremely severe sinning) is a Very Bad Thing.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

I don't care what people say. They can boycott it all they want.  I'm really excited to see it.

[Guest MormonGator]

20 minutes ago, pam said:

I don't care what people say. They can boycott it all they want.  I'm really excited to see it.

Absolutely. Boycotts are counter productive. Sometimes they just attract MORE attention to the thing you are boycotting! 

[pam]

A comment I've seen on facebook.  This generation of kids will know Emma Watson more as Belle than as Hermione.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Absolutely. Boycotts are counter productive. Sometimes they just attract MORE attention to the thing you are boycotting! 

It depends; I generally agree that boisterous boycotts don't work-but personal choice does. 

I refuse to watch shows like Will and Grace or movies like Brokeback Mountain, if everyone did the same things would change.  We should all remember the analogy of the frog in the boiling pot of water.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Just_A_Guy  Remember the story about the blind men and the elephant?  I am aware that I am only seeing a portion of the elephant here, and as such I accept that your portion of the elephant may be equally as valid.  Though I think I have a leg and you have the tail (meaning I think your interpretation applies to a smaller number of people).   But then who can say for sure, Heavenly Father is the only one that sees the whole elephant.

So my view of all this comes as I have said from friends and family members that are gay.  Some of them trying valiantly to live the gospel.  If there were anything they could do to be attracted to the opposite sex rather than the same sex, they would do it in a New York minute.  Let's just consider for a moment a valiant LDS young man, who  through no fault of his own (no experimentation, no porn, etc) finds that he is attracted to the same sex.  He knows what the church teaches so he immediately feels deep shame about who and what he is.  The first time he gets a crush on someone (remember your first crush?  I bet it makes you smile.)  But for our gay young man, it brings more shame.  He knows that if the object of his crush was aware that person would likely be disgusted.  More shame.  He has a life-time of physical temptations to look forward to, and never ever can he act on them.  If he has family and friends who are supportive, that helps, but imagine if he tells his parents and they are disgusted (some are.)  

I know people who have struggled with this burden their entire lives.  This is why some LDS people become LGBTQ activists, because they know others that are hurting.  It's not to "grow the fold" of gays.  It's not to convert anyone, It's about support and compassion..

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Just_A_Guy 
I know people who have struggled with this burden their entire lives.  This is why some LDS people become LGBTQ activists, because they know others that are hurting.  It's not to "grow the fold" of gays.  It's not to convert anyone, It's about support and compassion..

Okay, but we are not talking in this thread about support for individuals who have SSA, we are talking about the normalization of homosexual behaviors.  

There is a difference between offering compassion for those who have SSA and showing instances of it in media that make homosexual behavior appear normal, unsinful, etc. Big difference.

Edited March 4, 2017 by yjacket

[Mike]

19 hours ago, Suzie said:

 Because it looks scripted. But rest assured, if you (generally "you") are heterosexual, just because someone is gay and you happen to know the person, you will not become suddenly gay. Being gay is not contagious. Geez, I cannot believe I just had to type that.

I'm not sure I need to post a disclaimer but just in case: my remark regarding the video shouldn't be construed to mean that I was drawing a connection between what the video portrayed and homosexuality in any way.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

48 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Okay, but we are not talking in this thread about support for individuals who have SSA, we are talking about the normalization of homosexual behaviors.  

There is a difference between offering compassion for those who have SSA and showing instances of it in media that make homosexual behavior appear normal, unsinful, etc. Big difference.

Point taken. I'm just not convinced that there is some design to convert more people to homosexuality by all this. 

[yjacket]

48 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Point taken. I'm just not convinced that there is some design to convert more people to homosexuality by all this. 

I think it is just a natural outcome of normalization of behavior that was once unacceptable; I'm don't really know if the design is to "convert" people to be homosexuals, just that it will happen with normalization.  I think the true design is to make society accept homosexual behavior as normal.  

It's not real hard, people who are wicked don't want to be seen as wicked, we all want to be seen as "good guys". It's what Satan does on this earth to attempt to destroy God's plan-he gets those who are wicked (or are committing wicked acts) to get those acts to be seen as not wicked.  To that, yes absolutely there is a design.

It boils down to a world-view-if one believes in Good and Evil and that there are Good and Evil forces combating each other then one can easily see how Evil operates-if one doesn't really believe in Good vs. Evil, then one will not see it.

There are very few things that have occurred in society as a culture over the last 75 years that stems from Good (there is some) but the vast majority of cultural "progress" is progress towards evil.

Edited March 4, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@yjacket, I  confess you have found my weak point.  I really don't know what the answer is. I understand your point, and I can't in good conscience argue against it and after all the Church stance is clear.  I feel quite torn and the best I can do is keep trying to follow the Lord and love people at the same time. 

For me that means I won't campaign for LGBTQ marriage, but I will see Beauty and the Beast, and if I need to I'll make any explanations necessary to my kids. 

That and I'll keep praying and hoping to get guidance on how to proceed.

 

[Mike]

Quote

I refuse to watch shows like Will and Grace or movies like Brokeback Mountain, if everyone did the same things would change.  We should all remember the analogy of the frog in the boiling pot of water.

I watched a couple episodes of Will and Grace--the comedy made me smile and laugh. I saw Brokeback Mountain--the tragedy made me frown and cry. I don't direct this at anyone. It's just for anyone who happens to care, or anyone who can relate to the emotions. 

Edited March 4, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

26 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

... the best I can do is keep trying to follow the Lord and love people at the same time. 

For me that means I won't campaign for LGBTQ marriage, but I will see Beauty and the Beast, and if I need to I'll make any explanations necessary to my kids. 

That and I'll keep praying and hoping to get guidance on how to proceed.

Ditto on trying to follow and love. The cartoon version was sufficient for me, but if a friend invited me to the live action version I wouldn't have a problem seeing it. As far as marriage goes ... well, that's another thread