Genres, genres everywhere. I thought it was bad enough when I felt the need to classify Christian music to a level of specificity that matches mainstream music…
Music>>Rock>>(Christian) Rock>>(Christian) Alternative Rock
Now we see the following…
Movies>>Horror>>Slasher>>(Gay) Slasher
Movies>>Western>>(Gay) Western
It seems that the homosexual agenda is trying to get its claws in absolutely everything, even when sexuality has no bearing on a genre. What does sexuality have to do with a slasher movie? I can understand a homosexual love story, which Brokeback Mountain appears to portray. However, it seems very difficult for me to buy a homosexual love story that takes place in the 1960s in Wyoming, of all places! Sure, it’s possible, but this is nothing more than the homosexual agenda trying to normalize the lifestyle to the extreme.
Tags: [Hellbent, Brokeback Mountain, homosexual, gay, homosexual agenda, genre, film, movies]
The only “homosexual agenda” I’m aware of is gaining tolerance and acceptance for homosexuality, and equality for homosexuals. Which probably isn’t as sinister-sounding to me as it is to you.
TGirsch, what you describe is a homosexual agenda. My point is less about tolerance and more about the normalization of the behavior. The bottom line is that the behavior (whether a result of nature or nurture) is not normal.
Can you not admit that a love story between two men in 1960s cowboy country doesn’t seem a bit extreme to you?
Of course it’s an agenda, but it’s not so subversive as people seem to want to paint it.
As for homosexual behavior being “not normal,” I’m not so sure about that, either. Not typical, sure, but homosexuality’s been around throughout the entirety of human history, so to say it’s not normal seems odd.
Further, your love story example doesn’t seem substantially more off-putting than any number of 1940’s/1950’s films involving love stories between men and women who are thirty or more years their junior (see My Fair Lady or Daddy Longlegs), for example).
Bottom line is, just because it seems icky to you doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
TGIRSCH-
I never said that making the movie was wrong. But unlike the 1940s/1950s films you mention, I don’t think they were made to shift public opinion. Brokeback Mountain, as you admit, does appear to have an agenda - and the story seems secondary to the purpose of the film.
And on the “normal” portion of our dialogue, I agree that homosexual behavior is not a new phenomenon - I use “not normal” in the sense that only a small percentage (the percentage is debatable) of people exhibit homosexual behaviors.
I’m not so sure this movie was made to shift public opinion, either. If anything, the movie was made because public opinion has already shifted. People may still overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, but homosexuality itself is more accepted than it’s ever been.
And by your definition of “not normal,” then liking brussels sprouts is apparently not normal.
Well, I don’t think movies need to be made to appeal to a majority audience (although it would make sense from an economic standpoint), and I doubt this will be the next Titanic.
However, your argument is weak that the movie was made primarily because public opinion has shifted. I still argue that it is the other way around. Although I do agree that homosexual behavior is now more accepted culturally, I believe Hollywood did not make this movie primarily as a response to homosexual acceptance.
You yourself in your first comment indicated that this “agenda” was simply to push for acceptance. You cannot push for additional acceptance if you do not showcase more extreme situations.
After all, doesn’t Hollywood have the power to shape public opinion? Last time I checked, Hollywood was considered more liberal than conservative.
My point was simply that the movie wasn’t made to push anything. When I said that the movie was made because of greater acceptance of homosexuality, what I meant was that ten years ago, this movie couldn’t have been made, not that acceptance is now to the point where we should expect movies like this to be typical.
If anything, the movie was made more to cater to a growing demographic — the gay moviegoer — than to promote any sort of agenda. That’s all I was saying.
It it really a *growing* demographic? I highly doubt that percentages of the population who are homosexual will rise, whether it be argued as nature or nurture…
I don’t think gayness is growing, but open gayness certainly is.
Homosexuality is not a behavior - it is who someone is - like being left handed or having blue eyes. You are gay whether you ever have sex in your life or not. It is biological. Just because you can not see it does not mean it does not exists as a biological fact.
Sexual orientation is determined in the Hypathlamus portion of the brain stem.
It would be great if people would stop being ignorant or fearful or whatever you are doing.
G.
Homosexuality is not a behavior - it is who someone is - like being left handed or having blue eyes. You are gay whether you ever have sex in your life or not. It is biological. Just because you can not see it does not mean it does not exists as a biological fact.
Sexual orientation is determined in the Hypathlamus portion of the brain stem.
It would be great if people would stop being ignorant or fearful or whatever you are doing.
G.
Hi Wacko.
Your premise that a gay love story is unlikely in the setting of 1960s Wyoming is the whole point of the movie. Not because no gay people existed back then, just because it’s likely they’d suffer a pretty grisley fate if they were open about it -as the movie demonstrates. I don’t see how that qualifies as “the homosexual agenda trying to normalise the lifestyle to the extreme.” (btw: there’s no such thing as a ‘heterosexual lifestyle’ and to suggest that gay people all do and think the same things is equally patronising).
Anyway, it’s a far stretch to say this movie is part of an organised agenda. All the principle creative’s on this movie are heterosexual, including the script writers, the original story writer, the director and the principle actors. They’re from all walks of life, from all over the world, from Tawain to Australia to Middle America. Maybe the film demonstrates less of an agenda as a movement towards understanding, compassion and common sense of their fellow gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. You know? Brotherhood. A concept Christian’s are supposed to corner the market on. Unfortunately I think many of us sold out for sanctimonious Pharrisaical-like behaviour years ago. It’s easier to stick your head in the sand! Have a nice day!
Hi Joe:
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. Well, it’s good to know that the movie did not stem from any organized agenda. Thanks for the correction.
However, I only point out that it seems like a far-fetched story line. Not unlikely, just far-fetched.
With regard to your comment about the movie potentially being a movement encouraging understanding and compassion, I think there are those Christians who are dogmatic, as you suggest - and I too fall into that category at times. However, understanding and compassion does not mean that persons should advocate behaviors that may go against their beliefs.
If you read my other post, you’d see that I too am chastising fellow Christians, but I believe it is possible to love the person and hate the sin.
Joe:
In today’s Liz Smith gossip column at the New York Post, she says:
So perhaps it is part of an organized agenda after all.