Golden Globe honors gay agenda!

[JMJ_Pinoy]

Just wondering… would Brokeback Mountain still have won all those awards if the movie was about a man and a woman, rather than two men, falling in love?

 

[Gnosis]

Brokeback Mountain is a movie that speaks to lovers trapped in social contraints everywhere. Look at the movie Water, which depicted the bondage that widows in India have endured due to social boundaries. One of the main characters, a widow since childhood, finds herself in love with a man, yet society will not permit her re-marriage. The movie was contreversial and has recieved extensive praise and press and is up for awards.

The movie had no political platform, it was two people who engaged in a fierce passion for one another, who were deeply in love. They were only truly happy when together, yet significant obstacles prevented them from ever being fulfilled, from having the life that they wanted.

So this movie would have been as powerful if it was with a heterosexual couple, but it would need to have been in a different context, ie. perhaps an interracial marriage

 

[CelticSword]

blessedtoo:

What an interesting perspective. I don’t know if “agenda” is the correct word, or just another meaningless term coined by our media. But I would say that while Hollywood is indeed ignorant of the Catholic perspective on chastity, they are not ignorant regarding the advancement of all liberal ideaologies.

If there is an agenda that they are advancing, it’s one that argues that the traditional standards of right and wrong no longer apply. Under this new “morality”, what is “right” is to let everyone else pursue their own pleasures while you pursue your own; similarly, what is “wrong” these days is to stand in the way or criticize the pursuit of such pleasures by others. Do any of these arguments ring a bell? Warning! Some sarcasm follows

We are “wrong” to protest abortion because we are protesting the woman’s “right” decision to avoid the unpleasurable sacrifices that will no doubt come with giving birth to the baby. Listen, whatever is growing in her uterus either is a human being during the pregnancy, or it is not. If it’s not, then no harm, no foul, right? If it is human, well…then our all-merciful, all-loving God will no doubt welcome that unborn child’s soul into heaven, right? Again, nobody loses, right?

We are “wrong” to protest homosexual activity because we are protesting the individual’s “right” to sexual gratification, particularly when all parties involved are consenting. People are simply born with their sexual orientation, and either way are entitled to seek fulfillment according to their preferences. Telling a flamboyently homosexual man to stop acting so “gay” would be akin to telling Jesse Jackson to stop acting so black.

We are “wrong” to oppose the ordination of women in the Catholic church because everyone has the “right” to choose whatever career they find personally fulfilling and pleasurable. God is all about love, and sexist views and policies are hardly loving. Since God is most certainly not sexist, He shouldn’t have any problem whatsoever with the ordination of women, right?

To the average, secular, go-along-get-along kind of guy, each of these three arguments make perfect sense. But I’m certain that most of us here can shoot down any of these examples as if we had a theological SAM battery.

blessedtoo:

As I posted on another thread, while watching the History Channel’s premier of “Lincoln” last night, I was incensed when they asserted that Lincoln was probably a homosexual. They also managed to lambast George Bush for the Iraq War in a program that I thought was going to be historical and factual. What are they trying to say to the viewer? Why are we constantly bombarded with these messages if it were not to try and convince EVERYONE that their way is the only way? Hollywood, TV, Print Media, Radio - everywhere you go it’s the same message. When was the last time you watched an awards show that honored anything having to do with truth, or virtue, or Christianity? Did they give any awards for the Passion of the Christ?

Actually, I believe “The Passion” won a People’s Choice Award, but then again so did “Fahrenheit 911”, so go figure.

When the secular world gets angry with us for being Holy Rollers and Bible thumpers, etc. and lashes out at us, I think it’s rooted in fear…
…because if we are right about God, and the Church, and His morality, then most of these people are damned. And they know it.

 

[matt1985]

Fitz:

I can’t watch anything Hollywood, due to their lack of morals. I get too angry and feel very unchristian. I have to tune out. I won’t give them and their sick agendas even a penny of my money.

This is how I’m begining to feel about movies. All you get is boaring remakes and liberal stuff. I don’t hate gays, but I also have no intrest in their lifestyle. Seeing Hollywood use the american symbol of a cowboy to promote the gay adgenda must make John Wane roll over in his grave.

 

[Mike_Dye]

matt1985:

This is how I’m begining to feel about movies. All you get is boaring remakes and liberal stuff. I don’t hate gays, but I also have no intrest in their lifestyle. Seeing Hollywood use the american symbol of a cowboy to promote the gay adgenda must make John Wane roll over in his grave.

I agree Matt

 

[Katie1723]

felra:

It is likewise a shame what Starbuck’s is serving up with their coffee profits:

Less than 30 minutes of research revealed the following:

• Robert Knight told me that about 10 years ago, Starbucks started sponsoring these types of events, but backed off when conservatives started putting on the pressure. He explained that it is apparent they are slowly working their way back into the “gay” movement.
• Starbucks is listed on the Planned Parenthood website under this introduction:

The following companies all generously match employee donations to Planned Parenthood Federation of America. If your employer is on this list, then you can make your gift go as much as twice as far.

• Seattle, Wash., held “Gay Pride” events last month where, according to the newspaper, Seattle Post Intelligence Reporter:

About 75 Starbucks employees will march in the parade and will wear T-shirts in rainbow colors with the word “PRIDE” on the front … A van from the coffee company will follow them. On Capitol Hill tomorrow, Starbucks employees at the company’s three stores there will pass out samples of Mint Mocha Chip Frappuccino.

The marketing director for Starbucks in Washington explained: “We’re committed to supporting things that matter to our employees and our customers.”

• Several conservatives are upset already by Starbucks’ fairly new “The way I see it campaign,” which prints quotes from actors, artists, etc., on the outside of their paper cups. By visiting their website and reading some of the quotes, it’s easy to see why there has been this big brouhaha – nearly all of them are liberal celebrities.

worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45694

Here we go again with the Starbucks bashing…no matter…I’ll still drink it
~ Kathy ~

 

[felra]

Katie1723:

Here we go again with the Starbucks bashing…no matter…I’ll still drink it
~ Kathy ~

“Here we go again with the Starbucks facts]…no matter…I’ll still drink it”

No need to defend corporate America, just reporting the *facts. *

 

[fix]

CelticSword:

When the secular world gets angry with us for being Holy Rollers and Bible thumpers, etc. and lashes out at us, I think it’s rooted in fear…
…because if we are right about God, and the Church, and His morality, then most of these people are damned. And they know it.

These are strong words, but I think you get at an important truth here. Films like the one in this thread and the honors they receive are often the target of critical words from folks like me.

On some level these issues bother the supporters of these things because they know that their critics are on to some truth. It makes them uneasy and they says things like bible thumbers and such. The honors this movie gets are not due to so called artistic merit solely, IMO, that is a cover. They want to legitimize the subject so they do not have to sense guilt over all that it really means. That is part of the agenda.

 

[Peace-bwu]

goofyjim:

Starbucks coffee started making me run to the restroom too much. Maybe God was giving me a sign. I don’t go there anymore.

 

[mlchance]

Gnosis:

I think you need to ask yourselves why you need to see everything in terms of agendas and conspiracies.

The irony relating to agendas and conspiracies is remarkably thick.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Libero]

From the World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary Copywright 1965:

SODOMITE - a person who practices sodomy.

SODOMY - unnatural sexual intercourse, especially of one man with another or of a human being with an animal.

There doesn’t seem to be anything unchristian about this word.

It is not unchristian, but it is slightly ignorant. A sodomite is not merely a homosexual, and I suggest anyone who does think that they are re - reads the story of the destruction of Sodom.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Have any of you seen Brokeback Mountain?

I have.

It is not a movie designed to make anyone want to be homosexual. It certainly depicts actions that the Church condemns – homosexual and extramarital sex for starters – but it also depicts the real-life consequences of those actions.

 

[Libero]

Just wondering… would Brokeback Mountain still have won all those awards if the movie was about a man and a woman, rather than two men, falling in love?

Probably not, but then again how many times have we heard that story? There are also far less misconceptions and narrow minded attitudes to what homosexuality or bisexuality (in this case) actually is.

 

[felra]

Penny Plain:

Have any of you seen Brokeback Mountain?

I have.

It is not a movie designed to make anyone want to be homosexual. It certainly depicts actions that the Church condemns – homosexual and extramarital sex for starters – but it also depicts the real-life consequences of those actions.

Does it normalize and seek to mainstream relationships based on SSA? Does it suspend any allusion to the intrinsic moral disorder of SSA and sexual expression? It is a movie designed to gain greater widespread societal acceptance for the licentiousness of homosexual expression/acts in the absence of its moral depravity.

 

[cathgal]

Libero:

It is not unchristian, but it is slightly ignorant. A sodomite is not merely a homosexual, and I suggest anyone who does think that they are re - reads the story of the destruction of Sodom.

Why don’t you provide the ‘ignorance’ of what the destruction of Sodom is really about?

 

[slewi]

Troy7:

Isnt the word SODOMITE offensive? I wonder if that post will be deleted as the Church doesnt even use such a hateful word cause it is unchristian and has no basis in churchs approach to homosexuality. Its a very fundamentalist and hateful word to use in this day and age.

To call a gay person a sodomite bacially accuses gays of being rapists and violent people.

What are you talking about? Maybe you were joking?

Webster defines sodomy as:
: one who practices sodomy

Sodomy:
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French *sodomie, *from Late Latin *Sodoma *Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex

There ya go!
S

 

[Penny_Plain]

quote=felra Does it normalize and seek to mainstream relationships based on SSA? (2) Does it suspend any allusion to the intrinsic moral disorder of SSA and sexual expression? (3) It is a movie designed to gain greater widespread societal acceptance for the licentiousness of homosexual expression/acts in the absence of its moral depravity.
[/quote]

(1) I don’t think so. I think it tells a sad story.

(2) No.

(3) Huh?

 

[Penny_Plain]

JMJ_Pinoy:

Just wondering… would Brokeback Mountain still have won all those awards if the movie was about a man and a woman, rather than two men, falling in love?

I don’t know.

The male actors are very good; the parts for the women are limited. The cinematography is staggeringly beautiful, especially the outdoor scenes.

But there’s no question it gets more attention because of the subject matter. Even here…

 

[Libero]

If you actually read the bible it may then become very obvious why sodomites are not the same as homosexuals.

Sodomites engage in rape
Sodomites engage in sex in public
Sodomites engage in underage sex
Sodomites wanted to force sex upon angels
Sodomites engaged in paraphillia
Sodomites violated all sense of hospitality

Trying to claim that a homosexual is a Sodomite is clearly not correct.

 

[fix]

Libero:

If you actually read the bible it may then become very obvious why sodomites are not the same as homosexuals.

Sodomites engage in rape
Sodomites engage in sex in public
Sodomites engage in underage sex
Sodomites wanted to rape angels
Sodomites engaged in paraphillia

Trying to claim that a homosexual is a Sodomite is clearly not correct.

Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

The point is they engaged in homosexual acts.

Now, in polite society folks do not like the terms used in the other post. However, describing behavior has its place. One who fornicates is a fornicator, one who contracepts is a contraceptionist, one who robs banks is a bank robber, etc…

Does that mean these descriptions are to be used solely and in every circumstance as that is the defining part of an individual? No, but they have their place depending on circumstance and tenor.