Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Hollywood's gay agenda marches on
Samuraisword
Member Posts: 2,111
So Sean Penn wins the Oscar for his portrayal of gay politician and activist Harvey Milk.
Was his performance the best of the year or did he win because lefties continue to promote the gay lifestyle choice as equally legitimate to a heterosexual one?
Comments
LMAO...as if the Oscar's mean anything...seriously...do you really care what others think when it comes to what you like and don't like?
I'm sorry Brad Pitt didn't win for you. Best hide your disappointment behind some gay bashing.
Well duh. The only logical soloution behind the oscars is to choose a show nobody watches
:firefighters do idead put out fires with fires:
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Gotta love right wing ignorance.
How can you make this thread without feeling like a bigot?
-
I think Hollywood has more to worry about like the quality of local movie theaters. I will rarely go to the movie theater again because of how nasty local theaters have become. With people on cell phones, yelling at every scene, acting ghetto, and the crazy prices of food I'll just wait until the movie comes out on bluray and watch it in peace on my 46" HDTV.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
I would so grab this guy's ass just to see the reaction. It would be priceless.
The Official God FAQ
You failed at the use of the word 'choice'. Sexual orientation isn't a choice mate. Sexual 'expiramentation' is.
Anyway I thought Penn did a friggin awesome job - but Oscars? While it's nice to have your work/art recognize, who really gives a rats ass... so long as you the artist are fulfilled and accomplished in your own mind for what you have created/done.
....Oh and btw, my friends and I aren't gay, we just like to touch each other
BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.
I know talking people out of their hate inspired opinion is a pointless task. But did it just once occur to you, that with the same logic you could say there is a "straight agenda"? I mean, there are straight couples in so many movies, and still you havent succeeded in "making us gay ppl go away". Maybe thats because the entire idea of any "agenda" is hilarious, no?
There are so many movies about so many things. Against war, for equal rights of whatever group, against environment pollution, against corruption - did ANY of those movies really change the world?
From my gay American friends I know that if anything the nation has in the last decade made huge steps towards the religious right, so no matter what your personal opinion is, the "agenda" of Hollywood is really the LAST thing you or anyone should be really concerned about. There were once many films about black civil rights. Was that Black agenda? Or women... is that "women agenda"?
On a sidenote: the situation of gay people in USA is similar only to 3rd world regions and nations like Arabia or China. Nowhere else in the West are such ridiculous, medieval view in fashion, so maybe there SHOULD be a gay agenda - if only it would work, which apparently it doesn't. As long as people are driven by fear of the unknown and hate towards those who are different, nothing will change. The circle of prejudice, fear and hate in the end comes down upon all of us.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Hmmm....
Somehow I think the award had more to do with Mickey Rourke burning bridges during his career than some gay agenda. But I totally agree that Milk did not deserve that award. Best picture should have been "The Wrestler" hands down.
Seriously, It's 2009. Kissing a another guy isn't that bold of a move for an actor anymore. Really, most of us are over the shock.
"Gay agenda"? Bah. Do you feel satasfied at night, knowing that you are better than those "filthy" godless homosexuals?
Milk wasn't that great of a movie, but everyone should really know by now that Hollywoods awards mean very little and are just a means of marketing.
Edit:
Oh yes, The Wrestler was so good. Oh wait... it had brief moments of nudity so that's a no go for the OP too.
It's about time conservative Republicans got behind the gay agenda.......
Oh, of course, Larry Craig wanted out front on this, didn't he?
I wish we could round up the crazies on the pro-gay movement and the people on the looney anti-gay movement and have a death match. Then the rest of us normal people gay or straight or otherwise can get on with scociety and our lives. I bet if we did this gay marriage would pass in less then a year. Come on people, not everything is rigged for political messages.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but life and liberty are said to only exist if they are deliberately sought and paid for".
Gay and anti gay guys wrestling nude in the mud would be entertaining enough for me.
I'd actually to pay to see this, the look on an anti-gays face when he gets pinned, face to the mat.
I'll admit I didn't see all the performances, but I did see Milk. I also watched the the Documentary about Harvey Milk quite some time ago, and again before I saw Milk. Sean Penn nailed it. He deserved the Oscar. He may not be the best "person", but he is a damn good actor.
Well, the "gay agenda" in reality is no different than the civil rights movement in the 60's. At the time of the civil rights movement, approximately 17% of Americans were black. Now, places like Avert.org place the number of homosexuals at around 10% in 2000. Some of the more outspoken gay rights groups say the number is higher, but I'll take an HIV organizations word for at and give a little growth to the neighborhood of 12-15% now days. Point being that there seems to be a threshold for equal rights, or critical mass. So, it is about time they began to push a little.
Now, although I don't agree with the way the OP attempted to make a point. I do agree that Hollywood pushes "gay rights" on America a little more than need be done. The people who "hate" still hate, and they don't care. The people who do care already know, and have made their decision to either support or not. So my personal opinion is that Hollywood, in support of statements like that of Penn the other night, only pour more gas on the fire of the haters. I mean, seriously, saying that people should be embarrassed for repealing the law in California? That's no different then calling nearly 18 million people out as being stupid. His choice of words were pathetic.
As a side note: Why do Americans even watch the Oscars? It is nothing more than entertainers stroking themselves and their friends for what? A job well done? Some things boggle me about what is important to "average joe and jane."
It's amazing to me how you can use inflamatory language like "gay bashing" and "bigot" to turn a legitimate question into a "hate" thread. If you can't see a clear Hollywood agenda to last night's Oscars, you are blinded by ideology. Last night was clearly Hollywood's response to the Prop 8 vote. Now, this is America, and the Oscar voters and movie stars and everyone else involved have every right to do what they did, just as I have the right not to watch it.
I don't watch movies at the theaters anymore because movies aren't very good nowadays. So I can't offer my own personal opinion on the nominees. But I will say this. Bill O'Reilly made five predictions on who he thought would win and he was right on all five. And this is what he said about the best actor category.
He said Frank Langella's portrayal as Richard Nixon was "off the chart" brilliant. But he humanized Nixon which pretty much disqualified him from winning the Oscar. You see, to Hollywood liberals, indeed, to most liberals, Nixon was not human, he was a monster. So by portraying Nixon in sympathetic terms, Langella, essentially took himself out of the running.
A lot of people thought Mickey Rourke's performance was worthy as well, but the fact that Penn portrayed a gay man, locked up the Oscar for him. I mean let's quit kidding ourselves and lay off the name calling. California is just coming off a very emotional vote on gay marraige on both sides and Hollywood took a clear side on the issue. Did anyone think they were not going to send a message last night?
And to Deandor, I would say the current struggle over the issue of gay marraige is nothing like the civil rights movement of the 60s. That was about denying people all kinds of rights based on the color of their skin. They had a single ethnic background. They had every right to get married. But what they were denied is the right to sit at a cafe counter, the right to sit at the front of a bus, the right to drink from the same water fountain as whites.
This is about the issue of marraige only and whether the institution, which is a religious one, must be forced by the government to be redefined from its original meaning.
California should be embarassed about Prop 8. Just a bunch of dumb asses denying the undeniable and delaying the inevitable.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
Barack Obama is against recognizing gay unions as marriage. I guess he is a dumb ass. Interesting that liberals don't call him out on it.
Barack Obama is against recognizing gay unions as marriage. I guess he is a dumb ass. Interesting that liberals don't call him out on it.
A person who supports gay marriage wouldn't be able to become president of the US, as there are stil far to many ignorant and close minded religious voters.
Did the OP see MILK?
If not, then I would recommend going to check out Sean Penn's performance. Before you go though, you need to know exactly who he is trying to portray and then you'll realize just how good of an actor he was in the movie. Then you'll understand why he got what he got.
I wonder if everytime a movie with a homosexual undertone or theme makes it to the this level if it is going to be questioned? I think so.
For me, that wouldn't be an issue either way. If I liked the candidate on the issues I find important, I wouldn't care if (s)he was for, or against, gay marriage. It's not a hot issue for me. But, calling the majority of voters ignorant and closed-minded is a bit absurd. Gay's want equality. It's not a one-way street. They want people to respect their views, but they don't provide the same courtesy - they must do the same for others, even those who disagree with them.
As for the Sean Penn reference, I believe it was not the movie being referred to, but his Oscar acceptance speech. Who the hell does he think he is to chastize and degrade those who do not share his views?
For me, that wouldn't be an issue either way. If I liked the candidate on the issues I find important, I wouldn't care if (s)he was for, or against, gay marriage. It's not a hot issue for me. But, calling the majority of voters ignorant and closed-minded is a bit absurd. Gay's want equality. It's not a one-way street. They want people to respect their views, but they don't provide the same courtesy - they must do the same for others, even those who disagree with them.
As for the Sean Penn reference, I believe it was not the movie being referred to, but his Oscar acceptance speech. Who the hell does he think he is to chastize and degrade those who do not share his views?
Sean Penn is a douche and every one knows it. I remember when he went to Iraq and met with Saddam. LOL I was sitting on the a tarmac ready to deploy and this dipshit is crapping on his own nation. Nice real classy. I love how they believe they impact anything. They are the equivelant of trained chimps. Get on screan and dance monkey dance, then STFU. ROFL.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but life and liberty are said to only exist if they are deliberately sought and paid for".
I'm pretty sure I said that it isn't surprising due to reaching a critical mass for rights in America. Had nothing to do with the rights that they seek.
Here is my thing about marriage, religion, and government to me: I don't feel the gov't should be involved in religion (please don't get off track on that statement), I also don't believe that American citizens should be denied rights based on individual preferences (religion, sexual, whatever). My conflict comes in with certain rights being contingent upon meeting standards based on preference. There should be a right for individuals to legally marry whom they please. However, that by no means should dictate that any particular religious organization recognize it as long as the Federal Government does. If a church decides to support gay marriage, it should be their decision, not a court enforced law. Bottom line is that this has precedence in America, just look at the fact that we subscribe to the first and ninth Amendments to the Constitution. Even with the expansion of hate crime law in the US, you still don't lose rights if you don't like someone.
Yes, I know that for gay-rights activists marriage is more than rights. But I am not gay, and feel that the emotional aspects of their argument are minimal compared to the logical implication of denying rights to those who deserve them.
Actually, the concept of marriage is far to old to be traced back and there is a good chance marriage was around before religion.