What's wrong with "Brokeback Mountain?"

[SeattleUte]

The villification of "Brokeback Mountain" in some religious corners really has me mystified. Let's assume for sake of discussion that homosexuality is a thoroughly imoral and indefensible way of life (not my own view; I believe homosexuality is an ummutable characteristic, but that's beside the point here). Heterosexuals can't claim to have much insight into what it's like to be gay. What's wrong with a work of art capturing or attempting to capture that perspective? Isn't that one of the purposes of serious art, to give us insight about what's foreign or strange to us? This reminds me of those people who criticized the film "The Downfall" because it too accurately depicted Hitler's human side (suffering in the bunker, being kind to his dog and such), complaining that he should forever remain simply a one dimensional symbol of unalloyed evil (I haven't read anywhere that the film was not quite historically accurate). Hitler is possibly the most loathsome person who ever lived, but I disagree with those criticisms of "The Downfall," on the same grounds that anyone who disaproves of the gay lifestyle ought still to disagree with condemnation of "Brokeback Mountain" on any grounds except artistic (I'm not equating gays with Nazis here, obviously).

[il Padrino Ute]

has nothing to do with my thoughts on homosexuality.

My problem with it is that it's a chick flick with the two leading characters that happen to be male. I just don't like any type of love story and choose not to see any film like that.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

has nothing to do with my thoughts on homosexuality.

My problem with it is that it's a chick flick with the two leading characters that happen to be male. I just don't like any type of love story and choose not to see any film like that.

Fair enough. You've probably described the reason I won't be seeing it. That and too little time to see the movies I do really want to see like Munich and the new Woody Allen flick (Match Point?).

[MikeWaters]

criticism of Munich has been along the same lines. Portraying Arabs and Palestinians in a sympathetic light (i.e. showing they were actually humans who had families). Of course, this is totally bogus.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Portraying Arabs and Palestinians in a sympathetic light (i.e. showing they were actually humans who had families).

Now that's just crazy talk... We all know that they're monsters who have no emotions other than hate and greed.

Same as them fruity ho-mo-sex-shuls. They're not normal cowboys, they all come from San Francisco and like to dress up like the village people.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This reminds me of those people who criticized the film "The Downfall" because it too accurately depicted Hitler's human side (suffering in the bunker, being kind to his dog and such), complaining that he should forever remain simply a one dimensional symbol of unalloyed evil (I haven't read anywhere that the film was not quite historically accurate). Hitler is possibly the most loathsome person who ever lived, but I disagree with those criticisms of "The Downfall," on the same grounds that anyone who disaproves of the gay lifestyle ought still to disagree with condemnation of "Brokeback Mountain" on any grounds except artistic (I'm not equating gays with Nazis here, obviously).

People criticized "The Downfall"? That was an outstanding movie.

[Archaea]

Desensitizing something with which you disagree is commonplace.

I agree with IPU that I have too little time for all the films I want to see, don't usually like chick flicks unless my wife persists and have no interest in seeing two guys getting it on.

The one defense that some people have of homosexuality "ummutability", perhaps "immutability" is rather shallow.

The characteristic affects action. Most other immutable characteristics, race, gender, physical attributes really don't affect behavior per se.

Jeffrey Dahmer and other pedophiles claim immutability. Mere immutability doesn't make it right or wrong if it affects action. That's my point, but nobody who sides with the gays will recognize this logically sound point. Everybody supportive of gays skirts this issue.

IOW, they're emotional beings devoid of logic.

Too many movies, too little time, no time to see how gay guys feel, cuz I just don't care to know. It doesn't interest me. I'd rather see Muslim humanized than knowing what it's like to be gay. Leave me alone, get out of the limelight, that's all I ask. Don't increase taxes.

Do we have to have an interest in everything?

Do I have to like all forms of art? Do I have to explore all forms of it?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Desensitizing something with which you disagree is commonplace.

I agree with IPU that I have too little time for all the films I want to see, don't usually like chick flicks unless my wife persists and have no interest in seeing two guys getting it on.

The one defense that some people have of homosexuality "ummutability", perhaps "immutability" is rather shallow.

The characteristic affects action. Most other immutable characteristics, race, gender, physical attributes really don't affect behavior per se.

Jeffrey Dahmer and other pedophiles claim immutability. Mere immutability doesn't make it right or wrong if it affects action. That's my point, but nobody who sides with the gays will recognize this logically sound point. Everybody supportive of gays skirts this issue.

IOW, they're emotional beings devoid of logic.

Too many movies, too little time, no time to see how gay guys feel, cuz I just don't care to know. It doesn't interest me. I'd rather see Muslim humanized than knowing what it's like to be gay. Leave me alone, get out of the limelight, that's all I ask. Don't increase taxes.

Do we have to have an interest in everything?

Do I have to like all forms of art? Do I have to explore all forms of it?

Yes, I isspelled the word; it's "immutable." That doggon u quite frequently gets in the way of its neighbor. While hoping not to reinvigorate the tiresome CB debates about homosexuality I must note there's an obvious difference between adults consentually engaging in an intimate relationship and what Jeffery Dahmer did. Also, from your icon I take it that your sexual preference and being involved in an intimate relationship that satisfuies fully your emotional and intellectual needs as well as physical sexual desires is pretty fundamental to your essential happiness and well-being, goes to the very essence of who you are.

[Archaea]

See you just ignored the analysis and changed it.

However, my icon is a joke against CB, where anything which showed a pretty girl to be sanctionable. Combine that with my cycling interest which has a niche site, www.pezcyclingnews.com, which has chick picture portion, and you will see my perhaps puerile sense of of humor.

Yes I'm happy to function as a heterosexual, but there are times when dealing with the female kind when I wish I had no sexual desire. It would be much easier to be unconcerned with sex and to work on projects, exercise, travel and to ignore all sexual urges. If I had done that, I'd be retired now sojourning throughout the world, but I wouldn't have my wonderful kids. So a fair trade.

Immutability tied to who you are just doesn't convince me of anything. It doesn't pass the logic test. It may be a winner for you, but people can change their feelings about everything. If I set out to do it, I can change anything about myself and change any feeling I have or extinguish any sentiment. There have been instances where I've done it, so I know it's possible.

Other than race or reproductive gender, almost nothing is immutable. I just don't buy it. That's why I liked A Clockwork Orange, because I disagreed with it.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

See you just ignored the analysis and changed it.

However, my icon is a joke against CB, where anything which showed a pretty girl to be sanctionable. Combine that with my cycling interest which has a niche site, www.pezcyclingnews.com, which has chick picture portion, and you will see my perhaps puerile sense of of humor.

Yes I'm happy to function as a heterosexual, but there are times when dealing with the female kind when I wish I had no sexual desire. It would be much easier to be unconcerned with sex and to work on projects, exercise, travel and to ignore all sexual urges. If I had done that, I'd be retired now sojourning throughout the world, but I wouldn't have my wonderful kids. So a fair trade.

Immutability tied to who you are just doesn't convince me of anything. It doesn't pass the logic test. It may be a winner for you, but people can change their feelings about everything. If I set out to do it, I can change anything about myself and change any feeling I have or extinguish any sentiment. There have been instances where I've done it, so I know it's possible.

Other than race or reproductive gender, almost nothing is immutable. I just don't buy it. That's why I liked A Clockwork Orange, because I disagreed with it.

Since the premise is two consenting adults engaging in an intimate relationship it's only a bad thing because you say it's so. Your intellectual and cultural forebears the ancient Greeks had no problem with it, by the way.