drieuxster (drieuxster) wrote,
drieuxster
drieuxster

The Really Interesting Thought Provoking Film I would like to see

Mad Props go out to tongodeon for his thread a thought provoking movie about people who do not accept homosexuality since the working premise is that some how the money grubbing capitalist roaders in Red Hollywood should be pandering to the so called 'vast right wing religious konspirakii' given the success of the other 'religious like' films. But you will forgive me if I note that the 'homosexuality' portion is MERELY a Red Herring.

Therefore the short explanation for why Red Hollywood is not pandering to these folks is that they understand that the propoganda piece that tongodeonreferenced does NOT establish that there is a 'market' that they can sell into. For all of the other Evils that go with Red Hollywood - they can tell when someone is blowing smoke up their skirt.

This Rant, therefore, deals with the thread as tongodeon first put it forward, and then onto getting Some REAL all american movies out of Red Hollywood.

The working premise of the ' original thought provoking' is not specifically religious.
Why is it that, with the majority of the people voting against gay marriage, Hollywood has not come up with a thought provoking movie about people who do not accept homosexuality? There are people, including me, who have no desire to see anyone singled out and persecuted for their lifestyles, but who do not want those particular lifestyles forced upon the rest of us. I do not want my children being told that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. I tell my children that same-sex attraction is a disorder and that they need to do everything they can to avoid it.
...
I would relish a good movie that does not bow down to the liberal Hollywood elite and would give us a good movie about the true American, and not just the one Hollywood would like us to be so that they could feel good about their wasted, hedonistic, self-serving existence.
but there is that problem with the question about true American that carries the 'code word' into the process.

It is this 'code word' game that is for me the fundamental problem here. "gay" is simply this seasons 'ikky yukky' that allows opposition to the UnAmerican Types, in the hope that majikally that will distract americans from the actual debate. The above piece has the required 'but think of the children' hook in it. But IS it really about 'folks who do not accept homosexuality'?

mskalaoffers an interesting insight
Of course, that is kind of cheating, because the real questions being asked are about the roles of parents and the state in teaching morality to children - homosexuality is just an example of a contentious issue, and the plot would work just as well with almost any contentious issue slotted in.

But many of the people who make a big deal about homosexuality are really doing the same thing: the objections to gay marriage are really objections to not having state sponsorship for a particular form of Christianity, and any contentious issue on which that form of Christianity takes a stand, would do just as well.
Given the usual association of 'flag waving' and 'the true christianity' there is some merit to this generalization. There is of course the core structual problem that the concerns are a bit deeper, since the issue IS about sexuality which remains a very deeply personal space for most folks. So it is not merely about 'parental rights' - that is just the fluff for packing the attack on the evil they them those types.

But given the nice notion that any 'contentious issue' will slot up well here, allow me to put forward the two forms that I traditionally argue these matters; namely the restoration of the biblical literalism that allows for more than one spouse, as well as the ownership of concubines. We might just as well argue this as a case for ending 'state sponsored adultry' - by criminalizing divorce. These are both contentious issues - that touch on 'sexual conduct' - and what should or should not be the public standard In Law.

Both of which are being PERSECUTED here in california by the Evil Hollywood Red Elites who have passed the ballot initiative that defines marriage as a man and a woman - as if this opposition to True Biblical Literalism is in some way acceptable. So why isn't Red Hollywood creating films for decent Americans?

So before anyone hops up to offer up Handmaiden's Tale (1990) try to remember that was Red Hollywood's Assault on the True Believers as a part of their propoganda fest to get the backing for the One (Serially) Wife Theory.

Those who know me in "real life" understand that i am as serious as a heart attack on the point about 'doing the right thing'. One friend of mine noted that I refer to the "Mother Of My Children" as, well, the "Mother Of My Children" when I refer to her in any context than our commonly shared status of "former active duty military personnel". She is not my EX, since while the matter at law is that I am legally obliged to nothing more than the financial obligations imposed by the court with regards to the maintenance of our children. But like so many other pieces of paper that the 'white man' has signed - that does not change the obligations that Honor Demands. At a gut level I too painfully understand why the tradition of 'no divorce' has been in place in western christendom for most of seasons that it has been held to be 'biblically literal'. In the best of all possible worlds one would not get divorced. Serial Monogamy may have become culturally acceptable, but that doesn't change the emotional issues that are involved in that fiasco.

Before folks start freaking out about 'possible stalker syndrome' or which ever is their pet liberal psycho-babble angst moment, let us also be clear on one little point. When the mother of my children went into the inactive reserves, and the Freaks in the Local State Bureacracy wanted to come after me because they had seen none of the child support payments go through their state bureacracy that had been imposed upon america by the Reaganite Mandates - she did what any Warrior Did - and took umbrage at these draft dodgers who would question the integrity of a Warrior. She had to explain to these parasites that Hawai'i was the state that held 'court of record' in the matter, and that my checks no longer get a hold at the bank, as they just roll in and clear. The fact that we decided that the Reaganite FrootBats who did the child support ajudication were a bunch of dope smoking social parasites who had no idea what it takes to raise children is a seperate matter. So while the State Bureacracy would randomly screw up on getting the payments to her, that by law I am obliged to route through their little Red Kommie Directorate of Child Support Enforcement - the checks from ME to Her have been matters of 'honor does what honor demands' and not merely what the 'legalists' do when they do only what they need to do to stay out of court.... SO if we are going to crank on the HORRORS of the Evil Liberals of the RayGun Regime, and their collection of 'democrats for Nixon' wankers, Oh Please, just ask me how silly that collection of Komrade Party Member Apparachnikii really are.

So IF you are going to sign a legal arrangement with a NonMalePerKin, may I recommend the old rule of thumb, marry within your own caste....

Ok, Allow me to make perfectly clear. Some of my best friends are CIVILIANS. My father even married a couple of them. But I am so not convinced that this means that we should be OFFERING CIVILIANS SPECIAL PRIVILEGES! I mean, ok, so it's fun in the folly of one's mispent youth to go hopping and bopping with Civilians. But let's be realistic. When it is time to swim up river to spawn, one should come on back to the Proper God Given Senior Service to select a Mother Of One's Children!!!

Music: John Prine's "Sam Stone".

Ok, as my friends know, I am pleased as punch that my son grew up in a house where his mother was the toughest active duty military person on the block. Which of course, hopefully, will help him understand that if he is going to grow up and become a wholesome well rounded Male Person, that, well, there is really no need for him to join the armed forces and, well, do all of that 'girl stuff' like his mother. On the DOWN SIDE, there is my daughter... It is so not the right intellectual argument for a father to be considering, but, given my druthers, I think I would prefer that she acquire an inclination for gender/affectional preference appropriate persons rather than adopting some foolish sloven fileal piety posture about following her mother into the trade.... And before anyone asks, there are a few basic rules about dating my daughter.... First off, YOU get to patch up your own wounds - so bring your own Medical Kit....

The reader will of course notice that It is WAY TOO LATE for me, as I have 'made those life choices'. We Wed, To Bed, and she took seriously that which was poked at her in fun... For those from an actual conservative cultural background. Allow me the somewhat amusing insight that we lived through. There was that time after my first child was born when we had to deal with the open and unresolved emotional issues that our parents were right. If you do those types of things, you can get pregnant, EVEN IF you are on a birth control regimine that is suppose to be 99.9% effective. In our case, that failed twice. We were obliged to address and work through the question of how exactly were we going to deal with these circumstances.

So when the civilians are blithely babbling about 'marriage' - and 'protecting the children' - are they really hoping that 'well of course it is about providing a legal framework within which procreation is an acceptable option' - or are they merely asserting that it is the way to avoid prosecution for the crime of fornication? For those not aware, fornication is STILL ILLEGAL under the UCMJ - and the letter of the law there is painfully clear - it does not matter the gender of the persons engaging in the practice, a blow job is still a violation of the UCMJ. Thus if marriage is about 'having children' - what about those "straights" who get married but without any intention to have children? Are they 'really married'? Some of the so called 'conservatives' have at time whined about 'well without a marriage license it is just mutual masturbation'. Well DUH, even with a marriage license, there is a whole lot of it that is not strictly about pro-creation. I sure HOPE that folks are not too shocked by that.

As any decent scholar of biblical theology will note, the folly of leaning on the broken reed of 'the sin of onnan' is NOT that he 'spilt his seed upon the ground' as some nice way of saying masturbation. Rather the 'sin' is that his obligations to his deceased brother was to step into the gap and offer his sister in law a child to carry on the family name. Thus the SIN is that he failed in his OBLIGATION UNDER LAW!

Somewhere along the line the nice folks ranting about 'biblical literalism' may want to work out which IS the biblical literalism that they are really committed to living out.

At which point, forgive me if I discard the 'biblical literalism' gambit - as being merely the pretty wrapping on the simpler power grab problem. Since for most of the folks who are doing the 'anti-gay thing' - the Blame God Excuse has less to do with actual biblical principles. It just gives the issue a warm fuzzy that some how the issue can be framed in some sort of positive light. Since as the original letter writer offers up the 'There are people, including me, who have no desire to see anyone singled out and persecuted for their lifestyles, but who do not want those particular lifestyles forced upon the rest of us.' hidey hole. Just as with the 'do it for the children' gambit.

In subsequent rants, I will of course go on about the problems of how do we do 'consensual sexual congress' in a positive and life affirming way. Given the HORRORS of the CURRENT CRIMINAL STATE OF RED HOLLYWOOD that opposes our God Given Rights to more than one wife, and to own concubines, while Supporting State Sponsored Adultry.

Some have seen the film The First Wives Club. But it is merely the symptomology of the problems in the current EVIL LIBERAL RED HOLLYWOOD propoganda machine. Yet few of the so called conservatives are willing to work with the real solutions as I have offered them here.

If we criminalize divorce, then only criminals would divorce.

That clearly would end the problem of how to deal with the conflict between the former and present bed warmers...

So please, offer me up some happy film options here. Something with a Big Resounding Jerry Bruckheimer Blockbuster Hollywood Ending... Something I can take my children to, and show them, that they too should follow in this Patriotic All American resolution of the True Path when it comes to hopping and bopping, with or without children, as a part of their ongoing Support of the President to support the Troops in the WhateverOnWhomever, or the Terrorists WIN!

Subscribe

  • What if we had to be a nation of laws

    First off a h/t to a dear fiend, for Crackdown on herd-share farms over certification which is such a classical attack of the FeeMarketeers meets…

  • why do folks forget the clinton years?

    Essentially I agree with When The Magic Starts in that there is much that will need to be undone from the failure of the deregulation game that was…

  • Oil does not grow on trees.

    Let us start from the premise that fossil fuels are not like renewable products such as fruits, vegetables and other forms of…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments