Rosslyn Smith / American Thinker
At the heart of the Duck Dynasty controversy is a modern paradox: those who most loudly celebrate the gay lifestyle seem to go into a Victorian swoon whenever anyone even obliquely mentions actual gay sex practices such as anal sex. As we watch the corporate clusterduck swirl around the alleged wrongs of reality TV star Phil Robertson concerning homosexuality, it may be instructive to take a step back.
Image control has been crucial to gay activists. In 1980 Hollywood produced, Cruising, a big budget film that showed the seamier side of gay life. It got pretty good reviews because it was edgy and well-acted. Gay activists denounced it as homophobic because it touched on two taboo subjects that interfered with promoting their agenda to the general public: sadomasochism and recruitment. Since then, any filmmaker who does not conform his gay characters to a positive and largely asexual template is likely to be criticized. (The Silence of the Lambs emphasized in the script that its serial killer only thought he was a transsexual and was still slammed by the gay activists.) The arrival of the AIDS pandemic helped reinforce this pressure by offering up a new version of a time honored movie stereotype -- the terminally ill secular saint. Today it is allowable to use a gay drama queen as a comedic foil, but only if he is also shown to have a heart of gold. Otherwise gay characters have to be positive.
continue article at American Thinker:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/reality_bites_gays.html
No comments:
Post a Comment