Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17466Re: Breathing humanity into Brokeback

Expand Messages
  • gopurdue28
    Feb 1, 2006
      I thought that this was an ex-gay discussion board?
      It sounds like you are supporting this film?
      I think this is just helping to confuse people further

      --- In exgaydiscussionboard@yahoogroups.com, "Laura"
      <exgaydates@...> wrote:
      > Breathing humanity into Brokeback
      > Ex Gay Chad Thompson breathes sanity into the Brokeback Mountain
      > series.
      > ompson/2006/01/31/184400.html
      > I read a review of Brokeback Mountain, the conservative author of
      > which actually felt bad that he had felt bad during the movie. The
      > heartache experienced by the characters in the film had elicited a
      > degree of compassion and empathy in him, yet this author's hatred
      > toward the act of homosexuality had so inoculated him against
      > the true struggle behind the issue that it seemed like he actually
      > felt guilty for internalizing the humanity in Brokeback Mountain.
      > As much as the movie tilts at the windmills of our country's Judeo-
      > Christian foundations, and in doing so ravenously angers its
      > conservative watchdogs, the film still serves a noble purpose. It
      > opens the eyes of those who, before seeing the film, had no idea
      > darkness looms for those who live in fear of telling their friends
      > and family that they are gay.
      > My friend Ben put it best when he said, "Much of the homophobia in
      > America is built on the human ability to ignore another's
      > and this film breathes humanity back into the issue."
      > I know, just as much as anyone, how desperately this breath of
      > humanity is needed. Having worked for a conservative political
      > organization in the state of Iowa, I have witnessed Christian
      > treating very disrespectfully those with whom they disagree on
      > and social issues like homosexuality. Therefore, as much as the
      > movie teaches us about how to absorb the sufferings of another,
      > purpose is dignified. However, to the extent that the film seeks
      > blur the line between acceptance of a behavior and acceptance of a
      > person, its purpose is harmful.
      > As someone who has personally struggled with, and overcome,
      > homosexual attractions, I could resonate with the hunger I saw in
      > the film's characters, Jack and Ennis. They knew they were missing
      > something, and they each thought it was the other.
      > To understand fully the dynamics of the struggle, one must realize
      > that homosexuality isn't really a sexual issue. Becoming sexually
      > attracted to someone of the same gender is just the symptom of a
      > much deeper emotional need. It is the symptom of a need for
      > non-sexual intimacy with one's own gender—a legitimate need that
      > went unchecked during the childhoods of so many pre-homosexual
      > and girls.
      > Communicator Sinclair Rogers once said, "Temptation is the
      > exploitation of a real need." And so it is with homosexuality.
      > I believe this movie is harmful in that it paints sexual
      > as the proper way to extinguish the heartache and loneliness
      > experienced by those in the gay and lesbian community.
      > the movie exploits the already-existing stereotypes of gender-
      > typical behavior and re-affirms the sexual nature of experiences
      > between men that shouldn't have to be viewed as sexual at all: the
      > open expression of raw emotion and tender affection; intimacy,
      > trust, caring, physical closeness, and nurturing.
      > Sociologist Peter M. Nardi, in Men's Friendships, writes "Men are
      > raised in a culture with a mixed message: Strive for healthy,
      > emotionally intimate friendships, but be careful—if you appear too
      > intimate with another man you might be negatively labeled
      > homosexual."
      > That Brokeback Mountain uses cowboys to tell its story doesn't at
      > all make a statement about the healing power of healthy same-
      > intimacy. It only shows us that "cowboys can be gay too." After
      > did Jack or Ennis ever leave one of their sexual encounters even a
      > little bit happier than they were before? No. Each and every time
      > they had to go back to the same broken lives they had come from.
      > The movie itself argues that it was society's fault that Jack and
      > Ennis never had a shot at living a real life together, and I
      > The early 1960s was a tumultuous time to be homosexual in America,
      > and to the degree that the movie is a statement against the
      > and homophobic attitudes of the sixties, I am its fan.
      > However, willing as I may be to cast blame on society for ruining
      > one of Hollywood's most famous gay relationships, I think that
      > society's response to the relationship of Jack and Ennis is not as
      > important as God's response. In the same way, I feel that
      > answer to the pain experienced by Jack and Ennis is inferior to
      > God's answer.
      > I'm also disturbed that the film suggests that Jack and Ennis were
      > at the complete mercy of a homophobic society and had absolutely
      > power to overcome their circumstances or make their own choices.
      > This portrayal is unfair to the thousands of men and women who,
      > God's help, have chosen to reject their homosexual attractions and
      > are experiencing a genuine transformation of their sexual
      > identities.
      > The truly ironic part of the film is that almost every single
      > contains a visual acknowledgment of God's existence, along with a
      > practical denial of it.
      > The apostle Paul says, "Since the creation of the world God's
      > invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been
      > clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
      > people are without excuse."
      > The scenery portrayed in Brokeback Mountain—the rock formations,
      > sunrise, the skies, the rivers—they all testify to the existence
      > God and to the greatness of God. Yet the characters in the film
      > acted in exactly the manner that one would expect someone to act
      > didn't believe in God.
      > After all, isn't that what this really is all about? The existence
      > of God? The character of God? The power of God? One of the most
      > famous lines in the film is: "If you can't change [your sexuality]
      > you just have to stand it." From a human perspective, changing
      > something as deeply ingrained as one's sexual orientation
      > seems impossible, which is exactly why the world looks at people
      > like me and assumes I'm a fake. But if God really is who he says
      > is—if God really can heal the sick, turn water into wine, and even
      > bring the dead to life—then overcoming homosexuality wouldn't seem
      > so difficult, would it?
      > I suspect that many who saw Brokeback Mountain are in much the
      > position as the disciples were when Jesus outlined for them the
      > of serving him. They responded to Christ's admonition to give "all
      > they had" by saying "that's impossible."
      > And Jesus replied: "With man this is impossible, but with God all
      > things are possible."
      > I once heard someone say that it's time for those who struggle
      > really big things like homosexuality to stop telling God how big
      > their "mountain" is, and start telling their mountain how big God
      > is.
      > Today, it seems, Brokeback is the mountain that needs to be told
      > big God is.
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic