When will I ever learn that to watch the Academy Awards is to be utterly INFURIATED by the agenda? When will I learn that, inasmuch as I love movies, I do not love Hollywood?
Sean Penn, you’re annoying. You spent half of your acceptance speech chastising the voters of California for the gay marriage ban and didn’t once think to thank your wife who, incidentally, was weeping with joy for you in the front row.
Aargh. If it isn’t abortion rights being lauded at the Oscars (remember The Cider House Rules?) it’s this. I’ll learn, one day.
I’ll learn. I’ll learn.
(At least little Wall٠E got an award. That one I feel good about.)
Taking my furrowed brow to bed,
I haven’t watched TV in forever. I don’t even know if the local stations turned themselves off or not this month. I don’t even care. I find I’m a much happier person, even without Lost.
Yeah, my husband was annoyed the year I watched when Ellen was the host so I didn’t bother turning it on last night. Not too many Christians in Hollywood these days – more to pray for!
I like movies too (not quite as much as you!) so I’m hoping to get the highlights from the morning shows. Off to the treadmill!
Hey Margaret check out Timothy’s new blog — http://thelabarum.wordpress.com — hHe posted his Oscar frustrations too!
Oh, you’re so right. When will Hollywood learn that their job is to entertain and stay out of politics . . . because I just don’t care what you think Sean Penn. I just don’t care.
I still watch and I still love them. They’re snarky and often full of themselves, but there is always a rare moment of joy in them and I always look for that. This year I though Penelope Cruz’ speech was lovely.
Plus I have been a fan of Slumdog for months now and I desperately wanted to see this beautiful movie get the recognition it deserved.
So yeah, there is always much to be frustrated about in Hollywood, but I just can’t stay away. I truly enjoy seeing creative people pursue their dreams….i just try to ignore the snarky side.
I didn’t watch the Oscars – wrong time zone! – but have to admit that from a British perspective I enjoyed the results ;). Coincidentally, dh and I went to see Slumdog Millionaire last night and thought it was good. We were delighted it did so well. It is almost unbelievable that a low budget British / Indian film could win best picture – it certainly couldn’t be further outside the Hollywood mainstream. The fact it won so many Oscars is a fairy story in itself. Maybe they should make a movie about it!
Both my husband and I were furious when we heard Sean Penn’s speech as well. A great reminder of why I like it best when Hollywood isn’t a part of my world.
The part I loved best, was when the guy who wrote the screenplay or adapted the screenplay for “milk” told all the gay and lesbian children that God loved them, and one day soon he would be able to marry the person he loved. Of course, that’s not word for word, but it sums it up. We all know that God loves everyone – He made us after all, but I have had enough of people trying to make their sinful lifestyles be accepted by Christians. God help us, and them. With sincerity of heart, Heather
I think Sean Penn did a great diservice to our youth in a time of great sexual confusion. This is not about equal rights! It’s about what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman… the beauty of marriage and our call to communion. And life can only come through our sexual DIFFERENCE. I pray deeply for those who are feeling the pull of same sex attraction/attachment…. I pray that they will rediscover the beauty of their manhood and womanhood. The so called “signs of hate” Sean Penn so dramatically alluded to our just the opposite! Signs of love and real peace, back to God’s original plan for human sexuality…. oh boy do we need a conversion! Thanks Minnesota Mom!
PS – (to Heather) Yes, and man was it annoying when the screenwriter said Your “church has lied to you.” If he would just take the time to READ what the Church has said we’d all be better off. Here’
s a little CCC for ya:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2358 “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
I thought Penelope Cruz was just lovely … her speech and her “look”.
I totally caught the missed THANKS to my wife by Sean Penn … ughhhh. I had many other frustrations throughout the night.
I didn’t see any of the movies except for WALL-E. I do think I will try to see SlumDog and Kate Winslet’s movie.
How about the disgusting lap dance Jackman gave Barbara Walters at the end of her interview with him just before the red carpet coverage? That’s what was on when I turned on the tv. I should have turned it off right away!
Dearest Margaret,
Who was it that said that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over expecting different results? Give up on the Oscars darlin’! Your time is more valuable that that.
The Ultimate Obfuscation: “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”
Never mind that the Catholic Church has spent two millenia fueling hatred against gay persons. Gay kids are still killing themselves thanks in part to the Church’s relentless and negative messages to them about who they are.
Thank God for Sean Penn, Hollywood and Harvey Milk!
David,
The Catholic Church has hardly spent millenia fueling hatred against homosexuals. That sort of attitude belongs to Fred Phelps and his ilk, who of course also hate Catholics, among other things accusing us of all being homosexual pedophiles. That you are unable to separate the attitudes speaks volumes.
The Catholic Church has long condemned the ACT of sodomy, just as it condemns the ACT of fornication, the ACT of adultery, the ACT of stealing, the ACT of lieing, etc. Yet, we also happily recognize that Our Lord became incarnate not for the perfect, but to save us sinners, as we have ALL committed ACTS that God rejects. We recognize that while He rejects our sins, our ACTS, He very much loves us, and welcomes us back when we overcome our pride and return to him.
That is Catholicism. We are not this hatred you see in Phelps.
At least Fred Phelps is forthright and honest, unlike Church leaders. The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is evil, and it has contributed to the deaths of countless despondent young people who couldn’t help but internalize the negativity of which you speak. When you deny or obstruct a person’s inclination to love as they were meant to, you’re committing hatred.
David, you make so many errant assumptions in your post its nearly impossible to deal with all of them.
Phelps: He is honest that he hates everyone else, but it should not surprise any rational person that a person with so much hate in his heart is not honest about many other things, including his conduct at his protests and his claims about things done to him by his opponents.
You also make some rather vague and virtually meaningless assumptions that somehow the Church’s teaching has “contributed” to “countless” deaths. I’m going out on a limb to suggest you don’t have any support for that, but feel free to offer actual proof if you can. FWIW, someone else making the same baseless claim does not count as proof. Barring that, it would appear that this sort of thing is one of the dogmas of your personal faith.
Finally, you assume that people were “meant” to engage in homosexual love, something that there is absolutely no evidence for. Rather, our bodies were clearly designed for heterosexual love, and indeed, the entirely of human history depends on it.
That said, you’ve made your assumptions, and there is little doubt that you will steadfastly refuse to change them, and irretrievably be unable to support them. I’d like to have further conversation on the subject, but I doubt you will be open to either direction – a fact based discussion with real world evidence supporting claims, or a true philosophical discussion where your assumptions are open to discussion.
Yes, let’s talk about “the real world”: I have been with my partner, who is now my spouse (we are legally married) for 23 years. Do you assume our time together is meaningless, some kind of freak accident? Your assumptions about how our bodies are designed falls completely flat — unless you are willing to deny that gay couples experience real love and commitment. Apparently, you are willing to deny it, despite all evidence to the contrary. By denying us love, you’ve suceeeded in dehumanizing an entire class of persons. What is worse than denying people love? And why do people allegedly representing the love of God take the lead in denying others love? Think about that this Lent.
David,
You obviously are rather personally invested, but as anyone should logically recognize, the fact that I do something, or in this case you do it, does not make it right. If that were so, there are no wrongs, no sins, nothing that governs our actions at all. That, of course, is not reality. We all have a powerful incentive to believe that what we are doing is right, but that is not so.
Your 23 years of committing a sin is just that, 23 years of error. I know you don’t like that, don’t agree. That you’ve done it for that long hardly changes the objective truth of whether its right or wrong.
[David said]>>>>>Your assumptions about how our bodies are designed falls completely flat – <<<<
Assumptions? It’s basic biology. A man's sexual organs were made compatible with a woman's sexual organs, not those of another man. If you deny that?
—-
I would agree with you that a gay couple can be – in a sense – committed to each other, often to a great degree than many of today’s vegas style wedding heterosexual couples are committed. That doesn’t make it a Sacramental union, or a natural one.
And calling a sin a sin does not dehumanize anyone. As a Catholic I believe we have all sinned. Believing so does not dehumanize everyone – or the term is meaningless. Rather, it recognizes our very humanity – our very frailty – our very need for God’s mercy and love.
It is never too late for you to return to that.
If you’re looking to “nature” to support your claims, then you have to account for the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature as well. “Sin” doesn’t explain that fact. In addition, marriage are routinely witnessed between couples unable to bear children, or even physically unable to have vaginal intercourse. And I don’t have to live under the dead weight of the Church’s oppressive, regressive teaching.
You’ve talked down to me and characterized my marriage as essentially meaningless when you know nothing about us, yet you presume to pontificate about “evidence”? You are full of fear. Life is so much more than you paint it to be, thank God. It seems to me you don’t know much about life.
>>>>If you're looking to "nature" to support your claims, then you have to account for the fact that homosexuality occurs in nature as well. "Sin" doesn't explain that fact.
You seem to have taken to the idea of changing my comments to something you are more readily able to respond to. I didn't refer to "nature" in the abstract, nor did I rely on evidence of what other mammals do as a way to argue that homosexuality is wrong. Rather, I argued that our human biology is such that clearly a man was designed for a woman. Its not a complex argument, so its strange to see you mischaracterize it this way.
As for nature, and for your claims that homosexuality occurs there, I don't see how that supports your argument. In nature, we see parents eat their young, we see females eat the males after mating, we see animals spontaneously change genders, etc. Pointing to a claim that homosexuality occurs in nature does not make it any more moral than eating your children.
Not to mention which, even in the "nature" you point too heterosexuality is the norm, homosexuality is still an aberration. None of the above change how humans were made, or what we were made for.
>>>>> In addition, marriage are routinely witnessed between couples unable to bear children, or even physically unable to have vaginal intercourse.
I didn’t even raise children, not sure why you feel the need to rebut the issue. There is more to our biology than reproduction, as important as that is.
>>>>>>You've talked down to me and characterized my marriage as essentially meaningless
I have said no such thing, the only reference to your marriage being meaningless was in your prior post. My only use of the term was in reference to your argument , which as I noted logically tended to make the term “dehumanize” meaningless.
The fact is, you are trying to set up straw men and imputing arguments to me I haven’t made.
‘the ethical misstep of biologism: the attempt to derive moral principles solely on the basis of a biological fact. As ethicist Daniel Maguire deftly counters, such an attitude towards marriage makes sense only “if you reduce human sexuality to the biological simplicities of the stud farm. Given the infinity of meanings beyond baby-making involved in human eroticism and sexuality, such a leap is misdirected and, literally, unreal.”‘
http://www.pflagsanjose.org/advocacy/iceberg.html