I'm not sure if it's even worth posting on this any more since you're doing such a good job of demolishing your own argument Lazs. Maybe you should read your own links before you post them?
Quoted directly from first link you posted:
America’s increased awareness of homosexuals that resulted from the Kinsey studies and the increased attempts by the government to expel homosexuals from government agencies resulted in the increased discussion of homosexuality within the popular culture.
The implication is clear - discussion within "popular culture" of these issues was in response to what was going on in society, not the opposite as you contend.
Although Hollywood attempted to do its part to enforce the conservative agenda dominating America in the 1950s, Americans were beginning to show signs that they were willing to pay to view films containing content that the MPPDA found inappropriate, and the Production Code’s authority began to weaken by the mid-fifties.
Is any of this sinking in yet?
Changes in the acceptable images of Hollywood films reflected mainstream Americans’ limited willingness to view homosexuality in the mass media. Homosexuality could be portrayed and discussed as long as the images and discussions were "safe" and "discrete," which usually meant revealing the social condemnation of homosexuals.
Again, Hollywood refecting the tastes of society, not trying to change them.
By 1969, the media was forced to acknowledge the existence of a gay community and the issues it faced.
Read that. "Forced to acknowledge". Not "tried to force it down soceties throat".
Although American audiences in the 1990s can see healthy lesbian characters, and hear them defined as "lesbians," only an independent film has managed to completely validate lesbianism by portraying a successful relationship between two women.
I thought you were arguing that promotion of homsexuality was rife, not that it was relegated to indie films. Confused? I think you are.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1339883/posts - I'm not sure how you think this opinion article on the Passion of the Christs failure to garner oscars helps your argument; from the piece itself:
A movie that got far, far better reviews and made even more money as the seventh-ranking movie of all time -- 'Shrek 2' -- wasn't nominated for best picture either and nobody's outraged about that,"
http://www.clantt.com/sports_books/isbn1893554961.html - Great, another link that totally fails to give any information at all as to how Hollywood is promoting a left wing agenda via it's movie output.
http://www.laalternativepress.com/v01n22/features/rampell.php - again, lot of talk about about activism on the part of today's actors; very little substance when it comes to describing how this activism is being translated into film output.
I guess I would say that I agree with coulters book "Treason" on the hollywood left. In so far as she identifies the problem
Actually, I'd say the reason you identify with Coulter is that you share her knack of arriving at whichever conclusion she's chosen in advance irrespective of the quality of the evidence to hand.
Pretty poor effort all in all Lazs. Keep digging though; I'm enjoying watching you make my case for me.
