Much hoohah has been made of the Oscars and what they meant as far as films featuring homosexuals or transgendered folks. Here's what one whackjob has to say:

"I think America sent a message to those in the industry that this isn't something that they're interested in, and hopefully this was something that weighed heavily on them as they voted for these pictures," said Alan Chambers, president of Orlando, Florida-based Exodus International, a Christian organization that promotes "freedom from homosexuality."

Mr. Chambers, we're talking about an industry that is all about money. That's what weighs heavily upon the members of the Academy when they vote, amigo. So let's see what America thinks about Brokeback, hmm?

Wow, that's $80 million and going strong on more than 1200 screens in its thirteenth week of being in release at the time I write this. Do you understand what it means for a film to be anywhere near the top 10 while thirteen weeks out of release? That's rarer than…well, proof of the divine. The film cost $14 million to make. Which means, excepting marketing, Focus Features made its money back more than five times, coming up on six. And that's before the DVD release. And let's not even get into what it's made overseas, since I'm sure you consider everybody outside of our borders to be godless heathens.

So that's the message America's sending Hollywood, O Deluded One. Give us low budget films with what we perceive as a good story and we'll go see it in droves.

Mind you, I didn't even like the movie, fella.

To me, it's the DaVinci Code of recent films: it's very popular, and that's a shame. The idea of having two men fall in love who are in the most archetypical role you can have in America–the fabled Cowboy–is a great one. And filled with potential for story that the film didn't execute on. Instead we got two ciphers who hooked up for one night of passionate semi-drunken shangri-la that inexplicably turned into a lifelong obsession for them both. I should not be more interested in Randy Quaid's character than the two leads. But yet, I am, because he's a character. The two leads, on the other hand, are cardboard cutouts who I know nothing about, have no emotional attachment to, and yet am supposed to care for. Hell, forty minutes in, when we are introduced to their future wives, the two ladies are instantly better characters than the men. It takes, if I remember correctly, eighty minutes for us to get to a point where the two leads do anything that might make them endearing. It's at that point, when the two men are looking atmaybe getting together once every four years if they're lucky, that there's been enough characterization–seemingly by accident–for the two actors to finally get a toehold and start to do something beyond either trying to channel Jimmy Dean or trying to seem just vaguely confused about the whole ordeal.

Frankly, I think people were so pleased to see a film like this that they latched onto it with both hands. It's something everyone can relate to, hetero, homo or otherwise. Most everybody has, at some point in their life, found themselves attracted–in such a way that they can't resist, deny or even get away from–somebody that they "shouldn't" be attracted to. You know what I mean: other people don't think that it's "right" to be with that person, whether it's skin color, gender, social status, financial status, whatever. We've all been in relationships that define the phrase "It'll all end in tears." And you know that, but being in that relationship might be painful, but not being in it would be worse. That's what people, IMO, bring to this movie in order to fill in the giant, gaping holes in it. They can relate, so that transcends weak writing and bad characterization. Just one shmoe's dimestore musings on the subject.

And it's a shame that it's this movie that is being hailed as the breakthrough mainstream movie about homosexuality, when so many other films have come before that were simply better. I enjoyed The Hanging Garden quite a bit. Hell, Gods and Monsters, although flawed, was better than Brokeback.

Granted, none of them took the chance that Brokeback did, what with the whole manly men in love thing, but still: next time I'd like to see that story, but just with some quality behind it.

Back to you, though, Mr. Chambers with some advice. If you want to be free from having to deal with homosexuality, that's fine. We'll keep any offensive homosexuals away from you as long as you promise to keep your offensive delusional religious tendencies away from homosexuals and those of us who have no issue with homosexuals. Trust me, we're getting the better half of that deal.

Original story that set all this off found at Defamer.