Posted on 09/10/2012 2:04:00 PM PDT by Beave Meister
Hollywood director finds it acceptable for people to commit incest.
In an interview with The Wrap, director Nick Cassavetes believes no one should judge a brother and sister being with each other if they are in love.
“I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want?” Cassavetes told The Wrap. “If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”
Cassavetes added that he does not have experience with incest.
The comments come after he unveiled his latest movie “Yellow” – in which a woman had an incestuous affair with her brother that is in prison – at the Toronto Film Festival. The movie does not yet have a distributor in the states.
Cassavetes also directed “Alpha Dog” and “The Notebook.”
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegas.cbslocal.com ...
I wonder what his father; John Cassavetes would have said about his son’s remarks.
I honestly think that the Penn State scandal was a trial balloon for penderastry. If more wide spread support for Sandusky was shown, you would start to hear leaks of who he was supplying the boys to (I fear he was not alone, but part of a “pipeline”).
Even now, a large portion of the Penn State fans and alumni still support him.
They do? I know many still support Paterno. But Sandusky?
That is so beyond revolting and hateful that I have to go do something else for a while.
When I hear stuff like that, I know that destruction is coming for sure and certain. One way or another. Societies crumble when rampant depravity and cruelty are commonly acceptable or even “celebrated”. People shudder barbarity as practiced in ancient times, but what’s going on now is worse.
yuck!
Knew it wouldn’t be long before Roman Polanski was back in the news...
People think it is hyperbole or insulting when I say that the goal of the sex positive agenda (which uses the homosexual agenda as a battering ram to society’s laws and mores) is to end ALL moral judgments over ALL sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of parter(s). And our tax dollars fund this agenda, whether it is through SIECUS, public universities, or publicly funded hospitals and the like.
Cassavetes, while I'm sure sincere in his support, has only helped conservatives with the point that redefining marriage for homosexuals opens the door for redefining it for other groups.
In a way --- he's right. But maybe not in the way he thinks.
He's 'right' because as soon as you split procreation away from sex, you've shriveled its meaning. It's disabled. It's shrunken. It's small.
The commitment of sexual intimacy itself, still intact, still procreative, is sacred. It means:
"I'm no longer mine but yours. You're no longer yours, but mine. We belong to the children who may come, and to the 10,000 generations before us and after us, and to God with whose creative powers we now cooperate. His are the times and ages: To Him be glory and dominion, through all ages of eternity. Amen."
You didn't think of it that way? Maybe, like most of us, it took you awhile. But that's what it is.
Split off the procreative significance, and what's left? Insignificance.
"I'm, uh, in love. I guess. Or I was."
"Whatever."
"Meh."
Or in Nick Cassavetes' words, "Who gives a damn?"
"I'm not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn?" --- says Cassavetes.
In a way --- he's right. But maybe not in the way he thinks.
He's 'right' because as soon as you split procreation away from sex, you've shriveled its meaning. It's disabled. It's shrunken. It's small.
The commitment of sexual intimacy itself, still intact, still procreative, is sacred. It means:
"I'm no longer mine but yours. You're no longer yours, but mine. We belong to the children who may come, and to the 10,000 generations before us and after us, and to God with whose creative powers we now cooperate. His are the times and ages: To Him be glory and dominion, through all ages of eternity. Amen."
You didn't think of it that way? Maybe, like most of us, it took you awhile. But that's what it is.
Split off the procreative significance, and what's left? Insignificance.
"I'm, uh, in love. I guess. Or I was."
"Whatever."
"Meh."
Or in Nick Cassavetes' words, "Who gives a damn?"
To what particular event in 1968 are you referring?
Pope Paul VI, shocked, broken-hearted, depressed --- wrung his hands --- did nothing --- and, on meeting with his critic Cardinal Suenens, buried his face in his hands and said, "Yes, pray for me; because of my weaknesses, the Church is badly governed".
For whatever reason, Paul VI blocked good Bishops from bringing any corrective measures against the arrogant, defecting lower clergy, failed to support the faithful laity, failed to educate the huge mass of confused people in the middle. Gained the doctrine, lost the flock.
Interesting history. Even Popes are human. He wrote the right stuff and apparently was taken off guard by the closeness of his enemy.
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.