Posted on 02/26/2016 7:26:34 PM PST by TraditionalMerica
Two months and two billion box office dollars later, Star Wars: The Force Awakens has reaped huge returns for Disney with its most progressive episode yet. Now that Daisy Ridley’s Rey and John Boyega’s Finn have given the Star Wars franchise its first female Jedi and black lead, respectively, does its fearless director J.J. Abrams see a future for a gay character in the galaxy?
“Of course!” Abrams said Thursday night at his Bad Robot HQ, where he hosted the US-Ireland Alliance’s annual Oscar Wilde Awards ahead of Sunday’s Oscars, where The Force Awakens is nominated in five categories. “When I talk about inclusivity it’s not excluding gay characters. It’s about inclusivity. So of course.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Yea i was in forth grade when the first one came out, it was an incredible phenomenon at the time.
The school kids at recess would brag about how many times they went to the theater to see it, some were bragging 8-10 times.
I saw it once in the theater and maybe 25 times on my television lol.
I think i was a freshman in high school when the Wrath of Kahn came out, i went to see it with one of the premier “Cool Kids” from school. the thing i remember most was looking over and seeing him cry when Spock died.
I was like “WTF?” and will never forget that moment.
“I predict straight people wont go, gay people will. Are these hollywierd people insane or do they wish failure to be like other democRATs?”
Ever since James Bond came out of the closet I have not gone to another of his films either.
“I disagree that homosexuality is immoral...A man’s member isn’t controllable to get hard as a finger is to move; it cannot just be done at will.” -you
So...people who are aroused by animals, children, and corpses aren’t immoral in your eyes because they can’t control it?
That is what you said there.
Logically it follows, if it is true in one instance, it will also be true in other instances involving sexual stimuli as you insist that can’t be controlled.
Uhhh, I’m no expert in Yiddish, but “schwartz” means black.
I’m sure Mel Brooks is aware of that. Voice your objection to him; it was his movie.
This thread smells like poo.
Call it what it is: FAUX Trek.
"Squawking saurians"?
Correct, and surveys of homosexuals by serious psych workers establish that this is the pattern. Approximately 25% of adult male homosexuals admit to having initiated homosexual relations with younger, and underage, boys. Those who did, moreover, were promiscuous in their relations. These are the men who in the 80's were spreading AIDS through the bathhouses, parks, and men's rooms.
Likewise, the overwhelming majority of lesbians confirm that their sexualization was initiated when they were teenaged girls, by older lesbians.
After 20 years of steady propagandization by Division 44 PC-ologists, a survey of psych professionals (psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and psychologists) showed that a large plurality still believed that lesbianism in particular was not essential, but was a reaction to problems with men.
Essentialism was never a serious scientific or medical theory, but a legal one cobbled up with one eye on the Supreme Court and its opinion in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). The idea was that gayness was an essential quality, not a chosen behavior, and that therefore homosexuality should be treated legally as the equivalent of blackness or femaleness. This amounted to a legal special plea that laws against homosexuality should be accorded "strict scrutiny", the highest level of intellectual suspicion, in order to disadvantage legal defenders of society's historical treatment of homosexuality as paraphilic and unnatural.
It's surprising in the aftermath that Robert Spitzer should have wasted his time looking for a "gay gene", since homosexual essentialism was always a fraudulent legal argument constructed by the lawyers at the Lambda Legal Foundation and the ACLU.
They come and they go ...
You must have never read the bible.
I’ve heard it posited that the libtardism of future Earth in Star Trek came about by a deal, conservatives drop all opposition to all other libtard ideas in exchange for gays going back in the closet. ;d
As for Star Wars, Threepio.
Disney is all about making money, I wouldn’t be so sure of faggotry based on Abram’s answering of a question when asked, what would you expect him to say, “No there will be no queers ever!”? Like most headlines, this one is misleading.
I’m more worried about the Star Trek series being run by the homosexual Bryan Fuller, It would be very surprising if they didn’t have a queer character in the main cast, the best to hope for is a hot space lesbian.
In-vader..
Yea HAWK, he looked like a Shep clone, eyeliner and all.
My gaydar was pinning with that character...
Apparently, one only wears pink if one is the evilest being in the universe.
Va-Dar
Homosexuals keep denying it, but I’ve read enough studies, and reports from homosexuals, to know it’s true.
There are a ton of YouTube videos about the subliminal messages in Disney going back to some of the older movies. Some of the YouTube analyses are pretty wild-eyed, tin foil, illuminati type stuff, but others are pretty on-point and make it hard to argue. Here’s one for example. You be the judge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdYdRcK86Mk
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.