I was referring to the author of the movie review that I posted, not the author of the movie. The movie might be presenting a different message, but what I said about the author's message seems to hold true upon reading over the article again. I have not seen the movie, but even if I accept your statement that the "it seems clear that one intent is to present a world in which adultery and homosexuality are acceptable. The movie presents false statements...for instance, that one can't help being homosexual. There are many ex-gays, but that fact is the type of thing that the world view behind the movie would rather not be known"...I don't think that the article I posted agrees with the movie.
The article's author is very candid about his own struggle with homosexuality and what he writes are his problems with the movie and the way it portrays the sin/problem/condition of homosexuality.
I appreciate your comments, but I think that you may have misread my post, because I wasn't commenting on the content of the movie so much as I was referring to the content of the article.
Hopefully I'll last longer than just this post, eh?
It just occurred to me while watching Jay Leno tonight, when he made a Brokeback Mountain joke (or as I call it, "Bareback Mountin' ")...
could this whole movie be a Hollywood / Lavender Mafia inside joke, an "I double-dog dare you" thing?
Remember Matthew Shepard?...Sheperd...Shepherd...Sheep Herders...and in Wyoming, of all places?
Could this be the homos' way of thumbing their...err, noses at middle America?
(Yeah, yeah, I know, tin-foil hat and all that. But why not, if it makes for a way to pass the time posting...?)
Cheers!