Well I own it, and have seen it enough to quote it word-for-word. Each to his own tastes, of course, and I can see how people would be able to get a liberal message out of it, but I don't. There is an element of "accept people because they are different", but the "different" that Lilo was portrayed as was so accurate that two women I know swear that they wrote it based on their lives. It's simply a great story, with great characters, and some of the funniest dialogue I've ever seen. And the one thread I saw about this movie here gave it nothing but positive reviews.
The rest of your comment: I don't know what you mean. Please educate this slow learner.
Not a problem. Whatever percentage you might want to consider a "normal" gay percentage (and I know there's plenty of debate about that), it doesn't apply here the way that it normally would since there are twice as many possibilities to consider. An actor is, for our purposes, considered a seperate person from the character they play.
So let's take the Best Actress award as an example. There are five actresses nominated, and each of those actresses plays a separate character; so that's 10 people to consider. If you go by the traditional 10% figure (again, disputes noted), then on average, at least one of those 10 would be gay.
Add to this the fact that there are lots of awards that were not mentioned, and lots of people who worked on the movies mentioned that were not analyzed. Add into that also the fact that this is one year, and spikes are to be expected in any random data set. Throw it all together, and what Andrew lists simply isn't cause for alarm (though I wonder how many people here realize that Andrew's gay, and was posting it as what he saw as a good sign).
I'm not saying that Hollywood doesn't often have agendas. I'm just saying that this doesn't show it.