Jump to content

"8: The Mormon Proposition"


Sky

Recommended Posts

It strikes me as sort of odd that you are interested enough in the film to discuss it, but not enough to actually view it yourself.

Why don't you plan on seeing it?

Okay, fair question.

And the brutally honest answer is because I don

Link to comment

Sky:

Well said.

I find the movie very objectionable for more than one reason, but one of those reason is the shear religious bigotry of the movie. Another is that the producers of this movie are gutless. The black churches supported Prop 8 to a greater extent than the LDS did. But you can look high and low for a movie condemning the black churches and NOT find it.

Link to comment

It has no appeal at all, firstly.

Secondly it probably rehashes and compiles most of the propaganda and things plastered across the internet for the year surrounding the vote. I thought most of it was meant to appeal to base, untrained emotions and certain biases. It's not something I'd spend my time watching. I can't help but think that it will do nothing but induce further bias against a group (LDS) by the community that already vilifies us enough (the homosexual activists who will probably be the main audience).

Link to comment

Sky:

Hello.

I have not seen the film. I do not intend to. I simply don't find the film interesting to me, personally. I applaud the right of the film's producers to distribute materials that support their point of view.

That said, I have read reviews and news accounts of the film. I have also listened to a lengthy (and sympathetic) interview of the homosexual, exMormon journalist who produced the film. My impression is that this film is a polemic against the LDS Church.

In fact, the San Francisco Chronicle has a surprisingly negative review of the film. Movie Review: '8: The Mormon Proposition'

The reviewer essentially characterizes the film as "propagandistic" and "loaded."

"8: The Mormon Proposition" contains some interesting information about the Mormon church's involvement in the campaign to pass Proposition 8, the 2008 anti-same-sex marriage ballot measure. But it's marred by loaded language and a propagandistic tone that undercuts rather than promotes its purposes.

The reviewer folows with additional criticisms.

Using words like "plot" and "conspiracy," the documentary uncovers internal memos that reveal how the Mormon church coordinated its efforts to influence the election in California. But instead of reading them as sinister, the documentary could study them to see how a committed, intelligent minority gets organized in a democracy.

I think lack of balance and apparent agenda in the film is also described:

A sensible way of making the documentary would have been to compare the pro and anti-Prop. 8 campaigns. Instead, the documentary uses the Prop. 8 campaign to advance its larger message, that the Mormons either are or at least did something bad, and then counters that with the argument that same-sex marriage is good.

The review questions the value of the effort.

If you're in favor of same-sex marriage, the documentary isn't telling you something new. If you're against same-sex marriage, the documentary - despite sometimes touching shots of loving couples - won't convince you otherwise. So the use of this documentary is questionable.

All that said, I don't think that the film is going to have a significant impact. It is not in general release. It's agenda is transparent and will cause most observers to dismiss it as bias. It really does not cover too much new territory. And, I suspect that those who do view it will already be hostile to the LDS Church. In other words, the film is preaching to the choir.

Regards,

Six

Link to comment

This has been discussed on the forum several times - it's just that SSA/Gay marriage threads tend to get shut down by the mods pretty quick because the posters can't stay civil.

Your portrayal of the discussions here on this issue is very "inaccurate"....

The discussions are almost ALWAYS respectful. Sometimes with a little passion mixed in, but, almost always remain respectful.

Contrary to your portrayal, some of the threads getting shut down is usually due to the discussion being or becoming "Non-Church related". This forum is for discussing LDS issues, not a sounding board for gay issues or other issues such as politics.

Link to comment

Your portrayal of the discussions here on this issue is very "inaccurate"....

The discussions are almost ALWAYS respectful. Sometimes with a little passion mixed in, but, almost always remain respectful.

Contrary to your portrayal, some of the threads getting shut down is usually due to the discussion being or becoming "Non-Church related". This forum is for discussing LDS issues, not a sounding board for gay issues or other issues such as politics.

By "being civil" I also mean "obeying the board rules" - including the rule about keeping it LDS related.

But no, it's not always respectful. The reason the mods have stomped on SSA threads hard is because it tends to inflame posters.

Link to comment

Thanks everybody for your responses so far.

Apparently this has already been discussed on the forum. Sorry I missed it. If any of you still care to post though, I am very much interested in your input. Maybe it can be approached at a little different angle than before.

As I mentioned, I know how sensitive of a subject this can be. I know people have strong views on both sides. My intention is to keep it as civil and respectful as possible, and of course to stay on topic and obey the board rules.

BTW, any of you care to send me a link as to where on the MADB this was discussed previously? I looked and couldn't find it. Thanks.

Link to comment

Thanks everybody for your responses so far.

Apparently this has already been discussed on the forum. Sorry I missed it. If any of you still care to post though, I am very much interested in your input. Maybe it can be approached at a little different angle than before.

As I mentioned, I know how sensitive of a subject this can be. I know people have strong views on both sides. My intention is to keep it as civil and respectful as possible, and of course to stay on topic and obey the board rules.

BTW, any of you care to send me a link as to where on the MADB this was discussed previously? I looked and couldn't find it. Thanks.

A very even-handed and intelligent review of the film can be found here.

I was not aware of the San Fransisco Chronicle review, which is pleasingly fair, but I take issue with this slight misrepresentation:

"The Mormon Proposition" is that no attention is given to the weakness of the anti-Prop. 8 campaign. The pro-8 forces had infinite resources and volunteers. The anti-8 forces had George Takei (Mr. Sulu from the original "Star Trek") making a speech and a lot of distressed people holding handmade signs.

The anti-8 "forces" raised millions of dollars more than the pro-8 forces and had the backing of most of the most influential names in media. Where it failed was in vilifying the opposition with emotive and loaded propaganda instead of simply addressing the concerns they had. By attacking the pro-8 crowd they validated their fears.

My wife and I, by the way, have an LDS friend who deals with SSA. I am humbled by the struggle that he endures, and I have nothing but respect for those who make the same decision.

Link to comment
"The Mormon Proposition" is that no attention is given to the weakness of the anti-Prop. 8 campaign. The pro-8 forces had infinite resources and volunteers. The anti-8 forces had George Takei (Mr. Sulu from the original "Star Trek") making a speech and a lot of distressed people holding handmade signs.

The most suppressed topic in this entire incident is the abysmal campaign put on by the anti-8 group. And they had more money than the pro side. This is the second review that has at least mentioned this. So one unintended consequence of the movie will be that this sad fact is going to finally get some press. It makes it much harder to maintain a boogeyman if the failed campaign got more notice.

I have been very surprised at how relatively fair the reviews are...maybe it is still early. I have seen several and only one was bubbling over with unrestrained praise. The most disgusting thing the movie did was malign the parents of a Mormon boy who committed suicide. They presented it as if the parents were relieved he killed himself when they actually wrote a book for LDS that was sympathetic to the situation of gays. The film also lied about suicide stats which is pretty dumb when stats are readily available. They also, of course, used old quotes without disclosing how old they were while using none of the things coming from leaders today.

BTW, the film makers refused to send the standard preview copy to church Public Affairs so they could come up with a review.

Link to comment

Loved it! My cable company has it through on demand programming so I had some friends over to watch it. The most hilarious parts were the Eagle Forum lady and Chris Buttars. I know they don't speak for the church but they perfectly represented a lot of my Mormon relatives and friends in Utah and Idaho. We laughed so hard when Gail calmly stated that gays can't go to the polygamous heaven (hasn't anyone told her that is NOT doctrine?!) and when Buttars compared the gay protesters to "Moslem" extremists. Classic. I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS.

Link to comment

On another thread it was pointed out that most "lesbians" have had, or continue to have, male sexual partners. So most lesbians are bi-sexual. However, the 3% or so of the male population that is male and gay generally are not as fluid in their sexual choices.

Okay, so let's see, if we assume that, for the most part, 50% of the population is female then what, a couple million women are left without a possible partner? Why not legalize polygamy, let the most heterosexual males of the population have a couple of wives, and let the gay guys get married too. Seems like a legit compromise.

Link to comment

Loved it! My cable company has it through on demand programming so I had some friends over to watch it. The most hilarious parts were the Eagle Forum lady and Chris Buttars. I know they don't speak for the church but they perfectly represented a lot of my Mormon relatives and friends in Utah and Idaho. We laughed so hard when Gail calmly stated that gays can't go to the polygamous heaven (hasn't anyone told her that is NOT doctrine?!) and when Buttars compared the gay protesters to "Moslem" extremists. Classic. I laughed, I cried, it was better than CATS.

it is very difficult to take someone serious who labels a group of people who engage in a particular behavior the scum of the earth so to speak, but then says , oh wait but even though my son does everything the scum does my son is not the scum of the earth. eagle forum is a perfect of why idle hands are bad.

Link to comment

The most suppressed topic in this entire incident is the abysmal campaign put on by the anti-8 group. And they had more money than the pro side.

Indeed. They thought they had it sewed up (having stocked both Sacramento and the courts with activists who saw things their way).

It's interesting to note that the anti-8 side got a late start, had the sympathy and active campaign support of nearly all of California's top unions, the very public endorsement of a number of high-profile politicians, the tireless efforts of an aggressively sympathetic press and still managed to outspent the Pro-Eighters by a significant margin.

The deck was stacked against Prop 8 from the git-go- and every sector of the public policy industry was in the radical's favor. And despite all of these advantages- and the active harassment of Pro-8 voters- they STILL failed to convince even a plurality of voters to support their agenda.

BTW, the film makers refused to send the standard preview copy to church Public Affairs so they could come up with a review.

This- like the petty harassment of voters and donors that followed the Prop 8 victory, demonstrates the contempt in which those advocates hold the views of others. It demonstrates quite clearly- and inescapably- that this film is not about "establishing a dialogue", but is about demonization and demagoguery.

The makers of this film didn't try to learn anything from their loss at the ballot box (or those that followed)- they're simply trying to dehumanize and delegitimize dissent.

They don't want "a discussion" of the issue- they want to excuse thier abject failure to win hearts and minds.

They're not trying to convince people- they're trying to intimidate and terrorize them into silence.

Link to comment

A review on a Mormon blog:

http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/04/review-8-the-mormon-proposition/

Newsweek had some negative comments:

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/pop-vox/2010/06/15/film-review-8-the-mormon-proposition.html

Judging by that elementary standard, the film 8: The Mormon Proposition mostly flunks out. The film is a messy and sometimes downright cheesy look at how the Mormon Church influenced the 2008 California ballot initiative outlawing gay marriage. Elections are admittedly not an easy subject to dramatize, which was one reason that the 2008 HBO film Recount was such a revelation. The Mormon Proposition drags out the predictable participants: the gay couples angered by the prospect of losing their rights, the starchy Mormon men who cajole (or threaten) their parishioners into contributing to the anti-marriage campaign, the spit-flying arguments between gay protestors and the conservatives who love to hate them, etc.

It is not, unsurprisingly, a fair fight. The film, directed by Reed Cowan and narrated by Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, turns the debate into the usual game of good versus evil: the gays cry a lot and are largely sympathetic; the Mormons are often shot in a sort of flat, monochromatic palette designed to make them look like they're auditioning to be Professors of the Dark Arts at Hogwarts. It seems impossible that anyone will have their minds changed or even piqued by watching this film. No one will really listen to The Mormon Proposition because we

Link to comment

Why not legalize polygamy, let the most heterosexual males of the population have a couple of wives, and let the gay guys get married too. Seems like a legit compromise.

Do not derail into another topic on polygamy.

Link to comment

Why not legalize polygamy, let the most heterosexual males of the population have a couple of wives, and let the gay guys get married too. Seems like a legit compromise.

there is an very interesting and absurd thing about the laws in the united states....sometime they make no sense at all, and sometimes the basis for the law is less than a sandy foundation.

for instance a 18yr old and a person who is 17 yrs 11months 31 days 11:30hrs old - so 30 minutes from turning 18- both separately plan and carry out the murder of an entire family. The 17yr old is still 17 by the time he has finished his murders. Both the 18yr old and 17yr old are arrested, the prosecution can only seek the death penalty on the 18yr old, the 17yr old can not receive the death penalty because as a minor she did not now what she was doing to the degree that an "adult" (18 yr old would).

so goes with marriage - utah allows close family members to marry so long as one is incapable of having children. there is just a lot of seeming nonesense with laws and well that is just the way it is and will be.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...