goldbug wrote:
89 formula wrote:3. Why do they need to push the gay agenda with the lesbian cop scene????
Can someone explain to me what the "gay agenda" is? Are they holed up in a mountain somewhere building a Cyberdyne computer to take over the world? Are they building an army of transforming robots to conquer mankind? People keep using this phrase over and over and it smacks of nothing but intolerance to me. So she's gay, big deal. She's still a good agent and helped Mike on the mission. Who cares who she sleeps with?
The "gay agenda" could be defined as the movement by a vocal minority to subvert the moral foundation of the vast majority of the world as well as the obvious laws of nature - no matter the cost - in order to excuse all manner of depraved and socially destructive behavior, using empty postmodern rhetoric (about moral relativity or gender as a "social construction") that could just as easily be (and must be, if we are being intellectually honest) used to justify ANY form of sexual deviancy, from polygamy to incest to pedophilia (for example, if we cannot say homosexuality is wrong because "truth is subjective" and "any restraint on sexuality is equal to oppression and narrowmindedness" (as some might suggest), then we cannot say that it would be wrong for a man to marry his sister, or even his sister's 6-year-old daughter, for the same reasons). The purpose of this "agenda" has proven to not only consist of the defense of the homosexual lifestyle, but indeed encompasses an attempt to overturn any standard for morality (particularly sexual morality, but all morality by extension), until the mere act of suggesting that there is some kind of standard becomes "intolerant," if not a "hate crime." This is why in many parts of the country, laws now exist to ensure that public schools have to bend over backward to accomodate a second grade child who may one week think he is a male, and the next think he is a female. If this is not the definition of insanity, I don't know what is.
This, of course, does not mean that homosexuals themselves are any worse people than anyone else (I have had several great teachers in college who were homosexual, and known homosexuals who were great businesspeople, artists, or otherwise simply very nice people, in general); it does not mean they should be ridiculed or harrassed or punished by the secular government, nor that they should be respected any less than any other human beings. But it means that the worldview they propogate is an especially dangerous one, and more and more it is being unfairly and unnecessarily forced on the rest of the world in the name of "tolerance."
Tolerance used to mean coexisting peacefully and respectfully with others despite disagreement; now, in order to be considered "tolerant" and moral, one must actually embrace and celebrate other peoples' beliefs, even to the point that he/she values his/her own (unless the beliefs in question do not align with those of the academic elite or the secular media - then it's ok to mock and disregard them at will... such as the idea that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy). This leads to a madness wherein, if all beliefs and ideas are supposed to be equally true (as the Oprah-styled pseudo-philosophy of the age tries to tell us), NO idea can really be true, and the only thing that will matter, in the words of Dr. Voddie Baucham, is "who has sufficient power to exercise his or her will" (ironically, this is precisely the point of the "survival of the fittest" mentality that comes straight out of Darwinism which, when it has been taken to its logical conclusion, has led to some of the most heinous acts in history, from the serial killings of Jeffrey Dahmer to the attrocities of Adolf Hitler - both of whom justified their actions by the theory of evolution).
If you'll pardon my long-windedness, my point in all this is that, as Richard Weaver wrote in the 1940s, ideas have consequences. No idea exists in a vaccuum, as I have often heard it said, and as such, the many and varied subversive, revisionist philosophies pervading our culture (such as secular humanism, naturalism, philosophical pluralism, and other relativistic, "postmodern" worldviews) are not unrelated, and the homosexual movement is not under attack because homosexuality is some kind of harmless personal choice. People are opposed to the legitimation of homosexuality because the larger issue is upholding some sort of foundation for reason and morality in the world, without which we succumb to total anarchy and moral wilderness (social studies have long confirmed - sometimes even reluctantly - that societies begin to fall apart without traditional families at their core). As I've said, you can't endorse homosexuality without eventually having to applaud every other imagineable vice that someone feels he/she has a right to enjoy (without the inconvenience of an "intolerant" moral standard). And you cannot follow this path of logic very far before it becomes obvious that at the end of the road is a world without an adequate basis for law or reason, because every foundation and every shred of truth and meaning has been "overturned" by the whims of an increasingly self-centered, placated, and pleasure-seeking population.
I hope I have helped to clear up what people mean by the "gay agenda."
If it's any consolation, the worldview that says it's ok for a guy to wake up in bed with two women (in other words, the worldview that says we should use each other casually and indiscriminately for our own pleasure, throwing commitment and responsibility out the window, and that as long as it "feels good," there are no consequences) is
just as damaging to the moral fiber of a civilization as the lesbian cop idea.
I'm hoping, however, that if the new Knight Rider goes to series, they will deal with these character flaws of Mike's in a way that we never got in the Eighties with Michael Knight, when it was even more acceptable to be a serial womanizer. And by that I mean, perhaps Mike will be changed from that lifestyle, which clearly doesn't bring him any happiness, and develop a real relationship with Sarah or someone else. It's good to have characters with flaws - arguably not so good to GLORIFY those flaws.
That being said, from what I hear (I missed the first half hour, but I have seen pictures and heard about it from various sources), the opening scenes of the show were very gratuitously sleazy, and for that I lost a lot of respect for the movie. I am thankful that Sarah seems to actually be a somewhat level-headed, potentially strong character (not the bimbo eye candy that they try to feed us in a lot of "entertainment" these days - think "Transformers," which I consider possibly more harmful than some more hardcore graphic material, because it's a more subtle shallowness that tries to come off as harmless, whereas the hardcore stuff pretty much never pretends to be wholesome). I like her better than Mike, as of right now, and I do think there is potential for at least decent character development in a series, though it's anybody's guess if the showrunners would actually handle it that way.
The lesbian bit seems especially offensive in this instance, however, because it is a shameless bid to be shocking (and also because "sex sells," and because lesbianism is no doubt used to sell extra well to adolescent and even immature adult males, for whom a situation like the one Mike Tracer wakes up then is the ultimate shallow fantasy) and to recklessly jump on the bandwagon to appease a culture that ignorantly celebrates rebellion against traditions without any standard of truth or reasoning to justify said rebellion. I tend to agree with the sentiment "Who cares who she sleeps with," because, after all, IT HAD NO BEARING ON THE PLOT whatsoever. As my wife just pointed out, "if it doesn't matter, then why show it?" The answer is precisely what I have outlined above - that it's not a necessarily plot element, but rather a cheap plea to be cool and hook more viewers on sex rather than on substance.
- lucid hysteria
PS - Other than this opening garbage and an anti-climactic lack of plot, I actually like the setup for a new show, and the Mustang has, to my surprise, grown on me quite a bit (including the great voice by Val Kilmer, who is not my favorite actor by far, heh) - this just goes to show that I need to listen to Mike Pajaro more often (which I should have already known from his years of KR wisdom) and not jump to conclusions. Hopefully the stories will be more exciting if the show gets picked up, and maybe the acting will improve, as well, heh.
I'm sure anyone older than 12 at the time had similar criticisms of the original show.