The bulk of the movie is made up of the families' stories and struggles in accepting their loved ones' homosexuality. Some families are more accepting than others. For some, like the Wallner family, acceptance comes too late. Ms Wallner's daughter committed suicide before the two could reconcile. Others, like the Reitan family, are positively transformed by the coming out of one of their children. The Reitans became gay-rights activists, and Mary Lou Wallner went on to found TEACH Ministries. However, the movie also touches on some important aspects of Christianity's rejection of homosexuals. Alternate readings of the biblical passages dealing with homosexuality are briefly dealth with, in particular the passage which calls homosexuality an abomination and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here's a taste (at the 1:24 mark):
The main argument, however, isn't in the possible alternate readings. The movie critisizes literalist approaches to the Bible, making the case that the Bible must be read with an understanding and consideration of the cultural context in which it was written. It also points out the way the Church tends to essencialize LGBT people by focusing solely on their sexuality, ignoring the fact that they are human beings deserving of the same love and respect granted to heterosexuals. It is argued that Christians who follow the Bible on this particular rule, but not on all the others, à la Jacobs, are picking and choosing passages to follow. Another thing the film rejects is the static view of religion adopted by anti-homosexual churches, which doesn't account for the many ways in which our understanding of the Bible has changed since it was written (ex: Women are no longer acquired by their husbands as a possession would be). Ultimately, the movie is about Christian Love done right.
It's definitely a powerful film, especially toward the end. I must admit, I shed a few tears (although anyone who knows me, probably knows what a crybaby I am). Tutu, in partucular, made a very powerful statement that really sticks out in my mind, so I'm going to try and paraphrase it as best I can:
I can't imagine God telling me, "I hate you, because you're black. You should have been born white. I hate you, because you're a woman. You should have been a man. I hate you because you're homosexual. You should have been straight."
Now, I know that when Hemant profiled this movie a few months ago on Friendly Atheist, some of the commenters said they didn't want to see a movie about reconciling Christianity with homosexuality, but would rather Christianity were rejected altogether. I don't think that's the point. I think that it's about being happy, and if you're happy being Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Hindu, or any other religion (or no religion, for that matter), and you're also happy being gay, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, asexual, heterosexual etc., then noone should tell you that you have to pick one or the other, but not both. Religious belief and sexuality are both important parts of people's identities and they shouldn't be incompatible. And isn't that what Christian Love is all about - accepting and loving thy neighbour? I don't need to be a believer to know that that's the only Christianity I'd respect.
