Holler.
The trouble I am having is that I can see both points. I definitely do not think that Paul Verhoevan set out to make a movie trying to portray queers in a negative light. I agree that it's a movie about "evil." It's about how to use other peoples motivations and desires and mold them to your own desires. It's about your best poker face. At the same time, there were bisexuals/lesbians in the film and they were the evil characters. Now we didn't see the whole movie so we might have missed some parts that show those characters doing positive things, but I find that unlikely. But I agree with the director when he says, "Being gay is not the issue..." because "Rocky's" (Hehe) character could have been a guy and I think the movie would have made it just fine. But the problem with that argument is - then why wasn't it a guy? That I have no clue how to answer and can only take stabs in the dark. However, because "Rocky" was a female, it benefits our class because we can talk about penis envy and other theories. We can talk about how Michael Douglas' character might be driven by fear because if two women are in a relationship they have conquered that penis envy. If women conquer penis envy, then men are rendered useless...
...and therefore lose all this power they have over women. This idea is very important in the scene where Douglas is standing the the bathroom naked when "Rocky" walks in.
I can sympathize the points of the director and the activists, but I am leaning toward the director a little more because I don't think he made this movie to attack queers.