Brokeback Mountain

[Fireball1244]

.

 

[Fuzzy]

I haven't personally seen the movie, and I probably won't, because love stories aren't my thing. And that, according to a friend who's seen it, is what the movie ultimately is, a relationship movie, and the leads happen to be two cowboys, rather than an interracial couple, or a older person/younger person couple, or two people from different classes, or two people from different coasts, or a Montague and a Capulet.
I didn't see Jungle Fever, Creator, or Sleepless in Seattle because they're relationship movies. I did see Titanic, but that's a spectacle piece. And I did see Cast Away,
although that's more a relationship to Self.

My friend (who has done professional reviews in the past) went on to state the film has excellent cinematography, particularly because of the vistas shown, and Heath Ledger is rather laconic.

"It is about the flawed way both men try to deal with this love."

 

[Toboe]

I dislike the name of the movie more than anything else.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

I haven't personally seen the movie, and I probably won't, because love stories aren't my thing. And that, according to a friend who's seen it, is what the movie ultimately is, a relationship movie, and the leads happen to be two cowboys, rather than an interracial couple, or a older person/younger person couple, or two people from different classes, or two people from different coasts, or a Montague and a Capulet.
I didn't see Jungle Fever, Creator, or Sleepless in Seattle because they're relationship movies. I did see Titanic, but that's a spectacle piece. And I did see Cast Away,
although that's more a relationship to Self.

My friend (who has done professional reviews in the past) went on to state the film has excellent cinematography, particularly because of the vistas shown, and Heath Ledger is rather laconic.

"It is about the flawed way both men try to deal with this love."

Ah yes, the movie. Did anyone else see the movie?

 

[beechy]

You have a different definition of decent than I do. If people are going to be in a homosexual relationship, I'd prefer "don't ask, don't tell." But I'd much rather that homosexuals convert and leave their sin in the dust.

You're entitled to your preference ... just as I'm entitled to mine. Once again, I live with my partner and I'm not going to construct a web of lies to hide that situation in order to make you comfortable.

 

[Sketcher]

Then don't do it and leave those who want to do it alone. Their having anal sex hurts you in no way.

Their talking about it and publicly embracing it does. It's indecent.

Because male and female lips are different how?

Lips are not designed for kissing. They are for eating, articulating, and expressing emotion. Kissing is only a fortunate side effect of their anatomy.

We'll let God answer that question. He designed human sexuality (heterosexuality, that is) and all parts involved play a part.

You made it sound like it was the norm. A male prostitute is certainly not the norm.

If you read what I had posted, you would see that I did not.

This all sounds like a personal problem.

Again with the lack of decency. I put a spam filter on so I don't have to read iit in the email, but it's still on that auditorium sign. Bottom line is, it's indecent.

There is no real difference. "[T]

here is a considerable body of professional literature that suggests children with parents who are homosexual have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment and development as children whose parents are heterosexual."
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm

You've got your experts and studies, I have mine.

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032429.cfm

And what if the majority of the population didn't like to see black people around white people?

Moral equivalency. That's a bad comparison.

It's not a matter of courtesy. By mere whim, supported only by your personal prejudices, you're trying to dictate how others should act.

Sounds like the gay activists trying to tell me how to act, to accept their lifestyle as OK.

This is the most bigoted statement you've made today, even surpassing the implication of gays as recruiters. Homosexuality is perfectly normal. It appears at a constant rate everywhere regardless of color or creed. It is as appropriate as any other sexuality, thank you.

I base my claim on the Bible, and race has nothing to do with it. You base your claim on your personal desires.

We do tolerate your morals though. No one's forcing you to stop believing what you do. On the contrary, you advocate suppressing the ability of gay couples to display their relationships in public, denying them the right to adopt, and generally being a moral dictator.

No you don't, you're calling me a bigot by sticking to them. If I believe the holy text of my faith and put it into practice, I will speak out against homosexuality and gay adoption, as well as other sins. But my morals have become immoral in the sight of the gay pride movement.

Lots of things in the Bible are plain and obvious: slavery, genocide, subjugation of women. When it comes down to it, bigots would still be bigoted with or without the Bible to support them.

Right, but I am no bigot. I simply believe the Bible. And those three examples are taken completely out of context.

And you know what about gays and ex-gays because you've been gay for how long?

Never been, but have heard the testimony one ex gay and have heard about several more from pastors who have dealt with them. Names, etc were not revealed.

 

[beechy]

Their talking about it and publicly embracing it does. It's indecent.

What are you, a 6 year old? You're personally "hurt" by the knowledge that someone else engages in behavior you don't like? The world doesn't have to cater to your hypersensitivity.

We'll let God answer that question. He designed human sexuality (heterosexuality, that is) and all parts involved play a part.

What makes you think the mouth plays a part in sexuality? The fact that people use it that way?

Again with the lack of decency. I put a spam filter on so I don't have to read iit in the email, but it's still on that auditorium sign. Bottom line is, it's indecent.

Again, where does it say that you have a right to only be made aware of ideas that make you comfortable?

Moral equivalency. That's a bad comparison.

The point is simply, just because people want something (like gay people to go away) doesn't make it right, or mean they should get what they want.

Sounds like the gay activists trying to tell me how to act, to accept their lifestyle as OK.

I'm not telling you to accept my lifestyle, I'm just telling you that I'm not going to hide it. You don't have to like it.

I base my claim on the Bible, and race has nothing to do with it. You base your claim on your personal desires.

You have no idea what Arnold bases his claim on. I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible (different debate for a different thread). I base my claim on freedom to pursue one's happiness.

No you don't, you're calling me a bigot by sticking to them. If I believe the holy text of my faith and put it into practice, I will speak out against homosexuality and gay adoption, as well as other sins. But my morals have become immoral in the sight of the gay pride movement.

You can talk all day about your morals. I don't care. I only care if you're going to vote in a way that aims to deprive me of my civil rights.

Right, but I am no bigot. I simply believe the Bible. And those three examples are taken completely out of context.

I could say the same thing about the verses you would cite as condemning homosexuality. But again, different debate, different thread ...

 

[Fireball1244]

Lips were made for kissing, but that's for a man and a woman only.

You do realize, of course, that non-romantic male-male kissing is very common throughout the world? Or are you as truly ethno-centric as you seen?

Fine, straight women who get amusement from it do it too. But I find it repulsive. Strip clubs sometimes feature women going at it, to the amusement of straight males. That's not right either, but if that sort of thing were advertised on a campus as the drag shows were here, there would be an outcry.

Why do you equate drag shows and strip clubs? There's no nudity in a drag show, nor is there any sex. It's just men dressed up like women dancing on a stage and singing. In fact, a lot of the time they're not singing, they're just lip-syncing. Where's the sex in that?

And plenty of straight men enjoy drag shows. Don't pretend it's just a gay thing or a straight woman thing.

First, gay couples should not adopt children because children need one mother and one father.

The kids they're adopting have neither. It's preferable that a kid grow up in an institution to growing up with two loving and supporting same-gendered parents?

Second, the very nature of homosexuality is disgusting to me, and the vast majority of the population, so we don't want to see any of it.

You're way off on that. Polling shows that even the most controversial of the rights sought by the gay community -- marriage equality -- is opposed by but a bare majority of the population. So to argue that the "vast majority" are "disgusted" by homosexuals is just flat out inaccurate.

Gay pride is not about tolerance, otherwise it would be tolerant of other people's morals.

How, precisely, am I not tolerating your morals? Must I hide my relationship from any sort of public view in order to be "tolerant" of you? Wouldn't tolerance be meeting halfway? I don't try to change your church, your beliefs, your life. All I want is equality under the law and the ability to safely live my life with my partner just as any straight person lives his life with his spouse.

What the Bible says about it is plain and obvious.

The Bible is rarely plain, and inoften obvious, but rarely as it unobvious and unplain as on the topic of sexuality.

 

[Sphere]

Look at the stats I posted earlier.

Your stats are irrelevant. You say homosexuals lack self-discipline. That pretty much stamps out any credibility you might of had.

Nature itself became corrupt because of the fall of man. Besides, we're focusing on human behavior, so let's limit it to humans. A basic understanding of the human sex organs shows that they were made for each other. However, the anus is not one of them.

Nice cop-out you gave there. Care to answer my question? Homosexuality is seen in nature. Various birds and primates practice it. Do these animals have free will--and thus go against nature? A yes / no answer will be just wonderful.

The worst of them do recruit young boys, but that's another point.

What are you suggesting now? Pedophilia? Another stereotype has shown itself. Your point is pretty clear. Youre intentions are to vilify homosexuals--out of sheer ignorance.

Part of their culture is drag shows, which they promote.

Not all of them. Why dont you put that brush away.

Thus they are looking to expand their culture by making drag shows morally acceptable. There's a huge difference between a gay couple that tells me they're gay and leave it at that, and gay people making their behavior public, such as advertising drag shows.

[/quote]

Who cares? Heteosexuals have their own shows that they promote. Are you under the impression that you'll "give in" and go to one of those drag shows because they're promoted so much? I think there's more to your emotions than meets the eye.

I know what the Bible says about homosexuality, and the Bible has proven itself right time and again on various subjects in my life personally. I have sinful thoughts all the time, I know it's against my instincts to obey Scripture rather than carry them out. But it's something I need to do nonetheless. Christians who are tempted with homosexuality have to do the same thing, I'm just treating all sins as equal.

Good, then use the bible to lead your life, and your life alone. The second you begin using the bible to hurt other people and impose your religion on them is when you are wrong.

You don't become a good person before Jesus will accept you, it doesn't work that way.

100% comedy. Are you suggesting that no one can truely be "good" unless they accept jesus? And on the contrary, that anyone who accepts jesus is "good"? This just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Sphere]

First, gay couples should not adopt children because children need one mother and one father.

You have no authority, nor credentials to determine what a child needs to grow up healthy and normal. The American Psychological Assosication approves of gays adopting children. You literally invented the above statement.

Second, the very nature of homosexuality is disgusting to me, and the vast majority of the population, so we don't want to see any of it.

There is REALLY more to this situation than meets the eye. Im sure plenty of people find it distasteful(like me), but if you honestly cannot handle two men holding hands in public, you need to seek help. Seriously.

No common courtesy, I see.

Nope, I havent seen you show much.

Heterosexuality is appropriate human sexuality.

You have nothing to back this statement up.

Gay pride is not about tolerance, otherwise it would be tolerant of other people's morals.

....this of course was said after you suggested they will burn in hell and you dont want to see it. Yep, very "tolerant" of you.

What the Bible says about it is plain and obvious. You can try to do mental gymnastics around it to justify the behavior, but I hope you'll see the truth before the end.

And of course, it's not complete without a little brimestone and fire to scare those homosexuals straight.

 

[Sphere]

Their talking about it and publicly embracing it does. It's indecent.

Like I said, if you cant handle them hugging or talking about it, you have a serious problem and need to seek help. You should not be living in fear or have an obsession over something you find "evil".

We'll let God answer that question. He designed human sexuality (heterosexuality, that is) and all parts involved play a part.

Question again:

Animals practice homosexuality in nature. Do those animals have free will and thus sin against god? Yes / No.

Again with the lack of decency. I put a spam filter on so I don't have to read iit in the email, but it's still on that auditorium sign. Bottom line is, it's indecent.

No, seriously. You do have a problem if you're incapable of seeing even small trivial things like hand holding and hugging in public.

Moral equivalency. That's a bad comparison.

cop-out

Sounds like the gay activists trying to tell me how to act, to accept their lifestyle as OK.

They arent telling you how to act. Are you really concerned you will convert to be a homosexual by being around a few gay people? You REALLY need help.

No you don't, you're calling me a bigot by sticking to them. If I believe the holy text of my faith and put it into practice, I will speak out against homosexuality and gay adoption, as well as other sins. But my morals have become immoral in the sight of the gay pride movement.

No, there is more to this situation than just the bible. You clearly have a deep inner problem regarding homosexuals.

Right, but I am no bigot. I simply believe the Bible. And those three examples are taken completely out of context.

You dislike them for what they are--rather than who they are.

That makes you a bigot.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

No, you people are promoting the behavior itself. And we find that disgusting. Don't try to tell me that you're about tolerance when you're promoting the behavior itself, going public with it and calling us bigots when our stomachs naturally turn. Decent heterosexual couples keep their sex in the bedroom, I wish you people would do the same.

Ah, yes--"those people." The organised, single-minded international conspiracy group that are homosexuals. I am actually personally offended by the fact that you would refer to another poster and other homosexuals as "you people." I cannot see how it would acceptable to tell Austrians, caucasians, males or heterosexuals that "you people" hate Jews just because Hitler happened to be those things...it is no more acceptable to refer to a homosexual and others as "you people", and assume you know their minds because you know the actions of other homosexuals.

Decent heterosexual couples keep their sex in the bedroom.

Turned on the TV, seen a film, read a newspaper or walked passed a billboard recently? Unless of course you're making the distinction between 'decent' and not heterosexuals. But then I was under the impression from the rest of your post that no seperate strata or substrata exists within people of the same sexuality, in your opinion? Because apparently there is a perfectly unified, borg-like monolithic group of homosexuals, warranting the judging of perfect strangers based upon their sexuality and your experience alone...

 

[Nanee5]

Thank God someone still agrees with God that homosexuality is a sin,not only does the Bible say that,but calls this PERVERSION an ABOMINATION,gee that sounds like it turns God's stomach!

AMEN, AMEN, and AMEN!!!!

 

[outlaw]

You've got your experts and studies, I have mine.

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032429.cfm

Someone who promotes hate and who is so desperate to do so he has to lie about the group he is advocating hate for is not an expert but rather a bigot.





the REAL experts show you and Dobson wrong:



“the results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren)” parents or their children.”

And:

”studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian mothers and children
of heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment. The roughly equivalent level of psychological well-being between the two groups holds true in studies that test children directly, rely on parents’ reports, and solicit evaluations from teachers. The few significant differences found actually tend to favor children with lesbian mothers Given some credible evidence that children with gay and lesbian parents, especially adolescent children, face homophobic teasing and ridicule that many find difficult to manage (Tasker and Golombok 1997; also see Bozett 1989:148; Mitchell 1998), the children in these studies seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength.”


It is true that children raised by same sex parents are not identical to children raised by heterosexual parents. It seems that children raised by same sex parents feel that they have few limitations placed on their careers of choice:

“daughters of lesbian mothers reported greater interest in activities associated with both “masculine” and “feminine” qualities and that involve the participation of both sexes, whereas daughters of heterosexual mothers report significantly greater interest in traditionally feminine, same-sex activities (also see Hotvedt and Mandel 1982). Similarly, daughters with lesbian mothers reported higher aspirations to nontraditional gender occupations (Steckel 1987). For example, in R. Green et al. (1986), 53 percent (16 out of 30) of the daughters of lesbians aspired to careers such as doctor, lawyer, engineer, and astronaut, compared with only 21 percent (6 of 28) of the daughters of heterosexual mothers.”

As for the implied but unstated assertion that children raised by same sex parents are more likely to be gay and lesbian Stacy and Biblarz concluded:

“these young adults … were not statistically more likely to self-identify as bisexual, lesbian, or gay. To be coded as such, the respondent not only had to currently self-identify as bisexual/lesbian/gay, but also to express a commitment to that identity in the future.”


Stacey and Biblarz “(How) Does Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” American Sociological Review, 2001, Vol. 66 (April:159–183) 159

 

[outlaw]

AMEN, AMEN, and AMEN!!!!

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10-12)

 

[Moros]

Eh, gay cowboys. Everybody knows, not everyone needs to see.

 

[Nanee5]

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10-12)

And your point is??????

 

[wanderingone]

And your point is??????

I would think the point to be there are a number of "abominations" in the Bible.. and often those who say God thinks homosexuality is abomination have no problem eating ordering lobster or steaming up some crab....

 

[Electric Sceptic]

And your point is??????

The point's pretty obvious...people are so quick to call homosexuality an 'abomination', but they ignore (and actually do) any number of other things that the bible calls abomination. It's hypocrisy.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I've read the story. I'd like to see it, but it isn't playing anywhere near me yet.