Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on January 13, 2006, 05:07:55 PM
-
Roy and Gabby were never like this.
"Happy Tails" isn't the theme song, is it?
All levity aside, how do Wyoming natives feel about this book and the film it produced, considering that the author is from a liberal state back east and only moved to Wyoming in 1995?
-
I dunno but it adds a new definition to the term "buck fever" I'll never see the film. it goes into the same catergory as a michelle moore or silly chick flick like "sleepless in seatle". that would be the eschew at all cost category for me.
-
Yee HAW! that feels good, man :rofl
-
...should have named it Bareback Mountain......
FWIW, I found this review about it, which made alot of sense to me (Shrugs) For short with short attention spans, read the bold areas below.
The Rape of the Marlboro Man:
The "Marlboro Man" campaign launched 50 years ago. Today, the powerful cowboy image is being used to sell us on another self-destructive product: homosexual sex and "gay" marriage.
Editor's note: Recently, WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, author of the best-selling book, "The Marketing of Evil," was widely quoted in the news media for his criticism of the new film "Brokeback Mountain." Here, Kupelian explains how and why the controversial movie is one of the most powerful homosexual propaganda films of our time.
c. 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
"Brokeback Mountain," the controversial "gay cowboy" film that has garnered seven Golden Globe nominations and breathless media reviews -- and has now emerged as a front-runner for the Oscars -- is a brilliant propaganda film, reportedly causing viewers to change the way they feel about homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage.
And how do the movie-makers pull off such a dazzling feat? Simple. They do it by raping the "Marlboro Man," that revered American symbol of rugged individualism and masculinity.
We all know the Marlboro Man. In "The Marketing of Evil," I show how the Philip Morris Company made marketing history by taking one of the most positive American images of all time - the cowboy - and attaching it to a negative, death-oriented product --cigarettes.
Hit the pause button for a moment so this idea can completely sink in: Cigarette marketers cleverly attached, in the public's mind, two utterly unrelated things: 1) the American cowboy, with all of the powerful feelings that image evokes in us, of independence, self-confidence, wide-open spaces and authentic Americanism, and 2) cigarettes, a stinky, health-destroying waste of money. This legendary advertising campaign targeting men succeeded in transforming market underdog Marlboro (up until then, sold as a women's cigarette with the slogan "Mild as May") into the world's best-selling cigarette.
It was all part of the modern marketing revolution, which meant that, instead of touting a product's actual benefits, marketers instead would psychologically manipulate the public by associating their product with the fulfillment of people's deepest, unconscious needs and desires. (Want to sell liquor? Put a seductive woman in the ad.) Obviously, the marketers could never actually deliver on that promise ? but emotional manipulation sure is an effective way to sell a lot of products.
The "Marlboro Man" campaign launched 50 years ago. Today, the powerful cowboy image is being used to sell us on another self-destructive product: homosexual sex and "gay" marriage.
'People's minds have been changed'
In "Brokeback Mountain," a film adaptation of the 1997 New Yorker short story by Annie Proulx, two 19-year-old ranchers named Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) have been hired to guard sheep on a rugged mountain in 1963 Wyoming. One night, the bitter cold drives Ennis into Jack's tent so they can keep each other warm. As they lie there, suddenly and almost without warning, these two young men ? both of whom later insist they're not "queer" ? jump out of the sack and awkwardly and violently engage in anal sex.
Too embarrassed the next morning even to talk about it, Ennis and Jack dismiss their sexual encounter as a "one-shot deal" and part company at the end of the sheepherding job. Ennis marries his fianc***39264;Alma (Michelle Williams, Ledger's real-life girlfriend) while Jack marries female rodeo rider and prom queen Lureen (Anne Hathaway). Each family has children.
Four years later, Jack sends Ennis a postcard saying he's coming to town for a visit. When the moment finally arrives, Ennis, barely able to contain his anticipation, rushes outside to meet Jack and the two men passionately embrace and kiss. Ennis's wife sadly witnesses everything through the screen door. (Since this is one of the film's sadder moments, I wasn't quite sure why the audience in the Portland, Oregon, theater burst out in laughter at Alma's heartbreaking realization.)
From that point on, over the next two decades Ennis and Jack take off together on periodic "fishing trips" at Brokeback Mountain, where no fishing actually takes place. During these adulterous homosexual affairs, Jack suggests they buy a ranch where the two can live happily ever after, presumably abandoning their wives and children. Ennis, however, is afraid, haunted by a traumatic childhood memory: It seems his father had tried to inoculate him against homosexuality by taking him to see the brutalized, castrated, dead body of a rancher who had lived together with another man ? until murderous, bigoted neighbors committed the gruesome hate crime.
Eventually, life with Ennis becomes intolerable and Alma divorces him, while Lureen, absorbed with the family business, only suspects Jack's secret as they drift further and further apart. When, toward the end of the story, Jack dies in a freak accident (his wife tells Ennis a tire blew up while Jack was changing it, propelling the hubcap into his face and killing him), Ennis wonders whether Jack actually met the same brutal fate as the castrated "gay" cowboy of his youth.
Ultimately, Ennis ends up alone, with nothing, living in a small, secluded trailer, having lost both his family and his homosexual partner. He's comforted only by his most precious possession -- Jack's shirt -- which he pitifully embraces, almost in a slow dance, his aching loneliness masterfully projected into the audience via the film's artistry.
Yes, the talents of Hollywood's finest are brought together in a successful attempt at making us experience Ennis's suffering, supposedly inflicted by a homophobic society. Heath Ledger's performance is brilliant and devastating. We do indeed leave the theater feeling Ennis's pain. Mission accomplished.
Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis's suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him?
What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in "Brokeback Mountain."
What is important to the moviemakers, rather, is that the viewer be made to feel, and feel, and feel again as deeply as possible the exquisitely painful loneliness and heartache of the homosexual cowboys ? denied their truest happiness because of an ignorant and homophobic society.
Thus are the Judeo-Christian moral values that formed the very foundation and substance of Western culture for the past three millennia all swept away on a delicious tide of manufactured emotion. And believe me, skilled directors and actors can manufacture emotion by the truckload. It's what they do for a living.
Co-star Jake Gyllenhaal realized the movie's power to transform audiences in Toronto, where, according to Entertainment magazine, "he was approached by festival-goers proclaiming that their preconceptions had been shattered by the film's insistence on humanizing gay love."
"Brokeback Mountain," said Gyllenhaal, "is that pure place you take someone that's free of judgment. These guys were scared. What they feared was not each other but what was outside of each other. What was so sad was that it didn't have to happen like that." But then, said the article, Gyllenhaal jumped to his feel and exclaimed triumphantly: "I mean, people's minds have been changed. That's amazing."
Changed indeed. And that's the goal. Film is, by its very nature, highly propagandistic. That is, when you read a book, if you detect you're being lied to or manipulated, you can always stop reading, close the book momentarily and say, "Wait just a minute, there's something wrong here!" You can't do that in a film: You're bombarded with sound and images, all expertly crafted to give you selected information and to stimulate certain feelings, and you can't stop the barrage, not in a theater anyway. The visuals and sound and music ? and along with them, the underlying agenda of the filmmakers ? pursue you relentlessly, overwhelming your emotions and senses.
And when you leave the theater, unless you're really objective to what you've experienced, you've been changed ? even if just a little bit.
Want to know how easily your feelings can be manipulated? Let's take the smallest, most seemingly insignificant example and see. Sit down at a piano and play a song, any song ? even "Mary Had a Little Lamb" ? as long as it's in a major key. Then, play the same song, but change from a major to a minor key; just lower the third step of the scale by a half-step so the melody and harmony become minor. If you watch carefully, you'll note this one tiny change makes the minor-key version sound a bit melancholy and sad, while the normal, major-key version sounds bright and happy. (As the expression goes, "Major glad, minor sad.")
Cont...
-
cont from previous post
Now take this principle and apply it to a feature film by expanding it a million-fold. A movie's musical score has one overriding function ? to make the viewer feel a certain way at strategic points during the story. And music is just one of dozens of factors and techniques used to influence audiences in the deepest way possible. Everything from the script to the directing to the camera work to the acting, which in "Brokeback Mountain" is brilliant, serve the purpose of making the movie-makers' vision seem like reality ? even if it's twisted and perverse.
Do we understand that Hollywood could easily produce a similar movie to "Brokeback Mountain," only this time glorifying an incest relationship, or even an adult-child sexual relationship? Like "Brokeback," it too would serve to desensitize us to the immoral and destructive reality of what we're seeing, while fervently coaxing us into embracing that which we once rightly shunned.
All the filmmakers would need to do is skillfully make viewers experience the actors' powerful emotions of loneliness and emptiness ? juxtaposed with feelings of joy and fulfillment when the two "lovers" are together ? to bring us to a new level of "understanding" for any forbidden "love." Alongside this, of course, they would necessarily portray those opposed to this unorthodox "love" as Nazis or thugs. Thus, many of us would let go of our "old-fashioned" biblical ideas of morality in light of what seems like the more imminent and undeniable reality of human love in all its diverse forms.
A "Brokeback"-type movie could easily be made, for instance, to portray a female school teacher's affair with a 14-year-old student as "a magnificent love story." And I'm not talking about the 2000 made-for-TV potboiler, "All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story," about the Seattle school teacher who seduced a sixth-grade student, went to prison for statutory rape, and later married the boy having had two children by him. I'm talking about a big-budget, big-name Hollywood masterpiece aimed at transforming America through film, just as Hitler relied on master filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl to make propaganda films to manipulate the emotions of an entire nation...
In an age when the fight over gay marriage still rages, 'Brokeback Mountain,' the tale of two men who are scarcely even allowed to imagine being together, asks, through the very purity with which it touches us: When it comes to love, what sort of world do we really want?"
OK, I'll bite. Let's talk about love. The critics call "Brokeback Mountain" a "pure" and "magnificent" love story. Do we really want to call such an obsession ? especially one that destroys marriages and is based on constant lies, deceit and neglect of one's children ? "love"?
What if I were a heroin addict and told you I loved my drug dealer? What if I told you he always makes me feel good, and that I have a hard time living without him, and that I think about him all the time with warm feelings of anticipation and inner completion? And that whenever we get together, it's the only time I feel truly happy and at peace with myself?
Oh, you don't approve of my "love"? You dare to criticize it, telling me my relationship with my drug dealer is not real love, but just an unhealthy addiction? What if I respond to you by saying, "Oh shut up, you hater. How dare you impose your sick, narrow-minded, oppressive values on me? Who are you, you pinch-faced, moralistic hypocrite, to define for me what real love is?"
...Ultimately, propaganda works because it washes over us, overwhelming our senses, confusing us, upsetting or emotionalizing us, and thereby making us doubt what we once knew. Listen to what actor Jake Gyllenhaal, who plays Jack, told the reporter for Entertainment magazine about doing the "love" scenes with Heath Ledger:
"I was super uncomfortable ? [but] what made me most courageous was that I realized I had to try to let go of that stereotype I had in my mind, that bit of homophobia, and try for a second to be vulnerable and sensitive. It was f---in' hard, man. I succeeded only for milliseconds."
Gyllenhaal thinks he was "super uncomfortable" while being filmed having simulated homosexual sex because of his own "homophobia." Could it be, rather, that his conflict resulted from putting himself in a position, having agreed to do the film, where he was required to violate his own conscience? As so often happens, he was tricked into pushing past invisible internal barriers ? crossing a line he wasn't meant to cross. It's called seduction.
This is how the "marketers of evil" work on all of us. They transform our attitudes by making us feel as though our "super uncomfortable" feelings toward embracing unnatural or corrupt behavior of whatever sort ? a discomfort literally put into us by a loving God, for our protection ? somehow represent ignorance or bigotry or weakness.
I wrote "The Marketing of Evil" to expose these people, and especially to reveal the hidden techniques they've been using for decades to confuse us, to manipulate our feelings and get us to doubt and turn our backs on the truth we once knew and loved. Indeed, whether they're outright lying to us, or ridiculing us for our traditional beliefs, or trying to make us feel guilty over some supposed bigotry on our part, the "marketers of evil" can prevail simply by intimidating or emotionally stirring us up in one way or another. Once that happens, we can easily become confused and lose the inborn understanding God gave us. We all need that inner understanding or common sense, because it's our primary protection from all the evil influences in this world.
As I said at the outset, Hollywood has now raped the Marlboro Man. It has taken a revered symbol of America ? the cowboy ? with all the powerful emotions and associations that are rooted deep down in the pioneering American soul, and grafted onto it a self-destructive lifestyle it wants to force down Americans' throats. The result is a brazen propaganda vehicle designed to replace the reservations most Americans still have toward homosexuality with powerful feelings of sympathy, guilt over past "homophobia" ? and ultimately the complete and utter acceptance of homosexuality as equivalent in every way to heterosexuality.
If and when that day comes, America will have totally abandoned its core biblical principles --as well as the Author of those principles. The radical secularists will have gotten their wish, and this nation-- like the traditional cowboy characters corrupted in "Brokeback Mountain" -- will have stumbled down a sad, self-destructive and ultimately disastrous road.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
...should have named it Bareback Mountain......
FWIW, I found this review about it, which made alot of sense to me (Shrugs) For short with short attention spans, read the bold areas below.
Cont...
In other words, you don't have an informed opinion of your own.
It's okay. I don't either. I've seen enough episodes of Six Feet Under that I don't think the movie would shock or surprise me. I have no interest in love stories, whether they're with Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant or Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllensomethingorother.
-
Good article. He's right. It's nothing more than propaganda pushing an agenda.
On a side note, putting the word back in the title of a film about two gay guys is just asking for it if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
In other words, you don't have an informed opinion of your own.
It's okay. I don't either. I've seen enough episodes of Six Feet Under that I don't think the movie would shock or surprise me. I have no interest in love stories, whether they're with Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant or Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllensomethingorother.
Its not lack of an informed opinion, but rather that others out there feel the same way I do about this movie...hollywood agenda. But you know what the left would say..."You're a homophobe...you're a bigot!" Yeah, okay, guess I am then. :rolleyes: Sticking your unit up some guys hersey highway is as disgusting as it gets, but then again, I'm normal...
-
Sandman, I shore wish I knew how to quit you...
You're always a snipin' at Ripsnort
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Sandman, I shore wish I knew how to quit you...
You're always a snipin' at Ripsnort
He does in a kind, gentle way though...I could still have beers with Sandy, stroll on the beach....be the pitcher, he the catcher...:confused:
-
As far as I can tell Hollywood has just one agenda. $$$
Most movies are populist cultural ****.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
As far as I can tell Hollywood has just one agenda. $$$
Most movies are populist cultural ****.
True enough, but there are alot of gays in Hollywood/showbiz, so they still have an agenda...
-
The "Cowboy" is an American Icon...
To make a movie about gay cowboys is just dusgusting.
-
I am confused, is this an anti movie, or anti gay thing? Or neither. could someone bring me up to date on exactly what the current discussion is about.
-
Originally posted by FuBaR
I am confused, is this an anti movie, or anti gay thing? Or neither. could someone bring me up to date on exactly what the current discussion is about.
Well my stance is anti-movie and anti-gay. not sure where it's going or what the thread is doing. I just dropped my 2 cents.
-
Originally posted by FuBaR
I am confused, is this an anti movie, or anti gay thing? Or neither. could someone bring me up to date on exactly what the current discussion is about.
Do you mean the movie or the thread? The movie is pro-gay, supposed to make you feel sorry for gay men (We're VICTIMS! The left loves that line...), and its subliminal message to to vote for gay marriage.
In "Brokeback Mountain," a film adaptation of the 1997 New Yorker short story by Annie Proulx, two 19-year-old ranchers named Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) have been hired to guard sheep on a rugged mountain in 1963 Wyoming. One night, the bitter cold drives Ennis into Jack's tent so they can keep each other warm. As they lie there, suddenly and almost without warning, these two young men ? both of whom later insist they're not "queer" ? jump out of the sack and awkwardly and violently engage in anal sex.
Too embarrassed the next morning even to talk about it, Ennis and Jack dismiss their sexual encounter as a "one-shot deal" and part company at the end of the sheepherding job. Ennis marries his fianc***39264;Alma (Michelle Williams, Ledger's real-life girlfriend) while Jack marries female rodeo rider and prom queen Lureen (Anne Hathaway). Each family has children.
Four years later, Jack sends Ennis a postcard saying he's coming to town for a visit. When the moment finally arrives, Ennis, barely able to contain his anticipation, rushes outside to meet Jack and the two men passionately embrace and kiss. Ennis's wife sadly witnesses everything through the screen door. (Since this is one of the film's sadder moments, I wasn't quite sure why the audience in the Portland, Oregon, theater burst out in laughter at Alma's heartbreaking realization.)
From that point on, over the next two decades Ennis and Jack take off together on periodic "fishing trips" at Brokeback Mountain, where no fishing actually takes place. During these adulterous homosexual affairs, Jack suggests they buy a ranch where the two can live happily ever after, presumably abandoning their wives and children. Ennis, however, is afraid, haunted by a traumatic childhood memory: It seems his father had tried to inoculate him against homosexuality by taking him to see the brutalized, castrated, dead body of a rancher who had lived together with another man ? until murderous, bigoted neighbors committed the gruesome hate crime.
Eventually, life with Ennis becomes intolerable and Alma divorces him, while Lureen, absorbed with the family business, only suspects Jack's secret as they drift further and further apart. When, toward the end of the story, Jack dies in a freak accident (his wife tells Ennis a tire blew up while Jack was changing it, propelling the hubcap into his face and killing him), Ennis wonders whether Jack actually met the same brutal fate as the castrated "gay" cowboy of his youth.
Ultimately, Ennis ends up alone, with nothing, living in a small, secluded trailer, having lost both his family and his homosexual partner. He's comforted only by his most precious possession -- Jack's shirt -- which he pitifully embraces, almost in a slow dance, his aching loneliness masterfully projected into the audience via the film's artistry.
-
I didn't see the movie, but a friend who's views I trust saw it. He told me it was very sad, as in 'tearjerker', and not in the realm of promoting gay agenda because it shows extreamly negative consequences rather than glorifying gays.
I'm just tired of all the gay stuff going on everywhere, like its the most important thing in the world...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Its pro-gay, supposed to make you feel sorry for gay men, and its subliminal message to to vote for gay marriage.
Well in that case I guess Ill say, none of you know anything about gay men, I have a brother who is gay. He is no different than anyone I know other than those who make it a problem. If you asked me if I felt sorry for gays I would answer... I feel as sorry for gays as I do blacks, arabs, mexicans, asians, and even whites. I cannot understand why people wont mind their own business instead of making gays so differently viewed.
P.S. I love my brother just as much as before I knew he was gay, he is my brother and nothing will make see him as anything less than my brother.
PS hollywood lesbians are Fin hot.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I didn't see the movie, but a friend who's views I trust saw it. He told me it was very sad, as in 'tearjerker', and not in the realm of promoting gay agenda because it shows extreamly negative consequences rather than glorifying gays.
I'm just tired of all the gay stuff going on everywhere, like its the most important thing in the world...
The gays are forcing it to be the most important topic. They should stay in the freakin' closet instead of forcing the rest of society to accept their morally depraved way of life.
-
aww...guess I'll pass. Movie about "Cowboys" Packing? Nahh.....I'll watch Sleepless in Seattle or You've got mail.
-
Critics just love movies about gay cowboys eating pudding.
-
Was the book written after the Matthew Sheperd incident? Could be some interesting parallels.
-
[...../]
Homophobometer
-
Do they at any point in the movie eat Pudding?
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Critics just love movies about gay cowboys eating pudding.
LOL Damnit I missed yours before I posted!
-
Originally posted by FuBaR
I am confused, is this an anti movie, or anti gay thing? Or neither. could someone bring me up to date on exactly what the current discussion is about.
It's about how Hollywood is unAmerican because it's using cowboys to tell a love story between two men. I guess all the rednecks in here feel threatened by a simple movie...maybe it strikes too close to home for them =)
ack-ack
-
So the real deal is... Some of you folks won't see a very well made and well written movie simply because of the subject matter.
I wonder how many of those same people had no qualms about seeing Saw or saw 2?
-
Why go see a movie about subject mater you do not find interesting MT?
-
They should have set the movie in the middle-east, with gay muslim camel drivers who eventually get stoned to death by their evil, non compassionate and brutal society.
-
Why do that? Releasing it here and seeing the knee jerk reactions of guys like Ripsnort is almost the same thing.
ack-ack
-
I like that movie Rudy. That lil guy sure could play football!
:noid
-
They didnt QUITE rape the cowboy image. They WERE herding SHEEP after all. I mean, what else can you expect from sheepherders?
-
Originally posted by FuBaR
Well in that case I guess Ill say, none of you know anything about gay men, I have a brother who is gay. He is no different than anyone I know other than those who make it a problem. If you asked me if I felt sorry for gays I would answer... I feel as sorry for gays as I do blacks, arabs, mexicans, asians, and even whites. I cannot understand why people wont mind their own business instead of making gays so differently viewed.
P.S. I love my brother just as much as before I knew he was gay, he is my brother and nothing will make see him as anything less than my brother.
PS hollywood lesbians are Fin hot.
No one I know views gays in a special, different view from anyone else. The whole gay movement toward marriage is nothing more than conquest of yet another sanctity of religion. I don't care if anyone's gay. That's probably the problem, they WANT the freaking attention. Why else would they march in downtowns every year in their freak costumes? Some of the most brilliant men I've met in my life were gay, but they were normal, everyday people that didn't crave attention.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
They didnt QUITE rape the cowboy image. They WERE herding SHEEP after all. I mean, what else can you expect from sheepherders?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
If it was about two gay Wyoming cowboys why was it filmed in Canada? The scenery in Wyoming is pretty spectactular...wouldn't it do for the film? Was there a backlash against the book and movie in Wyoming itself?
-
It's cheaper to film in Canada is the main reason.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
He does in a kind, gentle way though...I could still have beers with Sandy, stroll on the beach....be the pitcher, he the catcher...:confused:
Pitching or catching... it's still baseball. ;)
-
Will it be released in 3-D?:O
-
It's just a stupid movie. I can't help but laugh at all the deep analyzation of the underlying motives of the moviemakers. oooooh! Get over it. Watch it or better yet, join me in not watching it. It looks stupid, boring and gay (kind of like Gordo).
-
I haven't seen it but read some good reviews about it. What is amusing is the way some people get so worked up about gay issues like it's infectious or something. It's just a movie, get over it.
It's not something I'd normally go to anyway. I am looking forward to seeing 'jarhead'. All those rugged Marines with their weapons out!!:p :lol
There is another so called 'gay movie' coming out soon called 'Breakfast on Pluto'. I'll be going to see that mainly because I'm in it. I worked on it as an extra. It's set in the seventies and they gave me a pair of purple bellbottom trousers and a pair of boots with ridiculous heels to wear. :cry Gawd those boots were painful!
I hope you are all not going to turn against me because of that:noid
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
True enough, but there are alot of gays in Hollywood/showbiz, so they still have an agenda...
There are a lot of gays in the military as well. I wonder what their agenda is.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
There are a lot of gays in the military as well. I wonder what their agenda is.
arseless BDUs no doubt
-
If I were a Hollywood movie mogul and someone came to me for financial backing to make Brokeback Mountain, I would have turned him down for the simple reason of profit.
It seems like this movie may be big enough box office to make a decent profit, but that would not have been my guess.
I would have guessed about 90% of males will not see this movie, especially in the teen demographic. Movies like Star Wars and LOTR depend on repeat geek attendance from the teen demographic and this would be almost nil. 4% would be dragged off to the movie (reluctantly) by their women. The others are gay and would see the movie.
Half or better of the women would not see the movie, especially away from the major metros, because their guys could not be dragged kicking and screaming.
I would think limiting your demographic so severely would make it a pretty minor movie box office wise.
Studio money would be better invested showing the latest car chase and booby epic.
-
I haven't seen the movie, but I'll go out on a limb and assume that the budget was a small fraction of what was spent on the latest Star Wars.
Lower profit, but also lower risk.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I hope you are all not going to turn against me because of that:noid
Don't look now boys, but I think we've got a gay leprechaun in our midst. Hit the road cpxxx, 'cause we don't take kindly to yer kind around here!
-
Lower Risk? Hardly.
Bunjie Jumping may cost more, but sticking a fork in the light socket is still as risky.
-
There are a lot of gays in the military as well.
====
How many gays would you say are in the military?
maybe a percentage would suffice.
you think 3%?
5%
10%
75%
I mean, how many is a lot?
PS: Gay Cowboys is about as ANTI as you can get......
Actually, I dont think a cowboy can be gay and still be a cowboy. It just dont fit....
Maybe cowdude or something......
-
Heres an intersting question, and Im sure there has got to be some empiracle evidence to support the question one way or the other......
How many of the worlds air forces combat aces were/are homosexual?
Imagine a movie where two men combat aces were in love with each other.....
:huh
-
You mean like Pearl Harbor?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Lower Risk? Hardly.
Bunjie Jumping may cost more, but sticking a fork in the light socket is still as risky.
Lower financial risk. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Heres an intersting question, and Im sure there has got to be some empiracle evidence to support the question one way or the other......
How many of the worlds air forces combat aces were/are homosexual?
Imagine a movie where two men combat aces were in love with each other.....
:huh
"Roger Roger? Roger!"
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If I were a Hollywood movie mogul and someone came to me for financial backing to make Brokeback Mountain, I would have turned him down for the simple reason of profit.
It seems like this movie may be big enough box office to make a decent profit, but that would not have been my guess.
I would have guessed about 90% of males will not see this movie, especially in the teen demographic. Movies like Star Wars and LOTR depend on repeat geek attendance from the teen demographic and this would be almost nil. 4% would be dragged off to the movie (reluctantly) by their women. The others are gay and would see the movie.
Half or better of the women would not see the movie, especially away from the major metros, because their guys could not be dragged kicking and screaming.
I would think limiting your demographic so severely would make it a pretty minor movie box office wise.
Studio money would be better invested showing the latest car chase and booby epic.
That is a one of the biggest criticisms of Hollywood in general in that they are reluctant to to stray from all the obvious movie themes. The car chase and booby epic as you say. The problem is that it includes not just movies with a gay theme but in fact a lot of movies you and I might like to see. Which wouldn't be considered commercial. I personally would like to see more aviation and or WW2 air combat movies. But they wouldn't make them or if they did. They would make a shambles like 'Pearl Harbour' or make some kind strident anti war movie. I found 'Pearl Harbour' one of the most disappointing in recent years. Almost nothing rang true in it. It was like Top Gun in the forties. Top Gun was exciting but easily the most unrealistic air combat movie ever.
Quite a few hits take them by surprise. So their natural reaction is to make sequels or copies. If a dumb comedy is a hit, then they make dumb comedies. If a sword and sorcery epic is a hit then we are up to our necks in swords and sandals. But occasionally a film does turn up out of the ordinary. Usually it takes the likes of Spielberg or similar with heavy clout to make something he likes. But most of the my favourite films would never be made these days. Which is a pity.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Don't look now boys, but I think we've got a gay leprechaun in our midst. Hit the road cpxxx, 'cause we don't take kindly to yer kind around here!
But you're from Belgium? Everyone knows all Belgians are gay gnomes!
:p
-
I hadn't realised that it was compulsary to go see it...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Heres an intersting question, and Im sure there has got to be some empiracle evidence to support the question one way or the other......
How many of the worlds air forces combat aces were/are homosexual?
Imagine a movie where two men combat aces were in love with each other.....
:huh
I don't know if it would be a hit, but I got a title. Bentback Joysticks.
-
Mt... I won't be seing brokebutt mountain or "hostel" and I never seen saw or saw two and most likely never will.
For different reasons tho.. I won't see the "how to torture people and be really cool" movies because they are wrong. they are irresponsible and will probly result in people suffering and dying.
I won't see brokebutt because.... it has nothing to do with anything that interests me except the scenery.
Which brings me too.... who will watch this movie and why?
They spent a lot of money on this thing... squandered a lot of talent... Are there really that many gays in America? Who else would care? I had allways thought that gay men threatened women in the most basic way (no control over them) so I can't imagine women wanting to see it....
The type of men who like the great outdoors won't go to see it...
Who does that leave?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I haven't seen the movie, but I'll go out on a limb and assume that the budget was a small fraction of what was spent on the latest Star Wars.
Lower profit, but also lower risk.
The original Star Wars was a comparitively low budget movie: about 30 million in todays dollars.
The reason I brought it up was to say that your typical 16 year old geek that would watch SW 17 times and brag about it would not be caught dead in the same multiplex where Brokeback is playing, even if he were gay.
-
More interesting than the movie (by far) will be the inevitable analysis of the types of people who went to see it.
Who will go? Probly a lot of gays first off but not all. some fans of the stars or the director or people who still haven't figured out what the movie is about...Some guys who's wife/girlfriend thinks it is a good movie for their boyfriends/husbands to see?
What straight guy will really go to this movie? and... why?
lazs
-
I think my wife is beginning to understand not only how MY mind works, but how the rest of us poor sick bastiges think as well.
And I'm scared.
I had a big problem with the basic premise of this movie. That two guys ........ normal, attracted to women, no thoughts of being attracted to a man; that these two guys could find themselves huddled together for warmth against the forces of nature (basically freezin their damn balls off) and suddenly at some point during the night one develops an incurable desire to have someone stick a noodle up his prettythang. And that the other one (at the same time) develops a desire to do JUST THAT. I mean, come on. I dont care how well acted it is, I just cant get past that part and make it believeable. Maybe its just because I'm not gay, I dont know.
Anyway, so I'm talking to my wife about this at dinner last night, and she looks at me and says "Maybe the poor guy was wearing a sheepskin coat? They were herding sheep right? Heck, maybe they even SKINNED a sheep to keep warm, and the smell of the wool confused them."
Besides bringing me beer, putting up with my gaming and my guns and reloading equipment laying around, now she comes up with this? I didnt know whether to run like hell or not. I opted for sex first. I'll decide on the running later. :aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The reason I brought it up was to say that your typical 16 year old geek that would watch SW 17 times and brag about it would not be caught dead in the same multiplex where Brokeback is playing, even if he were gay.
This is true...but...this movie is just one salvo in the attempt to change public opinion. Today your statement makes sense. This movie is an attempt to make what is depicted in the movie as "normal". Over time, once this objective is achieved, it will then be portrayed as "cool". Then your statement will need to be reversed.
-
Originally posted by FuBaR
I cannot understand why people wont mind their own business instead of making gays so differently viewed.
I cannot understand why a lot of gays think they have to do everything but rent billboards and TV airtime to pronounce to the world that they are gay, then expect to be treated with any kind of respect or anything resembling a normal society. The male flamers priss into some place looking like a cheap Tammy Faye Baker impression can`t really expect people not to laugh and treat them different than they do everyone else. Hell, it`s a sad comedy act. If you are a male and your sexual prefernce is to do the back seat boogy with another male then it would seem to me you would do it discreetly and save yourself a lot of hassle. A lot of gay guys are not flamers and most people they come in contact with have no idea they are gay. To a lot of the male of the species, myself included, a gay male is viewed as ....well.......just pure sickening and a disgrace to the human race. To me it is viewed on the same level as a child molestor who would make a great effort to publicise that he is such, then asked to be treated with respect. Ain`t gonna happen Homer. It is unnantural and will be viewed as such by most unless you buy into the "I gotta be PC about this and kiss some serious butt to get with the crowd I wish to" .
Just curious.......but at what age did your brother decide he was gay and what do think "made" him gay?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
More interesting than the movie (by far) will be the inevitable analysis of the types of people who went to see it.
Who will go? Probly a lot of gays first off but not all. some fans of the stars or the director or people who still haven't figured out what the movie is about...Some guys who's wife/girlfriend thinks it is a good movie for their boyfriends/husbands to see?
What straight guy will really go to this movie? and... why?
lazs
I think it is much more interesting to study those who refuse to see it. Not those those who just aren't interested, but the angry homophobic idiots who are up in arms about the degredation of society yet have no problem with keeping a poster of some Nazi ace on their wall or seeing a movie about rape and torture..
You know... the ones who think they are real men.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You know... the ones who think they are real men.
So in order to prove one is a real man, one must see this movie? That's a new twist on marketing.
"Are you man enough to go see a gay cowboy movie?"
-
Well, you'd certainly need a strong stomach.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So in order to prove one is a real man, one must see this movie? That's a new twist on marketing.
"Are you man enough to go see a gay cowboy movie?"
Well that's not what I said, but it is an interesting question. Are you?
I wonder how many of you would have the juevos to go to this movie. Better yet, go with another guy. C'mon I dare ya.. buncha sissies!
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So in order to prove one is a real man, one must see this movie? That's a new twist on marketing.
"Are you man enough to go see a gay cowboy movie?"
Real Men (http://www.portalbaw.com.br/velho/vilage.jpg) :lol
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well that's not what I said, but it is an interesting question. Are you?
I wonder how many of you would have the juevos to go to this movie. Better yet, go with another guy. C'mon I dare ya.. buncha sissies!
You must work for the studio.
-
MT... Ok... fair enough. Now explain to me why I would want to see the movie. I can't think of a reason.
I don't have to suffer through a "history of rap" movie to prove I'm not a biggot. I don't have to watch gay porn to prove I'm not homophobic.
Humans empathize.. it is what we do. We see men kissing or anal sexing each other and us humans tend to put ourselves into the situation in our imagination.... Not a place I want to be. To be uncomfortable is a normal heterosexual reaction.. Homophobic isn't really a word. It is meaningless. to not want to view same sex relationships (unless they are the opposssite gender of the viewer) is completely normal..
To wish to view homsexual acts as a heterosexual is suspect.
Soo... what's in it for me? Sheep? 1960's glimpse into wyoming (or canada)... music? the acting? sorry... not enough. I naked women? action?
I am perhaps a shallow moviegoer but... I go to be entertained. I go to escape for a few hours... Brokebutt mountain is not a place I want to escape to.
I think you will go to the movie tho just to prove a point... A point that the directors and producers and advertisers of the movie have made you think is important.
sucker..
lazs
-
Actually I've not seen it nor do I intend to. Not my cup of tea either. Unless they spend 75 million on special effects I'll save time and wait for it to come to cable.
:cool:
-
see? there is nothing there for you. Who will see it? HBO will probly make a huge deal out of it and show it every other night for a couple of years... If I do happen to see it on the tube (without paying for it) I will most likely watch it till I am disgusted or bored to tears by it...
I don't think that would take too long based on what I have read or heard about it so far. Certainly, I would not waste my money on it at this point.
Soooo... Who will? What were they thinking when they made it? Do they think that it is a subject that will appeal to a broad audience?
Are they not capitalists? don't they want to spend the least amount of money to get the highest return?
Who will go to see it? Are they counting on huge cable tv revinues from it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Actually I've not seen it nor do I intend to.
Homophobe!
I am not going to see it for the simple reason that I hate horses. Friggen horses should all be shot,
-
Racist
-
Average rank of #7...that doesn't seem too bad.
http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/57/2457/boxoffice/
-
sob.... 7th against what? all the others were low budget art house movies that they showed "opened against" except "nardia" which grosed a little over ten times as much as brokenbutt and the geisha movie that is considered a disaster for sony and still grossed allmost twice as much as brokenbut.... which is falling off the charts radically even as we speak..
lazs
-
OK, well in comparison, it's currently at the same level as Serenity...
http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/08/2508/boxoffice/
-
fair enough but....
I don't think half as much was spent on sernenity.... 40 gay international awards awarder award makers who never seen it didn't give serenity the highest awards ever given to a movie they had never seen before and...
It didn't have name brand actors or directors or producers (unless you were a fan) and..
How many previews for serenity did you see? How much publicity did it get?
How much talent and name brand actors, producers directors etc were lavished on it?
brokebutt pulled out all the stops and this is the best they can do? the agenda doesn't seem to be selling sooooo....
we are still left with..... why did they do it?
lazs
-
butt sex and then all day horseback riding just doesn't seem to go together .. lol
ya think it'd be a limited audience, I mean if you aren't gay, would you go see a movie about gays? I don't watch will & grace either ...
-
(http://i21.ebayimg.com/03/i/05/9b/bc/8d_2.JPG)
Now we need a show tune called homos on the range
-
Originally posted by Gaylord
As a San Franciscian I want to go on record right now of saying I just love the Navy, and its Sailors- especially since they started wearing those cute little bell bottom pants again- and if the Navy and San Francisco can work this out and we should become the home port of the Iowa I will be on the pier every night to offer whatever comfort I can to the poor, lonely, homesick sailors- emotionally, spiritually and physically- until the Shore Patrol runs me off like they did in Long Beach.
Too bad he is banned, he would have something funny to post here.
I heard he is all over Atari's Stampede BBS these days
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I cannot understand why a lot of gays think they have to do everything but rent billboards and TV airtime to pronounce to the world that they are gay, then expect to be treated with any kind of respect or anything resembling a normal society. The male flamers priss into some place looking like a cheap Tammy Faye Baker impression can`t really expect people not to laugh and treat them different than they do everyone else. Hell, it`s a sad comedy act. If you are a male and your sexual prefernce is to do the back seat boogy with another male then it would seem to me you would do it discreetly and save yourself a lot of hassle. A lot of gay guys are not flamers and most people they come in contact with have no idea they are gay. To a lot of the male of the species, myself included, a gay male is viewed as ....well.......just pure sickening and a disgrace to the human race. To me it is viewed on the same level as a child molestor who would make a great effort to publicise that he is such, then asked to be treated with respect. Ain`t gonna happen Homer. It is unnantural and will be viewed as such by most unless you buy into the "I gotta be PC about this and kiss some serious butt to get with the crowd I wish to" .
Just curious.......but at what age did your brother decide he was gay and what do think "made" him gay?
I always had suspicions he was gay, I dont think anything "made him gay" I think with the exception of certain psychological circumstances( I am in psychology) that they are just born that way. He admitted it when he was about 18-19, But like I said I always knew or had suspiscions. He isnt a "flamer" or anything and I doubt Most people would even know he was gay unless they spent alot of time with him .
-
fair enough but....
I don't think half as much was spent on sernenity....
Brockeback Mountain: $14 Million (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=brokebackmountain.htm)
Serenity: $39 Million (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=serenity.htm)
40 gay international awards awarder award makers who never seen it didn't give serenity the highest awards ever given to a movie they had never seen before and...
I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that 40 gay organizations gave awards to Brokeback Mountain, but didn't give awards to Serenity?
It didn't have name brand actors or directors or producers (unless you were a fan) and..
Naturally it didn't, as it already had a cast made up mostly of the cast from the TV Series.
How many previews for serenity did you see? How much publicity did it get?
Not that much, but then a movie about space cowboys isn't as controversial as a movie about gay cowboys.
How much talent and name brand actors, producers directors etc were lavished on it?
Didn't you ask that already?
brokebutt pulled out all the stops and this is the best they can do? the agenda doesn't seem to be selling sooooo....
The GAY AGENDA? What was the agenda for making Serenity? If we're just counting the box office take, it lost money...surely there was some agenda for making a movie that lost money! I bet Joss Weaton is trying to gain mainstream acceptance for Reevers! But hopefully they make up the difference in DVD sales and maybe make another Serenity movie with a different secret agenda.
we are still left with..... why did they do it?
lazs
I would presume they did it to make money, as they are a business. And it looks like they succeeded in doing just that. Now all we're left with is a bunch of conspriacy theorists talking out of their tulips about the suspicious motives of movie producers over this one particular movie. Hell, where were you when they released Cheaper by the Dozen 2. I'd like to know what sinister motive was behind releasing this horrible piece of tripe on society!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
As far as I can tell Hollywood has just one agenda. $$$
Most movies are populist cultural ****.
This movie isn't about $$$, it's only in some 67 theaters nationwide (and I'd imagine vast majority of them are in New York and California) It's about the Left's agenda--they make a movie only THEY would like, then fall all over themselves assigning praise to it. Not much different from some left-wing nutburger getting the Nobel Peace Prize every year.
-
Those are production costs. I believe (I could be wrong) that Lazs was talking about advertising.
I'd be willing to bet that the advertising cost of Brokeback is much higher then Serenity. But then again, I could be wrong. I don't own a TV, but I do see higher amounts of BBM commercials then any other movie (except hostel recently).
-
Ah, I didn't think about that...that certainly seems possible - higher advertising $. All the same, my opinion of the "gay movie conspiracy" remains the same.
-
Even if it falls of the charts quickly, fails to make any real money, and is trashed by all the major critics I'll bet dollars to do-nuts the Hollywood elite will fall all over themselves to load it down with oscars.
-
And you are absolutely certain that it doesn't deserve them?
-
Are you absolutely certain it does deserve them?
-
reminds me of an old steely dan tune "show biz kids" I guess the more things change the more they stay the same
-
You heard about the sequel right? Bareback on Brokeback?
Ennis Del Mar moves to Pendleton, Oregon and gets a job in a woolen mill. The fuzzy wool fibers floating in the air and the smell of wet washed wool routinely send him into eroctic daydreams of his days of wonder with Jack. He's tragically killed while dry humping a cloth rolling mill and becoming...er... entangled and crushed to death.
Jack, upon hearing the news of Ennis's untimely death, loses it and returns to sheepherding on Brokeback Mountain. While doing his job and daydreaming of Ennis, he too becomes enthralled with the smell of wool and starts some new romances. Before long, he can no longer remember Ennis's face but does own the area's largest collection of rubber knee boots and velcro gloves.
It's kinda a happy ending as nothing to baa-aaa-aaa-aad happens once Ennis is gone.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
see? there is nothing there for you. Who will see it?
Originally posted by midnight Target
Actually I've not seen it nor do I intend to. Not my cup of tea either. Unless they spend 75 million on special effects I'll save time and wait for it to come to cable.
:cool:
Your right...I'd rather see that movie about the woman who **** teases that gorilla... :aok
Tronsky
-
Hi Sandy,
Originally posted by Sandman
As far as I can tell Hollywood has just one agenda. $$$
No offense Sandy, but that clearly isn't the case with Brokeback or even true in general. Want to make a fortune? Roll out a family friendly movie with a PG or even a G rating. Narnia, for instance, has already grossed $248 million and is back in the number 2 spot, beating out the more expensive (and more violent, but still family-ish) King Kong.
PG and G rated movies historically do much, much, better at the box office than R-rated ones that push the already stretched envelope. For instance here is the top 20 all time best grossing movies (USA):
1. Titanic (1997) $600,779,824
2. Star Wars (1977) $460,935,665
3. Shrek 2 (2004) $436,471,036
4. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459
5. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444
6. Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375
7. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $380,262,555
8. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $377,019,252
9. Spider-Man 2 (2004) $373,377,893
10. The Passion of the Christ (2004) $370,270,943
11. Jurassic Park (1993) $356,784,000
12. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) $340,478,898
13. Finding Nemo (2003) $339,714,367
14. Forrest Gump (1994) $329,691,196
15. The Lion King (1994) $328,423,001
16. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $317,557,891
17. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $313,837,577
18. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) $310,675,583
19. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) $309,125,409
20. Independence Day (1996) $306,124,059
Only one on the list is rated R, and that's the Passion. Almost every single one is Kids and Family friendly. The template for making dollars is fairly simple, the problem is Hollywood isn't going to accept it. Every year they produce a greater number of "hard" PG-13 and R rated movies even though they know they won't do as well as the softer movies.
It's not actually about bucks, it's about agendas and "art." The same applies to most sectors of the media, historically conservative and "traditional" books, radio, and news sells better nationwide than their liberal counterparts, and yet the vast majority of the largest publishing and media conglomerates are still going to push the liberal agenda and the risque content. Brokeback is no different, its design is "to do good" by promoting an idealized view of homosexuality and
even implying that as a lifestyle it is superior to the nuclear family. They'd rather go broke "making a difference for the better in America" than make money selling movies they don't believe in.
Ah well, as their respective empires came to the end of their courses both the Greek and Roman literary and artistic community attempted to do exactly the same thing. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.
- SEAGOON
-
plus Narnia had that awesome He-111 sequence in the beginning, and beserk rhinos.
Bareback is just gay cowboys, and how we are all homophobes if we dont see it.
-
The He-111 sequence was good (maybe nearly as good as Tochy's latest work, but a night attack in formation?
Thats a bit queer if you ask me
-
Gay cowboys eating pudding.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And you are absolutely certain that it doesn't deserve them?
As a film a piece of art it is from what I have heard a great movie.
But I must agree having the gay lifestyle crammed down our throats is wearing a little thin.
-
Saw the movie and thought it was good. Felt a bit squemish during the love scene and the cuddling, not as much as my evangelist girlfriend did though.
-
Seagoon,
Do you actually wear one of those "The End of The World is Here" boards, or just continually spew it on this BBS?
I don't agree with that lifestyle, although I have known, hired, and been friends with gays.
I won't see Brokeback, because a movie about a gay encounter is not for me.
But it certainly doesn't threaten the very basis of my existence nor does it threaten my morals or even the morals that I am raising my children with (which btw, is to be their own person, and to act with integrity).
We get stuff crammed downed our throats everyday (nice pun there fartwinkle). It's about if you choose to let it bother you or not. Or better yet, if you're secure enough in who you are and what you stand for then it won't be the end of the world as you know or more to the point, wish it to be.
Or even better, if you don't like it's message, then make a movie that sends a message against it.
-
fubar... one of my brothers is gay. My girlfriend has a brother who is gay. I am not gonna watch a movie about gays to make them happy... They wouldn't even ask. They know we are straight and are less than thrilled by homo displays in person or in media. That is probly why both of them live in a city with a very large gay population (frisco)
Sob... maybe the movie does deserve all the awards but you got to admit it seems suspicious 7 awards before it even comes out? How often does that happen?
It is like MLK day... maybe he is the only human being in the history of the world that deserves a seperate federal holiday forced on the states for him but... I doubt it. It smacks of silly agenda just like the movie.
Either way... it affects me little... I still get the day off wether it is some deserving pres or a guy who cheated on his wife and his doctorate... The movie doesn't affect me either... it's other peoples money and I don't have to watch it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
(http://i21.ebayimg.com/03/i/05/9b/bc/8d_2.JPG)
Now we need a show tune called homos on the range
As John Wayne rools over in his grave
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Seagoon,
Do you actually wear one of those "The End of The World is Here" boards, or just continually spew it on this BBS?
You must see different things in his post than what I see. TMHO Seagoon's posts are always well thought out and usually contain facts to back his statements up.
Lambo
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Seagoon,
Do you actually wear one of those "The End of The World is Here" boards, or just continually spew it on this BBS?
I've never seen Seagoon mention that the end of the world is here. His posts are well thought out, polite and clearly state his views. What's the problem with that?
-
Well, I've noticed it.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Well, I've noticed it.
:rofl
I bet yer panties bunch up fast enough to amputate yer legs everytime you hear the G word too.
God!
-
I bet you're wrong, pooh.
-
Brokeback is no different, its design is "to do good" by promoting an idealized view of homosexuality and even implying that as a lifestyle it is superior to the nuclear family.
You got all that from the film? Seems to me to be a film about a pair of bent cowboys rather than all out, thermo-nuclear war against the 2.4 family unit.
Maybe it is a film promoting gay love while sheep droving instead of the sub-urban 9 to 5 grind (ahem). Kudos to your literary perception, Seagoon.
-
Well, panties are bunching over this movie, but I think most of them are from the Christian right.
If it happened to be a poorly made or written movie it probably wouldn't have even been a dot on the horizon.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/brokebackmountain.html
The film has already earned seven nominations for the Golden Globes, and multiple Oscar nominations are all but certain to follow. Ledger and Williams—who both earned Globes noms—especially stand out, both conveying reams of emotion with dialogue that probably only covers a few pages. But as much as Brokeback Mountain is being touted as a groundbreaking movie for its depictions of homosexuality, it is populated with people with conventional attitudes about homosexuality. And though it's presented as a story of thwarted love—of ache and longing and regrets—it's also ultimately a story about the relationships that shape us … for better and for worse.
-
Hollywood conspiracies against the family aside, the movie itself isn't that 'powerful a story'. At least not one that hasn't been told 1,000 times in various formats (forbidden love and the strains on relationships). The acting isn't all that remarkable either.
The reason it is hailed by the Hollywood crowd is the same reasons it is attacked by Fundamentalists. Take away the homosexual aspects and 'its just another movie' that would most likely go by 'unnoticed' by most of us.
I am unsure how 'Hollywood' can launch a campaign against the nuclear family'. Whose kidnapping and forcing the 'nuclear family' to see these types of movies?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
As far as I can tell Hollywood has just one agenda. $$$
Most movies are populist cultural ****.
You ever work around these people? I MUST DISAGREE with you! There is an agenda......... makin money while getting the agenda done is just part of it.
Film "Dirty Dancing" look at it real close! Many females look upon that film as nearly sacred. Some seem to consider it the 1st female coming of age flick. What happens in it? At least 1 felony (at least it was at the time), lies, cons here own father out of some money. Statutory rape is suggested............
Film "Jungle to Jungle" look at the closing of that film. What happens? The girls parents bring her all the way to the jungle.... why? They tell you.... The boys father speaks of his son becoming a man.... he tells you how....... This message is sent out to every young person that saw it.
Many of the films that are out now do similar stuff. AND they make money.
Populist culture???? Really? OR are they helping, pushing, attempting to create a PREFERED populist culture?
-
I heard this is a movie about cowboys who become studmuffins???
Hollyweird :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I heard this is a movie about cowboys who become studmuffins???
Hollyweird :rolleyes:
Dunno, I haven't seen the movie.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
It's not actually about bucks, it's about agendas and "art." The same applies to most sectors of the media, historically conservative and "traditional" books, radio, and news sells better nationwide than their liberal counterparts, and yet the vast majority of the largest publishing and media conglomerates are still going to push the liberal agenda and the risque content.
Many "popular" productions are trash aimed at the lowest common denominator. If people think they can make a living catering to a more cerebral audience then more power to them. No-one is forcing you or your co-religionists to consume such material. As for your general assertion that the biggest media producers push a liberal agenda, lets see some figures and sources to back that up please.
Brokeback is no different, its design is "to do good" by promoting an idealized view of homosexuality and even implying that as a lifestyle it is superior to the nuclear family. They'd rather go broke "making a difference for the better in America" than make money selling movies they don't believe in.
I doubt you have any real evidence to support this somewhat paranoid view. They could just as easily be aiming to appeal to the gay demographic, which is often a lucrative market.
Ah well, as their respective empires came to the end of their courses both the Greek and Roman literary and artistic community attempted to do exactly the same thing. Truly there is nothing new under the sun.
I would dispute this. As far as we can tell the traditional greek ambivalence toward homosexuality was fairly consistent *throughout* the Hellenistic period. As for the Romans, in the later stages of the empire homsexuality was increasingly frowned upon; for example the Emperor Theodosius promulgated a law in 360CE condemning homosexuals to be burned at the stake; hardly the actions of a society becoming increasingly accepting of homosexuality. Remind us what the dominant religion was in Rome during the years of its decline anyway.
-
Momus et al,
Guys, I'm tremendously weary of running around harvesting statistics to prove that grass is green and skies are blue. The top grossing movie statistics vs. the fact that producers keep producing movies that aren't going to make mega-bucks prove the essential point that I was making, it clearly isn't only about making money. In fact, at a time when people nationwide are less inclined than ever to go out to the movies only an idiot would suggest that the problem was that there aren't enough "gay cowboy movies". Producing a movie that specifically alienates the most lucrative portion of the movie market: families with children is not exactly the answer to reinvigorating the industry.
MSNBC, the LA Times, the NY Times, the SF Chronicle and a host of other liberal news outlets owed by large media congloms, continue to lose viewers/circulation hand over fist and yet they still keep having money plowed into them and noone dares to suggest Gee, Conservative media is still growing and making money, maybe we should consider a change of content? They don't make the suggestion for exactly the same reasons that many of the posters to this board wouldn't make it - they can't stand that worldview and would rather close down than promote them. Look, I lived in NYC and D.C. and worked in media long enough to know there is a underlying desire to promote a worldview and change the views of "flyover country."
If you want to make money with a film in the gay marketplace, you make a coffee house picture and play it only in the major cities, its called targeted marketing. If you want to promote an agenda, you make a movie that idealizes that agenda and makes the alternative look awful, and then release it nationwide.
Hollywood doesn't suddenly become ragingly liberal during presidential election cycles and then just as suddenly conservative in the off season. They really aren't terribly different from the people round here, and they'd rather make money doing what they believe in. The producers who donate huge amounts of money to liberal PACs and frankly have no friends who think differently (you know, attend an evangelical church, vote republican, own guns, don't get divorced every other media cycle) have no real core interest in producing movies with conservative themes.
As for the art and literature of Greece and Rome, if you track the progress of the culture as both began to decline, you saw a progressive increase in the amount of erotica throughout the society generally. There was a palpable increase in media designed to appeal directly to the gratification of the baser senses - more bloodsports, more pornography, and so on. By the time attempts were made to curb the excesses of Rome, it was already too late, the society had become rotten to the core.
Anyway guys, I don't know whether to be amused or confused by some of the reactions to my earlier post. I simply made the point that its not about money, and that its an agenda flick (both points the mainstream media and even the McPaper for instance have made - although many described the agenda as "love and freedom and tolerance") and that our increasingly eroticised "arts" roughly parallel those of other cultures in decline, and I'm a wild-eyed street-corner looney accused of declaring its the "end of the world." Its almost as though people are reading not what I wrote, but what they believe I should have written as a stoooopid judgmental un-id-jy-cated fundymentalist bible-thumpin' preacher man.
For those of you who are doing that, would it help if I simply made posts that would fit that general caricature? It would certainly take me less time, I mean this stuff is a slam dunk viewed from a scriptural perspective.
- SEAGOON
-
The movie shows 2 men who ruin their lives and their families through forbidden love.
Great message huh? Boy howdy those hollywood libs are really sneaking one over on the rest of the country.
What the heck are you guys afraid of? No need to answer, it's obvious. You're afraid that someday people will realize that homosexuality is NOT a choice and that homosexuals should be granted the same respect as any other member of society who has consentual sex with adults. You're afraid that movies like this will increase the understanding and acceptance of the 8-10% of our society who have been ostracized and even killed for their sexual preference. You're terrified that something that is listed as an abomination in the bible might turn out to be no more of an abomination than eating shellfish.
What really sickens me is how some can call for the outright hatred of an entire group of people using religion as an excuse. " Oh no MT, we don't hate anyone, just their actions"..... which they have as much control over as you have over your breathing.
Sickening.
-
well... I hope hollywood continues to make "niche" movies... some of the things I like are not all that popular like Hot Rods or WWII aviation battles.
I don't expect that these movies will get showered with awards before they come out or have some of the best and brightest in hollywood working and staring in em... mostly, if they do good it is because they have some new talent that is emerging and are just plain good.... they often become "cult" classics.
I don't care if hollywierd makes gay movies... I don't care if the spend a fortune on em.... I just don't want to see em and I think it is insulting that they are pretending to not have an agenda that has nothing to do with money.
lazs
-
homosexuality is NOT a choice
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Guys, I'm tremendously weary of running around harvesting statistics to prove that grass is green and skies are blue.
You've either got facts to support your case or you haven't. Appeal to Belief isn't a particularly compelling argument.
The top grossing movie statistics vs. the fact that producers keep producing movies that aren't going to make mega-bucks prove the essential point that I was making, it clearly isn't only about making money.
Lazs nailed this argument. You are basically arguing against any kind of niche product by saying that if a producer isn't going for the maximum possible profit with his product but is rather content to take a reduced level of return then this somehow indicates the presence of a unwholesome agenda.
In fact, at a time when people nationwide are less inclined than ever to go out to the movies only an idiot would suggest that the problem was that there aren't enough "gay cowboy movies". Producing a movie that specifically alienates the most lucrative portion of the movie market: families with children is not exactly the answer to reinvigorating the industry.
So how many other Gay cowboy movies can you list? How about none? Again, you are arguing for an inspid risk averse film industry that caters to the lowest common denominator.
MSNBC, the LA Times, the NY Times, the SF Chronicle and a host of other liberal news outlets owed by large media congloms, continue to lose viewers/circulation hand over fist and yet they still keep having money plowed into them and noone dares to suggest Gee, Conservative media is still growing and making money, maybe we should consider a change of content? They don't make the suggestion for exactly the same reasons that many of the posters to this board wouldn't make it - they can't stand that worldview and would rather close down than promote them. Look, I lived in NYC and D.C. and worked in media long enough to know there is a underlying desire to promote a worldview and change the views of "flyover country."
Again, more bunker dwelling paranoia that you can't back up empirically.
MSNBC is ultimately owned by General Electric. You think the largest conglomerate on the planet has a liberal bias? You're bascially arguing against the application of market forces in the media and entertainment industry. Are you a communist?
The biggest selling newspaper in the UK preaches family values yet features nude women on its pages and spins every issue at a ridiculously over-simplified level. Its owner is a potato who habitually sells his political support to the highest bidder. Is this seriously what you are arguing in favour of?
If you want to make money with a film in the gay marketplace, you make a coffee house picture and play it only in the major cities, its called targeted marketing. If you want to promote an agenda, you make a movie that idealizes that agenda and makes the alternative look awful, and then release it nationwide.
And the film in question is idealizing homosexuality? You're on your own in that conclusion I think. Whats more, if an investor wants to shoulder the risk of a mass release then more power to them. they are not forcing you to watch.
As for the art and literature of Greece and Rome, if you track the progress of the culture as both began to decline, you saw a progressive increase in the amount of erotica throughout the society generally. There was a palpable increase in media designed to appeal directly to the gratification of the baser senses - more bloodsports, more pornography, and so on. By the time attempts were made to curb the excesses of Rome, it was already too late, the society had become rotten to the core.
You're twisting your original argument to include all erotica when your original premise related to the social acceptance of homosexuality as demonstrated by art as being related to social decline. The initial argument is palpaple nonsense because attitudes towards homsexuality were more permissive in both the greek and roman examples at the start of each culture's dominance than during the decline. Not one single mainstream scholar that I can think of attributes the decline of the roman empire to a rise in sexual permissivess. Enlighten me if I am wrong.
For those of you who are doing that, would it help if I simply made posts that would fit that general caricature? It would certainly take me less time, I mean this stuff is a slam dunk viewed from a scriptural perspective.
[/b]
It was my impression that that was what you were doing already.
-
How many of those of you who are 'outraged by the Hollywood Homosexual Agenda' are going to see the movie? or will be 'tricked' into seeing it?
Just how is it being 'forced on you'? or targeted at destroying your values? It seems to me you just wouldn't watch it. Are you upset that others may go to see it?
Either way these are stupid arguments. As such what it comes down to is that some of you are are appalled by the mere existence of homosexuality. This has little to do with what this particular movie may or may not portray or whatever agenda those in Hollywood may have.
-
I am not going to go see it.
-
OK here ya go.
Don't care what you say. Many of the people in Hollywood do have a private agenda when they make films. Seems like many DON'T see the agenda if it's something they WANT or believe in. Then it's not an agenda it's art? Someone already posted some information regarding major grossing films in this thread.
Persoanly I'm neither for nor against Gays/les. I treat them NO different then any other people. I do require they keep their hands to themselves however. NOTE : I don't care to be touched. Personal preference. I know too many things. I don't even like people to get within 3 feet of me. I would probably hate europe and the culture because I see them getting soooo close to each other. Even lost a few girlfriends over it. I do however hug my sons. Hugged my father and mother when they were alive. Whole different thing here IMHO.
I am really tired of the Gay Agenda being FORCED on everyone and our children. I think the heavy petting/kissing in public, the very near sex acts in public are unneeded and classless. But I don't care if that type of activity is Homo or Hetro, I disapprove of it.
Forcing the children against the parents will to participate in the gay/les thing, the moslem thing etc... is very bad form IMHO and goes against what family and this nation is about IMHO.
But then I guess I'm old school here. I believe people OWE each other good manners. That those with no or poor manners have NO CLASS.
OK go ahead and label me............. label me big time!!!! Cause I firmly believe our culture is being destroyed. Our culture is what made us so strong and it is in the way of someones agenda and it is being destroyed. And quite possibly us and more importantly our way of life with it. Been around awhile and that is what I've come to believe.
Do some things need changing? Did some things need changing? Yes. The manner in which the changes are made, and are being made, and just how far they are going with those changes is disturbing though!
I also find this male bashing thing to be really irratating. Just watched "the Pacifier" watched the little girls beat the snot out of the little boys. Saw the way boys were portrayed. "Everyone Loves Raymond" is NOT a show I care for. Hollywierd..............
I further say that if christians are barred from school YOU BETTER bar the moslems as well. and the budhist, and the hindus, etc... etc... etc... LOSE the double standard!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The movie shows 2 men who ruin their lives and their families through forbidden love.
Great message huh? Boy howdy those hollywood libs are really sneaking one over on the rest of the country.
What the heck are you guys afraid of? No need to answer, it's obvious. You're afraid that someday people will realize that homosexuality is NOT a choice and that homosexuals should be granted the same respect as any other member of society who has consentual sex with adults. You're afraid that movies like this will increase the understanding and acceptance of the 8-10% of our society who have been ostracized and even killed for their sexual preference. You're terrified that something that is listed as an abomination in the bible might turn out to be no more of an abomination than eating shellfish.
What really sickens me is how some can call for the outright hatred of an entire group of people using religion as an excuse. " Oh no MT, we don't hate anyone, just their actions"..... which they have as much control over as you have over your breathing.
Sickening. [/B]
There's that victim mentality, I knew it'd come along soon.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
homosexuality is NOT a choice and that homosexuals should be granted the same respect as any other member of society who has consentual sex with adults. .
pffft. everything is a choice. you don't have to act on every impulse. homosexuality is clearly a choice.
-
*$@!@!#@!#()#$)!@^%#%!@@!!!*#$ Hollywood pushing it's #@$@#*(@!#(*@!#*)$@#@!#@$!@*#^*!@$(*#$*@#)$^#$*($)@$ agenda, truing to make everyone into #$*&^*)(#$)@$#@()*$#$*@&^$*^#$^@ cowboys (*&$#($*(&#^*)$)#@(#$*&#()$&#&$&(#*@$)@(#$&@#(&$#@($(@.
-
Originally posted by storch
pffft. everything is a choice. you don't have to act on every impulse. homosexuality is clearly a choice.
Hmmm... Are you saying that you have latent homosexual thoughts and desires? ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
There's that victim mentality, I knew it'd come along soon.
exactly...most liberals use the old "Culture of" ie; guns breed a "culture of violence". Homophobia breeds a "Culture of hate". What's with this "Homophobia" crap anyway a phobia is a fear of. I don't fear Homos. And I don't hate them. I simply refuse to accept the lifestyle as respectable behavior. My religion states that it is a sin. End of story.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So the real deal is... Some of you folks won't see a very well made and well written movie simply because of the subject matter.
I wonder how many of those same people had no qualms about seeing Saw or saw 2?
Won't see brokedick mountain.
Haven't seen saw or saw2, or any of that other violent crap.
-
Oh no a movie about gay cowboys! You might get the gay! Duck and cover!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
. You're afraid that someday people will realize that homosexuality is NOT a choice
............and Madonna is a virgin.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Why go see a movie about subject mater you do not find interesting MT?
because the movie is fu**g good ?
well I think I shouldn't have used the word f***g :D
PS : being open minded never changed someone sexuality.
But I do understand the choice of not seing the film that if you have still doubt about yours.
-
...says the gay frenchie. :p
-
Originally posted by storch
pffft. everything is a choice. you don't have to act on every impulse. homosexuality is clearly a choice.
So you chose to be hetero rather than Homo?
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
What's with this "Homophobia" crap anyway a phobia is a fear of. I don't fear Homos.
Fear of being a homo/fear of turning into one yourself?
-
A movie about gay cowboys.
Next we will be seeing a movie about sombody having a threesome with their four legged lover.
I'm with some of the others. I aint going to be given my money to hollywood for that kinda crap.
For those that do go/ went I hope you enjoyed yourselves to some degree and had a good time. It just aint a movie fer me.
-
Originally posted by mora
Fear of being a homo/fear of turning into one yourself?
Nope..... never had a fear of turning Homo...or eskimo...or any other mo. So I guess that clears me of Homo-phobia.
-
Originally posted by Silat
So you chose to be hetero rather than Homo?
Hetro is normal...OMG I said the dreaded bad word. Now I'll get it. You see it works like this. Even if you believe we crawled out of the Primordial soup. It still takes a male and female to pro-create, thus the word normal.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
My religion states that it is a sin.
Your faith: Belief without evidence in what one is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Do you have one of Seagoon's "End of the World is Coming" sandwich boards too?
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
A movie about gay cowboys.
Next we will be seeing a movie about sombody having a threesome with their four legged lover.
I'm with some of the others. I aint going to be given my money to hollywood for that kinda crap.
Or worse yet, a rash of teachers thinking its okay to boink their students...oh wait...we're there already.
I'm sure NAMBLA love the movie though!
-
well... I wouldn't go see it even if it were about two heterosexuals... If it were it would simply be a chick flick... I don't see chick flicks cause the bore me to tears..
brokebutt mountain is not only a chick flick movie but it uses homesexuals so.... even the sex parts are disgusting... they made sure that there was nothing there for me to see unless it is canada pretending to be Wyoming or something.
Doesn't matter how much talent and money was squandered on it.... It isn't the kind of movie I want to see.... adding homos to the mix just increases my desire to miss the movie.
it's just that simple.
lazs
-
Originally posted by straffo
because the movie is fu**g good ?
well I think I shouldn't have used the word f***g :D
PS : being open minded never changed someone sexuality.
But I do understand the choice of not seing the film that if you have still doubt about yours.
I will not see the movie not due to my doubt about my sexuality, because there is none. I will not see the movie because it's subject content is not inline with my beliefs of what I consider wholesome values for myself and my family. I have an uncle that is gay, a brother-in-law that is gay, my 2 best friends when I was in highschool are gay(all by their own choice). I'm a hetero by choice. I love each of these individuals but that doesn't mean I have to accept or condone their lifestyle, because I don't. No more than I would a murderer, drug addict, adulterer, or thief.
Lambo
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
There's that victim mentality, I knew it'd come along soon.
Do you think homosexuals are treated with respect in our society? Do you think they deserve to be treated like second class citizens or beaten or killed for their sexuality? Come on Rip. Try to think this one out instead of posting a quip.
-
As people they are first class citizens. That doesn't mean that all behaviors of theirs is right. Or any behavior of yours is right, either.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
As people they are first class citizens. That doesn't mean that all behaviors of theirs is right. Or any behavior of yours is right, either.
Such as?
-
I treat gays with decency...as I do all people. But why in Heaven's name should I be expected to, and why should you demand that I, respect their lifestyle?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
I treat gays with decency...as I do all people. But why in Heaven's name should I be expected to, and why should you demand that I, respect their lifestyle?
Because some mistakingly think thats what tolerance is?
The Tolerance episode of Southpark should be a must watch for anything who thinks tolerance means acceptance.
-
the real problem is our governments are now encouraging homosexuality to help with the global over population problems.
being gay is fine with me if thats really what you want.
making gey 'cool' through hollywood is as stupid as the late 90s obsseion with the words 'Mother ****er' and 'shooting people as a means to solve the argument'
-
Originally posted by lambo31
You must see different things in his post than what I see. TMHO Seagoon's posts are always well thought out and usually contain facts to back his statements up.
Lambo
LOL! Like his facts on "Intelligent Design"? He's no different than the people he rails about from his pulpit.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Because some mistakingly think thats what tolerance is?
The Tolerance episode of Southpark should be a must watch for anything who thinks tolerance means acceptance.
along that logic you must respect rapists and child molesters. it is their sexual "calling" and you are to tolerate their choice.
i have to expound on this... see no matter what you say i will not respect, or tolerate a sexual deviant.
oh, you don't think homosexuality is a deviant act equal to rape, incest, or molestation? then we disagree on that. NOT on what tolerance, or respect is.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What really sickens me is how some can call for the outright hatred of an entire group of people using religion as an excuse. " Oh no MT, we don't hate anyone, just their actions"..... which they have as much control over as you have over your breathing.
Sickening.
Guys like Seagoon have been doing that for centuries.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What really sickens me is how some can call for the outright hatred of an entire group of people using religion as an excuse. " Oh no MT, we don't hate anyone, just their actions"..... which they have as much control over as you have over your breathing.
Sickening.
a person doesn't have control over their actions??? some one holding a gun to their head making them be a homo??
-
Originally posted by Silat
So you chose to be hetero rather than Homo?
that's a fair question. the opportunities abound even to this day for any type of sexual encounter with woman, man or beast. the answer is yes i did i chose to be normal. i choose to be normal every day. what did you choose? i suspect you chose to be normal occasionally?
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Guys like Seagoon have been doing that for centuries.
ack-ack
You assume alot.:rolleyes:
-
homosexuality has been around since before christianity, just thought i'd point that out.
i do however disagree with throwing hugely homosexual topics into a basis for a hollywood film. in the same way i would disagree with a film made about a gay couple who split up and both run off to become hetro.
its just not worth watching unless you yourself are searching for something and you dont understand it.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Your faith: Belief without evidence in what one is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Do you have one of Seagoon's "End of the World is Coming" sandwich boards too?
It's in the constitution. Would you like me to look it up for you...it's that part about freedom of religion and the free excercise thereof. That means your free to buy the primordial soup idea, the one your ancestors crawled out of.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm sure NAMBLA love the movie though!
There's that comparison to child molesters, I knew it'd come along soon.
-
Originally posted by storch
that's a fair question. the opportunities abound even to this day for any type of sexual encounter with woman, man or beast. the answer is yes i did i chose to be normal. i choose to be normal every day. what did you choose? i suspect you chose to be normal occasionally?
So, you are naturally attracted in a sexual way to other men, and you have gone against this attraction? Is that what you're saying? 'Cause that's what he was asking.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do you think they deserve to be treated like second class citizens or beaten or killed for their sexuality?
So if you don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, you must advocate the beating and murder of them?
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
It's in the constitution. Would you like me to look it up for you...it's that part about freedom of religion and the free excercise thereof. That means your free to buy the primordial soup idea, the one your ancestors crawled out of.
Yeah, it's much more plausible to believe there's an invisible man in the sky that has a list of 10 things he doesn't want you to do.
-
What the hell does Santa Claus have to do with this?????:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by RedTop
You assume alot.:rolleyes:
Assuming a lot about what? That people for centuries have used religion to discriminate against one section of the population? During the time this county had slavery it was very common for religious leaders to use the Bible to justify slavery and later on segregation. And now it is being used to discriminate against those that are gay.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
It's in the constitution. Would you like me to look it up for you...it's that part about freedom of religion and the free excercise thereof. That means your free to buy the primordial soup idea, the one your ancestors crawled out of.
...or you can believe in a religion born out of an adulterous union. Got to love the good Ol' US of A.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Assuming a lot about what? That people for centuries have used religion to discriminate against one section of the population? During the time this county had slavery it was very common for religious leaders to use the Bible to justify slavery and later on segregation. And now it is being used to discriminate against those that are gay.
ack-ack
You said guys like Seagoon. I would submit that you don't really know what Seagoon thinks on this whole subject of Homosexuality.
Now you assume he would preach discimination by what you said. I highly doubt he preaches that.
The bible doesnt teach that. People do.
I think thats what I got out of your statement anyway. Either way, I'll just back out of here on this subject. The sudden urge to paint my 109 pink with a Fusia interior is becomeing to much.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Hetro is normal...OMG I said the dreaded bad word. Now I'll get it. You see it works like this. Even if you believe we crawled out of the Primordial soup. It still takes a male and female to pro-create, thus the word normal.
Well thank COD you are here to explain what is normal :rofl
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Hetro is normal...OMG I said the dreaded bad word. Now I'll get it. You see it works like this. Even if you believe we crawled out of the Primordial soup. It still takes a male and female to pro-create, thus the word normal.
And what is "HETRO"?
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by Wolf14
Next we will be seeing a movie about sombody having a threesome with their four legged lover.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
-
Originally posted by SOB
There's that comparison to child molesters, I knew it'd come along soon.
Yes, it's getting quite ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do you think homosexuals are treated with respect in our society? Do you think they deserve to be treated like second class citizens or beaten or killed for their sexuality?
It's against the law to kill another human and homos are not treated as second class citizens under any law I have heard of.
-
The NAMBLA quote is being taken out of contex. Go figure.
-
WTF lets get teh facts straight...
1) They aren't cowboys. They don't have cows, they have sheep
2) What sheepherder in his right mind would take a "alien probe" from his best friend when theres a flock right outside the tent?
-
... and ANZACs would know about THAT.
;)
-
Brokeback wins top Golden Globes (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060117/ts_nm/leisure_goldenglobes_dc;_ylt=Ar8mLGFjXjoS_Cmoll3b5zNZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
thank you hollyweird! LOL
-
See Rule #4
-
I'm not a homophobe at all, but the increasing presence of overt gay stuff is getting to me. It seems almost political in nature when you consider the volume of it. The Glsen organization http://www.stevekaneshow.com/glsen.htm is just one example. (gay lesbian straight education network) a national movement which seeks access to children in middle schools to expose them to concepts like "fisting" - which according to them, is best done when you are feeling exploratory, analingus, rug munching and so on. Do not kid yourself that this organization is about education. They are political, with an agenda. The people at the very top of the GLSEN organization are gay activist attorneys) Other gay organizations are actively seeking to create "Gay PTA's" in Broward and Palm Beach counties in Florida! Can you imagine gays wanting their own PTA? And then there are the dedicated specifically gay tv shows, movies, and of course Hollyweird. It makes me tired.
There are plenty of movies that glorify homosexuality. I'm against that. But Brokeback Mountain doesn't concern me much, because I'm told that it doesn't glorify homosexuality at all. I have no problem with adults going to see it if they choose. And I don't think I have a problem with it being made.
-
The more homos the better. More chicks for me.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The more homos the better. More chicks for me.
-SW
Well, if they're left with that choice, then they'd go for abstinence :D
-
Showing homos in a movie theatre. this MUST be the biggest concern and threat to society today. heh.
-
Originally posted by storch
well I guess that clinches it for me, lew can always leave places quicker than anyone. he already has his **** packed.
Nice response.
Guess you cant backup your assertion about choosing...
But I already knew that.
-
Has anyone replying to this thread seen the movie (as I did last Saturday night)?
-
xtoronto... seriously... are you gay or do you like chick flicks? If no.... then maybe you are in the movie business? Have gay cowboy friends? the movie was filmed by your house?
If none of those reasons then plese tell me why you would have went to see it (spend your own money) based on what you knew about it.
I would like to know.
lazs
-
I've just seen it in "avant première" it's not a great film but a good film anyway and I didn't see any homosexual propaganda in it.
Laz your just not sophisticated enought to handle this kind of film,it's too complex.
-
I love movies. I own approximately 300 dvd's (favourite genre is westerns (eg: Searchers; Ox-bow Incident; Man who shot Liberty Valence; Big Country; High Noon; Good the Bad the Ugly; Unforgiven; etc) My other favourite genre is Film Noir (eg: Maltese Falcon; Key Largo; The Killing; White Heat; Lost Weekend; Notorious; Sorry, Wrong Number; Nightmare Alley; Touch of Evil; etc)
Even if I had not been invited to see it on Saturday night (and then out for dinner) I would have seen it eventually anyway. With all the publicity this film is/was getting I wanted to "see for myself" what it was all about, and thus be able to forge my own opinion. I have never seen a movie that had a gay theme central to its story before. (Crying Game and Talented Mr. Ripley excepted)
I went to see Silence of the Lambs back in 1991 and I don't have any secret desires to kidnap young women and use their skin to make clothing, but I found that movie extremely entertaining. (Brokeback is not in the same class of film making as Silence of the Lambs btw)
I plan to see Tarrantino's production of Hostel and Speilbergs direction of Munich asap too.
-
I agree with you straffo...Brokeback is not a great film...but it is a good film.
-
Geez Lazs, its only flesh. A tubular piece of flesh and a sphincter muscle. Thats it.
BTW, You never see homo zombies acting like those cowboys. In fact, the only way you can tell that you are dealing with a homo zombie is the expression on their faces - they are disgusted with themselves, whereas het zombies love that gory lifestyle. :rofl
-
Just read a news article about the Golden Globe Awards. Three of the films nominated for best picture and other awards had gay themes or main characters: Brokeback Mountain, Transamerica, and Capote.
Three is not a deluge, but it is significant.
-
It is truely a beautiful movie that moved my soul. It was so heartbreaking at the end. I just dont know how he could go on without his true love. :cry
I have been waiting for a movie to cum out like this for a long time!
I've seen it 4 times and I still cry each time! It is a wonder I have any more tears to cry. :cry
And those beautiful sheep!! They were soooo pretty!
BoooHooo! :cry
-
Originally posted by SOB
So, you are naturally attracted in a sexual way to other men, and you have gone against this attraction? Is that what you're saying? 'Cause that's what he was asking.
On that note ... saw a report on a study done recently to test the hypthosis that homophobic men have more homosexual tendancies than men who don't have such feelings. They asked particpants to fill out a questionare designed to group men into homophobic and non-homophobic groups. These men were then shown hetrosexaul scenes along with homosexual scenes. The blood flow into the gentalia was measured.
Results showed a significant tendancy for the homophobic group to become sexaly stimulated by the homosexual scene.
Maybe they do make a choice. Consciously or not.
Nothing wrong with liking boys :D
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Has anyone replying to this thread seen the movie (as I did last Saturday night)?
studmuffin.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. ;)
-
LOL...I see Homowood had all three gay movies at the top. Now they will get back to trying to make some money with some more sequels while these turkeys fade into obscureity. Have they made Under the Planet of the Apes?
-
Ok, I am told it is about two cowboys who have families that have a gay affair. Now if it was just a man and a woman it would never be talked about. But two gay cowboys? That would create an uproar of biblical proportions.
Which proves once again that any publicity is good publicity.
-
Hi MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
The movie shows 2 men who ruin their lives and their families through forbidden love.
Great message huh? Boy howdy those hollywood libs are really sneaking one over on the rest of the country.
[/b]
Ummmm, actually MT Brokeback was based on a short story by Annie Proulx who writes deranged tales set in the West (think David Lynch meets the Big Country). The message of the "Brokeback" story in Wyoming Tales is fairly transparent, these guys are gay, and the problem is not them or their forbidden love for one another but the Western "macho" society that forces them to stay in the closet. Their lives aren't ruined by their homosexuality, their happiness as homosexuals is ruined by cowboy society. Incidently, if you don't believe me, do what I did, go to Barnes and Noble, grab a coffee and a copy of Wyoming Tales and read it. It doesn't take long.
What the heck are you guys afraid of? No need to answer, it's obvious. You're afraid that someday people will realize that homosexuality is NOT a choice and that homosexuals should be granted the same respect as any other member of society who has consentual sex with adults. You're afraid that movies like this will increase the understanding and acceptance of the 8-10% of our society who have been ostracized and even killed for their sexual preference. You're terrified that something that is listed as an abomination in the bible might turn out to be no more of an abomination than eating shellfish.
First a note about your Bible comparison. Yes, the Old Testament dietary restricitions included not eating shell-fish, they were considered unclean to eat them made a person ceremonially unclean and thus unable to participate in the religious rites of the nation of Israel and the rules were given to show that these were a people different from all the other nations, literally set-apart and holy to the Lord. There was no death penalty, however, for eating unclean animals, and the dietary restrictions themselves were lifted in the New Testament (see Acts 10:10-15) when the reason for them had been fulfilled.
The penalty for most forms of fornication, i.e. sexual activity outside of wedlock under the Old Testament judicial law was death. This included adultery, bestiality, rape, and incest. So actually while people get hung up with the prohibitions and penalty for homosexuality, the Bible (Old and New Testament) forbids all sexual relations outside of those between husband and wife. Simply put, sexual relations within marriage are God's good gift, all the others are a sinful misuse of that good gift.
Today, the laws against all of these are gradually disappearing in the west because we have embraced legal positivism and abandoned the concept that our laws should be based on absolutes. Therefore, today incest is against the law, but should society decide its ok a few years from now, or more importantly a few judges decide its ok, it will become legal. We have moved from fixed to floating standards. For someone however who believes in absolutes, the constantly changing whimsey of society doesn't suddenly make something that was wrong, right and another thing that was right, wrong.
What really sickens me is how some can call for the outright hatred of an entire group of people using religion as an excuse. " Oh no MT, we don't hate anyone, just their actions"..... which they have as much control over as you have over your breathing.
Sickening.
MT, respectfully, I spend much of my life not on the idealized, "its all ok, and normal, and beautiful" side but on the other side, dealing with the long term fall-out of the things scripture calls sin. I've done counseling with people who have fallen into the regular practice of all sorts of sexual sins, including the most common - adultery and fornication, but also pedophilia, homosexuality, and incest, and no the results of all of these are not beautiful in families and individual lives, people are not created to be able to do these things without damage occuring, both physical and spiritual. And while people may have strong, and what some would call "undeniable," inclinations and urges towards them, they are still not the way it should be. And yes, they can be controlled, just "not by power, nor by might..."
Just because I have a strong sexual urge, does not make it right. For instance, no matter how much I may try to justify it, or say it was irresistable or natural, an act of adultery on my part is still an act of betrayal, a breaking of trust, and a sin no matter how I cut it. And no, I couldn't counsel people struggling with problems if I simply "hated" them. Heck, if you had any idea how hard it is to spend day after day wading through all the muck that people hide away in their lives that result from a mad quest to be happy via means that will never make them really happy you'd understand why the suicide rate for people like cops and psychiatrists is so high.
But, then again, untill someone gets "to the end of themselves" they're very unlikely to believe all that.
- SEAGOON
-
Only gay person who should have been feared was Jeffery Dahmer.
-
this just in: homosexuals are gay.
that is all. carry on.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
But, then again, untill someone gets "to the end of themselves" they're very unlikely to believe all that.
- SEAGOON
Worth repeating.
-
Originally posted by FuBaR
Only gay person who should have been feared was Jeffery Dahmer.
Roy Cohn & J Edgar Hoover were up there...and of course Prince Charles has his wife killed, so he's pretty tough too & so is Scott Thompson
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The penalty for most forms of fornication, i.e. sexual activity outside of wedlock under the Old Testament judicial law was death. This included adultery, bestiality, rape, and incest. So actually while people get hung up with the prohibitions and penalty for homosexuality, the Bible (Old and New Testament) forbids all sexual relations outside of those between husband and wife. Simply put, sexual relations within marriage are God's good gift, all the others are a sinful misuse of that good gift.
Today, the laws against all of these are gradually disappearing in the west because we have embraced legal positivism and abandoned the concept that our laws should be based on absolutes. Therefore, today incest is against the law, but should society decide its ok a few years from now, or more importantly a few judges decide its ok, it will become legal. W
- SEAGOON
Ok, so you say that sex outside of marriage is going to lead to incest being accepted in society? wow
Death for anyone who has sex outside of marriage, the old test sounds like it comes right out of the koran, imagine that?
-
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/11/news/companies/sony_twist.reut/
OMGOMGOMG
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Just read a news article about the Golden Globe Awards. Three of the films nominated for best picture and other awards had gay themes or main characters: Brokeback Mountain, Transamerica, and Capote.
Three is not a deluge, but it is significant.
Just out of curiousity, who nominates the golden globes?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The penalty for most forms of fornication, i.e. sexual activity outside of wedlock under the Old Testament judicial law was death. This included adultery, bestiality, rape, and incest. So actually while people get hung up with the prohibitions and penalty for homosexuality, the Bible (Old and New Testament) forbids all sexual relations outside of those between husband and wife. Simply put, sexual relations within marriage are God's good gift, all the others are a sinful misuse of that good gift.
Today, the laws against all of these are gradually disappearing in the west because we have embraced legal positivism and abandoned the concept that our laws should be based on absolutes. Therefore, today incest is against the law, but should society decide its ok a few years from now, or more importantly a few judges decide its ok, it will become legal. W
- SEAGOON
Ok, so you say that sex outside of marriage is going to lead to incest being accepted in society? wow
Death for anyone who has sex outside of marriage, the old test sounds like it comes right out of the koran, imagine that?
Where are YOU coming from??????????????
Talk about goin off on a WILD tangent WOW!!!!!!!!!
I read the same post and got a really really different take on the incest thing!!!!!!!!
Perhaps you should reread seagoon's post, perhaps you should reread seagoon's post MORE SLOWLY????????????
-
http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/07/news/fortune500/walmartasda_gaywedding/index.htm
-
Originally posted by Rino
Just out of curiousity, who nominates the golden globes?
Obviously a bunch of gay men and some women.
:p
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The penalty for most forms of fornication, i.e. sexual activity outside of wedlock under the Old Testament judicial law was death. This included adultery, bestiality, rape, and incest. So actually while people get hung up with the prohibitions and penalty for homosexuality, the Bible (Old and New Testament) forbids all sexual relations outside of those between husband and wife. Simply put, sexual relations within marriage are God's good gift, all the others are a sinful misuse of that good gift.
Today, the laws against all of these are gradually disappearing in the west because we have embraced legal positivism and abandoned the concept that our laws should be based on absolutes. Therefore, today incest is against the law, but should society decide its ok a few years from now, or more importantly a few judges decide its ok, it will become legal. W
- SEAGOON
Ok, so you say that sex outside of marriage is going to lead to incest being accepted in society? wow
Death for anyone who has sex outside of marriage, the old test sounds like it comes right out of the koran, imagine that?
Not sure if you actually took the time to read Seagoon's post or just skimmed over. But, I think you should go back and do it again.
Lambo
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The penalty for most forms of fornication, i.e. sexual activity outside of wedlock under the Old Testament judicial law was death. This included adultery, bestiality, rape, and incest. So actually while people get hung up with the prohibitions and penalty for homosexuality, the Bible (Old and New Testament) forbids all sexual relations outside of those between husband and wife. Simply put, sexual relations within marriage are God's good gift, all the others are a sinful misuse of that good gift.
Today, the laws against all of these are gradually disappearing in the west because we have embraced legal positivism and abandoned the concept that our laws should be based on absolutes. Therefore, today incest is against the law, but should society decide its ok a few years from now, or more importantly a few judges decide its ok, it will become legal. W
- SEAGOON
Ok, so you say that sex outside of marriage is going to lead to incest being accepted in society? wow
Death for anyone who has sex outside of marriage, the old test sounds like it comes right out of the koran, imagine that?
how can you possibly come to this conclusion???? you may want to re-read seagoon's post there sixpence. I just read wrag's and lambo's almost identical responses lol
-
xtoronto... I have maybe 200 DVD's and love movies myself. That is not enough for me to want to see brokebutt.
I don't want to see hostel either... I think that movies like hostel are very irresponsible. I think that I would have no problem with executing the director and procucers of hostel if someone copied their movie. I am sure it is only a matter of time that someone will copy saw and hostel.
I like cars too... build em... that doesn't mean I have to drive every crap box out there. I don't want to drive the best minivan out there.
I don't know what there is for me in the movie. perhaps straffo is correct... perhaps it is too complex for me... or... perhaps it is far too simple.
the fact that a lot is being made of it is the last reason in the world I would go. It would seem to me that if that is the reason that someone is going then they are the simple ones.
So why see it? Once, long ago, my girlfriend talked me into seeing "the prince of tides" I believe it got a lot of attention and awards and had nick nolte in it and lots of talent... it was horrible... It seemed to be about a 5 hour movie and not an interesting moment in it.
That is what I expect from brokebutt... I either want to be entertained or empathize with a movie or both. I can't see being anything but bored and depressed by brokebutt.
so tell... me... what's in it for me?
lazs
-
"I don't want to see hostel either... I think that movies like hostel are very irresponsible. I think that I would have no problem with executing the director and procucers of hostel if someone copied their movie. I am sure it is only a matter of time that someone will copy saw and hostel."
Not trying to single you out Lazs, but here too, I disagree. How could they possibly be responsible for some wacko out there copying what he sees in the movie. What about Scream or any other slasher flick...same deal? Heat or any other number of heist movies...what if someone gets the idea to rob a bank or an armored car? Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas...what if somebody decides to take a drugged out road trip to Vegas? Or hell, any other movie out there that depicts actions that might be hazardous to your health or the health of others...should they also be responsible for the unlawful/harmful actions of the viewers? You sound like a Liberal. OK, sorry for going for the low blow, but damn.
BTW...Didn't the Prince of Tides have Barbara Streisand in it? If so, I'm sorry, and I hope you've recovered.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So why see it? Once, long ago, my girlfriend talked me into seeing "the prince of tides" I believe it got a lot of attention and awards and had nick nolte in it and lots of talent... it was horrible... It seemed to be about a 5 hour movie and not an interesting moment in it.
The movie sucked. :)
I can't remember if the book was all that good either, but there were parts that were horribly brutal.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Just out of curiousity, who nominates the golden globes?
...90 journalists who make up the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), the body that nominates films and television shows for Golden Globe Awards...
-
Originally posted by wrag
Where are YOU coming from??????????????
Talk about goin off on a WILD tangent WOW!!!!!!!!!
I read the same post and got a really really different take on the incest thing!!!!!!!!
Perhaps you should reread seagoon's post, perhaps you should reread seagoon's post MORE SLOWLY????????????
Sex outside of marriage was the first step in Seagoons slippery slope theory.
-
re read it? I copied right from it
-
I cannot buy into the religion thing, When im close to death, maybe ill get some grasp of this religious mumbo jumbo. Untill then I think the only rights and wrongs in life are what each person feels comfortable with. Besides, why do heterosexual men get so concerned where their fellow mans noodle goes. I understand that when you complain about a movie telling or showing you these homosexual acts, but whats the business of it to you if you havent even seen it?
My mom once said " If they want to be pokin around in eachothers butts leave em alone, They are just doing what their normal is"
And to go further on normal, why is being gay or straight considered normal or not normal? Honestly I feel thats like saying people who arent white, arent normal. Based on the fact that I am white.
And I have to ask, all you guys who are so "personally" offended by gay men, whats your opinion on gay woman.
And my final question, all you anti gay people, would you do anything to prohibit homosexual sex, or are you just "man enough" to sit back or even stand up and say they are not normal and sprew distaste to them?
And no I have never read the bible, nor will I.
-
sob... I know what you mean and am not real big on the whole censorship thing but... it is sorta like showing how to build a bomb from easily obtained household chemicals... it may be free speech but it is irresponisible...
You and I both know that there will be some sick scum that will copy the movie. I can't imagine anyone who isn't mentaly ill who would enjoy seeing hostel. I think that it appeals on a level that is wrong.
I think... no... I know the producers know it too... I also know that they not only don't care for the victims but probly would revel in the publicity...I am not saying that legally they would be responsible... I am saying that I would have no trouble executing them. the world would be better off without them.
lazs
-
Hi Ack-Ack,
Regarding "hating" people in the name of religion you wrote -
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Guys like Seagoon have been doing that for centuries.
Didn't expect to be answering this one but since it touches on oft repeating theme, I guess I will.
[Incidentally Ack, I usually need to have met someone before they come to the conclusion they hate and despise me, apparently we cut that step out this time]
Contrary to what you seem to believe, I don't spend my time railing against homosexuals from the pulpit.
Actually, the vast majority of my preaching is what they call expository and lectio continua, in other words I systematically go verse by verse through a book of the bible. I have no desire to be simply preaching my opinions on current events, and I certainly am not interested in politicizing the pulpit. My job is to act, as Paul put, as "an ambassador" delivering the message of the King. Therefore I hope I can always truthfully say that the main thrust of everything I preach follows the Pauline exhortation: "Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Cor. 5:20-21) As a result the majority of my preaching aimed at convicting of sin is aimed within the church - what after all would be the point of convicting men who need the gospel themselves that other men are sinners? In essence, it would be like a patient sick with cancer going to the doctor, and the doctor spending the entire visit diagnosing the ills of his neighbors.
I end up talking about current events, politics, movies, and so on, here because that is the kind of discussion that goes on around here. Generally, I only begin discussing the bible when someone else mentions it or asks a question. I don't really expect to get into discussions like I had at the office yesterday over the actual meaning of "the husband of one wife" in 1 Tim. 3:2.
Yes, when there is a big issue in the culture that people in the church are talking about and looking for instruction on, I'll teach what scripture says about it, and no I won't just pull one verse out of context, I'll try to systematically present the whole witness of the bible on it (the whole counsel of God - per Acts 20:27) and I won't soft peddle or sugar coat.
I know you probably won't believe this, but while yes, I hate sin - especially my own, and there's gonna be a lot of that for so long as I live - I don't hate sinners. That said, I know that the answer to the problem of sin doesn't lie in denying it or norming it (like Brokeback), or explaining it away or even calling it 'sickness.' The answer to sin lies in grace, forgiveness, and new life. Ultimately, I'm looking forward to an eternity where there are no more sins, sorrows, death, tears, sickness, or any of the other sad consequences of the fall and my desire is to be used in seeing that as many other weary sinners also enjoy the rest of eternity. To that end to quote Baxter, "I preach as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men." I sincerely regret that that offends you.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by FuBaR
Untill then I think the only rights and wrongs in life are what each person feels comfortable with.
And that is exactly why there is so much crime these days. Criminals feel that when it comes to committing a crime that well, they feel comfortable with it.
-
Originally posted by mora
Sex outside of marriage was the first step in Seagoons slippery slope theory.
IMHO you STILL have what was said/typed versus what you THINK was said/typed a little off.....................
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi MT,
adultery and fornication, but also pedophilia, homosexuality, and incest,
- SEAGOON
Just because I cut the rest doesn't mean I didn't read it.
You know Seagoon, my best friend in the world is a born again Christian. I disagre with him also, but I always tell him the same thing. I am envious of his passion.
The above line struck me more than any other in your post (I think someone must have told you "why say someing in 20 words when you can use 400").
Those 5 things you listed are the crux of the problem. Homosexuality cannot ever be recognized by the Church as a biological issue because it would basically show God as a mean spirited imp who plays on the emotions of people. We can't have a God who wires a brain to love the same sex then calls it a sin... can we? So what does the Church do? It calls it an abomination and compares it to the rape of children and animals and so on... I find it sad really that people are cast aside by the Church due to an issue that is "God Given".
-
So MT you're saying that homosexuality is just a "brain wiring" thing that we should all accept as normal, right?
So what's your veiw of pedophilia? Is that a "brain wiring" thing too? If not, why not?
-
Originally posted by Toad
So MT you're saying that homosexuality is just a "brain wiring" thing that we should all accept as normal, right?
So what's your veiw of pedophilia? Is that a "brain wiring" thing too? If not, why not?
exactly! there are shrinks that say rapists are forever going to be like that, like "hard wired" too... if you disagree MT why?
-
Originally posted by Toad
So what's your veiw of pedophilia? Is that a "brain wiring" thing too? If not, why not?
AGE OF CONSENT
-
The pedohiliac has to be of the age of consent? Or the target of pedophila has to be of the age of consent?
What of the brain wiring of the pedophiliac that has a "thing" for prepubertal children under the age of consent?
Is the pedophiliacs brain wiring as "normal" as that of a "normal homosexual"? If not, why not?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
AGE OF CONSENT
MT wasn't talking about laws, he was trying to make a point about religion.
"Homosexuality (poligomy/incest/rape/pedifilia/...etc) cannot ever be recognized by the Church as a biological issue because it would basically show God as a mean spirited imp who plays on the emotions of people. We can't have a God who wires a brain to love the same sex then calls it a sin... can we? So what does the Church do? It calls it an abomination and compares it to the rape of children and animals and so on... I find it sad really that people are cast aside by the Church due to an issue that is "God Given"
MT's point doesn't wash.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
AGE OF CONSENT
Was put in place, by people, for several specific reasons. So here we go, anyone care to elaborate on those reason?
Our current age of consent is not exactly Biblical either. IIRC Biblical is 12 years old???? Of course that didn't envolve "just sex" but was the earliest age possible for marriage with parental agreement/consent IIRC.
So what is your point Sandman?
NOTE: there are orgainizations that APPEAR to exist for the purpose, and only the purpose, of changing the age of consent downwards.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The pedohiliac has to be of the age of consent? Or the target of pedophila has to be of the age of consent?
What of the brain wiring of the pedophiliac that has a "thing" for prepubertal children under the age of consent?
Is the pedophiliacs brain wiring as "normal" as that of a "normal homosexual"? If not, why not?
It's a strawman. A pedophiliac is a threat to others. It doesn't matter if it's hard wired or not.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Was put in place, by people, for several specific reasons. So here we go, anyone care to elaborate on those reason?
To protect young people from old people. ;)
-
So a pedophiliac's brain wiring is "normal" as long as he doesn't harm others? Doesn't act upon it? Or are you talking potential harm?
Because there is most certainly potential harm to others in the other things Seagoon mentioned.
-
All You Need Is Love
(Lennon/McCartney)
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
To protect young people from old people. ;)
Pretty much. It is, or perhaps may soon be WAS, a system set up by the people that proceeded us. Although your answer SEEMS to avoid the issues of whats and whys. Still it's probably good enough, as it is in essence, accurate.
These people looked at the past. You know, that thing called history that many ignore because they find it ?????. At things that happened recently as well as long ago. Thought for a time upon these things and then they implemented a system to correct what they saw as error. A system they felt protected the young and inexpieranced from possible harm. It is JUST possible that these people actually CARED about the generations that they knew would follow.
Interestingly it isn't Federal Law that decides the age of consent but State law that decides. The way things appear to be going this may, in time, also become a Federal issue.
Different States have set different ages. So age of consent depends on where you are.
In Mexico IIRC a girls 15 birthday is rather special. She is given a party that is different then all those that proceeded it. It is considered and announcement to the world IIRC. I'm not sure if this practice is still going on but it was going on as late as 1996 in some areas IIRC.
-
And here I thought conservative were all about common sense. I'm pretty sure Toad can figure out the big difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.
And Nuke, try to actually make a point when you post. Even adding words to my post and changing the meaning came up pretty empty dude.
-
So which is it? Is all "brain wiring" normal or is some "brain wiring" abnormal?
If some is "abnormal", what standard is used to judge? Is it only if that particular wiring is a "potential or actual physical threat" to other humans?
And one last question your honor:
All of the "vices" listed by Seagoon, "adultery and fornication, but also pedophilia, homosexuality, and incest" almost always generate either actual physical injury or acute mental anguish in one or more of the parties involved. The one possible exception to that generalization might be fornication performed for and of itself, in other words, for the fun of it by both parties.
Adultery? Somebody usually gets hurt, either physically or mentally or both.
Pedophilia? Yep.... hurt. Incest? Yep...hurtin' fer certain.
Homosexuality...well, what is Brokeback all about if not hurting?
So what's the standard for "good brain wiring" vs "bad brain wiring? No one gets "hurt"? Define "hurt".
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Homosexuality...well, what is Brokeback all about if not hurting?
That's a bit of a geralization.
"The combination of the terrific script, Lee's sensitive and precise direction, and the dynamic acting talents of Ledger, as ranch hand Ennis Del Mar, and Gyllenhaal, as rodeo cowboy Jack Twist, has resulted in an exquisitely crafted and ultimately melancholy love story -- epic in scope and intensely intimate at the same time.
Quite simply, this is one of the best films of the year.
To label "Brokeback Mountain" as "the gay cowboy movie" does a great disservice to its haunting love story, stretching over decades, which survived in a time and place in which the two men's feelings for each other were utterly taboo." ... "Neither Ennis nor Jack identify themselves as gay, but after spending a lonely summer on Brokeback Mountain tending sheep for ranch owner Joe Aguirre (Randy Quaid), their slowly emerging emotional bond turns physical when a booze-driven, impromptu primal urge takes over one night. This torrid sexual encounter, tastefully filmed, shames and excites them in equal measure, but is barely acknowledged in the light of day."
full story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/09/review.brokeback/)
-
I don't know about miswired, but homosexuals are certainly different in some way, and are certainly in the minority, so you could say they are abnormal. But we're talking about a relationship between two concenting adults. The only thing harmful in this are outside influences as far as I can tell. And if they do happen to be harming each other in some way in their concentual relationship, that's their business.
I'd have to believe (as I have no figures to back me up and am too lazy to try and search for it) that pedophiles are by far a smaller fraction of the population than homosexuals are. I've also read that children who are molested are quite a bit more likely to molest children when they reach adulthood. Whatever the case, pedophiles do serious harm to other individuals, and are not likely to be cured, so miswired brain or not, they should be put down. I'd feel just as comfortable with incurably phsychotic patients who are a threat to others being put down.
As to the religious view of homosexuality and other sinful ways in general, I just don't get it. "I don't hate you, but I love God, who will be sending you strait to hell when you die." That's just kinda hard for me to swallow. No explanation I've seen to this point has really gotten around that for me. And to stave off any heated rebuttles, I don't mean that as a judgement on anyone here...I don't know enough about any of you to make a sound judgement on your character. Well, except for Lazs...he's a big pansie.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sob... I know what you mean and am not real big on the whole censorship thing but... it is sorta like showing how to build a bomb from easily obtained household chemicals... it may be free speech but it is irresponisible...
You and I both know that there will be some sick scum that will copy the movie. I can't imagine anyone who isn't mentaly ill who would enjoy seeing hostel. I think that it appeals on a level that is wrong.
I think... no... I know the producers know it too... I also know that they not only don't care for the victims but probly would revel in the publicity...I am not saying that legally they would be responsible... I am saying that I would have no trouble executing them. the world would be better off without them.
lazs
I can't say I KNOW that someone will copy what's done in this movie, but it certainly is possible. And let's say somebody does. How does that make the filmmakers responsible? You obviously don't think your average movie-goer will enter the theater a normal person, and leave as a kill-crazy maniac. It would take a sick **** to do torture another human being for kicks...and don't you think that sick **** would be doing sick things with or without the movie?
I was gonna go see Hostel myself, just 'cause it had Tarantino's name on it...he's a weird bastard himself, but I've enjoyed most of his movies. But a friend of mine saw it first, and said it just plain sucked. I'm not big on watching torture even in movies, but I hoped there was a good story line to go with it. I guess not.
One thing I can certainly agree with you on though...in general, most hollywood producers don't give a poop about anything past their wallets.
-
Originally posted by SOB
I was gonna go see Hostel myself, just 'cause it had Tarantino's name on it...he's a weird bastard himself, but I've enjoyed most of his movies. But a friend of mine saw it first, and said it just plain sucked. I'm not big on watching torture even in movies, but I hoped there was a good story line to go with it. I guess not.
SOB just out of curiousity I wanted to see what the lay public thought about Hostel; It's on my "to see" list too, cuz I liked Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill(s). Looks like your friend is right; It's getting poor ratings =>
Hostel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450278/)
Munich (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450278/)
Brokeback (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388795/)
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The religious answer is that he doesn't, people just choose their sexual preference. The real answer is that everyone deserves to experience love and it is wrong for a religion to try and squash it.
Get it?
As I understand it, the religious (Christian) answer is that homosexuality is a sin, just as any other behavior defined as such. Christian dogma holds that we are all sinners, it isn't necessarily a concious choice to sin as many sins are committed without planning, but that concious choice is required to overcome.
Dogma holds that God did not create undeserving, he gave us free will to choose (or not choose) the holy path.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Everyone deserves to experiece love? Are you serious? I assume you are serious. So you agree that a pedofile deserves to experience what he considers love. Same goes for a rapist.
Nuke you are the only person I've ever seen describe the actions of a rapist and pedophile as having anything to do with love.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
That's a bit of a geralization.
I haven't seen it, probably won't. But then, I'm not addicted to movies in general and only see a handful each year.
So, this is from one of the reviews out there:
In the end, because they've chosen neither their wives nor each other, they succeed only in hurting everyone involved.
So, nobody gets hurt emotionally in this one?
-
click (http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/backstreet.htm)
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, nobody gets hurt emotionally in this one?
you're quite right toad, there is emotional pain expressed in this movie...it is this ethos that I found multi-faceted and most compelling
-
OK, so people get hurt and lives get ruined and not just those of the two main characters. We agree.
-
I don't think I'd say lives get ruined...the 2 cowboys had a difficult situation...one gets killed (which was predictable before I even got into the theatre) the other guy ends the movie with him making arrangements to attend his oldest daughters wedding
-
So the lives of the wives aren't ruined/wasted/unhappy? Some reviews I read indicated this.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I haven't seen it, probably won't. But then, I'm not addicted to movies in general and only see a handful each year.
So, this is from one of the reviews out there:
So, nobody gets hurt emotionally in this one?
Seriously? You generalize this to homosexuality=hurt emotionally?
Abnormal is a slippery slope. Is every physical manifestation of a mental process normal? If it occurs in a minority of people is it abnormal? If so the "wiring" that makes a person tend to be left handed is "abnormal". But this normal-abnormal argument is just so much hockum. There are behaviors that are obviously wrong:
Rape - Hurts the woman (or man in San Quentin)
Pedophylia - Hurts the child as well as the child's family
Comparing homosexual behavior to these crimes is just plain silly.
-
one wife never knew about her husband even after he was killed and she was the daughter of a wealthy local businessman...that guy married into the rich family...
...the other guy has two daughters, the wife and him get divorced at some point but remain close as a family
the person who suffers most is the cowboy who lived I guess
-
Ah, MT.. you're back.
Perhaps you'll answer this now.
If some "brain wiring" is "abnormal", what standard is used to judge? Is it only if that particular wiring is a "potential or actual physical threat" to other humans?
And if "potential physical threat" is used, who determines that?
-
Oh, and just for re-entry into the record because it's on this board several times, I really don't care where someone parks their particular sexual organs as long as 1) it occurs between consenting adults and 2) it is a private act.
I don't want to see a couple of any persuasion going at it on the park bench or at high noon in the middle of main street.
I also don't want to see it between a couple where one of the parties is either incapable of consent, not old enough to understand or simply being forced against their will.
Clear enough?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, MT.. you're back.
Perhaps you'll answer this now.
If some "brain wiring" is "abnormal", what standard is used to judge? Is it only if that particular wiring is a "potential or actual physical threat" to other humans?
And if "potential physical threat" is used, who determines that?
I think I addressed that in my previous post but....
While I am desperately trying to avoid the bear trap you are attempting to place I will say this.. "Who determines that?" is the entire point. It should absolutely NEVER be determined by a religion.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
"Who determines that?" is the entire point. It should absolutely NEVER be determined by a religion.
i'm in 100% agreement
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And here I thought conservative were all about common sense. I'm pretty sure Toad can figure out the big difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.
And Nuke, try to actually make a point when you post. Even adding words to my post and changing the meaning came up pretty empty dude.
Really????
Hmmm......... I thought Toad's questionS was valid, even reasonable.
I further agree that Toad KNOWS the answerS, or perhaps a better way to put it is HIS answerS.
That is NOT the QUESTION however.
The question is to YOU.
The question is what are YOUR ANSWERS.
The current claim for both is identical. It SEEMS the belief is they are hardwired to be that way. Toad's questionS are valid and to the point.
I also noticed You Sir have yet to answer the questionS. I don't call the above post an answer to the questionS, I call it slipping away from, or avoiding the questionS.
As to adding words and changing the meaning.... I've seen allot of that done on this board and in particular in this thread soooooooo............ I, and at least 2 others have even pointed this out regarding someone on this thread committing such activity.
So what is your answer to Toad's questionS Sir? AND I put in my own questions as well.
My questions ....... What of a Homosexual that also happens to be a Pedophile? AND is such a person doubely hard wired?????
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think I addressed that in my previous post but....
While I am desperately trying to avoid the bear trap you are attempting to place I will say this.. "Who determines that?" is the entire point. It should absolutely NEVER be determined by a religion.
OH? Hmmmmmmmmm.................. I find I disagree, I think, IMHO, you avoided the questions.
Interesting. "Who determines that" ............. hmmmmmmm.... "It should absolutely NEVER be determined by a religion."
You are then that certain that when the laws against certain things were put into place it was done by a religion? Or is there a possiblity that some of the people involved were not thinking of religion, or perhaps many of the people involved were not even religious? Perhaps they were thinking in an old fashoined manner in that they were thinking of their offspring? Perhaps they created certain laws in defense of themselves and/or their families???????
In your opinion then ........... OK who does? And futher how shall they go about it?
But, Sir, you still, it seems, have not answered Toads questions or mine.
OH and for your records
Posted by Toad...........
"Oh, and just for re-entry into the record because it's on this board several times, I really don't care where someone parks their particular sexual organs as long as 1) it occurs between consenting adults and 2) it is a private act.
I don't want to see a couple of any persuasion going at it on the park bench or at high noon in the middle of main street.
I also don't want to see it between a couple where one of the parties is either incapable of consent, not old enough to understand or simply being forced against their will.
Clear enough?"
That is pretty much my belief/attitude as well. I've ALSO stated as much elsewhere.
-
There is a group that believes that homsexual acts between adults and children can be very rewarding and decent. They are "hard wired" to act this way... they claim no harm.
Homosexuals do cause a lot of harm... as do a lot of legal groups. They mostly allways harm themselves tho and it is not for me to tell em to not have relations with each other.
This does not mean I want to see their life unfold in front of me as a "love story" just because a bunch of effete gay movie industry people with an agenda gushed over it... If you do want to see it then you probly have a lot different taste in movies and life than I do. I suspect anyone of wanting to see it of being a fool not worth knowing.
One of my workers seen hostel and said it was plain ol crap... pure "lets see how twisted we can get away with" crap. I do not believe that it will make a sane person crazy but I honestly believe that it will encourage and give ideas to an allready crazy person. Real justice would have the producers and directors as his first and only victims but that is too much to ask for.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
There is a group that believes that homsexual acts between adults and children can be very rewarding and decent. They are "hard wired" to act this way... they claim no harm.
Homosexuals do cause a lot of harm... as do a lot of legal groups. They mostly allways harm themselves tho and it is not for me to tell em to not have relations with each other.
This does not mean I want to see their life unfold in front of me as a "love story" just because a bunch of effete gay movie industry people with an agenda gushed over it... If you do want to see it then you probly have a lot different taste in movies and life than I do. I suspect anyone of wanting to see it of being a fool not worth knowing.
One of my workers seen hostel and said it was plain ol crap... pure "lets see how twisted we can get away with" crap. I do not believe that it will make a sane person crazy but I honestly believe that it will encourage and give ideas to an allready crazy person. Real justice would have the producers and directors as his first and only victims but that is too much to ask for.
lazs
that would be NAMBLA which is an acronym for North American Man/Boy Love Association. and yes, they lobby for pedophilia. some leftwing nutjob will be on to proclaim why they are legitimate, extoll their virtues and how this is actually beneficial to the child.
-
I also do not know whether to be offended or amused when a liberal uses the words "common sense" in an arguement.
lazs
-
Go with "amused".
-
Originally posted by wrag
My questions ....... What of a Homosexual that also happens to be a Pedophile? AND is such a person doubely hard wired?????
What I posted before was an answer, but I'll be happy to try again.
IMNSHO Yes. The person you describe is probably doubly hard wired. He would be predisposed to act in certain ways regarding sex. If he were to act on one of those 2 drives he would be committing a crime and should be locked up with some arian nation gorilla for eternity. Can you guess which one?
Using the strictest definition of 'abnormal', I think it is safe to say that homosexuality is abnormal. Where we differ and I think where most people fall victim to the point you are trying to make is this:
abnormal = bad
homosexual = abnormal
therefor
homosexual = bad.
The first premis is not valid. Abnormal means "adj 1: not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm"
The real question we need to answer here... and I know it will be impossible, but that's what BBS's are for...
Is homosexuality a behavior or is it an attribute?
I think that is that same as asking whether left handedness is a behavior or an attribute. And just like lefthandedness, homosexuality hurts no one.
-
Originally posted by storch
pffft. everything is a choice. you don't have to act on every impulse. homosexuality is clearly a choice.
Dude! Have you ever been jumped by a hot chick? There is no choice in the matter.
I'm sure gays feel the same way.
-
MT... good or bad... it matters not to me. So long as I don't have to watch it.
I suspect anyone watching this movie of either being gay, or a very wierd, very intense, movie buff..or... just a fool.
lazs
-
Originally posted by g00b
Dude! Have you ever been jumped by a hot chick? There is no choice in the matter.
I'm sure gays feel the same way.
it's been a while but I have turned down opportunities to be with other ladies because I made a commitment to only be with my wife. you always choose
-
Originally posted by g00b
Dude! Have you ever been jumped by a hot chick? There is no choice in the matter.
I'm sure gays feel the same way.
I was driving the family across the country one summer when this blonde babe in a red Ferrarri passes me and flashes me a smile. When we stopped for the night, I went down to the motel pool to get in some swimming, and wouldn't you know it? There was the blonde.
Well, my kids and the wife were falling asleep in the rooms, or so I thought, and the babe and I decided to skinny dip, and well, all hell broke loose, and I was apoligizing to Ellen for the rest of the trip.
-
Originally posted by storch
it's been a while but I have turned down opportunities to be with other ladies because I made a commitment to only be with my wife. you always choose
Yes, I understand, and respect, your perspective. But what was your perspective before you were married? Did you ever turn your wife down, not because of other obligations, but simply because you didn't want to? I am 29 and un-chained and have yet to resist an amorous ladies charms. Even when I know I shouldn't! It's very hard to overcome millions of years of genetic programming. Maybe age will change that, it sure hasn't yet.
I still don't see that you addressed the main point.
Which is that gays feel the same way about the same sex ,that you and I do about the opposite sex. Could you *choose* to be gay? I doubt it, you could choose to have sex with another man, not that you would, but that wouldn't make you gay, just confused.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I was driving the family across the country one summer when this blonde babe in a red Ferrarri passes me and flashes me a smile. When we stopped for the night, I went down to the motel pool to get in some swimming, and wouldn't you know it? There was the blonde.
Well, my kids and the wife were falling asleep in the rooms, or so I thought, and the babe and I decided to skinny dip, and well, all hell broke loose, and I was apoligizing to Ellen for the rest of the trip.
A true classic!
(http://images.heritagecoin.com/images/HNAI/75/612/612014320o.jpg)
-
what on earth are you talking about? are we controlled by our impulses like animals? you are at work taking care of a project with a strict deadline and one of these "hot chicks" materializes and wants to be beef injected right now. are you implying that you would stop whatever you are doing and possible jeapordize your position and your project team to satisfy your desire?
-
Originally posted by g00b
Dude! Have you ever been jumped by a hot chick? There is no choice in the matter.
I'm sure gays feel the same way.
I have to disagree here BIG time.
Over the years I learned!
Yes I have and still sometimes do turn down a really hot chick. I admit there aren't NEARLY as many hittin on me as there used to be. :cry
Even so, I learned from once almost going to jail over a taking a ride with a HOT female, along with some other occassions.
I've also learned that for far to many females, well they put a price on themselves. Reminds me of prostitution :huh
I once met up with a HOT blond in a bar. She pretty much picked me out of the guys there and invited me to set with her. Hey they were all drooling LOL. And at first so was I.
Anyways, the night proceeded and I was picking up on her by things she said looks she gave etc.
She invited me to go home with her. Hey :D I went :D :t :t :t .
We got there and she said time for bed. I said OK. She qucikly changed into her bed wear right there infront of me. I knew it was coming! I KNEW. We got in bed and then I was informed that all we were going to do was SLEEP.
I said OK rolled over on my side and WENT TO SLEEP! Woke up next morning got dressed and politely made my exit. HOT as she was this one was NOT for me. :cry
I have seen soooo many females with some, err strange attitudes?
Anyways, I've gotten to the place in life where I look over such offers and consider WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST! TANSTAAFL!
And when I consider the cost to be too high. I >>> politely <<<< as possible refuse what is offered. I say politely becasue if it is thought I have insulted the one offering WHOA BABBBBBBBY!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT GOOD THINGS START HAPPENING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOTHING IS FREE! NOTHING!
The sooner that leason is learned, well you might possibley avoid some of the pain and sorrow but............
Hey I KNOW some of you have refused a HOT fem. The type I'm refering to is The TOO YOUNG type! If you haven't good luck cause they could come back and bite you in the ..................... BIG PEEPEE NO LUBE BUBBA is waiting for YOU! :O
-
Originally posted by storch
what on earth are you talking about? are we controlled by our impulses like animals? you are at work taking care of a project with a strict deadline and one of these "hot chicks" materializes and wants to be beef injected right now. are you implying that you would stop whatever you are doing and possible jeapordize your position and your project team to satisfy your desire?
Now you're gettin' it! The answer is, yes, we are animals. The sexual urge is the oldest and most primal of all human instincts. Of course I was being a bit extreme, but by and large, I and every guy I know, would have relations with an attractive woman any chance they can get.
That's just the truth of it.
-
sorry goob some of us have managed to rise above that. are you black?
-
Originally posted by storch
what on earth are you talking about? are we controlled by our impulses like animals? you are at work taking care of a project with a strict deadline and one of these "hot chicks" materializes and wants to be beef injected right now. are you implying that you would stop whatever you are doing and possible jeapordize your position and your project team to satisfy your desire?
Geez whats a couple of minutes on the photocopier?
-
Originally posted by storch
that's a fair question. the opportunities abound even to this day for any type of sexual encounter with woman, man or beast. the answer is yes i did i chose to be normal. i choose to be normal every day. what did you choose? i suspect you chose to be normal occasionally?
You protest to much...
And thats the best you have? Saying your normal and Im occasionally normal?
I think you should read blukittys post again as Im positive it applies to you ..
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
And that is exactly why there is so much crime these days. Criminals feel that when it comes to committing a crime that well, they feel comfortable with it.
My fault for not finishing my post, I assumed that laws were common sense to most people...doh
-
Nothing personal Storch, but you really are really starting to give pat robertson a run for his money with your entiled, but not one bit explained assumtions.
You really should try to see that the only choice that gays are making are the choices you make yourself... to love(is a choice) or just be sexually attracted to someone(not really a choice) , and obviously you dont agree with it. But just because you "chose" to be straight has to mean they "choose" to be gay?
I dont recall choosing to be turned on by females, It just sort of happened. Things could have been different for you, as everyone is their own self, so I wont use myself as an example...which yuo seem to be doing alot of.
PS did you choose to be sexually attracted to females? Or did it just come naturally?
-
I don't buy that. everything you or I do is a decision. some people make stupid choices. homosexuality is wrong on all levels, it's un-natural, un-healthy and will always carry a social stigma irrespective of how goob, fubar or lew and one hundred gazillion others feel about their "orientation". there are plenty of examples of people who are effiminate men or masculine women who have never entered into the homosexual lifestyle or having been a part of it have left and gone on to lead normal and often hetero married lives. homosexuality is a perversion and should continue to be treated as a disease. having said that I am perfectly confortable around homosexuals. I don't count any as friends but I do have many homosexual clients and on occassion have socialized with them and will continue to do so. I can empathize with someone who finds themselves physically attracted to someone of the same sex I could never sympathize with the decision to engage in homosexuality. it's stupid, selfish and shows remarkable weakness. homosexuality is nothing other than extreme hedonism. check out this site fubar, lew or others get some help you can turn your life around, others have http://www.worthycreations.org
-
ggob... we are a little off topic here but are you saying that if a married woman... say the wife of your best friend or brother came on to you.... You couldn't resist?
Not sure I want to ever be around you if the answer is yes.
lazs
-
Where I stick my noodle will be my decision, who I am attracted to isnt my decision.
To screw or not to screw...that is the question.
You may know or be exposed to gays, but I will tell you...you havent a clue what they are, and I am possitive you arernt willing to try to find out. In case you missed it, I have a gay brother, and he is 100% like everyone else with the exception of his sexual business. He was born gay, realized it the same time most boys realize who they are sexually attracted to, and will always be gay. The only time I have ever heard that the possiblity of someone choosing to be truly gay is in my psychology class. In a family of ridicule and pain from parents, a child may develope a strong sense of rebelion, to the point of if the parents are strongly anti gay, they child may choose to be homosexual to rebel against his parents. Highy unlikely situation, but to give you some sense of " its possible some chose to be gay" there ya go.
Your link is religious trash, and they or you have absolutly no respect for fellow human beings. Get off your jesus horse and start recognizing that society has entitled differences.
-
Originally posted by storch
sorry goob some of us have managed to rise above that. are you black?
Your multifaceted hate is spread to all kinds of people that are not like you. Grouping sure makes it easy to 'think', doesn't it?
never a mod when you need one. :confused:
-
fubar... I have a gay brother and have been around him and, on occassion, his friends all my life...
My girlfriend also has a gay brother and I have been around him lately and his friends at the holidays.
In neither case are they anything like "100% like everyone else" they are not much at all like everyone else... that is why they (both brothers and friends) live in a large gay community (frisco) and why gays tend to live in large cities where any strange behavior is tolerated in the spirit of "nobody cares about you anyway"
That being said... I do not believe that the attraction to same sex is a choice.. I believe that it is "hard wired"but.... What you do about it is a choice.
Gay men have, as you would expect, more opportunity for sex in most cases... our friend goob for instance would have all the opportuninty he could handle is he were gay... It is a choice for them to monogomous. the vast majority are not. They risk their lives in sex at the drop of a hat.
I find that gays are like most minorities in one respect....
They blame everyone but themselves for whatever situation they are in and they have outrageous theories about conspiricies and politics etc..
Like miniorities they are very calm and sensitive and all smiles so long as you pretend to agree with em... they tend to go crazy if you call em on some of the more ridicoulous stuff tho.
Soo.... I have little interses in seeing either a movie about the so called plight of minorities or of gays. I can't identify with the victim mentality of either.
lazs
-
Originally posted by FuBaR
My fault for not finishing my post, I assumed that laws were common sense to most people...doh
You missed the point.
-
Originally posted by storch
sorry goob some of us have managed to rise above that. are you black?
why is that relevant?
-
Originally posted by storch
sorry goob some of us have managed to rise above that. are you black?
Nope, I ain't black, I'm tempted to say I am just for kicks, but I don't see that's here nor there. I count all races and all sexual orientations among my friends.
Originally posted by lazs2
ggob... we are a little off topic here but are you saying that if a married woman... say the wife of your best friend or brother came on to you.... You couldn't resist?
Not sure I want to ever be around you if the answer is yes.
lazs
I absolutely am monogamous. And have the utmost respect for those who are loyal and faithfull to their lovers, wives, and husbands.
You folks took me way to literally. I said I have never resisted an amorous womans charms. I never put myself in a precarious position when I'm involved with someone else. I've never resisted because I've never had to.
Yeesh, some of you need to get laid :p
g00b out!
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Your multifaceted hate is spread to all kinds of people that are not like you. Grouping sure makes it easy to 'think', doesn't it?
never a mod when you need one. :confused:
my grandmother was haitian and black. I don't hate black people but I don't buy into the black or homosexuals bullshirt either. blacks are easily the most racist group in America followed closely by the homos. no one is like me, or you for that matter. go back to your glass pipe. read some alan ginsberg while you're at it. "howl" might be a good place to start.
goob: you troll with black attitude.
fubar: pack a few more years into your life's story there jr. lol a kid is telling me I know nothing of homosexuals. sadly I know much more from first hand experience than you might ever know, hopefully. I had a homosexual first cousin and we grew up together. he died from various diseases all aquired from poopchute packing. I also have a homosexual aunt who has atypically been monogamous. when she "outted" in 1963 it was devastating to a closely knit extended family. the shame, for my grandparents was unbearable, I believe she made her choice out of rebellion to his authority. I have another cousin who is limp wristed but likes girls and claims never to have been attracted to males. he is married with four children. your brother chose to be homosexual as we all choose. if one of my children turned out to be homosexual they would be loved and accepted but their choice would always be questioned by me.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Do you think homosexuals are treated with respect in our society? Do you think they deserve to be treated like second class citizens or beaten or killed for their sexuality? Come on Rip. Try to think this one out instead of posting a quip.
Ohhh realy
Homo kills a Hetro = murder = long punishment period
Hetro kills a Homo = murder and hate crime = longer punishment period
How is that equel. I guess gays now come under edangerd species.
All murder is a hate crime IMHO and in the eye's of the court all are equel.
Bronk
-
i'm glad i read this thread before I actually watched the movie, man that would have pizzed me off, pay 10 bux to go watch 2 gay guys pound eachother.... I'll pass on that thank you very much lol
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Ohhh realy
Homo kills a Hetro = murder = long punishment period
Hetro kills a Homo = murder and hate crime = longer punishment period
How is that equel. I guess gays now come under edangerd species.
All murder is a hate crime IMHO and in the eye's of the court all are equel.
Bronk
Proof? Got any statistics or factual non-biased articles to support this?
-
Originally posted by storch
blacks are easily the most racist group in America followed closely by the homos.
hehe..
Can you say "Irony" boys and girls?
(http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/sep/30rogers.jpg)
I knew you could.
-
Originally posted by g00b
Proof? Got any statistics or factual non-biased articles to support this?
Goob in the state that i live in we have a hate crime law. If it is determined by the court that a crime was commited because of race , color , religion ,or sexual preferance they add on exta time to serve. That is the proof . Funny thing is tho no minority has ever been charged with it.
Once again a crime is a crime. Once convicted under the same offences equal punishment should be handed out.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by storch
blacks are easily the most racist group in America followed closely by the homos.
I thought that was the Latinos.
-
MT... I pretty much agree with him. I am not even sure that it is their fault... we condone it so they do it.
Sob... most latinos I know (the family working ones) do not seem to be prejudiced at all and we can swap racial ephitets back and forth good naturedly. Not so with the coloreds and the gays.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Goob in the state that i live in we have a hate crime law. If it is determined by the court that a crime was commited because of race , color , religion ,or sexual preferance they add on exta time to serve. That is the proof . Funny thing is tho no minority has ever been charged with it.
Once again a crime is a crime. Once convicted under the same offences equal punishment should be handed out.
Bronk
That is NOT proof of your statement:
Originally posted by Bronk
Ohhh realy
Homo kills a Hetro = murder = long punishment period
Hetro kills a Homo = murder and hate crime = longer punishment period
How is that equel. I guess gays now come under edangerd species.
All murder is a hate crime IMHO and in the eye's of the court all are equel.
Bronk
The court would have to prove that the murderer killed someone BECAUSE of their race, color, sexual preference, etc...
-
your point being? goob... to attach color or sexual preference or religion to a crime and make the penalties different based on that is just plain wrong.... It is wrong in the exact same way that affirmative action is wrong...
It breeds hate and resentment and keeps us seperate as a people. Not everyone who believe in hate crimes or AA is evil tho.... some are just well meaning buffoons.
lazs
-
That's MISTER well meaning buffoon to you!
-
So because you have family members who died from diseases even a heterosexual can get are why homsexuality is a disease in your opinion?
Not sure why you playing the age card, Im only having a logical discussion, if you are that unable to defend your veiws its ok, but c'mon bud find something to point out other than Im younger than you are. Theres those differences in society coming at you again.
PS, your cousin got diseases because he wasn't smart enough to use protection, same goes for a heterosexual who gets an STD from unprotected sex.
-
yeah right...."mr well meaning buffoon."
Hard to not like you MT no matter how wrong you are.
lazs
-
Originally posted by g00b
The court would have to prove that the murderer killed someone BECAUSE of their race, color, sexual preference, etc...
Ok then please explain why no minority has been charged with a hate crime. Well to my knowlage anyway.
Just ssems kinda strange when all minorities want is equal treatment.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by g00b
That is NOT proof of your statement:
What do you want proof of ?
That there is a law that states it is a hate crime law.
I'm not shure what you want proof of.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Ok then please explain why no minority has been charged with a hate crime.
I don't wanna rain on your parade, but:
read this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21943)
google it and there is tons of examples Bronk
Are you just angry cuz this movie wasn't called "Bronkback Mountain"?
;)
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
I don't wanna rain on your parade, but:
read this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21943)
google it and there is tons of examples Bronk
Are you just angry cuz this movie wasn't called "Bronkback Mountain"?
;)
Xr, I skimmed through that article. First thank you for pointing out said article. second Think you are missing my point IT shouldent exist. It is a bad law because it was intended to single out one race.
But now that it started to hit minorities is a bad law. This is according to the artile.
I am not angry about anything I am just sick of being called a racist homophobe because of my skin color. Every group of people has aholes.
I'll just keep on judgeing the people I meet by there actions.
I dont care one iota about the movie. All i was comenting on was the second class citizen coment.
Bronk
-
I didn't know that the law had a negative impact on minorities either. When I went to use google, I really didn't know what answer(s) I would get. Living here in Toronto I can only recall one minority charged with a hate crime; some muslim guy desecrated some Jewish grave sites. Metro cops caught the offender within 24 hours and charged this guy with a hate crime.
ps: my comment about Bronkback Mtn. was just my humour. It seemed too close to pass up...I thought it was funny, but that's my sense of humour... no offence was meant anyway
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Sob... most latinos I know (the family working ones) do not seem to be prejudiced at all and we can swap racial ephitets back and forth good naturedly. Not so with the coloreds and the gays.
lazs
that is a fact and we don't go running around yelling discrimination. mostly we just go to work and take care of our families.
-
I see bronks point... and... AA mostly helps women but..
They shouldn't exist. Both AA and so called hate crimes are devisive.
Has anyone seen where violence against another was caused by like? Do we have like crimes?
Are you any less dead by a person who is "just business" as he kills you in the mugging or mugs you and kills you while making a racial slur?
lazs
-
XT read that whole article it will give you a new perspective.
Its not doing what it was intended to do according to the article.
Thats because someone started to use it equaly to all races.
They couldnt put in verbage of the law any white commiting crime of hate.
I just found it funny it became a bad only when it started to effect minorities.
Bronk
P.S. Guess you should have read the article.
and no worries about the name change all in good sport.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
XT read that whole article it will give you a new perspective.
Its not doing what it was intended to do according to the article.
Thats because someone started to use it equaly to all races.
They couldnt put in verbage of the law any white commiting crime of hate.
I just found it funny it became a bad only when it started to effect minorities.
Bronk
P.S. Guess you should have read the article.
and no worries about the name change all in good sport.
You nailed it Bronk. The guy even said it. He said "hate crime laws are not just for the KKK anymore" He's a typical moron.
-
Originally posted by storch
I don't buy that. everything you or I do is a decision. some people make stupid choices. homosexuality is wrong on all levels, it's un-natural, un-healthy and will always carry a social stigma irrespective of how goob, fubar or lew and one hundred gazillion others feel about their "orientation". there are plenty of examples of people who are effiminate men or masculine women who have never entered into the homosexual lifestyle or having been a part of it have left and gone on to lead normal and often hetero married lives. homosexuality is a perversion and should continue to be treated as a disease. having said that I am perfectly confortable around homosexuals. I don't count any as friends but I do have many homosexual clients and on occassion have socialized with them and will continue to do so. I can empathize with someone who finds themselves physically attracted to someone of the same sex I could never sympathize with the decision to engage in homosexuality. it's stupid, selfish and shows remarkable weakness. homosexuality is nothing other than extreme hedonism. check out this site fubar, lew or others get some help you can turn your life around, others have http://www.worthycreations.org
Well Im still so very curious about your moment of choice. I mean how did your homosexual partners deal with your moment of decision to go Heterosexual? Have your Heterosexual partners accepted that you had a different life previously? Please enlighten me..
-
Originally posted by storch
homosexuality is wrong on all levels, it's un-natural
storch you are no where near being accurate (except to describe your own fear) .. the link I have provided is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and they have provided a link to a list of all the animals that engange in homosexual activity...the list is extensive. Keep in mind these animals unlike humans have no ego consciousness, no 'reasoning' power, just instinct, ie: if you want to see what really is "natural" one would look to the natural world.
follow this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior)
-
See Rule #4
-
I think Silat will be busy this weekend painting the posters for the next gay rights march. :)
-
(http://www.randyjonesworld.com/images/images-for-new-site/tributegallery/RJ_concert15.jpg)
This thread isn't over without a picture of the Village People cowboy
-
Hey what about me Storch and Jackal? Did you forget to call me a homo too? There were a few other posters who thought you were wrong too.... Don't leave them out.
-
This gent has an interesting take on things:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19269-2000983,00.html
Gerard Baker
The Times January 20, 2006
Imagine the scene: gay cowboys lasso oiled-up drug company baddies
Gerard Baker
SAM GOLDWYN had the only really sensible opinion on the idea of the film industry as a purveyor of political propaganda. “If I want to send a message I’ll use Western Union,” he said.
But Hollywood, once again, has ignored Goldwyn’s strictures. The message from this week’s Golden Globe awards could not have been clearer if it had been written on 18in cue cards delivered door to door across America by Warren Beatty and Annette Bening. It was a plea to a nation firmly on the road to conservative perdition to change course, to embrace alternative lifestyles, foreigners, non-believers and outlandish theories about the motives of US companies.
The Globes honoured, in approximate order of reverence, Brokeback Mountain, a film about a couple of cowboys who discover that there’s a lot more you can do with chaps than put them over your jeans; The Constant Gardener, an adaptation of a John le Carré novel about evil drug companies that kill innocent Africans and the honest campaigners who try to expose them; Syriana, a film so complex it defies synopsis, but you’ll get the gist if I tell you it’s about American oil companies, the CIA and Middle Eastern politics; and Transamerica, a movie that sounds like a drama about life at one of America’s prominent life insurance companies but turns out to be a paean to the life of the transgendered.
For good measure, on the TV side, they added a performance by Geena Davis for her role as the first woman president in Commander in Chief, a thinly veiled promotional video for the 2008 Hillary Clinton campaign.
To be fair, there were one or two exceptions to the politically correct roll call. But Walk the Line, an engaging biopic of Johnny Cash, presumably only got a look-in because the Globes split comedy/musicals from drama, and in the former category it was up against such innocent fare as Pride & Prejudice and Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. Doubtless if there had been a comedy about gay cowboys unmasking a plot by American drug companies to manipulate Middle Eastern oil supplies for the benefit of the CIA, Mr Cash would still be walking the line to red-carpet obscurity. (Though then again, A Boy Named Sue might at least have got an honourable mention as a plea for the better understanding of transgendered confusion.) And though there was an odd snub for Steven Spielberg’s Munich, a film that fits the Hollywood semiotics beautifully, casting an Israeli secret agent as morally indistinguishable from the Palestinian terrorists who murdered 11 athletes at the 1972 Olympics, that may have more to do with the internal politics at Paramount, whose bigger interest this year was the frisky cowboys of Brokeback Mountain.
It’s silly to get upset about the Golden Globes. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, which awards them, is the most notoriously biddable and unrepresentative institution this side of the US Congress. But with the 2006 awards season now under way, the theme is clear. The Globes have bashed out the tune and the Oscars will surely pick up the chorus.
This is Message Year in Hollywood. Fed up with the direction that America is taking — all this God, patriotism, traditional family, War on Terror stuff, America’s entertainment elite have taken the courageous decision to lead the fightback from the pool decks of Beverly Hills and the penthouses of Manhattan. Voting with their Armani tuxedos and their Isaac Mizrahi gowns, they’re going to take back their country from the warmongers and religious fanatics.
No more lavish but inconsequential realisations of Tolkien masterpieces please (that other famous Oxford Christian writer, C. S. Lewis, got zero recognition for The Chronicles of Narnia this year). Give us tales of decent men, women and transgendered individuals standing up for tolerance, diversity and understanding of others. Sadly there’s not much room for tolerance, diversity and understanding of others in Hollywood itself.
I’ve nothing against Brokeback Mountain, though I do object slightly to the idea that it’s a breakthrough cultural event — haven’t we been fed a virtually non-stop diet of forbidden homosexual love on TV and in films for the past 20 years? And as for its unusual take on the western lifestyle, hadn’t we already heard from the sergeant in Full Metal Jacket that “only steers and queers come from Texas and you don’t look much like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down”?
But one-dimensional conspiracy theories are much more malevolent. The Constant Gardener is a veritable frenzy of paranoia from start to finish, with the notorious Big Pharma in the villain’s role. And even some prominent liberals have recoiled a bit from the message of Syriana, that American foreign policy is driven by a noxious alliance of oil companies and foreign dictators. (Funny, isn’t it, how US entertainment companies think the motives of US corporate giants are always impure except, presumably, those of US entertainment companies?)
And having churned out all this bilious nonsense, Hollywood executives shake their heads in puzzlement as to why Americans have stopped going to the movies. Sure, it may have something to do with ticket prices and the easy availability of giant home entertainment systems. But having an 86in screen in the kitchen didn’t stop millions of people from going to see The Passion of the Christ or Narnia. Nor, lest you misunderstand me and think this is a plea for Hollywood to turn itself into the entertainment arm of militant Christianity, did it stop them going to see King Kong or Shrek?
Isn’t that surely the lesson? Messages, either of the kind Hollywood favours, or even of the Mel Gibson sort, will never really beat good storytelling, or even, since we’re talking box office, bad storytelling, as successful films such as Titanic or Independence Day will attest.
All of which underlines another piece of the unlearnt wisdom of Sam Goldwyn: “A good movie is one which begins with an earthquake or a volcanic eruption and then works up quickly to some kind of climax.”
gerard.baker@thetimes.co.uk
-
Wow, seven pages of posts! There's an inordinant amount of interest in this topic.
Booz.
-
Yeah, i guess homosexuality is a *hot* topic.
-
Hmmm, lonely cowboys together at campfire with lubed winchesters?
Not my kind of film.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hey what about me Storch and Jackal? Did you forget to call me a homo too? There were a few other posters who thought you were wrong too.... Don't leave them out.
Don`t beleive I called anyone a homo MT, but if you feel a need to come out of the closet don`t let that stop ya.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hey what about me Storch and Jackal? Did you forget to call me a homo too? There were a few other posters who thought you were wrong too.... Don't leave them out.
I won't forget..Homo's , the whole lot of ya!
-
"Has anyone replying to this thread seen the movie (as I did last Saturday night)?"
Not me. My wife dragged me to see "The Crying Game" years ago and I swore she'd never do THAT to me again.
But she did see this movie over the weekend and she said
(SPOLIER ALERT! do not read further!!)
that the bad guys and the good guys each got it in the end.
(budduh_duh_bump!)
thank you, thank you, thank you!
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Don`t beleive I called anyone a homo MT, but if you feel a need to come out of the closet don`t let that stop ya.
If the group has declared itself as a victim through cultural, racial, or sexual orientation, MT will support it blindly.
-
I'm sorry, is the support of victims a bad thing? Can we get a ruling from Seagoon on that one?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm sorry, is the support of victims a bad thing? Can we get a ruling from Seagoon on that one?
Interesting. So are combat disabled veterans that are being ignored by the V.A. victims? Are those veterans that were exposed to chemicals and substances, against their will and without their knowledge, that cause cancer or other health related problems victims?
If so are you supporting them or ????????????? If not then WHY?
You gonna duck and dodge these questions for awhile too???? And when you answer will you give a full answer to all?????
Me.... I don't usually agree with everyone that calls themselves "victim". Just because they use the word victim doesn't make it true in my eyes.
Sadly IMHO we have too many using that word that aren't.
-
I support anyone who is a victim of circumstance.
You see, that is the big difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives see everything as "self determined", liberals see everything as "circumstance". Of course both are wrong and both are right. Sometimes people do it to themselves and sometimes they don't. The ones who don't deserve our best effort as a Nation.
And once again I have answered your question Wrag.
-
Guess I should have used the term "perceived victims" :confused:
-
Originally posted by storch
See Rule #4
Bigotry, hate and prejudice is just ugly..
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by storch
See Rule #4
You'll never get any respect on this board with comments like that.
I disagree with most of what Silat writes but he still has my respect.
-
See Rule #4
-
Geeezz Storch IMHO you're sounding kinda rabid there Sir.
Silat/Lew has NEVER been anything to me but polite and helpful. Jokes with people and whatnot.
-
really?
-
Originally posted by storch
really?
Yep really.
-
hmmmm