Alls I can do is shake my head!!

[thcri]

Had some time on the internet this afternoon and the big story all over is the Oscars. It was not surprise to me but the show Broke Back Mountain took 2nd place. To me that is about as disgusting as disgusting gets. I wonder what has happened to society that we would joke about and praise this type of behaviour. Not only have we made laws to make this legal but we have praised people for this type of behaviour. I personally like the people but I hate what they are doing. It just doesn't seem natural to me. I did not see the movie nor will I ever go to the movie. Some people say it's just a movie lighten up, but going to the movie is the same as saying it's ok.

Just my opinion as this is a saddened day for me. Also keep in mind I care for these people, I just hate what they are doing.

murph

 

[Dargo]

Don't worrry, I hear that they will get it in the end.

 

[Spiffy1]

Don't worrry, I hear that they will get it in the end.

Even worse Murph, one of the articles I saw thought it was cheated out of 1st! Oh well, I can't change the "Hollywood" types, but they sure can't change me either.

 

[REDDOGTWO]

The best thing that we can do is not go to such movies and if enough people do this, without the ticket sales, hopefully they will quit making them.

 

[Av8r3400]

Funny, The Passion of the Christ was panned by the academy, too. That one I can understand. The "academy" is made up of liberal leftists and they denounce everything Christian. But Bareback Mounting? That's right up their "alley" if you know what I mean.

Just another attempt to re-write history in their own disgusting image.

 

[thcri]

The best thing that we can do is not go to such movies and if enough people do this, without the ticket sales, hopefully they will quit making them.

Reddog, Your absolutely right. But there is so many people out there that went to the movie because it was a good movie even though they are against that type of behaviour. When I complain ask why they would go I get this Oh lighten up, it's just a movie.

 

[REDDOGTWO]

My son and his girlfriend went and they are now down here visiting us, and she said yuck, but she knew what it was about before they went. So why go? It is just entertainment, I guess.

More than likely the impact will be felt by those who sell the cowboy stuff for the little kids.

 

[HGM]

Larry the Cable Guy has a good line about gays... It goes something like this..

I know a few fellas that like sheep, but they dont feel the need to hold a parrade to flaunt it...

Basicly, I dont like it, so I dont lead that lifestyle.. If someone else wants to, well..... Theres nothing I can do about it, so I try to let them just be people, as long as it dosent effect me.. When its forced down (ohh, bad choice of words) ... When its promoted as the "cool" thing of the year, its just plain wrong...

Now we even have teachers, who at 72(?)yrs old have a sex change and we're wrong to suggest that they shouldnt teach our children.. This world is getting pretty screwed up with the extreme liberal attitudes promoting (much more than) equality because anything short of being better than the next guy is unacceptable.. So, for someone to voice their opinion of the situation in a negative way, they are now "homophobic". If people that wish to have equality would be satisfied with equality, we'd all get allong much better...

 

[ddrane2115]

Why waste your movie money on this junk when you can go see 8 below or whatever that movie about the sled dogs is. Going to surprise the wife and go see that soon...............may even take the wife...........

 

[thcri]

Walk the Line came out on DVD last week. We bought it and watched it as a family at home Saturday evening. Great time with the wife and 2 girls.

murph

 

[Spiffy1]

We were going to rent Walk the Line, but there wasn't a single copy left on the whole shelf of it.

 

[thcri]

That's why I just my daughter to run over to Target and buy it. $15.00 and I know I will watch it a bunch of times over the next few years.

murph

 

[dirtybernie]

you guys should also look on ebay for new movies. i bought a few new movies for under $10 (incl shiping) while they were still selling at wal mart for $20

 

[jdwilson44]

My wife's mother - who is a practicing Catholic and definitely doesnt agree with that stuff - went to see Bareback Mountain a month or so ago with one of her church friends. Thing is - she didn't really know what the movie was about until the really yucky stuff started happening .


Living in Mass. I get more than my share of exposure to gay rights, gay marriage, gay this - gay that. It all gets a little bit tiring after a while trying to argue with people that in the end it is not "normal".

Not that I have anything against it mind you - I like seeing nekkid women together as much as the next guy .


Tip of the day: Don't make the women in Provincetown angry - the ride big motorcycles, have crew cuts, big army boots, and some problems with men, and will hurt you if you give them an excuse.


The way I always like to explain my opposition to the lawful endorsement of this lifestyle is thru an analogy:

It seems sometimes these days that pretty much everything gets considered as "normal" or "right" depending on how you many screaming people you have behind you or how much money you have and who you can guilt into supporting your cause.

So to me the analogy is simply this - if you take any given behavior, lifestyle, religion, etc. and you take it and extend it out across everybody - that is you assume that every single person on the planet was that way (whatever that way is) - does everything still work - i.e. does human society survive - does humankind go on?

So the answer to homosexuality is simple - no it is not "normal" - because if everybody in the world was that way then after one generation there would be no more people in the world.

The answer to abortion is also simple: it is not right, if you aborted every baby then once again - no more humans.

big govt. vs. little govt - little govt wins - where have you ever seen a decision that gets made by somebody totally out of touch with what is happening every work out well in the end? The best decisions always come from small groups who are right there - in touch - with what is going on.

Marriage between races ( the gay marriage likes to use this one as an example of something that was once forbidden but is not any more) - what happens if whites marry blacks, or blacks marry orientals or any combination you can think of as long as one is male and one is female? Answer the human race goes on.

 

[DAP]

Murph ... us people often make the mistake of seeing things in a limited perspective. Perhaps its all we can handle. I'm not a homosexual nor am I a homophobe.

In the age of the great Roman societies, it was a status symbol for a man (married to a woman, or single) to take a young male lover. That's the way it was. To NOT strive or attain that in that age was just as reprehencible as some people today view the topic of same sex relations.

Its to everyone's advantage to work hard to see the weeds as well as the big picture, to mature our perspectives.

Knowing when to override our feelings with intellect and when to override our intellect with feelings are the keys to being a splendid human being.

 

[jdwilson44]

Murph ... us people often make the mistake of seeing things in a limited perspective. Perhaps its all we can handle. I'm not a homosexual nor am I a homophobe.

In the age of the great Roman societies, it was a status symbol for a man (married to a woman, or single) to take a young male lover. That's the way it was. To NOT strive or attain that in that age was just as reprehencible as some people today view the topic of same sex relations.

Its to everyone's advantage to work hard to see the weeds as well as the big picture, to mature our perspectives.

Knowing when to override our feelings with intellect and when to override our intellect with feelings are the keys to being a splendid human being.

You actually brought up something that I think is used as a misleading term when applied to people who are against homosexuality -

It is very common for somebody who expresses an opinion that does not agree with the gay agenda to be described as a "homophobe" - as if that person is irrational in their opposition to the lifestyle.

Definition of phobia:
pho·bi·a (fō'bē-ə)

n.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

So why is somebody who does not agree with the lifestyle or the political agenda of homosexuals "irrational" ?? This is like saying Republicans are Democratiphobes or Democrats are Repulicaphobes - the very premise that just because you are opposed to something you must be irrational is the real irrationality.

Besides the definition says " despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous" - most people I know who are adamantly opposed to homosexuality on whatever grounds have no awareness or reassurance that it is not dangerous - quite the opposite - they believe and will give evidence that the promotion of homosexuality is dangerous. That is not phobia - it is opposition but it isn't phobia.

 

[HarryG]

Excellent point JD.

 

[DAP]

You actually brought up something that I think is used as a misleading term when applied to people who are against homosexuality -

It is very common for somebody who expresses an opinion that does not agree with the gay agenda to be described as a "homophobe" - as if that person is irrational in their opposition to the lifestyle.

Definition of phobia:
pho·bi·a (fō'bē-ə)

n.

1. A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

So why is somebody who does not agree with the lifestyle or the political agenda of homosexuals "irrational" ?? This is like saying Republicans are Democratiphobes or Democrats are Repulicaphobes - the very premise that just because you are opposed to something you must be irrational is the real irrationality.

Besides the definition says " despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous" - most people I know who are adamantly opposed to homosexuality on whatever grounds have no awareness or reassurance that it is not dangerous - quite the opposite - they believe and will give evidence that the promotion of homosexuality is dangerous. That is not phobia - it is opposition but it isn't phobia.

Before this turns into a pointless pissing contest, for the record, I called noone a homophobe, merely stated that I do not consider myself one.

And your point is well taken in anyevent.

 

[jdwilson44]

Hi Doug

Sorry if you took offense - I realize you did not accuse anybody of being a homophobe, I just think the word itself is misused and is frankly not the correct way to describe somebody who may not agree with much of the gay rights / homosexual agenda. The word gets used by the PC/gay rights crowd because it pigeonholes those people as being anti-gay in such a way as to make them seem like "haters" - as if not agreeing is somehow a psychological problem.

The part of homosexuality that I disagree with the most is the politicization of it. I think once you open the door of sexual politics you are asking for trouble. As soon as I heard about the gay marriage thing getting thru the Mass. courts I said - just wait legalized polygamy is next. Sure enough, recently I have seen numerous editorials from different people pointing out that the legal precendents have been set now to make polygamy legal.

read the second story down the page:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063569/

It bothers me that the expansion of so called "gay rights" has basically piggybacked their way on the civil rights and women's rights movements which I feel were making totally different - very valid - arguments. I think the comparison is pretty simple - if I am a person who is inclined to discriminate against somebody based on race or gender I do not have to know anything about them to start discriminating against them. I can see a person thru binoculars at two miles away sitting quietly in a chair doing nothing and discriminate against them simply by the way they look. The person I am seeing may be smarter than me, have more money than me, be a more moral person than me , whatever - I can discriminate purely based on skin color. The argument for women is pretty much the same but based on gender instead of skin color.

On the other hand I would have no idea if a person was homosexual or not in most cases if not for their behavior. You could be a 50 year old balding white guy wearing a suit on the subway and give absolutely no indication that you were a homosexual and suffer no discrimination because of it until you displayed the behavior.

So the problem I have with homosexual politics is that the discrimination they fight against is based on their behavior - not their race or gender. Behavior is changeable - race and gender are not. Civil rights and Women's rights fought for the end of discrimination based on something that was unchangeable. Gay rights essentially fights for the right to display their behavior in any way they please - and that behavior is both changeable and hideable. There is no getting away from being black or being a woman - it is a possibility to get away from being a homosexual just by changing or hiding your behavior.
The human race has always discriminated against certain behaviors - stealing for example is usually against the law - and this is a behavior. Behaviors always have consequences - many people feel that the consequences of homosexual behavior are bad - and this is why they are opposed to it.

 

[beds]

Hi Doug

Sorry if you took offense - I realize you did not accuse anybody of being a homophobe, I just think the word itself is misused and is frankly not the correct way to describe somebody who may not agree with much of the gay rights / homosexual agenda. The word gets used by the PC/gay rights crowd because it pigeonholes those people as being anti-gay in such a way as to make them seem like "haters" - as if not agreeing is somehow a psychological problem.

The part of homosexuality that I disagree with the most is the politicization of it. I think once you open the door of sexual politics you are asking for trouble. As soon as I heard about the gay marriage thing getting thru the Mass. courts I said - just wait legalized polygamy is next. Sure enough, recently I have seen numerous editorials from different people pointing out that the legal precendents have been set now to make polygamy legal.

read the second story down the page:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063569/

It bothers me that the expansion of so called "gay rights" has basically piggybacked their way on the civil rights and women's rights movements which I feel were making totally different - very valid - arguments. I think the comparison is pretty simple - if I am a person who is inclined to discriminate against somebody based on race or gender I do not have to know anything about them to start discriminating against them. I can see a person thru binoculars at two miles away sitting quietly in a chair doing nothing and discriminate against them simply by the way they look. The person I am seeing may be smarter than me, have more money than me, be a more moral person than me , whatever - I can discriminate purely based on skin color. The argument for women is pretty much the same but based on gender instead of skin color.

On the other hand I would have no idea if a person was homosexual or not in most cases if not for their behavior. You could be a 50 year old balding white guy wearing a suit on the subway and give absolutely no indication that you were a homosexual and suffer no discrimination because of it until you displayed the behavior.

So the problem I have with homosexual politics is that the discrimination they fight against is based on their behavior - not their race or gender. Behavior is changeable - race and gender are not. Civil rights and Women's rights fought for the end of discrimination based on something that was unchangeable. Gay rights essentially fights for the right to display their behavior in any way they please - and that behavior is both changeable and hideable. There is no getting away from being black or being a woman - it is a possibility to get away from being a homosexual just by changing or hiding your behavior.
The human race has always discriminated against certain behaviors - stealing for example is usually against the law - and this is a behavior. Behaviors always have consequences - many people feel that the consequences of homosexual behavior are bad - and this is why they are opposed to it.

Well, if there is a gay gene, or a gay brain or whatever scientific delineation may be made, then that argument is a wash, but I agree as it stands now. As VP Dan Quail said (and what a great guy to quote!), homosexuality "is more of a choice than a biological situation.... It is a wrong choice".

I have a friend whose wife left because she was "that way". It was devastating for everyone. They've got 2 young boys and joint custody. Her parents, who thought highly of their son-in-law, couldn't believe it. I personally can't imagine how that would have been what she chose to do, I think there is some predisposition.

 

[Junkman]

I have a friend whose wife left because she was "that way". It was devastating for everyone. They've got 2 young boys and joint custody. Her parents, who thought highly of their son-in-law, couldn't believe it. I personally can't imagine how that would have been what she chose to do, I think there is some predisposition.

Maybe he made her that way???????

 

[jdwilson44]

Well, if there is a gay gene, or a gay brain or whatever scientific delineation may be made, then that argument is a wash, but I agree as it stands now. As VP Dan Quail said (and what a great guy to quote!), homosexuality "is more of a choice than a biological situation.... It is a wrong choice".

I have a friend whose wife left because she was "that way". It was devastating for everyone. They've got 2 young boys and joint custody. Her parents, who thought highly of their son-in-law, couldn't believe it. I personally can't imagine how that would have been what she chose to do, I think there is some predisposition.

I actually think there probably is a gay gene - or there is some sort of physiological thing that happens to a person that makes them attracted to the same sex. There are also a lot of people who suddenly change the minds - or realize that they are attracted to the same sex later in life - like the other poster said about his friend's wife. I actually work with a guy whose wife did that - and to Junkmans' point - yes we do ask him if he made her do it . Lately I have read that there is a population of women in college who are "lesbians until graduation" - it is some sort of youth rebellion thing I guess.
The point is that the behavior is obviously changeable. When was the last time you had a kid go off to college and suddenly change his race?

As far as I am concerned in the end the presence or absence of a gay gene is irrelevant. While it is true that biology is destiny you are treading a thin line on the free will vs. no free will philosophical argument when you start saying that somebody who has homosexual feelings has to act on them. There are plenty of diseases that are genetically based - just because there is a gene that causes the condition doesn't suddenly make all the arguments against it go away. When diseases are found to have a genetic basis we don't suddenly change our minds and not consider them diseases any more. A genetic basis for homosexuality shouldn't automatically mean that the arguments against it are unreasonable.

 

[beds]

So the problem I have with homosexual politics is that the discrimination they fight against is based on their behavior - not their race or gender. Behavior is changeable - race and gender are not. Civil rights and Women's rights fought for the end of discrimination based on something that was unchangeable. Gay rights essentially fights for the right to display their behavior in any way they please - and that behavior is both changeable and hideable. There is no getting away from being black or being a woman - it is a possibility to get away from being a homosexual just by changing or hiding your behavior.

Your argument against it is based on it being a behaviour rather than something unchangeable. If it is a genetic predisposition, then that kind of makes it like a gender or a skin colour. There probably are still some arguments against it, but the one that starts off with "it's their choice..." would become invalid.

 

[Junkman]

If you think that you can convert a lesbian, try making love to one and see the reaction that you get. Been there, done that, in my younger days. Not worth the aggravation. If that is what they choose in life, it is fine with me. I am not about to try to change the world, even if it means one lesbian at a time. I value my sanity more..... Besides, there are a lot more heterosexual chicks that I preferred for many more varied and beneficial reasons. whistle:

 

[Dargo]

If it's genetic, it's a genetic defect. People always want to say that there have always been homosexuals. Well, there have always been mentally disturbed people as well. If it is a "choice", then nobody is ever going to convince me that it is a normal choice. That is what Hollyweird is trying to do. To me, it would be the same as a bunch of mentally disturbed people trying convince everyone that it is normal to run around naked, drooling, and screaming obscenities in public. Sorry, but that just is not normal and in nature, if there is such things as homosexuals, natural evolution has eliminated them.

 

[DAP]

....if I am a person who is inclined to discriminate against somebody based on race or gender I do not have to know anything about them to start discriminating against them. ...

I hope its not lost that if and when we DO know something about 'them' we are LESS inclined to discriminate against them. A subtlety that creates a GIAGUNDUS casm.

On the other hand I would have no idea if a person was homosexual or not in most cases if not for their behavior. You could be a 50 year old balding white guy wearing a suit on the subway and ...

Hey, the reason I would never join a club that would have me as a member is because I seriously resemble that remark. You left out fat however.

:vemo:

 

[Junkman]

....................................
Hey, the reason I would never join a club that would have me as a member is because I seriously resemble that remark. You left out fat however.

:vemo:

He also left out UGLY!!!!!!!

 

[jdwilson44]

Your argument against it is based on it being a behaviour rather than something unchangeable. If it is a genetic predisposition, then that kind of makes it like a gender or a skin colour. There probably are still some arguments against it, but the one that starts off with "it's their choice..." would become invalid.

Dargo pointed out something I was trying to stay away from - but since he opened the gate I might as well rush in - there are plenty of other things that happen to human beings like mental retardation, Downs Syndrome, physical defects, etc - that all have a genetic basis to them. We do not consider any of these to be "normal" . Hermaphrodism is not considered normal and that has a definite genetic component. The more scientists research this stuff the more they find that many diseases and human abnormalities have a genetic cause. So just the fact that something has a genetic cause is still not enough for human society to just say " well ok it must be 'normal' then ".

If mass murder is found to have a genetic cause should we just pass it off and say it is an adaptation of some sort - so they can't be punished for it? How the genetics manifest themselves in behavior is still the issue - in the end it is how you behave that counts no matter what the reasons are.

I have seen things on TLC and Discovery channel where they have done brain scans on homosexuals and there are definite differences from the brains of heterosexual people. I personally think that there is two levels of homosexuality if you will - there are people who are born like that for some reason or another, and they will never change their inclinations - and there are "recreational" homosexuals who do it because they are confused, they get a rush from it, peer pressure, whatever. I think the second group are the "lesbians until graduation" that you hear about.

No matter what the reasons are behind the behavior however I don't think that there should be discrimination for jobs or things like that and nothing is an excuse for violence against somebody. As far as the gay adoption, gay marriage thing - I am opposed to them. I think the gays in the military thing is screwed up too - the military is a special circumstance and I think the gays own lines of logic basically spell out why they should not be allowed to serve if they admit to it.

Homosexual advocates claim that their sexuality is just as normal to them as a heterosexuals sexuality is to a heterosexual. But yet they insist on being allowed to serve in the military as open homosexuals - now from as far back as I can remember we have had separate bathrooms, locker rooms, bedrooms, whatever for males and females - why is that? In the end it has to be because of the sexual attraction thing between men and women. If a male homosexual is as naturally attracted to other men as a male heterosexual is attracted to women - then why should we mix male homosexuals together with other men in environments like bathrooms and locker rooms?

 

[BoneheadNW]

I read through this thread rather quickly and possibly missed some things but I am a bit confused as to the problem here. What do you care what goes on behind closed door between consenting adults? Let's substitute "homosexual" for "individual who likes having sex with extremely obese people". I find that to be less than appealing to visualize but I don't care what they do, as long as I don't have to see it and it is between consenting adults. Is it unnatural? One could make the argument that extremely obese people go against the "survival of the fittest" argument, but I guess if there are some people that like that sort of thing, so be it.
Bonehead

 

[bczoom]

If you think that you can convert a lesbian, try making love to one and see the reaction that you get. Been there, done that, in my younger days. Not worth the aggravation.

There's where you screwed up (no pun intended). Don't try the conversion process... just enjoy the ride (pun intended).

Bonehead,

I don't care what goes on "behind closed doors". In public, and I don't care who you are, I do expect (or at least appreciate) people to act in such a fashion that could/would/should be acceptable in a public venue.

When in public, I normally have my kids with me. They're 4 & 8.

Society has dictated what is acceptable in a public area. Things are changing but in general, I believe "most" of us don't want to see (nor want our kids to see) things at their extremes. Although the "west coast" has embraced many things (be it public or private), I don't want to have to see nor have to explain the "extremes" to my kids at their ages.

To my knowledge, society has not accepted these "extremes" which may constitute many fashions. Some people just need to "get a room"...