Brokeback Mountain

wingnut4772

he would be down signing the ballet if it ever interupted his political views and agenda's....

Ok. That does it. I so gotta see this ballet everyone's talking about!

Tour2ma

faster100 wrote:

Sorry but just because its a **** thread, and i'm trying to support the cause, Brett can't just turn off the **** storm that has followed this thread.. and im not gonna run away because someone told me to..

How about a request from a person who has more invested in this thread than ego...

BIZILL

i agree. with all the personal attacks, the thread has lost its meaning. (but wasn't the thread about a movie some time ago?) i hope we can all regroup and keep this thread going in a positive manner or just let it die. thus far not much has been solved or resolved. this is just a few persons going around in circles with every now and again someone making a valid point.

i have not changed my stance i had from the beginning of the thread, but i MOST DEFINATELY do hope that **** couples get certain rights they don't have now. my ignorance told me that the whole arguement of **** marriage was mostly about pride. i never stopped to think about the whole 'hospitalization' idea. a few here have opened my eyes and i hope this thread may continue in that direction. to what end i don't know. but let's try and keep it civil?

MacLeod

I am officially retiring out of this one now.

This is a very touchy subject and could go very bad very quickly. Ive met and like both Al and Brett and hope to hang out with them again and would hate for there to be any bad blood or ill feelings between us due to a misunderstanding or some statment taken the wrong way. (Which would not be hard to imagine given my knack for running my big mouth too much and saying stupid things and generally having no tact.)

Oi Voi.

dorokusai

I just reread this entire thread with no pants and it was outstanding.

faster100

what more do you have invested? Really, i didnt read the 16 pages worth.. only the first 5 and last 3.. I don't have a ego to withhold, I stand behind brett and al, I do however care nothing of demi.. I'm really done now though, don't wanna lose the already lost focus of this thread.. **** rights and all.. not that it started like that..

Tour2ma

I was referring to brett and Al...

faster100

Oh ok, were cool anyways... No beef.. like i said. just demi but im outta here

Demiurge

Tour2ma wrote:

faster, Demi and others... please note:

Sorry, but I reserve the right to defend myself. You can objectively see where things went down. Calling someone a homophobe or any other term would be just as offensive as me saying a few choice words in the other direction, would it not? If people aren't going to bother to read what's been said before opening their yap they're opening themselves up for the medicine they so love to dish out to everyone else. It's more than just one person, there's been quite a few.

If that's a problem, i'm sorry. I think this was a decent discussion until people started showing up just to throw the one liners out there and start baiting. This thread could very well just die, but sometimes we'll take it with hook line and sinker every time. Personally....the only reason I responded is because of what appeared on page one and what consequently appreared 2 other times throughout the thread. Quit throwing words around that don't have any application to anyone here.

Like I said, the ones mucking up the thread aren't the ones who were around at square one. A large discussion developed and without even reading it a lot of assumptions have been made.

BIZILL

truer words have never been spoken.

oh, and like doro, my pants are slidin' off as we speak as well...
i'm actually gonna jump in the shower.

brettw22

Hey, I don't like people standing behind me......to be clear.....lol.

I think the issue with giving all rights, but calling it something different still sends the message that you're a second class getting first class rights by default. If a marriage is two people in love with each other in a monogomous relationship, I don't think that it should be called anything else to be honest. Are those that hold the WORD marriage so highly offended by those that cheat, rape, or do anything that demeans the term? Personally, I'd fight more against those that are committing those offenses to the sanctity than those that want to join in a marriage and be happy. The arguement that **** should just be happy even if it's called a civil union really should put themselves in the other position and ask if they'd be ok with it.

danger boy

Ok. I'm willing to take this to the next level.. and what i mean by that.. is that I"m willing to take questions from those that have contributed to this discussion. The questions have to be within reason though. Meaning.. you can ask me about anything **** related.. for instance: In a **** male relationship who does the cooking or cleaning?

I know this sounds extremely silly.. and i'm only using this as an example.. but i do and have been asked this questions before. There are some things that some people are just curious about **** and never knew.

Questions I will not answer are intimate questions about sex.. You are all adults.. go rent a porno. :eek:

Tour2ma

Sorry, Al… Not just yet, OK?

Demi,
Sometimes the bigger thing is to just walk away. However, since you are incapable of that. Let’s examine some elements of this discussion starting with the offensive, initial “homophobe” comment.

It was made by aaharvel in post #6. Now exactly at whom was that aimed? With the possible exception of L&C, I can see no one in its crosshairs. In fact, I took it as a joke and based upon the responses that immediately followed, including one from L&C, it appears that everyone else did as well. That is until you came along and chose to be offended (of course, maybe you were born that way). Are there examples in this thread of comments that hint at homophobia? Absolutely, but they came a little later.

Demiurge wrote:

The 'benefits' of marriage are there for the thought of a family, which a man and a woman can have, naturally. The fact some choose not to have kids or can't is irrelevent, because that's not what the institution of marriage is about. It's about bearing children and having a family, it's why it's there.

I love my girlfriend, does that mean we need to get married? Nope. I don't need marriage to express my love to someone. I, morally, need marriage to have children with this person. That's really what it's there for. I don't that because the institution has been bastardized by some, that it means there should be free reign to bastardize it further.

Take (the financial benefit) away, then what? I don't think this has anything to do with equality, but more with taking something away. May not be your intention, but that's the impression lots of people get fromt he homosexual movement.

I have to deal with this last bit first… Some would say that the fear of having something taken away based solely upon an impression is a phobia. So while it is bad for anyone to post the word “homophobe”, apparently it’s acceptable to cite homophobic “impressions” in furtherance of your position.

On marriage… in my vows I promised to love, honor and obey. I don’t remember anything about impregnate. I’m sorry, but you do not get to define what marriage is about, except when it comes to yourself. You do not get to determine what is “irrelevant” universally in an attempt to preemptively disarm any who might disagree with you. Sorry, but even though that’s essential to the completion of your circular logic, you do not get to make that determination. On the other hand I find it interesting that the new moral high ground appears to include sex before marriage. Is it OK to impregnate before marriage, so long as you marry before delivery?

Demiurge wrote:

So...I really haven't heard a rebuttal to the comment of where the line is to be drawn. Rather than just call it absurd and stupid, please argue it. I'm arguing that morality is a huge part of the issue. I think a line does need to be drawn.

The bulk of this thread has been about whether it is right to draw any line differently for **** than is drawn for society in general. Drawing a different line for any segment of the population is by definition discriminatory. Be they black, female, Jewish, people less than 66” tall, etc., the target segment of the line is irrelevant.

You claim to have built an argument based upon morality. Please dig up that post or those posts for me, because I have not seen any construction, only demagogical assertions. For example:

Demiurge wrote:

I'm … telling you our laws are based on morality and morality is rooted in religion. I was moreso waiting for someone to actually take me to task on my comments because I know that our country IS founded on religion. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

Well wait no more… Tour, at your service… Let’s start with the basics.
Please find me the passage in the New Testament where Jesus taught that homosexuality was sinful, or amoral if you prefer that term.

Now the laws bit… Based on morality… check. Morality in religion… check. Religion (or more specifically Christianity)… wait incomplete here. We need purpose. What is the purpose of our laws? Most conservatives would say “to protect our rights as guaranteed in the Constitution.” Great. But what right do heterosexuals lose if **** are permitted to marry?

Now to the founding… Since our country was definitely founded on religion, then the Constitution must be full of references to “God”… Care to cite two? I’ll even spot you one, it’s in the date of the signing. How about The Declaration of Independence? Tell you what, I’ll do it for you as well:
“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
And that’s the only reference… doesn’t even say God. Nonetheless, what a great sentence. Too bad that it alone should be enough to drown out the **** rights opposition of any red-blooded American. Enough of this Declaration stuff, let’s get back to the Constitution…

First this:

Demiurge wrote:

It's freedom of religion, not freedom from it. Learn it.

Well except for this little thing called Article 6 which says, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” It seems to be saying that no religious litmus test can be applied to our own public servants. Leaving the door so wide open that even Godless heathens can attain public office reads an awful lot like freedom from religion to me.

But that’s a trifle compared to this. So let’s tackle the big one shall we?

Demiurge wrote:

Skynut wrote:

There is no seperation of church and state in the constitution.
There is a provision for no state sponsored religion.

Bingo.

Very good…. The exact quote from the 1st Amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” But as to what this means, you actually might find it surprising that a fellow named T. Jefferson disagrees with you in its interpretation. In his wall of separation letter of 1802 he wrote, “…(the) American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

Probably better stop now.. plenty to chew upon… Bon apetite!

faster100

Very good post Tour,

on a side note, people were all pissy because i said Homophobe? Like you said yourself in your much better defined words..

what else are they if they don't beleive in it? support it or are scared of it.. It being **** and **** rights..

Done

PolkThug

Is this movie good or what!?

cfrizz

Wow Tour! Outstanding post! You should be a lawyer!

BTW, there was something in the news the other day about a judge shooting down a School board in PA about teaching Intelligent Design since it violates the "Constitutional separation of church and state."

I heard the same thing mentioned by Judge Roberts at his confirmation hearing. In short, it is the law & how all those on the bench should be interpreting it!

PolkThug

cfrizz wrote:

BTW, there was something in the news the other day about a judge shooting down a School board in PA about teaching Intelligent Design since it violates the "Constitutional separation of church and state."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

cfrizz

Yep that was it. Thanks!

Demiurge

I'll respond in kind to your post, Tour, this afternoon when i'm done with lunch. I think I need a snack. I'm sure you'll be waiting with baited breath.

ninerbj

I think it's fair to say we are ALL waiting with baited breath that you DON'T respond to this thread anymore!
Can I get an amen?

shack

Bruce...someday we may debate some of these and other topics, but not here and now.

Demiurge

ninerbj wrote:

I think it's fair to say we are ALL waiting with baited breath that you DON'T respond to this thread anymore!
Can I get an amen?

Are you going to be our Bestiality expert?

Location: South Dakota, where the sheep can keep a secret.

- Bestialphobe

Skynut

Tour2ma wrote:

Sorry, Al… Not just yet, OK?

Very good…. The exact quote from the 1st Amendment is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” But as to what this means, you actually might find it surprising that a fellow named T. Jefferson disagrees with you in its interpretation. In his wall of separation letter of 1802 he wrote, “…(the) American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

Probably better stop now.. plenty to chew upon… Bon apetite!

Wall of separation letter, LETTER.
As in a correspondence to someone or something, not a constitutional amendment.

A letter.

This neatly coined phrase is constantly being brought up as a law. There is no law or amendment to the constitution stating that the state has to be seperated from all religion but instead that the state can back no religion.

That is all I was saying and you said it yourself in different words.

Now lets stop with all the attacking of each other and get back to the topic of the thread.

I still do not plan to see this movie.

I also can not think of any questions for danger boy at this time but anyone else have at it.

Maurice

I hate to stir the pot yawl, but Tour, you should check out www.wallbuilders.com It has lots and lots of historical documents from the founding Fathers and their "actual" views on religion and such. Trust me, the information will not only surprise you, but make you wonder what the hell the supreme court is doing. Very interesting reading to say the least.

Also Brett & DB, you guys are cool in my book. To have this debate and stay civil the way you have, outstanding!!!!

BIZILL

tour, perhaps the **** community should embrace the likes of your services. and i'm sure they have many folks like yourself that are working on and are addressing these type issues. i'm no constitution buff. i'm just one 'homophobe' (by definition). i suggest not using it because it has become cliche and more of a slang word imo. i don't use the word '****' even though by definition it is correct, it has a slang definition as well. i think demi just feels the same as i do about the word homophobe. it's just a term to label certain people. btw, good post. bet you vested some time in researching it. and if you just pulled this off the top of your head, kudos. but i'm sure there is much debate in what you have posted, but i don't care to be the one to do it.

danger boy

Tour2ma wrote:

Sorry, Al… Not just yet, OK?

OK, no problemo. I'll be here all week. I was just throwing it out.. i don't expect to be bombarded with questions.

Jstas

PolkThug wrote:

Is this movie good or what!?

I thought the movie sucked. I couldn't watch more than a half hour of it.

BIZILL

Jstas wrote:

I thought the movie sucked. I couldn't watch more than a half hour of it.

and a perfect segue back to the original point of this thread.

ND13

danger boy wrote:

Ok. I'm willing to take this to the next level.. and what i mean by that.. is that I"m willing to take questions from those that have contributed to this discussion.

Okay Al,

Do **** people have the same color of blood that straight people have???

Do you put your pants on one leg at a time like straight people do??

Do **** people feel pain like straight people do??

Do **** people have feelings like straight people do??

:rolleyes:

Skynut

I'll bet **** people feel different than straight people.

I don't know for sure because I have never felt one.