Brokeback Mountain

Emlyn

Loud & Clear wrote:

I can't help myself but to be curious about the soundtrack. Is it possible that it will consist of Morrissey and Erasure pounding away one song after the next for the duration of the film? Are The Village People involved?

I seriously doubt I'd go to a theater to see the movie unless my friend tells me she wants to see it, and it's certainly not a subject matter everyone can appreciate. The soundtrack is available and fits well with the theme of the movie, not a stereotypical concept of what being **** is through music of the 70's and later. The movie is set in 1963 and the primary artists contributing to the soundtrack are...Linda Ronstadt, Steve Earle, Willie Nelson, and Bob Dylan with some acoustic guitar filler music, but most of the music is traditional country music.

Loud & Clear

Ron-P wrote:

So, as my final piece I will say that (IMO) homosexuality is wrong and unnatural, end of my opinion. I will not support it.

I believe that's the opening line of dialogue in Brokeback Mountain, with Jake Gyllenhaal's character making his feelings known to Heath Ledger's. Wasn't long afterward that he had changed his tune and was exclaiming in sexually charged anguish, "why can't I quit you, dude?"

Careful, Ron, the wang is a harsh mistress.

Loud & Clear

Emlyn wrote:

The movie is set in 1963 and the primary artists contributing to the soundtrack are...Linda Ronstadt, Steve Earle, Willie Nelson, and Bob Dylan with some acoustic guitar filler music, but most of the music is traditional country music.

Sounds good.

I wonder if they'll play anything from Dylan's, "Hershey-Highway 61 Revisited".

brettw22

The difference Mac is that I don't think I've ever heard of ANYone ever say "I won't go see that movie because it's a straight romantic movie".......

When THE reason for someone avoiding a movie is because of either a **** storyline or a **** character, what do you call that? Many people haven't verbalized that they'd be bored.......but instead something to the effect of "I won't go watch a **** story."

The straight people that look down on, or otherwise judge, those that are **** certainly aren't people I have any interest in being around. Personally, I don't care whether someone approves of my being **** or not (who are they to judge me anyway). I also recognize that as much as I don't appreciate their opinions on my life, I don't comment or judge them for theirs.

It's not a 2 way street in this country, and people will always have conflict when they think that they're the final judge on something they know nothing about, nor are willing to learn about (if for no other reason than to co-exist).

I'm not saying accept homosexuality unconditionally. What people need to put into practice is respecting someone for being themselves and not discriminating against them for a part of who they are. I'm not "Brett the **** guy" any more than you are "Mac the straight guy".

To those out there that are defined primarily by their sexual orientation (whichever that is), I hope that you have more to offer than just that.......

brettw22

Hey Loud, make comments, but take the slander out of it. Grow up, ok?

MacLeod

brettw22 wrote:

Here's how: This is a thought I've heard expressed a lot in my life, and I find it ridiculous (sorry Ron) that people have a problem with their straight money potentially going towards the **** community, but have no problems with our money being given to them every day of the year. (as I mentioned, public schools, busses, etc)

**** marriage and the dispursement of my tax dollars is a big concern personally. More accurately it's that equal rights is something we tout in this country, but spend a LOT of time discriminating against people that don't fit into what some believe the collective majority should be.

I don't judge any straight people on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of their lives, but yet that's something that many straight people can't resist passing judgement on those who.......aren't. It's hypocritical IMO.

Honestly I dont see where tax dollars are going to support ****'s as a special group anyway? I think **** people deserve equal protection under the law no less than anyone else.

Now being agaisnt **** marriage isnt discrimination or an equal rights issue. There is no "right to be married". Also, there are lots or prohibitions in marriage. A man cant marry a child, a man cant marry his sister, a man cant marry 2 women, a man cant marry his horse, a man cant marry a man. You have a right to spend the rest of your life with whom you see fit but we have a right to not have to approve or recognize it.

Again, please dont think Im "judging" you bro. I know a lot of religious nuts do but honestly, thats ALL they do; sit around and judge anybody that doesnt agree with them. There is no anger or malice in my beliefs on homosexuality at all. Its simply a lifestyly that I dont agree with but I dont think youre a sinner or evil person or some kind of sick person or messed up like an alcoholic or drug addict.

danger boy

Zero wrote:

****, I am the one that should be bitching here... having to endure a **** friend of mine who is not only wanting me to go with him to see this movie - but to also wear a cowboy hat and wranglers. I say that to say this;

It could be worse, guys... its just a movie.

LOL do it.. go see the movie with your **** friend while wearing wranglers and a cowboy hat.. assless chaps are optional.

C'mon people lets have fun in life... it's so much easier than condeming this or that lifestyle.

And for the record. it's not a choice (being ****)... anymore than someone who was born with blue eyes or brown.

brettw22

MacLeod wrote:

You have a right to spend the rest of your life with whom you see fit but we have a right to not have to approve or recognize it.

Just to make the point........As long as you're willing to give up the rights that you enjoy as a part of your union because (for example) we don't recognize your choice of lifestyle as well.

The prohibitions that you listed are out of left field. To compare **** marriage to a man trying to wed a sister/horse/2 wives/child isn't an apples to apples comparison. I disagree that it's not an equal rights issue though.....

This (posting in this thread) is by far the most '****' I've been as of late compared to how I am in person. I respect that others don't agree with my lifestyle, but I also expect that I'm entitled to the same rights/benefits as straight couples are.

aaharvel

MacLeod wrote:

I think **** people deserve equal protection under the law no less than anyone else.

Now being agaisnt **** marriage isnt discrimination or an equal rights issue. There is no "right to be married".

There's no "right to ride in the front seat of a bus" or "right to not be counted as 3/5 of a human being" either.

it is discrimination.
it is an equal rights issue.
Like with the original Civil Rights Movement, it may take awhile for the mainstream majority to realize it. But if America is what it claims to be then it will happen.

MacLeod I admire you for saying that **** should have equal protection under the law. It's a shame there are many out there that think those people aren't even human and don't deserve rights under the U.S. Constitution. The first step has been taken. Passing the buck to homosexuals regarding their right to marry; accusing them of destroying the moral fabric of America still doesn't explain the 55% divorce rate in this country amongst heterosexual couples, the ever increasing numbers of children born out of wedlock, and the rising number of single mothers.

Demiurge

The 'benefits' of marriage are there for the thought of a family, which a man and a woman can have, naturally. The adoption debate is a whole other subject matter. 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.

If you want to do away with marriage benefits, fine, I won't complain. I just don't think that marriage should be changed from what it is. I welcome the debate openly, but I can't say I won't be fighting for the status quo, sans financial benefit.

Take that 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.

brettw22

Demiurge wrote:

I don't that because the institution has been bastardized by some, that it means there should be free reign to bastardize it further.

The sad thing about this is that hetero's HAVE bastardized it, yet people somehow act that the **** population would be to blame for it being trivialized......that's a cop out any way ya look at it. The hetero population has zero claim to the sanctity of marriage when they've single handedly flushed it down the toilet, and continue to do so. If you want to argue that **** could cause the divorce rate to go up, fine.......but no one has the ability to pre-determine what the effect will be before they're even given cause. Hard as some might find it to believe, the God position is filled, and some of you need to get off the throne long enough to realize that you have zero right to deny ANYone rights, especially if you just don't like the way they are.

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.

That's the problem with so many straight people.......they have this thing in their head that the **** population wants to take something from you. What is it specifically that you're in fear of losing exactly?

There are obviously more important things that go along with a marriage aside from a financial perspective such as medical decisions, estate distribution, etc. which are things that are ZILCH with **** couples. If my partner was to be in car accident and went to the hospital needing medical attention, I'd have no visitation rights, let alone be able to sign for any procedures that needed to be done to save their life. Some might think that's so far-fetched, but this happens daily. If any of y'all can honestly put yourself in that situation and say that you'd be OK with someone telling you that your significant other (for example purposes we're not recognizing them as your wife or husband) will die because no one is around to authorize a treatment (if needed), then I'd say congrats for being a couplete ****.

Maurice

Brett, this is in no way meant as an offence to you, ok. But the problem is not the **** lifestyle so to speak, but the fact that it's being shoved down everyones throat and thats why people react. If you are part of the **** community, you KNOW that there is a specific agenda to infiltrate every area of society. On the surface, the claim is "we just want to be married like everyone else". But underneath, there is the strong push for "civil rights" in the same way my race (black) has obtained.

The BIG problem with that is (and you know this is true) that if that ever occurs, the militant wings in the **** community will start an all out assault, backed by the aclu. If those types of rights are passed, a **** couple can go to a christian church to be married, and if the pastor refuses because of his beliefs, he can be brought up on civil rights charges. And you know that the militant wings of the **** community will exploit that to no end. Also "**** History Month" and things like that can be established and forced on ALL children in school. The implications are endless. As far as the monetary, health issue arguments for **** marriage, that old dog wont hunt because a simple "Power of Attorney" will handle all of that.

Everyone can do whatever (or whoever) they want. But the plain truth is, the "**** Agenda" is much bigger than it's spokespeople will EVER admit in the mainstream media. Again, nothing personal.

danger boy

OK. this should be good. To bad i have to go to work now. Dang it!

brettw22

So the reason for not giving equal rights to the **** population is because of the big push similar to that of the black community? Am I the only one tha reads that as a bit off?

I wasn't aware that we were in a country that civil rights were based on what the majority felt like doning out that day.....

BIZILL

not trying to flame anyone, as i have no prob with homosexuality, but marriage seems to me to be a sacred thing. check out 1. d.

dictionary.com:
mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
1.
a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
b. The state of being married; wedlock.
c. A common-law marriage.
d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

The dictionaries that appear on Dictionary.com include:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2001 Denis Howe
Jargon File 4.2.0
CIA World Factbook (1995)
Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary
U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau

Maurice

Thats not what I'm saying at all. The problem lies in the area of origin, meaning there is a fundamental disagreement. The majority of people in this country dont believe that being **** is a state of birth, but a choice. Where being black (or any other ethnicity) is clearly a state of birth. I realize that many believe that people are born ****, but my question is this, if that is true how do you explain bi-sexuals. Having grown up in "the hood", I know LOTS of criminals, many of which have been in trouble with the law since childhood. Because they were prone to illegal activities as kids, does that mean they were born criminals? Personally, I dont think so. I watched them make choices to do what they did. Therein lies the gap between the **** and straight communities where politcal issues are concerned. Althought this subject gets alot of people emotionally charged which can and does get out of hand on BOTH sides, at the root, the disagreement is at the most fundamental level. And the truth is, few people will ever change their most fundamental beliefs. After the civil rights movement in the 60's, though rights were given, the hardcore racists had not changed their views one bit. We still see (and experience) the effects of those beliefs some 40 yrs later.
You can never change people from the outside in, real change comes from the inside out and that takes TIME, and in many cases, never occurs.

BIZILL

i see no wrong in homosexuality, though it would seem that our 'creators' or even 'evolution' dictates that there is no reproductive benefits to being ****. to me it is but a choice one makes within one's self. like some are prone to hot tempers, it's an ailment, but one that can be controlled. actually that's a bad thing to equate homosexuality with but i am just pointing out the fact that i believe persons are born with a homosexual tendancy within them. my whole thing is that i personally am against **** marriage. all i know is that there is no HITLER in america persecuting a person for being ****. love and lay with whomever you choose, but **** marriage imo should not be equal to straight marriage. i hold marriage up there to high standards. i personally won't pervert it with my unability to remain monogomous. marriage is not for me, nor do i see it truely fit for homesexuals. but i agree with brett about the benefits of the marriage in the case of one's significant other being denied rights to see the other because there are no legal bounds to do so. perhaps a 'marriage for specific purpose' should be in order. sort of a spin-off of marriage? forgive my ignorance as well as my possibly having offended readers of this. these are just my thoughts.

brettw22

BIZILL wrote:

love and lay with whomever you choose, but **** marriage imo should not be equal to straight marriage.

So because you don't agree with **** marriage, you think that it's ok to discriminate against them because they don't fit within your beliefs? I'm not implying an implicit holding down of someone's rights, but by imposing your beliefs on another group (whether they be ****, white, black, straight, asian, etc) you ARE discriminating against something that they should be entitled to.

For the record, I don't so much care about it being termed "marriage" but if the definition of marriage is (more specifically) 2 people that have committed themselves to each other in a monogamous manner, who are you to question the basis for that committment?

Demi's point that marriage is to produce children is up for personal interpretation. Families are children based, but I don't believe that you have to have children in order to be married to the person you love.

My main point is that judgement in this world is NOT up to you or your neighbor, so quit trying to play up on the throne and leave it to the big guy. If the **** community getting the right to marry in any way compromises your marriage to your spouse, there are other issues that you need to deal with, especially that you felt you have some sort of authority to mandate whether or not I can or cannot marry.

aaharvel

edit- moronic double post. :rolleyes:

aaharvel

blaming **** for ruining the santity of marriage is passing the buck in it's purest form. While no one here may be doing that on the forums, many are out in the real world- and it influences the attitudes and beliefs on of many on the issue as a result.

BIZILL

again, i don't have a doubt a man could love another man more deeply than any legally-bound (hetero) marriage could suggest. i think they should have separate priviledges and even special priveledges over the norm. i have no authority to withhold anyone from getting married. that's all tied up in politics. i just feel that marriage in its intended form should remain the same and not be revamped to accomodate outside its inteded purpose. i don't feel it would harm me or any other married folk in any way financially. i'm trying not to be hypocritical as best i can. don't take this personally. it's not an attact. it's just my opinions.

BIZILL

marriage these days is perverted and cliche enough as it is. i'd like to see marriage regain its usefullness. i'd like to see it be taken more seriously. i'm sure **** folk may have a better long-term marriage than hetero's. that's not up for debate. i see brett's point about the significant other being hospitalized. i hope there is another way to accomodate that need. but if only there were another addendum to the law that could bring that to fruition. just not a legally-binding marriage as we know it now. that is all.

BIZILL

i concur. i don't wanna step on toes. to each their own. have your sexual preferences. i'm just against the marriage deal. i mean not to hurt or offend anyone. but here is an open invitation to persuade me to believe otherwise on the marriage deal. only if you feel so inclined to.

Maurice

I agree, no offense intended to Brett or anyone else. Just healthy conversation imo!! Anytime you hear what someone really thinks, at least then you know where they're coming from even if you dont agree.

Ron-P

I know I said I would not post here again but I just want to throw out an apology incase I upset anyone via my comments. That was not my intention.

Demiurge

Zero wrote:

While the subject matter may not be hilarious - this thread sure is. wow, just wow.

Really, what's so amusing?

Skynut

Wow there is so much here that I do not know where to begin.

I never saw that crouching tiger flic because I am not into that whole majic black belt bruce lee type of crap.
I never pay to see movies that are fluffy romantic types either (unles wifey drags me in kicking and screaming)
Never went to see michel morons 911 movie or the bridges of madison county.
There are just certain types of movies I do not like.
Movies with a homosexual agenda would have to be pretty high on my list.
I would not want to offend anyone in todays day and age when it is not politically correct to say I disagree with someone.
Don't take this wrong but I will not be seeing any movie that I know is meant to promote **** lifestyles.
I could go on and on about the things I have read here but for now I will abstain.

lanion

obligatory **** pengiun post...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

Basic summary... there is a zoo with two **** penguins, and conservatives are freaking out. It is difficult to call homosexuality unnatural if it occurs in nature which is the basis of the term 'natural'.

lanion

In regards to the dictionary definition of Marriage....

the dictionary definition of the sun, circa 500 years ago would be...

sun, large body of holy light that circles around the earth, as do all celestial bodies.
which was clearly wrong. disagree are you are killed or exiled.

im not saying your wrong, but using current opinion as a basis for an very timely argument is dangerous.

Ron-P

Talking about marraige, I'll throw the Holy Bible on the table here (adding to the fire in this thread) and there is plenty on the definition of what it is supposted to be and it dates back much farther than the dictionary.

Ready....THUMP....runs away really, really fast