Brokeback Mountain

BIZILL

dare i say it? normality? i don't know if i see **** marriage being legalized as progression. sure it is for the **** society. but i wouldn't exactly call it evolution for humanity. forgive me if i offend. just trying to be honest. anyone who quotes me and labels me a biggot can bite me after gregure finishes.

another reason (just for giggles), manufacturers of those little plastic bride and groom decorations for wedding cakes will have to create new molds of two guys holding hands and two gals doing the same.

Tour2ma

Skynut wrote:

I am not homophobic...

But you're concerned that a movie will turn your kids ****...

*EDITed for editorial comment...

BIZILL

Skynut wrote:

This is a tool to help desensitize anyone who sees it.

what tool are you referring to? liberals? ouch! take it easy folks, just tryin' to have fun. but if you want, BRING IT! :eek:

wingnut4772

Maybe he means 'tulle' as in the 'fabulous' fabric used in wedding gowns and such?

BIZILL

wingnut4772 wrote:

Maybe he means 'tulle' as in the 'fabulous' fabric used in wedding gowns and such?

knowledge of such fabrics is outside my jurisdiction.

gregure

In my opinion, exposure to a thing does not necessarily make someone for against said thing. Hanging around **** people doesn't make one **** if one is not. And furthermore, including homosexuality in sex education as a common expression of sexuality is neither detrimental nor harmful to children. To refuse to address the issue only continues to engender prejudice and violence. To ignore an issue or steer away from educating people about it only fosters fear, mistrust, and bullying. If kids are made aware of an issue, instead of made to believe that something is odd, or "not normal," well I think we all went to school and saw the results of this mentality. Imagine, if kids were told that it is ok to be **** in their teens, how much pain and suffering this might avoid. The more something is accepted, the more people will rally to defend people from bullies and 'phobes. Acceptance is already becoming more of a trend in younger people, despite the government's obvious and petulant efforts to avoid nurturing tolerance. Avoiding children's "exposure" to something like the existence of **** people is like trying to keep them from exposure to sunlight. If they go out into the world, they will be experiencing people of all sorts. Why prevent them from being comfortable with all types of people, allowing them to make their own choices about who they choose to consort with?

gregure

BIZILL wrote:

gregure....bite me.

Oh, that hurts. Really.

BIZILL

gregure wrote:

In my opinion, exposure to a thing does not necessarily make someone for against said thing. Hanging around **** people doesn't make one **** if one is not. And furthermore, including homosexuality in sex education as a common expression of sexuality is neither detrimental nor harmful to children. To refuse to address the issue only continues to engender prejudice and violence. To ignore an issue or steer away from educating people about it only fosters fear, mistrust, and bullying. If kids are made aware of an issue, instead of made to believe that something is odd, or "not normal," well I think we all went to school and saw the results of this mentality. Imagine, if kids were told that it is ok to be **** in their teens, how much pain and suffering this might avoid. The more something is accepted, the more people will rally to defend people from bullies and 'phobes. Acceptance is already becoming more of a trend in younger people, despite the government's obvious and petulant efforts to avoid nurturing tolerance. Avoiding children's "exposure" to something like the existence of **** people is like trying to keep them from exposure to sunlight. If they go out into the world, they will be experiencing people of all sorts. Why prevent them from being comfortable with all types of people, allowing them to make their own choices about who they choose to consort with?

i sort of agree with you gregure. just don't ever mis-quote me again.

polksda

Whutevr 'em **** 'n **** wants to do ain't nobody's bizness, but ah do feel a mite sad for 'em defenseless sheep...



Anyway, for what little it's worth, I consider myself rather conservative overall, however I have no problem with the legalization of **** marriage. Any two people regardless of orientation, that choose to establish a lifelong commitment under the law, should be encouraged to do so, and should share in all the legal benefits and responsibilities thereof.

Being an agnostic, I usually don't bring religion into the discussion. However, as a "religious outsider", I would hope that if we are truly all God's creatures, that would include **** as well as straight, and I would hope that any benevolent deity would want ALL to be happy.

As to any comment about **** destroying the "sanctity of marriage," get a clue. The sanctity of marriage is already destroyed when over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Don't blame ****, blame straight ****.

I won't see the movie for one simple reason: the topic doesn't interest me. Simple. Then again, I won't see 98% of the movies released this year.

I will agree with some of the sentiment that the Hollywood media *does* have a tendency to go apeshit with adulation when it comes to any movie that embraces "liberal" causes. Some of the adjectives used to extol the movie would probably NOT be used if it were just another western. There is a bit of an agenda there. Same thing happened with Moore's inane Farrenheit 911.

If the performances, screenplay, directing, etc. are above and beyond other films of the year that's one thing, but controversial subject matter alone does not a great film make.

Oh, and not wanting to see the movie does NOT make one a homophobe.

I wish I did have some **** friends though... my house is a MESS!

brettw22

Farenheit 911 was a 'documentary', so this is a completely different type of film.
Jarhead I think was a war movie, but is no different than We Were Soldiers, Saving Private Ryan, etc. Were you met by a recruiter at the door at the end of the movie?
Rocky Horror Picture Show is an over the top Halloween movie. Ever looked outside your window around Halloween? I don't ever recall seeing anything in the movie that asked me to wed a nerd, or to run around in gold hotshorts.....

To draw a comparison.....did letting blacks ride on the bus and use the same restroom make whites less human? I'm not asking what the fanatic skinheads belief is either. Was letting them occupy the same schools as us and abolishing slavery a mistake leading to the demise of this country? They were looked at as a lesser class before, and times changed and people realized that it was wrong and things were done to alter those wrongs.

I disagree with eating wheat toast, but should there be laws mandating that people not be allowed to eat it?

I don't agree with carrying a weapon, so does it mean that because I don't agree with it that the constitution should be altered to prevent people from having them?

I acknowledge that the above two questions are somewhat ridiculous, but they do parallel the situation with granting the same rights to the **** population as others have. This 'not agreeing' arguement that I'm seeing a lot is one that really doesn't hold a lot of water to me with regard to rights.

Many years ago I was beat up by a group of people because I am ****. This was THE reason that they surrounded me and wanted to play. I ended up getting a few stitches and then had to deal with the court case. The prosecutor refused to process the case with Hate Crime charges because he was a chicken ****. It qualified in every way, yet he let his bias mandate how the case was processed. These types of occurances are a very regular thing, and I'm sure that many straight people either a) don't want to hear it, or b) think that **** are getting what they deserve. The bottom line is that **** are looked at as a lesser class of people, and that WILL change. In it's purest form, withholding rights and benefits from a group of people essentially 'just because' IS being discriminative. I know that many of you fall back on your religious beliefs, and I respect that, but I recall something about the seperation of church and state being one of the foundations of how this country should be run.

To clarify someone's question about people that are bi.....no one has ever said that every **** person on the planet was born ****, and sure there are people that choose to play both sides of the fence. Specifically with them, if the end result is that they find someone they love and want to build a home with, isn't that enough?

polksda

brettw22 wrote:

Many years ago I was beat up by a group of people because I am ****. This was THE reason that they surrounded me and wanted to play. I ended up getting a few stitches and then had to deal with the court case. The prosecutor refused to process the case with Hate Crime charges because he was a chicken ****. It qualified in every way, yet he let his bias mandate how the case was processed.

In all candor, I despise so-called "hate crime" provisions. It's Orwellian thoughtcrime prosocution. It's punishing someone for what they were thinking, not for what they were doing.

If I murder a black man, I'm subject to certain charges, but if I call him a "****" first, that somehow escalates it to being more horrendous? It doesn't matter to the man I killed in either case. He's just as dead.

It's a feeble attempt to impute motive on the part of the defendent, and pile on charges in a politically correct manner.

There's a line of thought in some academic circles that whites are inherently racist, and by definition, blacks cannot be. So then, by definition, only whites can ever be prosecuted under hate crime statutes; since blacks cannot be racists, they are immune.

I say "****!"

Prosecute the physical crime to the fullest extent of the law, not the thought behind it.

Demiurge

Well, okay...this is going to stir the pot, but for the sake of argument I'm going to put this on the table.

I hear a lot of talk of a **** Rights movement being the same as a Civil Rights movement. I know for a fact that many black individuals don't see this in the same light, correct me if I'm wrong. There is no definitive proof that says all homosexuality is purely genetic, nor is there anything that says it's a choice. Fact of the matter is, neither can be proven to the core. You're taking racial discrimination and putting on the same level as so-called sexual discrimination, when they aren't even close to being the same. I can see benefits, etc, being a true issue. In fact, that's the only issue I see that holds any merit.

There is also a line, and it's always being pushed. To someone who is homosexual I'm sure their behavior seems just as normalized as someone who is heterosexual. Fair? Maybe. What about polygamy, incestuous relationships, or hell, even bestiality? What is normalized behavior? Where is the line drawn? I'm not comparing ANY of those last three things to homosexuality or heterosexuality. What I am saying is that all 5 of those things are real, very different, BUT all 5 of those things involve some form of sex. Which is normalized and which is not? What should be recognized and which should not? I'll leave that for you to decide, but it opens up a whole new can of worms, which was my intention. If what 2 men or 2 women do together is right, is what a 3 women and a man do right? Maybe, if that's your moral structure. Can all of those people be married? Well? What's a choice and what's genetic?

Unless you're all in favor of a complete free for all, I do think the moral fabric set down by society ought to mean something. Comparing someones sexual gratifications to the color of someones skin, and the fight therein seems to be a great stretch for me.

It was my intention to be absurd, but they all follow the same logical lines.

BIZILL

for shizzle. sexual preference and color of skin are apples to oranges. again, i have no doubt a **** couple could love one another more deeply than your average straight couple. i don't care for what you do behind closed doors and to an extent, in public. i don't dig the thought of **** marriage just because. i will not picket a **** rights demonstration. if **** marriage is up on the balot, i will vote no to the legalization of it. if by chance it passes and becomes allowed by law, i will not picket or set crosses ablaze in front of anyones yard. i'd just move on with life. i don't really care what happens. i was asked why i feel what i feel and have answered. i've known **** and lesbiens and all were very wonderful people. there is an undertone within me, sure. for procreation's sake, a man placing his junk inside another man will not bare children. bottom line. but hey, i don't care where said junk goes so long as it does not find it's way into my person. same for the females. my stance has not changed. i don't hate the idea of the **** marriage. i just don't feel it is equal footing. all i can say is to brett and any other persons fighting for the cause to FIGHT ON. inevitably you must win or lose. my opinion probably won't make much difference to the structure of our laws, but if you feel passionate enough about your cause then you can become far more powerful in it than i shall ever be. that is because i don't care too much either way. i still say no, but will not fight till the end to keep it from becoming....btw, sorry i never separate thoughts into new paragraphs.

and by the way, brett, i still wish you could have been there with us at steve's mini southwest polkfest, or polk gathering. nothing but love, baby!

Skynut

Demiurge wrote:

Well, okay...this is going to stir the pot, but for the sake of argument I'm going to put this on the table.

I hear a lot of talk of a **** Rights movement being the same as a Civil Rights movement. I know for a fact that many black individuals don't see this in the same light, correct me if I'm wrong. There is no definitive proof that says all homosexuality is purely genetic, nor is there anything that says it's a choice. Fact of the matter is, neither can be proven to the core. You're taking racial discrimination and putting on the same level as so-called sexual discrimination, when they aren't even close to being the same. I can see benefits, etc, being a true issue. In fact, that's the only issue I see that holds any merit.

There is also a line, and it's always being pushed. To someone who is homosexual I'm sure their behavior seems just as normalized as someone who is heterosexual. Fair? Maybe. What about polygamy, incestuous relationships, or hell, even bestiality? What is normalized behavior? Where is the line drawn? I'm not comparing ANY of those last three things to homosexuality or heterosexuality. What I am saying is that all 5 of those things are real, very different, BUT all 5 of those things involve some form of sex. Which is normalized and which is not? What should be recognized and which should not? I'll leave that for you to decide, but it opens up a whole new can of worms, which was my intention. If what 2 men or 2 women do together is right, is what a 3 women and a man do right? Maybe, if that's your moral structure. Can all of those people be married? Well? What's a choice and what's genetic?

Unless you're all in favor of a complete free for all, I do think the moral fabric set down by society ought to mean something. Comparing someones sexual gratifications to the color of someones skin, and the fight therein seems to be a great stretch for me.

It was my intention to be absurd, but they all follow the same logical lines.

Here lies the problem.
**** marriage opens the door for the next group.
Not to try and compare but what if nambla tried to make it legal for a 24yo man to marry a 16 year old boy.
I know he is underage but that doesn't matter because they want to change the law to suit their needs because otherwise we are descriminating against them. "Their group".
Homosexuality used to be illegal altogether; we still have sodomy laws on the books in this country but, since some people want to do these things that are illegal they want the law changed in their favor.
Why don't we change the laws for murderers and rapists since there are so many of them doing it anyway. All they need to do is get organized and make a few hollyweird movies about the subject and they are on their way.
See what I mean?
There are morals that many of us ( read the majority; as in the way we vote) want to see upheald.
Movies like this make people who are vehemently apposed to something start to accept it. Thats what it is for. I do not think this movie will get an audience large enough to rake in record profits but I bet I will hear people from the **** community say they saw it several times.

On a side note I am enjoying the fact that there are no harsh exchanges taking place yet.
Perhaps not for long.

brettw22

I wholeheartedly disagree about hate crime legislation being out of line. A thought is one thing, but using that thought as THE reason for beating someone down is absolutly detestable and should be punished. The thought is the reason they're somehow under the impression that what they're doing is ok.....

I'd like to see the documentation in any lawbook that states the purpose for marriage is to produce children. If that's the definition, why is it allowed for 2 people to marry if they aren't going to have kids? Show me where it is mandated that marriage has to result in kids.....

The similarity that I see between the black civil right movement and this is that it's a mental fuckup that people are suffering from in their logic on giving people rights. I'm an American citizen living in the same country and paying the same taxes that everyone else is yet I'm somehow less of a human? Give me a break......

brettw22

You've got to be kidding.......you're throwing in NAMBLA into this conversation?

You guys HAVE to be able to differentiate between a COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO OF THE SAME SEX and child molestation, beastiality, incest, murder, and other stuff. Quit trying to pin the worlds faults on the **** community, because I'm not going to put up with here on this board, or in my life.

If there is THIS big of a disconnect between the logic that should be able to tell the difference, then I do sincerely worry about how you people survive out there.

BIZILL

brettw22 wrote:

I'd like to see the documentation in any lawbook that states the purpose for marriage is to produce children. If that's the definition, why is it allowed for 2 people to marry if they aren't going to have kids? Show me where it is mandated that marriage has to result in kids.....

i did not phrase that right. i meant the sexual act itself.

Skynut

Mariage does not require children but the government is always rewarding its citizens for having them.
Married couples get a tax credit per child and they raise that credit if they feel our nation is not producing enough new people.
They even give welfare mothers extra welfare money for every child they have no mater how many different daddys there are.
This nation needs to produce citizens to stay on coarse.
As a homosexual you do not.
No possibilty of children = no marriage.

BIZILL

BIZILL wrote:

for procreation's sake, a man placing his junk inside another man will not bare children.

actually i DID phrase it right. i didn't say **** marriage should not take place if two persons are not intending to procreate nor possess the ability to do so.

BIZILL

Skynut wrote:

.
No possibilty of children = no marriage.

my brotha, not jumpin' ship to the other side of this marriage fiasco. just keepin' new thoughts out there, but would adoption be the same as bearing offspring?

Skynut

BIZILL
my brotha, not jumpin' ship to the other side of this marriage fiasco. just keepin' new thoughts out there, but would adoption be the same as bearing offspring?

I don't think I even want to put my thoughts on that here for fear of further de-railment.

Tour2ma

I cannot believe what I am reading...

I've been trying to hold up a mirror for the better part of this thread, but no more.

doro had it right 1-1/2 pages ago.

BIZILL

yowsers! .....i'm friggin' hungry. i gots ta make me a sandwich.

BIZILL

Tour2ma wrote:

I cannot believe what I am reading...I've been trying to hold up a mirror for the better part of this thread, but no more. doro had it right 1-1/2 pages ago.

i dunno. i think this is good discussion. everyone is reading this thread and even those who are not registerd at club polk. i think more should speak up with their thoughts.

danger boy

My partner and I just reached our 15th year together as a couple. No one, not even family or friends are going to tell me that my committed relationship with my partner is in any way less committed or important than a married man and woman. Period. It's not going to happen.

OK on **** marriage. If **** people make up what is currently considered to be the latest figures of the general population that is **** (10%)... I highly doubt that making **** marriage legal would in any way open the door for other people to get married. It's a dumb argument to think that a marriage should be defined as any kind of relationship other than by two committed adults of either same sex or oppisite sex.

To think that we as an advanced society would ever allow anything other than that to happen is ridiculous in itself. I know that we'd never allow marriage to be defined as three or four people. OR a man or woman and someone who is underage. That's ridiculous.

This isn't going to help Brett's agrument exactly.. but there are some people in the **** community that are not for **** marriage. The thought there is that some straight marriages end in such awful legal and emotional battles.. that some ****'s don't want anything to do with that. We don't want our relationship to mirror some of the straight marriages that end badly. Sorry Brett, I know that didn't help your cause.

BIZILL

danger boy wrote:

This isn't going to help Brett's agrument exactly.. but there are some people in the **** community that are not for **** marriage. The thought there is that some straight marriages end in such awful legal and emotional battles.. that some ****'s don't want anything to do with that. We don't want our relationship to mirror some of the straight marriages that end badly. Sorry Brett, I know that didn't help your cause.

some straight couples steer clear for the same reason.

gregure

BIZILL wrote:

i sort of agree with you gregure. just don't ever mis-quote me again.

You know BIZILL, I was thinking very low of you, both in terms of your "bite me" comment, and the overwhelming big-headedness for you to assume that I was quoting you in my post. Then I looked back at my post and saw how you might have been confused, and for that I apologize. Next time I'll separate posts.
The "Wow. Just wow." was related to your inquiry, which I perceived to be very juvenile, as to whether the actors were actually ****. The rest, in which I sarcastically summed up much of the ridiculous "no offense, but..." arguments, was not targeted at you, just an observation of the entire thread.

As for your rebuttal comments, don't think for a second that I'm either offended or intimidated. If anything I just laugh harder. But I really did want to see what all your fussin' was about, and figured I'd better at least clear it up.

Jstas

Ya know, this is pathetic.

People's choices, decisions and lifestyle are not up for commentary or judgement by anyone else. They fall under the premise of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Government knows no race, religion or sexual orientation. Taxes don't just pay for schools, family programs and such. They pay for law enforcement, emergency services, sanitation, waste removal, sewer service, road maintenance, etc,...Taxes even pay for the people to sit in the seats and make the decisions that run the towns, counties, cities, state and federal government. To say that taxes from homosexuals pay for everything that homosexuals do not get is obtuse. Government knows no race, creed or lifestyle. Government is perfectly willing to screw everyone over equally.

This whole thread has been **** from the start.

As far as the movie goes, someone at work had a bootleg copy. I was watching a bit of it, got about a half hour through it and turned it off. It's horrendous. They hype is just because this movie is gonna do exactly what it did to all of you...make you squirm and fight about it. I don't normally turn off a movie or walk out of it. I will give any pile of crap it's just due but this was just...just...I can't find the words. Horrendous. It's blatantly trying to cause a stir and that seems to be the focus of the movie and not the story. IMO, that makes it a bad movie. It has an agenda and forces it down your throat, whether you're a homosexual or not.

Willow

brettw22 wrote:

This movie is not out to convert any straight people.......it's a story. This is no more about recruiting people than a war movie is aimed at making you join up.

I'd still like to know what the general consensus is on what people are afraid that **** marriage would be taking away from marriage today.

I have nothing against , I accept and encourage **** and straight to get married. I feel if you are lucky enough to find true love no matter what your preference is, you are blessed.

faster100

I don't have a problem with it, To each is own.. Rock on Danger boy and Brettw !! Its the Holiday season and i'm in a good mood