Brokeback Mountain

[Jives]

Katy1 wrote: you wouldn't ostracize these people because of their differences.


Nor would I try to mainstream and normalize it.

Proportionally there are far more gay and black people in our media than is actually in our communities. With you all the way there Jives. I myself wonder why different cultures and lifestyles are thrust upon us. Maybe it's done to stop intolerance but I actually think it rouses the opposite.


Freakin' A!

The Nazi's didn't like people who 'weren't normal' or 'abnormal'....oh, what the hey why not 'sub human'? They thought that anything other than a genetically perfect human had the right to exist. Hmmm....


I'm not advocating gas chambers for homosexuals, so please don't compare me to Nazis. I'm just not for condoning dangerous, criminal behavior in our society.

Do you know what? I getting pretty pissed of about some of the morality eroding that's happening in our society.


Which is exactly why I hate this movie.

I don't like the fact that porn is sold in our local shops and that you cannot switch on the TV (and kids programmes) or see a billboard without a sexually provocative image beaming back at you. Sex sells everything and it would be nice if sex was something that was special, TBH I think it would make it far more exciting! Everyone is so damned desensitised to it.


Well, what do you know? i thought you were on the side of people that liked this movie, and think that the homosexual agenda in this country is "no big deal." I apologize, looks like we're on the same side!

And I'd prefer it if you didn't bark orders, it's really not polite.


lol. If you read the battle I've been fighting in this thread, you'll understand why my tone has degenerated to "barking". If I'm too forcefull, please realize that I'm just extremely pasionate when I see morals and common sense values of the past being cast by the wayside.

:o

[Jives]

Accountable wrote: Just dropped in to say that I just found out that both main characters are married - meaning in the movie. That means that their homosexual tryst is actually an adulterous affair for both of them.



Somebody tell me what the positives are in this movie, please!!


Leave it to Accountable to find the critical flaw that we all have missed. You rock, Acc!:wah:

[Katy1]

Jives wrote: You're still off topic, katy. Both My point and Far's is that this gross, disgusting, heinous, despicable, and detestable movie takes what were formerly heroic male role models and glorifies them having anal sex. Children will see this movie, that is abhorrent to both of us.

Apparently, you have no problem teaching anal sex to children, though.


Jives, you really do come across as a tad aggressive. Probably all that heterosexual testosterone buzzing through your veins.

Is anal sex actually going to be 'glorified'? Or simply portrayed, two different things I'd say. If they actually show the mechanics of it, I mean show penetration then the censors have really missed it as it's on release here as a 15 certificate. I'd also point out that you have to be over 15 to watch it which given that in this country you can have sex at 16, doesn't really seem all that shocking. I think it's just as shocking to show a person shot dead which many 15 certificate films show but I'd imagine that'd be OK in your books.

What are you worried about, do you think it'll turn people gay just watching it? If so we must ban all Tom & Jerry cartoons sharpish as we'll all be hitting each other over the head with mallets and dropping anvils on each other.

[valerie]

Katy1 wrote:

What are you worried about, do you think it'll turn people gay just watching it? If so we must ban all Tom & Jerry cartoons sharpish as we'll all be hitting each other over the head with mallets and dropping anvils on each other.


:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_worshp

[Accountable]

valerie wrote: :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_worshp
Hey Val, haven't you seen how they've edited all the violence out of Bugs Bunny cartoons?



(Sorry. Ya'll carry on)

[Slade1]

Accountable wrote: Just dropped in to say that I just found out that both main characters are married - meaning in the movie. That means that their homosexual tryst is actually an adulterous affair for both of them.



Somebody tell me what the positives are in this movie, please!!


Does a film or movie have to have a positive message?

[Slade1]

[QUOTE=Jives]Nor would I try to mainstream and normalize it.



Why wouldn't you? The fact is it is normal.

[Accountable]

Slade1 wrote: Does a film or movie have to have a positive message?
Glad we agree. :-6

[Jives]

Slade1 wrote: Why wouldn't you? The fact is it is normal.


No, anal sex is not normal. It is listed as abnormal psychology in every textbook you care to quote.

If anal sex was normal, the human race would be extinct.



BTW, Katy, there is a huge, huge difference between anal sex and cartoon violence.

It's funny that you brought that up. A group of children in Sweden stomped a 5-year old to death after watching a violent "Power Rangers" episode.

Still think that what people view doesn't affect their behavior?

[Jives]

Far Rider wrote: Does that make you a Man's Man Jives?:wah:


You and me, Far! I don't want the guy in the backseat of the fighter making moves on me, and you don't want the guy in the same foxhole with you telling you that he loves you "that way", eh Far?

I guess that makes us non-"politically correct".

Well, so be it.

[Jives]

Katy1 wrote: J it's on release here as a 15 certificate. I'd also point out that you have to be over 15 to watch it


What a joke. You don't really believe that, do you? I asked a class of 35 15-year olds the other day if they had ever seen an R-rated movie. (Which they should not have, since you supposedly have to be 16 to see one.)

They all laughed out loud. They've seen every R-rated movie made, and quite a few X-rated ones. That's what I'm really fighting against in this thread, the constant erosion and assault on the innocence and morality of our society.

You should be on my side. All decent people should.

[Jives]

Katy1 wrote: Jives, you really do come across as a tad aggressive.


The word you are looking for is "passionate."

Probably all that heterosexual testosterone buzzing through your veins.


As if that was a bad thing!

[Slade1]

Jives wrote: No, anal sex is not normal. It is listed as abnormal psychology in every textbook you care to quote.

If anal sex was normal, the human race would be extinct.



BTW, Katy, there is a huge, huge difference between anal sex and cartoon violence.

It's funny that you brought that up. A group of children in Sweden stomped a 5-year old to death after watching a violent "Power Rangers" episode.

Still think that what people view doesn't affect their behavior?


:-5

I'm beginning to feel like a stuck record here, and the only reason that I continue is because I am a correct stuck record. Homosexuality is not something that people get into because they see it on TV, or see a gay couple in the street, it is a natural form of sexuality, just like heterosexuality is.

I don't know if you saw that excerpt from the National Geographic that was posted earlier. Those blasted Orangutans must have sneaked into the cinema to see

'Brokeback Mountain' incognito. I told them that it would corrupt their morals and make them a menace to simian society.

[Slade1]

Jives wrote: What a joke. You don't really believe that, do you? I asked a class of 35 15-year olds the other day if they had ever seen an R-rated movie. (Which they should not have, since you supposedly have to be 16 to see one.)

They all laughed out loud. They've seen every R-rated movie made, and quite a few X-rated ones. That's what I'm really fighting against in this thread, the constant erosion and assault on the innocence and morality of our society.

You should be on my side. All decent people should.


I wouldn't disagree that these kids shouldn't be watching films that are rated that way, but what do you propose we do? Ban certain films? They will always find a way to watch them, just like they will find a way to drink and smoke & have sex under age. Thing is I don't think that you can blame this on gay people.

[Jives]

Slade1 wrote: :-5 I'm beginning to feel like a stuck record here, and the only reason that I continue is because I am a correct stuck record.


No, you continue to post because you are a supporter of homosexuality and you think it's a good message to send to children. I don't.

Homosexuality is not something that people get into because they see it on TV, or see a gay couple in the street, it is a natural form of sexuality, just like heterosexuality is.


No, it is "unnatural". Katy and I both proved it as a birth defect.

I don't know if you saw that excerpt from the National Geographic that was posted earlier.


Sure I did. My own post earlier shows that the same percentage of all mammals share this horrible birth defect. that's not a good reason to relay the message that anal sex is Ok, not harmful, and good. It's not.

As Far so aptly proved, homosexuality is dangerous, abnormal behavior. And it's just gross too.

Those blasted Orangutans must have sneaked into the cinema to see

'Brokeback Mountain' incognito. I told them that it would corrupt their morals and make them a menace to simian society.


Luckily, those orangutangs will fail to pass on the corrupted genes of homosexuality by the simple logic of being unable to procreate. So their society is not at risk.

Ours, however, is. Because we are actively training non-homosexuals to emulate homosexual behavior. Disgusting and stupid, eh? I'm with Accountable on this one, there is absolutely no redeeming value in this movie.

One thing I do like, however, is that it is doing poorly at the box office. Apparently there are quite a number of people who are still moral and decent. Perhaps all of us will send the message to the filmmaker that we do not want any more of these disgusting pictures made or promoted.

That makes me feel pretty good!:D

[Jives]

Slade1 wrote: I wouldn't disagree that these kids shouldn't be watching films that are rated that way, but what do you propose we do? Ban certain films?


Absolutely. Just because a bad thing can be made into a movie, isn't a good reason to do so. Would you like to see a movie glorifying the life of a child molester? Well why not? That's in exactly the same category! How about a movie that makes NeoNazis cool? Well, why not? We have movies that glorify gangsters and murder, drug dealing and prostitution....why not child molesters and Nazis? You see, unless we draw a line in the sand, Hollywood will keep on going.

They will always find a way to watch them, just like they will find a way to drink and smoke & have sex under age.


So you think the answer is to look the other way, condone it, and say "it's no big deal?!" Not me. I'll fight it tooth and nail.

Thing is I don't think that you can blame this on gay people.


I don't. I blame it on Hollywood's gay agenda and on permissive, complacent and apathetic people like you. People who do not stand up for what is right, condone what is wrong.

[Accountable]

Jives wrote: Ours, however, is. Because we are actively training non-homosexuals to emulate homosexual behavior. Disgusting and stupid, eh? I'm with Accountable on this one, there is absolutely no redeeming value in this movie.


So is Slade. In response to my request about what might be positive about the movie, Slade posted, "Does a film or movie have to have a positive message?"



For the record, since it probably got lost somewhere early in the thread, I am all for consenting adults doing whatever with each other. I also pointed out that all behavior is by choice. This movie simply has no positive attributes.

[Jives]

Accountable wrote: For the record, since it probably got lost somewhere early in the thread, I am all for consenting adults doing whatever with each other.


So am I. I am not, however, for mainstreaming abnormal behavior and teaching it to children. There used to be a word for this that is no longer in many people's vocabulary...modesty.

Modesty forbids putting two men having anal sex on the big screen.

This movie simply has no positive attributes.


Which kind of makes me wonder why it was made in the first place!

[Katy1]

Jives wrote: No, anal sex is not normal. It is listed as abnormal psychology in every textbook you care to quote.

If anal sex was normal, the human race would be extinct.



BTW, Katy, there is a huge, huge difference between anal sex and cartoon violence.

It's funny that you brought that up. A group of children in Sweden stomped a 5-year old to death after watching a violent "Power Rangers" episode.

Still think that what people view doesn't affect their behavior?


My point was that just because you see something doesn't mean you are going to do it. If this really is the case then you'd have to ban nearly all media. As I said, It is seen as OK to show someone being shot (funnily enough, the media seems to think it's Ok as long as it's not done realistically i.e twitching, losing control of your bowels, vomiting blood etc. but...I digress) or other acts of violence but not a loving act between two people.

I don't think that insinuating (and that's all it could be in a 15 cert film, insinuation) that two men are copulating will lead a person to become gay any more than a gay person watching a film with heterosexual content will become 'straight' by viewing it.

Re: the Sweden thing. How do you know that these children weren't brought up in a violent domestic atmosphere? Do you know their histories? Were they totally stable children before watching this Power Ranger episode but suddenly became crazed killers afterwards? I think not. No more than me watching a film about World war II will make me want to go out and kill a few Germans.

You cannot legislate for the minuscule minority that may or may not be affected by something shown. If you do then our liberties would be eroded to such an extent that we would not be able to leave the house.

apologies if this is a little 'off topic' but I felt that I needed to address the points raised here.

[Jives]

You've made your self very clear, katy. You are permissive. You are not for drawing any kind of line as to what is acceptable and what is not. (See my post about a "A Day in the Life of a Child Molester" or "NeoNazis are People Too!")

So, truthfully, when you said you didn't like the erosion of morals in society, you were lying, since it is these very kinds of things that erode those values.

[Slade1]

Far Rider wrote: Get over your animal comparisons... Humans are not animals and we have higher reasoning, and we make choices regarding behavior.


I agree that we have higher reasoning that other animals, although I disagree that we aren't animals, (that's where we came from I'm afraid). My point is that you can't reason with something that is a natural part of you, if an animal does not have the intelligence to be corrupted by external influences then surely this proves that homosexuality is in it's nature. I think that the animal comparisons are entirely relevant, and furthermore damned good proof!

[Jives]

ROFLMAO! FAR! That is tooooo funny! Where did you get that?

BTW, Katy: Here is a great link to exactly just how much TV and Movies do effect children's behavior. It's worse than I thought.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/r ... v.cfm:cool:

[Slade1]

Jives wrote: You've made your self very clear, katy. You are permissive. You are not for drawing any kind of line as to what is acceptable and what is not. (See my post about a "A Day in the Life of a Child Molester" or "NeoNazis are People Too!")

So, truthfully, when you said you didn't like the erosion of morals in society, you were lying, since it is these very kinds of things that erode those values.


These are the comments of someone who has who has lost an argument, you have nothing to back up your point of view except for an archaic belief system that has absolutely no place in this world if it is to move forward in a positive way. You have resorted to cheap shots & accusations, not constructive comments that back up your argument.

[jennyswan]

WARNING! THE CDC HAS DETERMINED THAT ENGAGEING IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY CAN INCREASE YOUR RISK FOR CONTRACTING AND SPREADING THE HIV VIRUS KNOWN TO CAUSE AIDS!


Not anymore, apparently it's more heterosexual people now.

Unfortunately I read the spoiler and now I won't watch it

I saw Cheaper by the Dozen 2 today. Was cute enough. I locked myself out of the house. I've very silly!!

[Accountable]

Katy1 wrote: [...]

You cannot legislate for the minuscule minority that may or may not be affected by something shown. If you do then our liberties would be eroded to such an extent that we would not be able to leave the house.

[...]
Hi Katy, nice to meet you.



I agree about the legislation. However, we have a right, even an obligation, to do our level best to convince people to support a society that we (individually) see as the best of possible options.



Does that make sense?

[Yavanna]

Blimey, this thread has expanded since I last dropped in! :-3

I went to see Brokeback Mountain recently and loved it.

It's a film about love. Not about sex or which bit of the body goes where - about love. People ranting about anal sex are missing the point. That's like a Christian who harps on about the crucifixion and misses the Resurrection, as far as I'm concerned.

I happen to think there's far too little love in the world to criticise a film which shows it in all it's complexity and joy. You see, I repeat what I've already said - morality is about intention, not about the body. #

Do go and see it, folks - it's a beautiful film.

[Jives]

[QUOTE=Slade1]These are the comments of someone who has who has lost an argument,

Says you! Let's recount...We've proven that homosexuality is abnormal behavior, that it is dangerous and unhealthy, and that movies impact people's values and belief systems. 1, 2, 3 We've proven all our points in stating that this movie is bad. You have not proven:

1. That homosexuality is normal behavior.

2. That it is a healthy alternative to normal sex.

3. That the media does not influence behavior.

You've lost on every count!

[QUOTE] you have nothing to back up your point of view except for an archaic belief system


lol. That's funny, I thought decency, morality and modesty were values that transcended time! Silly me. Who knew that people would no longer value those characteristics?

that has absolutely no place in this world if it is to move forward


lol. I thought homosexuals had to move "backwards" to each other. But then, I'm no expert.



You have resorted to cheap shots & accusations, not constructive comments that back up your argument.


OK, I admit it, the "backwards" thing was a cheap shot! HAHAHAHAHAHA! BUT I JUST COULDN'T LET THAT STRAIGHT LINE GO BY!:wah:

No, smarter people than I have conclusively shown that not only is homosexuality dangerous and unhealthy, movies like this one promote this abnormal behavior to the general public. I thought that was a given!:D

[Accountable]

Yavanna wrote: Blimey, this thread has expanded since I last dropped in! :-3



I went to see Brokeback Mountain recently and loved it.



It's a film about love. Not about sex or which bit of the body goes where - about love. People ranting about anal sex are missing the point. That's like a Christian who harps on about the crucifixion and misses the Resurrection, as far as I'm concerned.



I happen to think there's far too little love in the world to criticise a film which shows it in all it's complexity and joy. You see, I repeat what I've already said - morality is about intention, not about the body. #



Do go and see it, folks - it's a beautiful film.
Good. You saw it. Is it true that both of the main characters in the story were married?

[Jives]

Yavanna wrote: Blimey, this thread has expanded since I last dropped in! :-3

I went to see Brokeback Mountain recently and loved it.


I'm not surprised, you already said you condone homosexuality.

It's a film about love. Not about sex or which bit of the body goes where - about love.


Like the love of a 40-year old man for a 13-year old? Some love is abnormal and wrong. Some love is immoral. That's the point you are missing, Yavanna.

You see, I repeat what I've already said - morality is about intention, not about the body. #


You just stated that you think child molesting is OK. After all, it's about "love". the child molester "loves" the little girl, His "intention" is to show her his love. So how can it be immoral?

Simple, it's immoral for a 40-year old to "love" a 13-year old. And it's immoral for two men to "love" each other sexually. What's the difference? Your logic is flawed.

Do go and see it, folks - it's a beautiful film.


Boycott it and Ban anything else that comes this way like it.

[gmc]

This is a film I will not be going to see or the simple reason it is not a subject matter that particularly interests me. If it shows up on TV I might watch it out of curiosity but to be blunt it is unappealing. It's a film for adults so why are children watching it?

Yes it has an agenda, film TV, books help shape and define our society and attitudes sometimes for the good sometimes not, you can argue both for and against. Many now classic films were controversial at the time for bringing up subjects that were uncomfortable or being too risque for the common man-or so the moral guardians of the time thought. How on earth will it make homosexuality mainstream? I will refrain from making any inappropriate jokes about American manhood.



Most of us would probably agree that some things should not be allowed-child pornography being one example.

But activities between consenting adults are their own concern and frankly I am more concerned about those who feel they have a right to dictate to others how they behave in their private lives and what kind of sex they have, and in some cases whether there is any choice about using protection from unwanted pregnancies, and demonise them because they pursue a lifestyle that is abhorrent to you.

If you don't want to watch a film don't go but you have no right to stop those that want to see it, whatever you might think of the morality of it or otherwise you don't have the authority moral or otherwise to choose for others what they watch. (with the qualification as above). Like most people i have my own well developed sense of morality and don't need someone to tell me what is appropriate and I expect the freedom to watch what I please

I started watching the naked civil servant out of curiosity and it was a fascinating story and i'm glad i watch it but it didn't make me a rampant homosexual-a bit more understanding perhaps which was after all the agenda in making he programme. I occasionally watch violent films-it's hard not to sometimes and i happen to think a lot of the violence in films and games is gratuitous and encourages violent behaviour in some but then the majority don't seem affected by it. If I watch a violent film i don't immediatly go out and shoot someone-being in the UK it is hard to turn the impulse in to reality but that's another forum.

What I am about to write is controversial-it's meant to be but hopefully no one will think the intention is to give gratuitous offence.

For instance take that Mel Gibson film the passion of Christ (think that was the title) That caused a stooshie here because some of our nuttier protestant groups thought it should be banned as it was promoting a catholic viewpoint of the crucifixion and since this is a protestant country it should not be allowed to air-don't ask me their reasons something to do with the role and divinity of the Virgin Mary, I wasn't interested enough to bother finding out. They got nowhere with their protests.

Like Brokeback mountain it has agenda and is designed to provoke thought and discussion (I assume).

Being tolerant means that you accept behaviours in others and lifestyles that you might find offensive. So long as they don't force you to share it and live the same way and leave you to poursue yours then people should be left alone to lead their lives in peace, O.K. you might try and persuade them otherwise but that is a long way from passing laws and inciting bigotry and hatred against any group in society.

With the Passion of the Christ, I would watch it, I would not stop anyone from seeing it who wants to and would object to it being banned just as much as i would object to Brokeback Mountain.

But then why should a film not be banned if it promotes a misogynistic religon and lifestyle whose schisms and intolerance of others of a similar their faith but who inerpret things slightly differently has caused untold misery and still continues to divide communities by preaching sectarianism to children, brainwashing them before they are old enough to think for themselves doing everythinhg in their power to keep out the corrupting influence of secular thought and perpetuating the misery by inculcating a them and us mentality. There are some of its followers who, if given half a chance, would impose their own brand of morality on society and use every possible sanction against them to make them conform in the sanctimoniuos belief that they do god's will.

You can't demand tolerance for yourself and yet deny it to others even if you don't approve of them or their ways.

[Jives]

I'm very tolerant, but I certainly don't believe in absolute tolerance.

Evil should ever be tolerated.:rolleyes:

[Jives]

Far Rider wrote: It's an insidious assault.... And It's working! See, theres a group of you fighting for it and none of you so far have come out and said "I'm Gay"... Your taking up the fight for someone else.


LOL. Good one, Far. Now anyone who posts in support of this movie has to wonder if maybe they haven't been brainwashed with "new" values.

As for me, being "dated" sounds just fine. My grandfather and father were both dated, and their values suit me very well, thank you.

[jennyswan]

Jenny drop us some links to that please.... MORE heterosexual?


Hi Far



A friend of mine is a HIV Councillor (how do you spell that?)

Anyway she was explaining to me that the newest trends are actually heterosexuals and they are young.

I think our generation grew up with a fear of it and copped on a little but the generation now are having sex much earlier and also have the idea that the are 'untouchable'.

I can only speak for here of course. I will try to find some links.

[Slade1]

Far Rider wrote: OK slade... go to the studies your talking about and print for me here the exact act of sodomy of the animals your talking about.... I'm serious. I bet you will not find anywhere in the animal kingdom where the act officially occurs, only the motions of the act itself. This is whats refered to in the animal kingdom as "homosexual" activity. The proper studies read homosexual "LIKE" acts.


An excerpt of what was posted earlier...

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior”entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Pretty conclusive I'd say...

[Yavanna]

Jives wrote:

Like the love of a 40-year old man for a 13-year old?




I don't have the pleasure of understanding what you're talking about, or how you've made a leap between adult, consensual sex and child molestation. Are the two strangely confused in your mind? Perhaps you can enlighten me.

As to condoning homosexuality, I reject even the terms you use. To condone means to overlook or forgive an offence. I don't see homosexuality as anything to be condoned. It just is - it has always been, always will be and is part of humanity. Just because it has come to have culturally negative associations (thanks to Judeo-Christianity) doesn't mean I have to accept that narrow and unfeeling viewpoint.

The discussion which has arisen about this film being a token of society's debuachery is fascinating. I entirely agree that we are living in morally vacuous times - but far from blaming that on gay people, I'd trace it back to the breakdown in the family unit (a result of hetero sexual freedom in the Sixties, a materialistic yet spiritually bankrupt culture and the speed at which people divorce these days). See, life is much more complex than fundamentalists would have us believe. You don't restore respect in society by denying a sector of that society the right to be who they are.

Bravo, gmc - a thoughtful, rational post.

[Jives]

I'm confused. Are you trying to prove that homosexuality is natural and normal?!

HAHAHAHAhahahahah....I'm sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face!:wah:

[Accountable]

Accountable wrote: Good. You saw it. Is it true that both of the main characters in the story were married?
Bump for Yavanna

[Yavanna]

Oops, sorry, missed this - yes, they both marry. One has two kids and the other marries into a well-to-do family business.

Jives - the answer to your question is yes. What's the answer to mine?

[Jives]

Jives wrote: As for me, being "dated" sounds just fine. My grandfather and father were both dated, and their values suit me very well, thank you.


Hmmm... I LIKE that line. I think that I'll make that my final statement here. It's obvious that those of us who consider anal sex between men indecent, dangerous, and immoral will not convince those of you that think it's good, wholesome, and acceptable. We don't seem to be able to convince you that negative media influences behavior either.

So you all can have your anal sex, I'm outta here! ROFL!:wah: