BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN SHOWN IN SCHOOL

[Dancing Mustard]

Please add me to the list of "homophobes". You're right, luns - they are trying to set themselves up as the tolerant, open-minded ones and labeling us as the close-minded ones. Obviously, they don't like it when that notion is challenged.

Look, in really simple words, here is why 'Banning all mention of homosexuality from schools' is, in fact, 'close-minded'.

The pro-Brokebackers don't hate Christians; but they want to keep free speech in schools. We're not trampling your values, we're not trying to keep christianity out of schools. We're just refusing to privilege your viewpoint over others. Christianity says homosexuality is wrong; great, we don't mind you saying that to children. But homosexuals, and the law of the land, say that homosexuality is just fine; we want children to be exposed to both points of view.
You see, we want them to grow up with 'open minds', so they're able to rationally come to any viewpoint on the matter that they choose.

The "closed-minded" side of this debate comes from people who think that the only satisfactory way of upholding their value system is to ban other people from expressing theirs. We're not denying you your beliefs. We're not denying you expressing them. But we are oppossed to you demanding that your beliefs can only be respected by silencing all competing ones.

If we accept that; then we have to uphold everybodys' beliefs by banning everything that anyone could regard as offensive.

On the other hand, we could just say that anybody is free to express any opinion that they wish in schools; so long as they do not state that any one of those opinions is correct.

So tell me Beezer (and Jay, and Luns). Which one would you prefer? Which one is the tolerant option? Banning everything; or leaving all points of view free to be expressed?

[Balsiefen]

Telling that what they do and might be genetic is "evil" is not tolerant. Hollywood isn't propagandizing homosexuality. There is nothing wrong about a movie that explores what it means to be gay! Saying that movie is propaganda is rather close-minded.

You're beyond help. I'm going to concentrate my discussion with Bertros Bertros. At least he is being rationale.

apart from calling you close minded what was wrong with that statement? Or was it somthing earlier that i missed.

[jay_a2j]

what level of justification is necesary to take someone with a different lifestyle and degrade them for it. Does this imply that we believe the(m) to be less than human for their life choices. If homosexuality is in fact genetic (evidence seems to suggest a possiblity at least) what does that say about what we think it means to be human?

I have my own theory on why people are homosexual (but now is not the time). I do not believe it is genetic.

No, they are not less than human. God still loves them. It is the choice of engaging in the lifestyle that God does not like. Not the person but the act.

Except that there isn't one, jay was unable to defend his position. The only fault was showing an R-17 rated movie, not a movie which jay thinks is promoting sin.

ROFL!!

Please add me to the list of "homophobes". You're right, luns - they are trying to set themselves up as the tolerant, open-minded ones and labeling us as the close-minded ones. Obviously, they don't like it when that notion is challenged.

Another good post. Yeah the list of "homophobes" is growing. Maybe we can term the other side "moralityaphobes"? lol

Let me ask then. What do you have against homosexuuals apart from that the Bible says so, in the OT, in the same places that it says don't eat meat and so on?

Do you even know any, personally?

I know you were asking breezer but let me give you my answers to these questions.

I have nothing against homosexuals..... they need Jesus just like everyone else.We are all sinners period. Homosexuals are not a "lower class" of sinner or anything. If a homosexual asked me how I felt about his lifestyle, I'd tell him it was sinful. And I'd give the same response to a prostitute, a gambler or a drug dealer.

And yes, I have a friend who is gay.

Look, in really simple words, here is why 'Banning all mention of homosexuality from schools' is, in fact, 'close-minded'.

The pro-Brokebackers don't hate Christians; but they want to keep free speech in schools. We're not trampling your values, we're not trying to keep christianity out of schools.

Cow dung!

The "closed-minded" side of this debate comes from people who think that the only satisfactory way of upholding their value system is to ban other people from expressing theirs.

No one on the Christian side wants to "ban" anything. We just don't want ideologies that CONTRADICT our faith rammed down out children's throats.


And we're not "close-minded"......we're God-minded.

[The1exile]

No one on the Christian side wants to "ban" anything. We just don't want ideologies that CONTRADICT out faith rammed down out children's throats.

It's not rammed down the children's throat. They just watched a damn film, that isn't even explicit in it's nature.

[Guiscard]

You cannot say what is and what isn't 'ramming things down your throat' when you haven't watched the bloody film, Jay.

Hypocrisy again, I feel.

[jay_a2j]

You cannot say what is and what isn't 'ramming things down your throat' when you haven't watched the bloody film, Jay.

Hypocrisy again, I feel.

I've never seen "One Night in Paris" either but I sure as hell can say it's inappropriate for my kids.


Try again.

[Guiscard]

You cannot say what is and what isn't 'ramming things down your throat' when you haven't watched the bloody film, Jay.

Hypocrisy again, I feel.

I've never seen "One Night in Paris" either but I sure as hell can say it's inappropriate for my kids.


Try again.

Which bit of the film should be considered the 'ramming down your throat' bit then, Jay, as you seem to intuitively know the exact way in which the film deals with homosexuality...

[The1exile]

I've never seen "One Night in Paris" either but I sure as hell can say it's inappropriate for my kids.

Inappropriate != ramming down your throat

[Dancing Mustard]

No one on the Christian side wants to "ban" anything. We just don't want ideologies that CONTRADICT our faith rammed down out children's throats.

Well I don't believe in being a Christian; It CONTRADICTS my beliefs (Wee! capitals! Aren't they fun? Don't they make me look clever?) But I don't object to Christians appearing in media that children are shown in school.
The fact is that showing a lifestyle choice as acceptable isn't "Ramming it down" anybody's throat. Demonstrating that a choice exists and is a valid one isn't pushing it. Indeed, if it was, then you'd have to concede that children have Christianity 'rammed down their throats' everytime they look at a dollar bill.

I think the problem here is that you believe Brokeback is homosexual propaganda; but I can assure you it isn't. Your arguments which are based on that assumption just look ridiculous. You should either drop them, or put them on hold until you've seen the film, and actually understand how it portrays homosexuality.

The way to 'ram' something down somebody's throat is to attempt to ban everything that contradicts its views from ever seeing the light of day. We're just trying to get you to understand that children need to be allowed to consider all possibilities; not just the ones that their parents have rejected. Apparently you don't agree?

Sorry Jay; but you're just not arguing this from any kind of reality. Please sit down and have a think about whether your zeal here has a point; or whether you're just fighting an irrational lost cause.

[jay_a2j]

Which bit of the film should be considered the 'ramming down your throat' bit then, Jay, as you seem to intuitively know the exact way in which the film deals with homosexuality...

Maybe you don't understand how Hollywood works and that's understandable. Its a movie that no doubt puts homosexuality in a "tolerant" light. And gathering from other posts although it may not "may people gay", it puts homosexuality in the "there's nothing wrong with this lifestyle" group. And there IS. This is becoming redundant. Can you just accept the fact that I wouldn't want my kids seeing a movie that is contrary to God's Word? That is all. End of debate.

[Guiscard]

Maybe you don't understand how Hollywood works and that's understandable. Its a movie that no doubt puts homosexuality in a "tolerant" light. And gathering from other posts although it may not "may people gay", it puts homosexuality in the "there's nothing wrong with this lifestyle" group. And there IS. This is becoming redundant. Can you just accept the fact that I wouldn't want my kids seeing a movie that is contrary to God's Word? That is all. End of debate.

Send them to church school then. Tt shows homosexuality in the same light as your government and your laws show it in.

What the hell do you want them to do? Its a public school. Should they go against the values that the government and your elected officials set down?

You have every right to object, and to send your kids to another school. But in this case it is a public school and they are doing absolutely nothing wrong in showing homosexuality in a tolerant light.

You really are taking the piss with this one.

[Backglass]

Maybe you don't understand how Hollywood works and that's understandable. Its a movie that no doubt puts homosexuality in a "tolerant" light.

So, if the two cowboys were instead ridiculed and run out of town or beaten to death by an angry mob, would that sit better with you?

[The1exile]

So, if the two cowboys were instead ridiculed and run out of town or beaten to death by an angry mob, would that sit better with you?

Hm... maybe someone should make a brokeback mountain mafia game!

[Dancing Mustard]

Its a movie that no doubt puts homosexuality in a "tolerant" light. And gathering from other posts although it may not "may people gay", it puts homosexuality in the "there's nothing wrong with this lifestyle" group. And there IS.

No that's a load or rubbish. There's nothing medically, legally, or socially wrong with it.
Why can't you accept that your own views are not in conformity with the vast majority of your countrymen's.
If you're trying to tell us that you're a homophobe who hates homosexuals because an old book told you to, regardless of the fact that it's accepted by the majority of other Americans; then just say so. Don't try to dress up your prejudice in some argument about tolerance. Just tell us you're a homophobe who has no logical reason to be; it'll take less time.

This is becoming redundant. Can you just accept the fact that I wouldn't want my kids seeing a movie that is contrary to God's Word? That is all. End of debate.

No. We can't accept it because that's completely unreasonable. Why do you think that your minority views ought to take precedence over the rest of the nation's freedom of expression?
I don't give a crap how important you think your made up God's opinion is. The fact is that public schools are governed by the laws of the land, not by the loudest minority. They can show what the hell they like so long as it's not illegal, and so long as they aren't forcing children to conform to it.

We accept you wouldn't want kids to see it. But we regard it as totally ridiculous. We simply refuse to accept the proposition that you ought to be able to restrict the education of children, and the expression of teachers because of your anachronistic minority viewpoint.

The only thing redundant in this thread is your lack of logic and reasonableness Jay. Frame up and get real, or just shut up.

[jay_a2j]

Maybe you don't understand how Hollywood works and that's understandable. Its a movie that no doubt puts homosexuality in a "tolerant" light.

So, if the two cowboys were instead ridiculed and run out of town or beaten to death by an angry mob, would that sit better with you?

Absolutely not.

[got tonkaed]

I guess the question that i would pose to those who believe that homosexuality is an abomination is going to be poorly worded as follows:

Throughout history church doctrine has continued to change through the times, I think Bertros and Guiscard mentioned something to this effect. Issues like slavery, which were contexually approved of in the bible, are now by Christians used as metaphor or not followed as such anymore.

Seemingly this is not because God changed His/Her mind about slavery, rather humanity decided that slavery was no longer suitable to their economic system and thus no longer socially acceptable. The question would have to be then: What would it take for homosexuality to no longer be viewed as an abomination? Since there are only a few passages devoted to the issue (much in a similar fashion as slavery) what type of changes would be necesary for some to no longer view homosexuality as evil. Although some churches are changing, there are clearly many who still believe the opposite. Would it take scientific evidence that "proves" (as well as can be proven) that homosexuality is genetic? Statements from your own church leadership? Increased contact with homosexuals?

Im just curious if individuals believe there are things that could change their views on the issue as other issues have changed in the past.

[jay_a2j]

No that's a load or rubbish. There's nothing medically, legally, or socially because of your anachronistic minority viewpoint.

you forgot morally.

The only thing redundant in this thread is your lack of logic and reasonableness Jay. Frame up and get real, or just shut up.

Let me re-write that last quote of yours to make it more accurate:

The only thing redundant in this thread is your lack of conformity to the world, your moral ground that seems unshakable and your insistence the values and standards of God supercede that of man.


Now THAT, I will agree with.

[jay_a2j]

I guess the question that i would pose to those who believe that homosexuality is an abomination is going to be poorly worded as follows:

Throughout history church doctrine has continued to change through the times, I think Bertros and Guiscard mentioned something to this effect. Issues like slavery, which were contexually approved of in the bible, are now by Christians used as metaphor or not followed as such anymore.

Seemingly this is not because God changed His/Her mind about slavery, rather humanity decided that slavery was no longer suitable to their economic system and thus no longer socially acceptable. The question would have to be then: What would it take for homosexuality to no longer be viewed as an abomination? Since there are only a few passages devoted to the issue (much in a similar fashion as slavery) what type of changes would be necesary for some to no longer view homosexuality as evil. Although some churches are changing, there are clearly many who still believe the opposite. Would it take scientific evidence that "proves" (as well as can be proven) that homosexuality is genetic? Statements from your own church leadership? Increased contact with homosexuals?

Im just curious if individuals believe there are things that could change their views on the issue as other issues have changed in the past.

In short, homosexuality would have to cease being a sin. And that's not going to happen. Sin is sin. I am not sure slavery is a sin. Today, it is frowned upon as a civil rights issue and rightly so but I do not know whether slavery/slave ownership is in fact a sin.

[Dancing Mustard]

No that's a load or rubbish. There's nothing medically, legally, or socially because of your anachronistic minority viewpoint.

you forgot morally.

Did I now. Well then you'll be able to prove to me what is morally wrong about homosexuality won't you? You'll be able to invoke John Locke's 'harm principle' to demonstrate what it is that's wrong about it. Go for it Jay. Why is homosexuality an abomination? Why ought we ban it?
Try to remember that scripture isn't a valid argument though. If you're just going to quote a famous old book at me, then I'll just be forced to quote famous old books at you; that'll get us nowhere, because neither of us will have a stronger argument than the other.

If you honestly think you can demonstrate homosexuality to be immoral, then do it. But just remember that the Bible isn't proof for your argument. I'm after cold hard logical facts and reasoning. 2000 year old Hocus-Pocus give us that.

The only thing redundant in this thread is your lack of logic and reasonableness Jay. Frame up and get real, or just shut up.

Let me re-write that last quote of yours to make it more accurate:

The only thing redundant in this thread is your lack of conformity to the world, your moral ground that seems unshakable and your insistence the values and standards of God supercede that of man.

You can't assert morals without proving them. You can't assert the 'Laws of God' without proving a God; and then getting over the hurdle of proving that your religious text is more authoritative than the competing versions.

So currently you're arguing from unproven moral ground, and asserting that the laws of an unproven fairy-tale character, reported in an unverifiable source from two millenia ago; supercede the laws of the majority of your fellow citizens.

Seriously; if you want to show me some logic, then I'm happy to hear it. But the "I've got an old book that agrees with me, so you should shut up and accept my views as true" argument falls somewhere short of that.

Good luck trying though...

[jay_a2j]

Can't be done. You either believe that God is or you don't. You either believe that we are to live by God's standards or you don't. God does not rule by consensus. He is Righteous, Holy and Just. He allows us to either serve Him or not. We make our own choices and reap either the rewards or the consequences for those choices. A person will never be able to say, "I didn't know!" because every man/woman will be given the chance to make their choice. It seems you already have. And I know that I already have.

[Jenos Ridan]

Maybe you don't understand how Hollywood works and that's understandable. Its a movie that no doubt puts homosexuality in a "tolerant" light. And gathering from other posts although it may not "may people gay", it puts homosexuality in the "there's nothing wrong with this lifestyle" group. And there IS. This is becoming redundant. Can you just accept the fact that I wouldn't want my kids seeing a movie that is contrary to God's Word? That is all. End of debate.

Send them to church school then. It shows homosexuality in the same light as your government and your laws show it in.

What the hell do you want them to do? Its a public school. Should they go against the values that the government and your elected officials set down?

You have every right to object, and to send your kids to another school. But in this case it is a public school and they are doing absolutely nothing wrong in showing homosexuality in a tolerant light.

You really are taking the piss with this one.

To an extent, I agree. There is a VERY good reason why we have state and church separate. I don't think even Jay wants to go down the road leading to theocracy, for it is part of the broad path that leads to destruction. I do have moral objections to homosexuality, always have. At least, male homosexuality. Used to think that was wrong, now I feel both are wrong. Just voicing opinion, no agrument.

[Dancing Mustard]

Can't be done. You either believe that God is or you don't. You either believe that we are to live by God's standards or you don't.

So you agree there's no objective logical reason to ban homosexuality from schools? You've just got a personal preference, and you want people to ban on the strength of that?
Homosexuals have equally strong convictions to you, and they can't logically prove that their practice isn't a sin, just like you can't prove it is. You just have to accept that your views balance each other out.
We either need objectively valid reasons; or we just have to ban everything. You're a sensible guy, you know that's the end result. Why not just admit it instead of trying to salvage some hollow sense of dignity?

I completely understand that you might prefer it if BB wasn't shown; I can't argue with you over that. You're entitled to your own opinions, just like everybody else. But the fact is that your personal preference doesn't give you the right to ban other people's.
Why didn't you just say that you didn't have an objectively justifiable reason ten pages back? You could have saved us all the bitter mud-slinging.

God does not rule by consensus. He is Righteous, Holy and Just. He allows us to either serve Him or not. We make our own choices and reap either the rewards or the consequences for those choices. A person will never be able to say, "I didn't know!" because every man/woman will be given the chance to make their choice. It seems you already have. And I know that I already have.

Yes yes, Sky-Daddy will get me when I'm dead. Sure he will; it's gonna be great. He'll just have to wait for Allah and Ganesh to finish up with me first. Who knows, they're all benevolent guys, I'm sure they'll have figured out the concept of sharing by now...

[beezer]

If you don't like the fact that homosexuality is legal and acceptable in your country, ratified through laws passed by your directly elected representatives (America IS a democracy, right?)

then

move!

My argument doesn't even touch on the 'moral' issue. Your government says it is OK to be homosexual and therefore there should not be a problem with homosexuality being shown as, at the least, a lifestyle in publicly funded state schools.

Send your kids to church school if you object to the way your elected government does things.

1. I will stay right where I am. You are replaying the old argument that Iliad made about the girl who was offended by the playing of the movie. It's not the people who commit the behavior that are wrong, it's the people who find it offensive that have the problem. Why is it that those of us that find it morally offensive must leave? How about this...DON'T play the movie in the first place and trying to be sneaky about it. You're really one to talk about Americans having to move out of their own country when you don't even live here.

2. Almost every law passed by every government in the world is based on a moral principle. Don't play the compartmentalization game.

3. A majority of Americans don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle. Poll after poll has shown this. Yet secular progressive educators are trying to slowly change young peoples' minds about this by the showing of such movies. This lady got caught. For every one that gets caught there are more that get away with it.

I just wanted to make sure that in this culture war, I am on the side of those who still believe it is wrong. People seem to think that just because they get accused of being a racist, homophobe, or whatever the new liberal slander is, it's going to scare us away from standing for what we believe in.

[luns101]

Telling that what they do and might be genetic is "evil" is not tolerant. Hollywood isn't propagandizing homosexuality. There is nothing wrong about a movie that explores what it means to be gay! Saying that movie is propaganda is rather close-minded.

You're beyond help. I'm going to concentrate my discussion with Bertros Bertros. At least he is being rationale.

apart from calling you close minded what was wrong with that statement? Or was it somthing earlier that i missed.

Well where do I begin? Iliad ignores the points that I make and then marches straight forward with more liberal talking points. I mention that Christian hospices take care of homosexuals who are dying of aids, and how does he respond: "don't you realize that homosexuals have feelings too"! His insinuation that Christians don't think that homosexuals have feelings is insulting and a totally careless allegation to make.

Contrast that with Bertros' statements. While he disagrees with me, he still takes the time to read the points I'm making. He has restrained himself from the usual accusations (with the exception of saying I'm obtuse...but hey, we are all human and I use sarcasm from time to time to make my points, so it's all fair). I can also tell he is speaking from his own opinions and not just repeating a bunch of talking points.

[luns101]

You know the only people I've ever seen who closeminded enough to seriously believe AIDS was contracted via homosexual activity were on video, and I've never had the misfortune to meet them.

Luns, I thought you were better than that.

No, you're right...I'm a closed-minded bigot. Do you feel better now that you're liberal anti-Christian views are now validated.

I will make a call to the Christian hospice facility in Van Nuys that ministers to homosexuals dying of AIDS and tell them they can immediately shut down operations. I'll tell them that the patients in the beds are just imaginary and aren't really homosexual.