BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN SHOWN IN SCHOOL

[hecter]

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.

Wow… Congratulations. You just admitted to being a stupid bigot, and that you don't care what the subject is about. Well, why don't you go join the ghosts. I think you might be able to make the Grand Wizard status.

[meme]

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.

Wow… Congratulations. You just admitted to being a stupid bigot, and that you don't care what the subject is about. Well, why don't you go join the ghosts. I think you might be able to make the Grand Wizard status.

OK, it's time for me to stop being quiet. After reading hecter's last insult, I also want to be included on the "homophobe" list. I think homosexuality is wrong and am tired of it being pushed down our throats. I guess we'll all suffer the insults together, beezer.

[freezie]

I think homosexuality is wrong and am tired of it being pushed down our throats. I guess we'll all suffer the insults together, beezer.

What is wrong with homosexuality? You know it's not a choice, do you? I have a few friends who are bi/lez/gay and I quite know they didn't chose to be.

It's like saying someone who is borned with a difformed arm is wrong, is it wrong? No. Neither is homosexuality.

[Neutrino]

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.

Why does everyone keep saying that the girl was offended? When I was 12, any mention of the word 'gay' would have evoked giggles and nothing more.

Most likely, the girl mentioned that she had watched a movie at school and when the parents inquired as to its title, they were told it was BrokeBack Mountain.

The parents would have almost immediatly realised that something of that magnitude could be milked for hundreds of thousands of dollars...

It is very unlikely that anyone was offended by the movie, just parents being greedy.

[Balsiefen]

This is an interesting hypothetical for jay, luns ect

what if your child told you that he/she was gay, what would be your reaction?

[luns101]

Err I believe Jay referred to Fatal Attraction in an earlier post... Nowhere in that film did I see any discussion that heterosexual sex can actually lead to the contraction of Aids...

I'm not getting involved in Jay's discussions for the most part because so many people get on his case it's almost impossible to respond to every post. When people see his Jesus Freaks banner the usual knee-jerk reaction is to simply disagree with him regardless of the subject.

You say it like you believe that being homosexual can actually bring the virus into being. Stop being so obtuse. You are clearly intelligent enough to know that any sex with any infected person can lead to the contraction of Aids, and equally that sharing needles or blood transfusions for haemophiliacs or those in bad accidents all can and have lead to the contraction of Aids.

And yet the vast majority of those contracting AIDS are men having sex with other men. Don't start throwing out the "obtuse" label unless you are also willing to say that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also acting that way. It seems that many African-American males are contracting the virus at increasing levels than before. Once again, don't start turning this into an ad hominem attack with references to being obtuse. Men having sex with other men leads to a high risk of contracting HIV, which leads to AIDS.

It is cruel to not share that information with homosexuals just so one can join the bandwagon of "tolerance" and not be labeled a bigot.

You talk of a "tired old theme". The tired old theme here is the one that homosexuality is the cause and spread of Aids. Well over a decade ago the incidents of Aids infection among homosexuals was falling and in countries where Aids had spread primarily amongst the homosexual community e.g Europe the incidence of Aids was falling as well, due to partly to the effect of education and partly to the success of retroviral drugs.

And very recently, it has started to rise again amongst homosexual men. The exception is that heterosexual women seem to be contracting it in greater numbers than homosexual women. I mentioned 3 specific movies which show a pattern of Hollywood movies casting homosexuals in a positive light and those who disagree with it in a negative light. I don't see how you can deny that there is a pattern of these types of movies being put forth. Like I said, I'm not falling for the old "you can't criticize it if you don't actually go see it" line. I've already seen enough of that theme played out in other movies and don't need to see the latest version which belittles people like me.

I wholly applaud those people whether thay are of faith or otherwise who care for the sick and help any person to face death with some dignity

So where are the movies coming out showing that side of the story. I doubt you'll see any. Instead, you'll just get more anti-Christian stereotyping in the portrayal of characters who disagree with homosexuality (or any other group who disagrees with it).

do not fool yourself into believing that Christainity has a monopoly on compassion.

Please quote where I said that Christianity has a monopoly on compassion. Many people have different motivations for wanting to help their fellow man.

[Neutrino]

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.

Wow… Congratulations. You just admitted to being a stupid bigot, and that you don't care what the subject is about. Well, why don't you go join the ghosts. I think you might be able to make the Grand Wizard status.

OK, it's time for me to stop being quiet. After reading hecter's last insult, I also want to be included on the "homophobe" list. I think homosexuality is wrong and am tired of it being pushed down our throats. I guess we'll all suffer the insults together, beezer.

Pushed down your throats? How? Why?

All I, for one, am trying to do is to get you to open your eyes a little and see that what is written in an old book isnt the be all and end all.

A few hundred years ago God was all for slavery, now hes against it. It all depends on the interperitation of said old book. Soon (hopefully) the interpretation of said book will change again, so God no longer hates homosexuals.

It has happened before many times so dont pretend it wont happen this time.

You may hate homosexuals with a fervor, but your children will probably be indifferent as the interpretation coming from Rome or London, or whereever your paticular branch of Christianity is based will have changed.

[Balsiefen]

This is an interesting hypothetical for jay, luns ect

what if your child told you that he/she was gay, what would be your reaction?

I'm going to repost this, i dont want it getting missed

[meme]

A few hundred years ago God was all for slavery, now hes against it. It all depends on the interperitation of said old book. Soon (hopefully) the interpretation of said book will change again, so God no longer hates homosexuals.

It has happened before many times so dont pretend it wont happen this time.

You may hate homosexuals with a fervor, but your children will probably be indifferent as the interpretation coming from Rome or London, or whereever your paticular branch of Christianity is based will have changed.

As an African-American female, your comment is offensive to me on so many levels I really am too mad to give you a good reply right now. But do yourself a favor and read some books about Abraham Lincoln or the abolitionists who lived during that time. In the meantime, try to stop being so ignorant.

[luns101]

This is an interesting hypothetical for jay, luns ect

what if your child told you that he/she was gay, what would be your reaction?

It's not a hypothetical. I have a family member who is homosexual and I love him to death.

[Iliad]

A few hundred years ago God was all for slavery, now hes against it. It all depends on the interperitation of said old book. Soon (hopefully) the interpretation of said book will change again, so God no longer hates homosexuals.

It has happened before many times so dont pretend it wont happen this time.

You may hate homosexuals with a fervor, but your children will probably be indifferent as the interpretation coming from Rome or London, or whereever your paticular branch of Christianity is based will have changed.

As an African-American female, your comment is offensive to me on so many levels I really am too mad to give you a good reply right now. But do yourself a favor and read some books about Abraham Lincoln or the abolitionists who lived during that time. In the meantime, try to stop being so ignorant.

Where exactly was he ignorant?

[Neutrino]

A few hundred years ago God was all for slavery, now hes against it. It all depends on the interperitation of said old book. Soon (hopefully) the interpretation of said book will change again, so God no longer hates homosexuals.

It has happened before many times so dont pretend it wont happen this time.

You may hate homosexuals with a fervor, but your children will probably be indifferent as the interpretation coming from Rome or London, or whereever your paticular branch of Christianity is based will have changed.

As an African-American female, your comment is offensive to me on so many levels I really am too mad to give you a good reply right now. But do yourself a favor and read some books about Abraham Lincoln or the abolitionists who lived during that time. In the meantime, try to stop being so ignorant.

Gwah?

How exactly was it offensive? The clergy may be against slavery now, but I didnt hear very many stories of priests marching en masse into Africa to stop the slave traders...

[Iliad]

A few hundred years ago God was all for slavery, now hes against it. It all depends on the interperitation of said old book. Soon (hopefully) the interpretation of said book will change again, so God no longer hates homosexuals.

It has happened before many times so dont pretend it wont happen this time.

You may hate homosexuals with a fervor, but your children will probably be indifferent as the interpretation coming from Rome or London, or whereever your paticular branch of Christianity is based will have changed.

As an African-American female, your comment is offensive to me on so many levels I really am too mad to give you a good reply right now. But do yourself a favor and read some books about Abraham Lincoln or the abolitionists who lived during that time. In the meantime, try to stop being so ignorant.

Gwah?

How exactly was it offensive? The clergy may be against slavery now, but I didnt hear very many stories of priests marching en masse into Africa to stop the slave traders...

Neutrino just don't be too mean to the 3 post noob.

[luns101]

What is wrong with homosexuality? You know it's not a choice, do you? I have a few friends who are bi/lez/gay and I quite know they didn't chose to be.

It's like saying someone who is borned with a difformed arm is wrong, is it wrong? No. Neither is homosexuality.

The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today. . . . Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies.
—William H. Masters, Virginia E. Johnson and Robert C. Kolodny, Human Sexuality, 1984

The myth of the all-powerful gene is based on flawed science that discounts the environmental context in which we and our genes exist. . . . Many modern researchers continue to believe that sexual preference is to some extent biologically determined. They base this belief on the fact that no single environmental explanation can account for the development of homosexuality. But this does not make sense. Human sexuality is complex and affected by many things. The failure to come up with a clear environmental explanation is not surprising, and does not mean that the answer lies in biology. Such studies are bound to come up with plenty of meaningless correlations which will get reported as further evidence of genetic transmission of homosexuality.
—Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth, 1993

In the early 90's, three highly publicized studies seemed to suggest that homosexuality's roots were genetic, traceable to nature rather than nurture. . . . More than five years later the data have never been replicated. [And,] admits biologist Evan Balaban, "I think we're as much in the dark as we ever were."
—John Leland and Mark Miller, "Can Gays 'Convert'?" Newsweek, p. 49, August 17, 1998

There's more than that. The danger in your argument is that parents who somehow buy into the myth of the "gay" gene may want to abort the baby solely on the basis that their child will turn out homosexual. The Christian view is that all of human life is precious and deserves to be born, whether or not the person chooses to be gay.

[meme]

A few hundred years ago God was all for slavery, now hes against it. It all depends on the interperitation of said old book. Soon (hopefully) the interpretation of said book will change again, so God no longer hates homosexuals.

It has happened before many times so dont pretend it wont happen this time.

You may hate homosexuals with a fervor, but your children will probably be indifferent as the interpretation coming from Rome or London, or whereever your paticular branch of Christianity is based will have changed.

As an African-American female, your comment is offensive to me on so many levels I really am too mad to give you a good reply right now. But do yourself a favor and read some books about Abraham Lincoln or the abolitionists who lived during that time. In the meantime, try to stop being so ignorant.

Gwah?

How exactly was it offensive? The clergy may be against slavery now, but I didnt hear very many stories of priests marching en masse into Africa to stop the slave traders...

You attempt to relate the struggle of my people with those of the homosexual movement. THAT is what is so offensive. If you would read just a couple of books you would realize that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian man who stood up for us when few would. He constantly talked about God's judgement on America because of the way white folks treated us.

Also, most abolitionists were Christians. There were a couple of nutjobs like John Brown, but most were decent Christian people. They risked their lives and money to help us when nobody else would. They also helped with the Underground Railroad. Are you really that ignorant of history?

Don't ever try and relate the struggle of black people with the homosexual movement.

[MeDeFe]

His point was that the bible has been reinterpreted with regards to slavery.

All he's saying is that it might well be reinterpreted with regard to homosexuality as well.


I don't see how that is offensive. Sure on a political and social scale institutionalized slavery is a bigger issue than biblically reinforced homophobia leading to a social stigma of a certain group of people. But still, I don't see how it is offensive. It isn't as if he compared the reception of homosexuals in the USA today to slavery.

[heavycola]

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.

Doesn't a belief system that you don't feel condemns slavery, yet DOES condemn loving couples (I am using a personal example here) to hell is a littlle... unbalanced?

re: HIV contraction -
Homosexual men who have anal sex are more at risk because they... have anal sex. But I think this argument is veering close to 'gay plague' comments.
In 2003 in the UK, 1735 new cases of HIV were contracted thru sex between men, but 3,800 cases were contracted thru heterosexual sex
([urlhttp://www.dhiverse.org.uk/_factsAndFigures.htm]here's the link[/url])

[Iliad]

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.

So slavery isn't a sin, while being gay is? That makes a lot of sense! [/sarcasm]

[Neutrino]

A few hundred years ago God was all for slavery, now hes against it. It all depends on the interperitation of said old book. Soon (hopefully) the interpretation of said book will change again, so God no longer hates homosexuals.

It has happened before many times so dont pretend it wont happen this time.

You may hate homosexuals with a fervor, but your children will probably be indifferent as the interpretation coming from Rome or London, or whereever your paticular branch of Christianity is based will have changed.

As an African-American female, your comment is offensive to me on so many levels I really am too mad to give you a good reply right now. But do yourself a favor and read some books about Abraham Lincoln or the abolitionists who lived during that time. In the meantime, try to stop being so ignorant.

Gwah?

How exactly was it offensive? The clergy may be against slavery now, but I didnt hear very many stories of priests marching en masse into Africa to stop the slave traders...

You attempt to relate the struggle of my people with those of the homosexual movement. THAT is what is so offensive. If you would read just a couple of books you would realize that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian man who stood up for us when few would. He constantly talked about God's judgement on America because of the way white folks treated us.

Also, most abolitionists were Christians. There were a couple of nutjobs like John Brown, but most were decent Christian people. They risked their lives and money to help us when nobody else would. They also helped with the Underground Railroad. Are you really that ignorant of history?

Don't ever try and relate the struggle of black people with the homosexual movement.

Oh, I thought I somehow offended you by pointing out that interpretations change.

I now see that this is not the case. I see now that you are just a bigot.

Anyway, to your arguments: You seem to be implying that every Christian prior to Abraham Lincon was a bad one, since he and his allies were the ones that helped stop slavery, while the rest did nothing.

[Jenos Ridan]

A few hundred years ago God was all for slavery, now hes against it. It all depends on the interperitation of said old book. Soon (hopefully) the interpretation of said book will change again, so God no longer hates homosexuals.

It has happened before many times so dont pretend it wont happen this time.

You may hate homosexuals with a fervor, but your children will probably be indifferent as the interpretation coming from Rome or London, or whereever your paticular branch of Christianity is based will have changed.

As an African-American female, your comment is offensive to me on so many levels I really am too mad to give you a good reply right now. But do yourself a favor and read some books about Abraham Lincoln or the abolitionists who lived during that time. In the meantime, try to stop being so ignorant.

Gwah?

How exactly was it offensive? The clergy may be against slavery now, but I didnt hear very many stories of priests marching en masse into Africa to stop the slave traders...

You attempt to relate the struggle of my people with those of the homosexual movement. THAT is what is so offensive. If you would read just a couple of books you would realize that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian man who stood up for us when few would. He constantly talked about God's judgement on America because of the way white folks treated us.

Also, most abolitionists were Christians. There were a couple of nutjobs like John Brown, but most were decent Christian people. They risked their lives and money to help us when nobody else would. They also helped with the Underground Railroad. Are you really that ignorant of history?

Don't ever try and relate the struggle of black people with the homosexual movement.

I fear, Neutrino, you crossed the wrong lady. (now please, don't lynch me cause I said lady, I was only being polite)

[Jenos Ridan]

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.

Christians are supposed to be 'close-minded' to the things of the world, God called up to be set apart.
Though I agree on this point and that God does not hate any of His children. If He did, then He would not be God. Two points I agree with Jay.
But, he needs to let this go. Jay, don't forget that the last thing anybody really wants is a theocratic police state. Ever hear of 'Separation of Church and State'? Trust me, it is better this way. Let the parents decide if they want to let their children see it or not. Odds are, the lawsuit is trumpt-up anyway.

[Jenos Ridan]

This is an interesting hypothetical for jay, luns ect

what if your child told you that he/she was gay, what would be your reaction?

It's not a hypothetical. I have a family member who is homosexual and I love him to death.

As well you should, he is family. Any 'christian' who hates anybody, save for satan, is lying. I think we can agree that racists aren't very christian folk, so neither are guys who throw rocks at gays. Sure, I find that life choice repulsive and immoral, but to dislike them over it is equally as wrong.

[Jenos Ridan]

Well not quite no.
1. You never actually made that point.
2. It isn't really valid. When you start threads promoting your opinion on a public forum; you can't really cry and throw the toys out of the pram when you are proved wrong in all of them.
3. It isn't just people shouting the same things in every thread; it just so happens that the same side runs out of logical arguments in each one, and resorts to book-quoting.






4. Here's a clue, both Jenos and Jay are always on that side.

I'm not really on his side, he wants to ban the movie and out religous law in the schools, but I see why that is a bigger problem.

And I did make that point, but enough about it.

And again, I point out why Jay's reactionary plans are dangerous. Or do you refuse to see that?

[Neutrino]

Just an idle question that no-one has ever answered for me:

Why do Christians, and in fact, every religion consider themselves the correct religion? I mean, you're convinced that you are correct, but so are all the Muslims and Jews and Hindus and all the various other religions.
As far as I can tell, no religion offers a huge amount of proof for its own correctness above that of its competition, so how do you know that you follow the correct religion?

[Jenos Ridan]

Just an idle question that no-one has ever answered for me:

Why do Christians, and in fact, every religion consider themselves the correct religion? I mean, you're convinced that you are correct, but so are all the Muslims and Jews and Hindus and all the various other religions.
As far as I can tell, no religion offers a huge amount of proof for its own correctness above that of its competition, so how do you know that you follow the correct religion?

Best quick answer: Faith. Sounds silly, but there it is. One will believe what one feels is true to one's heart. For some, it is cold facts and others seek something else, be it enlightenment, God or the Fountain of Youth. Humans are spiritual by nature and if you ask me, by intention. All the myriad faiths are more or less proof that we are seeking answers to our nature. If this notice is silly to you, then fell completely free to hold your own opinion. That also is a choice.