BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN SHOWN IN SCHOOL

[hecter]

I think it's up to the children and parents to teach what is moral and what isn't. Not to a public school. If you think homosexuality is immoral, then teach that to your children. But you're going to have to face the fact that they are going to be exposed to homosexuality at some point in there lives. They are going to see gay people on the street and on TV. You can't shield them forever. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know that the American's are harsh on there ratings, and so the movie PROBABLY didn't deserve it's R rating.

[luns101]

I think it's up to the children and parents to teach what is moral and what isn't. Not to a public school. If you think homosexuality is immoral, then teach that to your children. But you're going to have to face the fact that they are going to be exposed to homosexuality at some point in there lives. They are going to see gay people on the street and on TV. You can't shield them forever. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know that the American's are harsh on there ratings, and so the movie PROBABLY didn't deserve it's R rating.

Wow! Nice post. I agree with hecter for once.

[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.

exactly, you seem quite reosonable, but would you agree with the showing of a film about his lifestyle?

Not if the intent of the film is to normalize homosexuality. I don't know if you saw the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS but the homosexual character in that movie was ok with me. They weren't trying to preach at anybody, and the theme was more on the lines that once Jack Nicholson's character & him got to know each other they became friends.

I've answered 2 of your questions now, Balsiefen. Would you be willing to answer one for me now?

[jay_a2j]

AS GOOD AS IT GETS now that was a good movie! Probably one of my favorite comedies!

[luns101]

It is not to do with their sexual orientation, Luns. Aids happens to people who are not homosexuals too.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that, at least I'm not.

The only thing that homosexuals have against them is that you are more likely to contract AIDS from anal sex.

Would you please have a chat with Bertros and share that with him because I basically said the same thing and he brushed it aside. I guess you and I are now both "obtuse".

I'm not anti-xian. I'm against people like you and jay who cling to outdated views that many Christians don't agree with, like the anti-gay campaign.

By whose standards are those values outdated? Yeah, I believe the Bible and I know that most people here at CC don't hold to that view. But why are its teachings outdated...because Nietzsche or Voltaire (or whoever the philosopher might be) said so?

Can you find me any quotes form the bible (outside of Leviticus) that say that homosexuality is wrong?[/url]

Sure, even people who disagree with me could do that for you. But here's some and I'll quote the verses before and after to give it a little bit of context:

I Corinthians 6:8-10 - "Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I Timothy 1:9-11 - "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers. And it is for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

[b.k. barunt]

The verses in the first chapter of Romans are a little more explicit.

[luns101]

luns the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a US based organisation whose data is drawn from US states. Try looking in the WHOs excellent online statistical database to find incidences of HIV in different socio-economic groups in for example African countries or perhaps India where the highest rate of infection currently exists. You'll find very different trends.

Yes, and the US is where this incident of sneakily showing the movie took place. Now you're going outside the US in order to disregard facts that don't conform to your template. The fact remains that men having sex with other men is putting them at greater risk of contracting the virus within this country.

As much as you don't like it you are still being delibreately obtuse, which is very different from sarcasm.

I can see that you really like using that word. I'll just say your assertion is unfounded based on what you've presented.

Now Bertros, my contention is that Hollywood is producing movies that show homosexuality to be normal, while casting Christians (and other groups who disagree with it) as being uptight, self-righteous, hypocritical, and dehumanizing individuals with little or no compassion. In reality it is Christians who are going out and trying to assist those who are dying of AIDS. I'll ask this question of you again: where are the Hollywood movies telling that side of the story? If you can't find me one, then I believe I've made a valid point is stating that Hollywood has a specific agenda to slander Christ followers on this issue.

You've made an insinuation that I not allow myself into being fooled that Christianity has a monopoly on compassion. When I asked you for a quote which said I did, you did not provide one. Can you?

You made another insinuation towards me stating that I believe that simply "being" homosexual makes one contract HIV, when in fact I said that homosexual "behavior" leads to a higher risk of this. I referenced the CDC to back up this claim, and you changed the subject to the WHO. Are you willing to alter your original assertions?

[Jenos Ridan]

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

Right… Because my morals are different, yet just as strong, I am now a hater of morals. Good job jay. Good job

Quit calling them homophobes and they'll lighten up some.

Well, I agree, the term homophobe is thrown out a bit to much, as it is the extreme aversion to homosexuals, but it most definitely applies to some of the people on this thread.

Let us just be very clear on the some part.

[mr. incrediball]

Jay, I'm afraid you can't base and argument about homosexuality on something as loose and flexible as morals, because morals vary, and cultures have very different views on what is right and wrong

The ancient greeks believed that the love between two men was the purest love there was, do you think that their ENTIRE CIVILISATION is burning in hell, jay?

please, put your views into perspective, I worry about you, Jay..

[Jenos Ridan]

I think it's up to the children and parents to teach what is moral and what isn't. Not to a public school. If you think homosexuality is immoral, then teach that to your children. But you're going to have to face the fact that they are going to be exposed to homosexuality at some point in there lives. They are going to see gay people on the street and on TV. You can't shield them forever. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know that the American's are harsh on there ratings, and so the movie PROBABLY didn't deserve it's R rating.

Wow! Nice post. I agree with hecter for once.

That is because you see the harm in a theocracy. So do I.

[MeDeFe]

luns the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a US based organisation whose data is drawn from US states. Try looking in the WHOs excellent online statistical database to find incidences of HIV in different socio-economic groups in for example African countries or perhaps India where the highest rate of infection currently exists. You'll find very different trends.

Yes, and the US is where this incident of sneakily showing the movie took place. Now you're going outside the US in order to disregard facts that don't conform to your template. The fact remains that men having sex with other men is putting them at greater risk of contracting the virus within this country.

As much as you don't like it you are still being delibreately obtuse, which is very different from sarcasm.

I can see that you really like using that word. I'll just say your assertion is unfounded based on what you've presented.

Now Bertros, my contention is that Hollywood is producing movies that show homosexuality to be normal, while casting Christians (and other groups who disagree with it) as being uptight, self-righteous, hypocritical, and dehumanizing individuals with little or no compassion. In reality it is Christians who are going out and trying to assist those who are dying of AIDS. I'll ask this question of you again: where are the Hollywood movies telling that side of the story? If you can't find me one, then I believe I've made a valid point is stating that Hollywood has a specific agenda to slander Christ followers on this issue.

You've made an insinuation that I not allow myself into being fooled that Christianity has a monopoly on compassion. When I asked you for a quote which said I did, you did not provide one. Can you?

You made another insinuation towards me stating that I believe that simply "being" homosexual makes one contract HIV, when in fact I said that homosexual "behavior" leads to a higher risk of this. I referenced the CDC to back up this claim, and you changed the subject to the WHO. Are you willing to alter your original assertions?

1. This topic has long since progressed beyond the fact that a movie some people regard as immoral and is rated R-17 was shown in a US school without prior consent of the childrens parents or guardians. I really don't think you can demand that only US statistics be quoted.

2. Christians really aren't the only ones helping people who are sick and dying, be it from AIDS or anything else. There are no Hollywood pictures depicting them either afaik. Maybe it's not about slandering christians but finding a topic that will get people to see the movie thus creating a lot of cash for the producers. Not just with BBM but with every Hollywood movie.

3. I think this is your first post mentioning homosexuality and AIDS.

I've only watched 2 people die of AIDS during my lifetime, but it was 2 too many. Both individuals were practicing homosexuals. They did not contract it from sharing infected needles, drug use, or a bad transfusion. They got it from engaging in homosexual sex.

It's not a popular stance to take...warning somebody that engaging in that kind of activity could lead to death. But it is more cruel to just keep your mouth shut so you can be part of the "tolerant" bandwagon.

You mention 3 other ways through which one can be infected with HIV, you leave out heterosexual intercourse.
You don't say that they got it from engaging in homosexual sex with an already infected partner.
The way in which you described this is definitely not clear and leaves much open to the imagination of the reader, a reader without any other knowledge of the matter might suppose that those are the only ways in which AIDS is transmitted.

Not warning people is not the same as being tolerant and warning them is not the same as being intolernat, warning people can make them use condoms to eliminate or at least minimze the risk of contracting AIDS. Intolerant would mean that you don't accept their lifestyle as a valid and equal alternative to your own while tolerant would mean that you do.



Her's a second:

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.

Again, I see a flaw of reasoning in your argument, men having sex with men is not necessarily a greater risk, maybe it's just the anal sex that increases the risk, and condoms could help to reduce or eliminate it. And again you claim that tolerant people do not share information about risks. I get the feeling you either misuse the word for your own ends or have a, IMO, strange view of what "tolerance" means.
And please tell us where you get your numbers from and provide us with sources. "Great majority" has a nice ring to it, but since we're supposed to be debating here some numbers would be appreciated.

[LewisJB3]

If I'm understanding corectly, what we'r trying to define is "tolerance."

If it's tolerant to tell someone about how aids is contracted. Then wouldn't it be wrong for christians to not tel people how to go to heaven and not Hell. Even if a lot of you don't beleive in those places, imagine if you did. Wouldn't it be wrong to not tell other people how to go to Heaven and escape Hell?

My point is that if tolerance lets you tell someone how HIV and aids are contracted then then it shouldn't be considered intolerance when christians to tell others about Jesus's saving grace.

[hecter]

Well that's forcing your religion upon us, and I REALLY don't like that. I don't think the Jesus is a saving grace, and quite frankly, your analogy is horrible.

We can prove that AIDS exists, and we can help to prevent the spreading of this virus, as some people do not know about it. It is important for our health to be taught these things. Jesus, heaven, hell and God on the other hand are just figures of your religion. There are other religions, and they all have different beliefs than you do. Since, in this western world, we are exposed to a lot of them, we can easily make our own decision about which one is right, and which ones aren't. We don't need your help for that. If I really cared about my "salvation", I would go to a church and help myself. I don't, and others don't, need that from you.

[LewisJB3]

But if we have freedom of religion, then we are aloud to tell anyone we want. The Bible says "Go out into all the world and preach the gospel." So you are the ones with religious intolerance for saying we shouldn't.

Also Aids is not proven, it is science and therefore might be proven wrong.
The scientific law of gravity might be proven wrong sometime in the future. Nothing has ever been proven through science.
I'm not saying that either aids or gravity doesn't exist. I'm only saying that it's possible for them to be proven wrong.

[The1exile]

But if we have freedom of religion, then we are aloud to tell anyone we want. The Bible says "Go out into all the world and preach the gospel." So you are the ones with religious intolerance for saying we shouldn't.

But if I have freedom of speech, I can tell you to GFY, right?

The bible also says "Balaam rose up in the morning and saddled his ass".

[hecter]

But if we have freedom of religion, then we are aloud to tell anyone we want. The Bible says "Go out into all the world and preach the gospel." So you are the ones with religious intolerance for saying we shouldn't.

I'm saying that you shouldn't in a public school, or any other government run buildings. Feel free to be the crazy guy on the street speaking in tongues. I don't care, as long as you don't try to bother me after I've said "I'm not interested." Also, stay away from my house if you're there to preach that nonsense. If you really want to get your message out there, stand out on the street with some pamphlets, talk to anybody willing to listen, and try to give a pamphlet to the rest. It's a way better system than knocking on my door at 7 am or teaching prayer in school.

[Balsiefen]

Also Aids is not proven, it is science and therefore might be proven wrong.
The scientific law of gravity might be proven wrong sometime in the future. Nothing has ever been proven through science.
I'm not saying that either aids or gravity doesn't exist. I'm only saying that it's possible for them to be proven wrong.

i agree whith the gravity one although its unlikely, but as far as i'm aware a definate cause for aids has been found

compared to thease definitions of proven nothing is actually proven including existance itself

[Backglass]

The bible also says "Balaam rose up in the morning and saddled his ass".

Which reminds me of a joke.

Did you know the first documented case of how it really is to be married, is in the bible? It clearly says... "And Mary rode Jesus ass all the way to Bethlehem."

<BADDA BOOM!> Thank you. GOOD NIGHT!

[jay_a2j]

Jay, I'm afraid you can't base and argument about homosexuality on something as loose and flexible as morals, because morals vary, and cultures have very different views on what is right and wrong.

The reality is , there is just one God. The "morals" He sets down are the only one's that matter. (*stands by for the hate mail)

The ancient greeks believed that the love between two men was the purest love there was, do you think that their ENTIRE CIVILISATION is burning in hell, jay?

It is very possible. "Wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the road that leads to life".

please, put your views into perspective, I worry about you, Jay..

My views are in perspective.... no need to worry about me.

[Backglass]

The reality is , there is just one God.

The fantasy is that magical mystical beings exist.

"Wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the road that leads to life".

Sorry...I never cared for that Beatles song.

My views are in perspective.... no need to worry about me.

You views are in perspective for one who walks through life with rose colored glasses on...yes.

[mr. incrediball]

Jay, I'm afraid you can't base and argument about homosexuality on something as loose and flexible as morals, because morals vary, and cultures have very different views on what is right and wrong.

The reality is , there is just one God. The "morals" He sets down are the only one's that matter. (*stands by for the hate mail)

The ancient greeks believed that the love between two men was the purest love there was, do you think that their ENTIRE CIVILISATION is burning in hell, jay?

It is very possible. "Wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the road that leads to life".

please, put your views into perspective, I worry about you, Jay..

My views are in perspective.... no need to worry about me.

jay, you can't honestly believe this trash.

[luns101]

1. This topic has long since progressed beyond the fact that a movie some people regard as immoral and is rated R-17 was shown in a US school without prior consent of the childrens parents or guardians. I really don't think you can demand that only US statistics be quoted.

Yes, because the charges of "homophobe" came out almost immediately. And why can't I quote only US statistics when I'm talking about an American movie being sneakily played in an American classroom with the attempt to change the minds of American teenagers? It's the American culture and its attitude toward homosexuality that I was addressing.

2. Christians really aren't the only ones helping people who are sick and dying, be it from AIDS or anything else.

And this is the 2nd time that this charge has been thrown out. Please quote me where I said anything about Christians being the only ones showing compassion. In fact what I said and will post here for you to see again is:

Many people have different motivations for wanting to help their fellow man.

Can you find a quote where I said Christians have a monopoly on compassion?

Maybe it's not about slandering christians but finding a topic that will get people to see the movie thus creating a lot of cash for the producers. Not just with BBM but with every Hollywood movie.

Perhaps, but it's my contention that they could still produce those types of movies without the negative portrayal of Christian characters (or other dissenters of homosexuality). Which is why I liked AS GOOD AS IT GETS.

You mention 3 other ways through which one can be infected with HIV, you leave out heterosexual intercourse.
You don't say that they got it from engaging in homosexual sex with an already infected partner. The way in which you described this is definitely not clear and leaves much open to the imagination of the reader, a reader without any other knowledge of the matter might suppose that those are the only ways in which AIDS is transmitted.

Yeah, that's a fair thing to state, so I'll write it and it can be clear. The HIV-1 & HIV-2 viruses are transmitted by sexual contact, blood, or from a mother to a child. HIV-2 is more common in West Africa. Within the HIV-1, the subtype B is predominant among homosexual men who have sex with other homosexual men or use intravaneous needles. So yes...engaging in homosexual sex increases the chances of contracting the virus.

Not warning people is not the same as being tolerant and warning them is not the same as being intolernat, warning people can make them use condoms to eliminate or at least minimze the risk of contracting AIDS. Intolerant would mean that you don't accept their lifestyle as a valid and equal alternative to your own while tolerant would mean that you do.

I totally disagree with your definition. I will not allow myself to be defined by it and will stand in opposition to it. If you're honest, you will admit that you yourself find some things to be intolerant in life...it's just a matter of which set of principles you are willing to accept as true. This is the mentality which produces the onslaught of "homophobe" or "bigot" accusations.

I see a flaw of reasoning in your argument, men having sex with men is not necessarily a greater risk, maybe it's just the anal sex that increases the risk, and condoms could help to reduce or eliminate it.

You can't be serious on this one! Men having sex with other men does mean that there is a greater risk of contracting HIV, especially the HIV-1 subtype B version. What do you think they're doing -holding hands! While the use of a latex condom can help reduce the risk of contraction, it's not fullproof. That's a huge risk to take IMO.

you claim that tolerant people do not share information about risks. I get the feeling you either misuse the word for your own ends or have a, IMO, strange view of what "tolerance" means.

Because you automatically set up the definition as one that favors those who take your view. I could just as easily say that you're using it to to suit your own means. And yes, Hollywood does not share the information about risks within the plot of the movies that they are producing.

And please tell us where you get your numbers from and provide us with sources. "Great majority" has a nice ring to it, but since we're supposed to be debating here some numbers would be appreciated.

...but you don't require the same thing of Bertros Bertros' statements - interesting.

Anyway:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resou ... ts/msm.htm

A.P.M. Coxon, "Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men," AIDS (July 1993):877-882.

Sexually Transmitted Infections Journal, February 2007, Volume 83, Issue #1

John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Public Health Newsletter, May 2001 (which is a recap of the May 28, 2001 Archives of Internal Medicine findings)

There, I've given you some sources. Are you going to demand the same level of documentation from those on your side?

[Neutrino]

Jay, I'm afraid you can't base and argument about homosexuality on something as loose and flexible as morals, because morals vary, and cultures have very different views on what is right and wrong.

The reality is , there is just one God. The "morals" He sets down are the only one's that matter. (*stands by for the hate mail)

The ancient greeks believed that the love between two men was the purest love there was, do you think that their ENTIRE CIVILISATION is burning in hell, jay?

It is very possible. "Wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the road that leads to life".

please, put your views into perspective, I worry about you, Jay..

My views are in perspective.... no need to worry about me.

Why, oh why is it not possible to find anyone who will at least consider that there is the faintest chance that their views might be wrong? (this is mostly directed at Jay)

I would like to hear your response to this:

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?

[Backglass]

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?

EXACTLY.

[Iliad]

1. This topic has long since progressed beyond the fact that a movie some people regard as immoral and is rated R-17 was shown in a US school without prior consent of the childrens parents or guardians. I really don't think you can demand that only US statistics be quoted.

Yes, because the charges of "homophobe" came out almost immediately. And why can't I quote only US statistics when I'm talking about an American movie being sneakily played in an American classroom with the attempt to change the minds of American teenagers? It's the American culture and its attitude toward homosexuality that I was addressing.

2. Christians really aren't the only ones helping people who are sick and dying, be it from AIDS or anything else.

And this is the 2nd time that this charge has been thrown out. Please quote me where I said anything about Christians being the only ones showing compassion. In fact what I said and will post here for you to see again is:

Many people have different motivations for wanting to help their fellow man.

Can you find a quote where I said Christians have a monopoly on compassion?

Maybe it's not about slandering christians but finding a topic that will get people to see the movie thus creating a lot of cash for the producers. Not just with BBM but with every Hollywood movie.

Perhaps, but it's my contention that they could still produce those types of movies without the negative portrayal of Christian characters (or other dissenters of homosexuality). Which is why I liked AS GOOD AS IT GETS.

You mention 3 other ways through which one can be infected with HIV, you leave out heterosexual intercourse.
You don't say that they got it from engaging in homosexual sex with an already infected partner. The way in which you described this is definitely not clear and leaves much open to the imagination of the reader, a reader without any other knowledge of the matter might suppose that those are the only ways in which AIDS is transmitted.

Yeah, that's a fair thing to state, so I'll write it and it can be clear. The HIV-1 & HIV-2 viruses are transmitted by sexual contact, blood, or from a mother to a child. HIV-2 is more common in West Africa. Within the HIV-1, the subtype B is predominant among homosexual men who have sex with other homosexual men or use intravaneous needles. So yes...engaging in homosexual sex increases the chances of contracting the virus.

Not warning people is not the same as being tolerant and warning them is not the same as being intolernat, warning people can make them use condoms to eliminate or at least minimze the risk of contracting AIDS. Intolerant would mean that you don't accept their lifestyle as a valid and equal alternative to your own while tolerant would mean that you do.

I totally disagree with your definition. I will not allow myself to be defined by it and will stand in opposition to it. If you're honest, you will admit that you yourself find some things to be intolerant in life...it's just a matter of which set of principles you are willing to accept as true. This is the mentality which produces the onslaught of "homophobe" or "bigot" accusations.

I see a flaw of reasoning in your argument, men having sex with men is not necessarily a greater risk, maybe it's just the anal sex that increases the risk, and condoms could help to reduce or eliminate it.

You can't be serious on this one! Men having sex with other men does mean that there is a greater risk of contracting HIV, especially the HIV-1 subtype B version. What do you think they're doing -holding hands! While the use of a latex condom can help reduce the risk of contraction, it's not fullproof. That's a huge risk to take IMO.

you claim that tolerant people do not share information about risks. I get the feeling you either misuse the word for your own ends or have a, IMO, strange view of what "tolerance" means.

Because you automatically set up the definition as one that favors those who take your view. I could just as easily say that you're using it to to suit your own means. And yes, Hollywood does not share the information about risks within the plot of the movies that they are producing.

And please tell us where you get your numbers from and provide us with sources. "Great majority" has a nice ring to it, but since we're supposed to be debating here some numbers would be appreciated.

...but you don't require the same thing of Bertros Bertros' statements - interesting.

Anyway:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resou ... ts/msm.htm

A.P.M. Coxon et al., "Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men," AIDS (July 1993):877-882.

Sexually Transmitted Infections Journal, February 2007, Volume 83, Issue #1

John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Public Health Newsletter, May 2001 (which is a recap of the May 28, 2001 Archives of Internal Medicine findings)

There, I've given you some sources. Are you going to demand the same level of documentation from those on your side?

The teacher did not sneakily play this film to as propaganda! If they believe that homosexuality is a sin then they will still do. The movie was made to show how the two gay cowboys were persecuted.