What is all the fuss about? If you don't like what the the movie is about, then don't see it. Vote at the box office and let others do the same. It is not the type of movie I personally want to see, but I realize that gay people are born with their sexual orientation and are stuck with it. Therefore, they should be allowed to live their lives honestly and without ridicule. I'm a straight guy who believes in "live and let live." However, I have no interest in seeing a movie that reportedly gets up close and personal about this issue. Now, if the story line was about two women...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Brokeback Mountain
- Thread starter Ricter
- Start date
Not only molested women choose homosexuality but also Judeo-Christian women. Judeo-Christians believe that sexual desire takes one away from God, thus homosexuality offers some sexual release without as much guilt; also, note most porn women are Catholic: these women believe sex for money is not sexual desire. Homosexuality is a pathological condition.
Here's the thing. We tend to see the world from our own perspective, and I'm no different. With due respect to any gay ET members, I could not imagine ever, for any reason, changing my orientation under any circumstances. Somehow, I don't think I'm that different from any other guy in this regard. I admit that there seems to be "societal evidence" to suggest a greater propensity towards bisexuality among women than men. I don't know why that is although, considering the beauty of a woman's body, I can certainly imagine. However, in my opinion as a man, I think that any man who dubs himself as "bisexual" has simply not taken both feet out of the closet just yet. I really don't think it comes down to choice for guys.Quote from jem:
not all gay people were born with that orientation. Some women I have met said that had been molested as kids and chose to be lesbians because they do not want to be touched by men.
Quote from spect8or:
That is not true, as heterosexuals most certainly can exist, in physical reality, without homosexuals, but it misses my point: "heteros" are now just another political category.
Might seem obvious and redunant to you, but I find it repugnant.
In my world, there are "people" and "homosexuals", and homosexuals are and must forever remain the consummate outsiders. Yes, I am discriminating. Shoot me.
It is true. For example, we have no special term for people with one nose, but if we ever found people with three, then we would coin one, that is, one would "arise".
At any rate, I believe what's behind a lot of homosexualism is simple attraction to what's "taboo". For some it's kids, for others it's family, for still others it's animals. If these weren't taboo it would be hard to imagine them having the power over some people's imaginations that they do.
Quote from Ricter:
It is true. For example, we have no special term for people with one nose, but if we ever found people with three, then we would coin one, that is, one would "arise".
You are speaking theoretically. I am speaking factually. There is absolutely no requirement for homosexuals to exist in the world in order for heterosexuals to likewise exist. One could simply conceive of (in the mind) a people who favor sex within gender and call them homosexuals without one ever having to physically exist.
Anyway, more importantly, who cares?
Quote from Rearden Metal:
If a guy craves man-ass instead of hot young females, that's just less competition for me. Why would I want to discourage him?
Even if you have no desire to discourage him, do you consider it wise to encourage him? Celebrate him? Promote him to equal - or better - standing as normal people? If so, from your point of view, why?
Quote from Sparohok:
But, spect8or, you <i>are</i> a homophobe, and you <i>do</i> discriminate, by your own admission. So, I really don't think you have a heck of a lot of credibility making this accusation.
Oh, I don't deny that I discriminate. It's that I don't think discrimination is wrong.
Sure, some groups are going to feel agrieved by such discrimination, but I don't see that as any cause for concern. And let's be specific, I'm not even minimally concerned that homosexuals might feel wronged by my discrimination.
Can discrimination be taken too far? Certainly. But that should only mean that it should be approached cautiously, judiciously, not junked outright.
Now that we have junked discrimination, we can compare the societies created by discriminators and non-discriminators. In my opinion, the US of the discriminating 1950s is vastly preferable to the US of the non-discriminating 2000s.
I'm curious, is that personal experience?Quote from spect8or:
In my opinion, the US of the discriminating 1950s is vastly preferable to the US of the non-discriminating 2000s.
I wasn't alive in the 1950s. But my dad liked to say that "People who are nostalgic for the '50s didn't live through them." From him and others of his generation, I have the impression of a time of national paranoia, oppressive conformity, and despite the postwar boom, economic insecurity.
Martin