[quote]jsbrook wrote:
what a ridiculous thing to be getting upset about
[/quote]
I admit that your statement is true (to an extent). I live in one of the most spectacular cities in the world, acquired an impressive university education, make a six figure salary, drive a new head-turning ride, have a comfortable roof over my head, a fully stocked refrigerator, have money in the bank to last me a year and a half unemployed, a loving network of family and friends, as well as spiritual guides and brethren that help me stay focused on the path to eternal salvation. Life (and what I’ve made of it) has been pretty good thus far, and I’m still years shy of thirty.
I guess I don’t need to worry about the implications of society’s reaction to this film or the glamourization of the characters therein. Nonetheless, to someone who’s still impressionable and morally confused, I can see how they might be brainwashed by society’s fads and agendas. Perhaps my fatal flaw is trying to protect the innocent while some people couldn’t give two cents who only worry about themselves.
And it’s not so much that I’m getting upset over the issue. It’s a topic that can be readily debated but people’s reactions to my commentaries are hostile, demeaning, and infantile which leaves a sour feeling in my mind. My fallacy was trying to bring a complex discussion into a bodybuilder’s forum versus a site sponsored by Harvard grads.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
The church I am referring to is the Catholic church. I never said sex was viewed as a necessary evil, I said obtaining pleasure from sex was,and those are very different things. Pretty anti-sex means having a negative attitude towards sex, ranging from moderate to severe. This includes things such as viewing it as dirty, sinful, impure, and undesirable.
[/quote]
I’m glad you clarified that. I’ve already mentioned I’m not a Roman Catholic, so I won’t go out of my way to defend their beliefs, but I believe you’re still oversimplifying their doctrines. I’d prefer that a Roman Catholic dispell any such myths, but I’m still waiting for those anti-sex references you mentioned that were allegedly promoted by the early Church.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
I can be concerned about something regardless of whether it’s emitting an impact on me at the present time.
Professor X wrote:
Why are you concerned?
[/quote]
Are you concerned, even to a tiny degree, about the greenhouse effect, the bird flu, a 5-mile wide meteor clashing with the earth? Concerns are emotions people have to fears or conditons that create unfavorable or harmful situations. Concerns may range from subtle to grave. Frankly, this film and society’s arms-wide-open, eyes-slammed-shut reaction is of subtle concern to me. Perhaps actively posting in the thread magnifies my apparent concern for the issues at hand.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why would you be against this? vroom wrote:
Religious intolerance…[/quote]
vroom, I’m an Orthodox Christian. Christians don’t have a more tradional ethical core than this. I know Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholics and I treat them all with respect. I can stare my jihad-believing grocer straight in the eyes and order a pound of turkey without harboring feelings of hate towards him. He believes all non-Muslims should be slain in the streets. Too bad for him we live in America and that’s against the law. I still pay the $5.99, shake his hand, and wish him well with a smile. I pray for him and leave it at that.
Just because I’m not Muslim doesn’t mean I’m not tolerant of a Muslim’s beliefs. As long as he doesn’t try to jump over the counter and hack me with his knife, we remain cool. On the other hand, if I see a Muslim trying to convert bystanders in the park, I have a right to challenge what’s being preached. I don’t think that classifies as intolerance. Perhaps “psychospiritually inclined” is a better phrase.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
I’m not trying to pick a fight here, I just want to know who this guy is - his educational and professional background - and where the article is from. Both of these things will do well to inform myself and others of where he is coming from as far as his worldview is concerned (beyond the obvious issue of homosexuality). Having this knowledge will also make the formation of opinion on Dr. Winfield’s assertions easier and more informed. Having a knowledge of the broad spectrum of ideas and those worldviews and other viewpoints that inform those ideas undoubtedly helps one discern those that are consistent with their own contentions.
I am sidestepping most of the issues that you and Dr. Winfield have raised as I am not particularly concerned by them. The only comments I have made beyond seeking the aforemention information with respect to Dr. Winfield and his article was to answer one question that had no relation to the issues of homosexuality (those presently of contention), and to give my observation as someone who works in the film industry that profit is very much the driving factor behind many of the production decisions that are made, rather than some vast gay conspiracy that some are alleging.[/quote]
I did some digging and attained an e-mail address for Dr. Winfield. I am hesitant to provide it but since you’re in the film industry and appear sincerely interested, I’m willing to furnish it to you. A website of his will be uploaded in the very near future featuring more of his articles. I have not come across any of his other material so I can’t vouch that my beliefs will coincide with his.
Whether or not you ascribe to any religious morals or personal beliefs concerning homosexuality, I think the scope of Dr. Winfield’s article ventures far beyond that. The fact that society has adjusted the features which define a hero, or that society has altered its perception of what true love really is just amazes me. I attempted with great effort to avoid the issue of homosexuality per se in this thread and instead kept my commentaries revolving around the glamourization of the characters in the film. I hope my approach was highlighted to a sufficient degree.
PM me and I’ll relay his e-mail address to you. Peace be with you.
I enjoy taking the piss out of you (not just you, so don’t go feeling all warm and special), but I’m not going to do that.
I think you are blowing this all out of proportion. Some dude made a movie about two dudes doing the nasty. So what? I can think of several shows on TV that portray the gay lifestyle in a positive light. More people would see them on a weekly basis than are going to see this movie in the next year.
Is it propoganda for the gay lifestyle? Possibly, (I haven’t seen the movie, and I’m not going to) but if it is, do you think that you and the guy who wrote your movie review are the only people who can see that?
I appreciate the fact you believe you are doing a good thing by protecting people from what you believe is evil, but there are so many other, and bigger problems in the world, why would you concentrate on this?
This is one thing that frustrates the hell out of me with many religious groups. Many would rather spend time protesting about gays than helping at a soup kitchen.
Helping at a charity can make a real difference to real people. I’m not so sure about posting something like that on a bodybuilding website will help (cause, you know, all bodybuilders are gay anyway).
Anyway, peace brother.
PS I’m not saying you don’t help with charities and the like. Remember, I only really get to see one side of you here.
[quote]Massif wrote:
This is one thing that frustrates the hell out of me with many religious groups. Many would rather spend time protesting about gays than helping at a soup kitchen.
Helping at a charity can make a real difference to real people. I’m not so sure about posting something like that on a bodybuilding website will help (cause, you know, all bodybuilders are gay anyway).
Anyway, peace brother.
PS I’m not saying you don’t help with charities and the like. Remember, I only really get to see one side of you here.
[/quote]
Greetings Massif. I know what you mean. The other night I missed the gym 'cause I got so caught up posting in this thread. Likewise, when I shut down the comp after writing this and am feeling mentally exhausted for having defended my beliefs and clarifying my points, it diminishes the time I spend praying for myself and the world.
I like debating, writing, and initiating dialogue on complex matters, but evidently my passion to appease my intellectual thirst has gone unsatiated and I’ve expended too much time in the process explaining things that most here already realize.
As far as charity is concerned, on the 21st of February my church will be feeding & clothing NYC’s homeless in the shelter system and the parks. God-willing, I’ll be a participant. I have a soft spot in my heart for the homeless actually. Two years ago I chased 3 teens who were battering a black homeless fellow on a bench. I didn’t even realize it was Leo (the name of the homeless guy) until I sprinted up the block. In 2004 I was participating in food/clothing drives with the church at least once a month. I hesitate to say more because I’ll be losing my crowns - I acknowledge that it’s not the applause of men I need to strive after.
I don’t know what other religious groups do or don’t do in their spare time, but I can only comment that in Orthodox Christianity we’re taught to keep our good deeds secret and not brag about them to the world. Perhaps this gives the illusion that all religious groups do is criticize and nag about the perils of the world instead of trying to make it a more loving place.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
what a ridiculous thing to be getting upset about
I admit that your statement is true (to an extent). I live in one of the most spectacular cities in the world, acquired an impressive university education, make a six figure salary, drive a new head-turning ride, have a comfortable roof over my head, a fully stocked refrigerator, have money in the bank to last me a year and a half unemployed, a loving network of family and friends, as well as spiritual guides and brethren that help me stay focused on the path to eternal salvation. Life (and what I’ve made of it) has been pretty good thus far, and I’m still years shy of thirty.
I guess I don’t need to worry about the implications of society’s reaction to this film or the glamourization of the characters therein. Nonetheless, to someone who’s still impressionable and morally confused, I can see how they might be brainwashed by society’s fads and agendas. Perhaps my fatal flaw is trying to protect the innocent while some people couldn’t give two cents who only worry about themselves.
And it’s not so much that I’m getting upset over the issue. It’s a topic that can be readily debated but people’s reactions to my commentaries are hostile, demeaning, and infantile which leaves a sour feeling in my mind. My fallacy was trying to bring a complex discussion into a bodybuilder’s forum versus a site sponsored by Harvard grads.
[/quote]
Try Brown. I think they’d be all over this one. I think the reason you’ve got the reactions you did is the view in that article is extremely narrow, evidencing an axe to grind, and an attempt to promote a social position and stance on an issue at least as strongly as the film it seeks to criticize. Then you get people posting about demonic possession and the thread just disintegrates into a debacle.
you writte so much and can’t answer a simple question using only 3 letters.
Are you gay or not?
warlock
Either you have selective reading powers or you’re skimming through my posts. I already stated that I’m straight as an arrow. I have nothing personal against homosxeuals. I do not hate them, nor would I ever participate in a hate crime against them. If I saw a homosexual being beaten as part of a hate crime, I would intervene to defend their physical welfare. My Christian Faith teaches that we are to love the person but hate the sin.
Often times, what I believe and what society believes conflict, but I’m fine with that. God’s laws are much stricter than the laws of our society. Professor X and some others here are trying to make it appear as though I’m on a “crusade” against free speech and that I’m encouraging film censorship - that’s ludicrous! I fully support the first amendment (and I believe the rest of you do too), so why are you guys taking my stance to the extremes? I never said the movie didn’t have the right to be produced, or that it was going to make anyone gay. I simply wanted to alarm people that the film involved propaganda (as do many other films). I find it comical that some of you are diving off the deep end and classifying me as gay because of this.
Other T-Nation members have told me that it’s a waste of time trying to have an intellectual dialogue on such a complex matter because people feel the need to launch personal attacks when their finite rationale is questioned, evidently they’re correct.
[/quote]
I will take that as a no.
So why do you care so much about gay stuff?
Every guy that I know that’s 200%straight cares more about women than what 2 guys do in private.
Pay attention bro. We are talking about the legally protected minority in the US. They get things like first dibs on government contracts, preference in hiring and school applications, etc.
So sorry sport, gays don’t get first pick on jobs just because of who they like to screw! That is asinine!
[…]
No, you are talking about the legal minority status, even “positive” discrimination. Most other people here (including me) are just put off by your various quips like this one equating gay with “pedophiles, those who have sex with animals, etc. So just because they are deviant doesn’t mean that grants them minority status.” No one is asking for “positive” discrimination as hinted by you - we’re all just pretty tired of comparisons that equate gay people with sexual offenders.
[…]
There are a number, if not thousands of examples of people stating they were gay and changed to be straight, or visa versa. That in itself would indicate it is not biological, but a choice. For example: http://www.peoplecanchange.com/
But if someday it is proved to be biological, I will change my position.
And there is the WHO, and every medical and psychological association in the western world which states it is not a sickness and does not need to be cured, and if you look for proper scientific sources:
“In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association developed and endorsed a statement reading: The most important fact about ‘reparative therapy,’ also sometimes known as ‘conversion’ therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a ‘cure.’ …health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through ‘reparative therapy’ and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.”
Nuff said.
[…]
Come on bro, gays in concentration camps? You are going to have to prove that, because my bullshit meter just went off the scale!
Then I hope you’re not a history teacher, as it is well documented:
But again, we are talking about the benefits of the minority status in the USA. They should not get this status just because of sexual preference. That is what comes along with minority status in the US, or didn’t you know that? If that is the case, then I want special privileges because I like to screw brunettes and not blondes.
[…]
Dude, don’t try and twist this issue. We are talking about receiving minority status, not about persecuting anyone (I think that is what you meant by “prosecuted”)… We don’t need to give gays minority status to uphold the hate crime laws. Two different things bro.
Wow, from Brokeback Mountain and an appeal by Vroom to understand people who have been put under pressure and persecution to minority status and hate crime laws. I think you are twisting the issue yourself a little bit. Again, I can’t really comment on your views of US legal policies - I just think that you are ill informed in basically all your views on homosexuality.
Makkun[/quote]
Dude, you are acting like a woman. Maybe you are, I don’t know. What I mean by that is that you are adding in a bunch of things that I may have said on done in the past into this post and this issue (those who are married will understand my point).
I did not state any of those things you mentioned this topic. I never posted that gays were like pedophilia in this post.
My only issue is gays having the legally protected minority status. That is my only issue. The morality, etc of being gay is a separate issue.
I just believe that it is wrong to give minority status based on your choice of sexual partners. That is my issue.
So please address that issue, and that issue only.
The gun in your avatar is obviously pointed in the wrong direction.
Perhaps, if you want to take the concept of being a minority and being discriminated against so personally, you should understand that other people also don’t like being discriminated against.
Whether or not you endorse the gay lifestyle is not what the discussion is about. Whether or not they should be granted “legal minority” status is completely besides the point.
What the hell are you smoking?[/quote]
Sorry Bro, but my issue is that gays should not have a legal minority status in the US. That is the issue, if you will pay attention. I don’t care about any of that other gay lifestyle stuff. And discrimination is not the issue as it is already illegal to discriminate against someone. You don’t need protected minority status to stop discrimination or abuse.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Are you saying that any movie with a moral point is conservative? Dam dude, even I will admit that morality is not confined to the conservative party. Also note that I stated nothing about the relative morality of being gay.
This is very true, however, the morality that is portrayed in these films is rather similar to that morality that is played out in the conservative realm of american politics.
You guys are so brain washed you can’t even read. You want to attribute things to me that I didn’t say because it makes you feel better and fits in with the PC talking points. Pathetic. Grow a pair and think for yourselves!
I don’t believe that I have attributed anything to you, so please do not lump me in with everyone else who is blowing smoke up your ass.[/quote]
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote: Lorisco wrote:
Do you think Brokeback would have won awards if it was about a guy and girl?
Exactly my point. You cut right to the heart of the matter with this one simple question.
[/quote]
Yes, clearly Hollywood has an agenda and when the public doesn’t respond or embrace it as they would like, they give it more attention like awards, etc… It’s actually kind of pathetic.
[quote]warlock wrote:
As a black guy once said:
“–Homossexuals are the niggers of the 21st century!”.
[/quote]
Dude, if I was a black guy, that would be fucking offensive! But since most of the black guys here are more PC than black, they won’t make a sound. Sad!
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote: stellar_horizon wrote:
I can be concerned about something regardless of whether it’s emitting an impact on me at the present time.
Professor X wrote:
Why are you concerned?
Are you concerned, even to a tiny degree, about the greenhouse effect, the bird flu, a 5-mile wide meteor clashing with the earth? Concerns are emotions people have to fears or conditons that create unfavorable or harmful situations. Concerns may range from subtle to grave. Frankly, this film and society’s arms-wide-open, eyes-slammed-shut reaction is of subtle concern to me. Perhaps actively posting in the thread magnifies my apparent concern for the issues at hand.[/quote]
Stellar, bro, be careful as if you disagree with Pro X long enough he gets mad and takes his toys and goes home!
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
The church I am referring to is the Catholic church. I never said sex was viewed as a necessary evil, I said obtaining pleasure from sex was,and those are very different things. Pretty anti-sex means having a negative attitude towards sex, ranging from moderate to severe. This includes things such as viewing it as dirty, sinful, impure, and undesirable.
I’m glad you clarified that. I’ve already mentioned I’m not a Roman Catholic, so I won’t go out of my way to defend their beliefs, but I believe you’re still oversimplifying their doctrines. I’d prefer that a Roman Catholic dispell any such myths, but I’m still waiting for those anti-sex references you mentioned that were allegedly promoted by the early Church.
Peace be with you.
[/quote]
It seems you missed the next line.
This book does a pretty good job of going through all of it. I wish I could give you the direct references, but I just moved a while ago, and all those papers didn’t make the cut (they got recycled).
Dude, you are acting like a woman. Maybe you are, I don’t know. What I mean by that is that you are adding in a bunch of things that I may have said on done in the past into this post and this issue (those who are married will understand my point).[/quote]
You seem to have an interesting view of women - well, I’ll try to take it like a compliment.
I accept that you may not be aware of what you are saying, but if you scroll back, you will find your own quote - “deviant” was the exact word - and well, this is how it has been received.[quote]
My only issue is gays having the legally protected minority status. That is my only issue. The morality, etc of being gay is a separate issue.
I just believe that it is wrong to give minority status based on your choice of sexual partners. That is my issue.
So please address that issue, and that issue only.
[/quote]
Sure, I’ll address it: I agree - there is no need for a legal minority status.
But no one has asked for that, at least not in this thread (I think in your language this kind of argument is called a strawman). And btw, most of the gay rights movement doesn’t ask for it either. They mostly are asking for not being called “deviant” anymore and being put into the same sentences with all sorts of sexual offenders - and concerning this, there is a lot to be done in this forum here.
Dude, you are acting like a woman. Maybe you are, I don’t know. What I mean by that is that you are adding in a bunch of things that I may have said on done in the past into this post and this issue (those who are married will understand my point).
You seem to have an interesting view of women - well, I’ll try to take it like a compliment.
[/quote]
You must not be married or haven’t been married. It just relates to the fact that women tend to stray from the issue at hand and include a lot of complaints they have from the past. Complaints that you thought were long since resolved. Anyway, not something you would get unless you have taken the vows.
Dude, you need to stop implying things that are not meant or implied.
“Deviant”
adj.
“Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.”
n.
“One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.”
There is nothing implied in the term “deviant” that would indicate it was a put down or a slam. It means to be different than the norm, as since homosexuals are only approx. 5% of the population, they are in FACT deviant.
So the term is correct and does not imply what you have indicated. So please keep to the subject.
[quote]
Sure, I’ll address it: I agree - there is no need for a legal minority status.
But no one has asked for that, at least not in this thread (I think in your language this kind of argument is called a strawman). And btw, most of the gay rights movement doesn’t ask for it either. They mostly are asking for not being called “deviant” anymore and being put into the same sentences with all sorts of sexual offenders - and concerning this, there is a lot to be done in this forum here.
Makkun[/quote]
Vroom implied that gays should be a minority group, so that is what set me off. I was not implying that gays themselves wanted that.
Next, the term deviant is accurate per it’s definition.
Lastly, I never compared gays to child molesters in this tread. I believe I compared them to people who like to have sex with animals. The reason is that it is also a deviant practice in terms of the majority, and it is not against the law (as far as I know). So basically both are deviant sexual practices that are legal.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Massif wrote:
“The other night I missed the gym 'cause I got so caught up posting in this thread.”
Intellectual exchange is a great mental exercise but this quote just about sums up how ridiculous these threads are.
Someone posts an OPINION (if you have any questions on the meaning of this word look it up in Websters) and everybody on this site wants to play king of the mountian and try to knock a guy down.
It’s his opinion. Your comments, quotes, insults, are not going to change it. If you have a different opinion, state it, and be on your way.
[/quote]
The saddest part about this thread in particular is that this guy is missing the gym to defend an article that he didn’t write. He’s just presenting it as an alternative OPINION.
EVERYBODY STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD AND HIT THE GYM!
You must not be married or haven’t been married. It just relates to the fact that women tend to stray from the issue at hand and include a lot of complaints they have from the past. Complaints that you thought were long since resolved. Anyway, not something you would get unless you have taken the vows.[/quote]
Interesting deductions you are coming to. Have you ever considered that it might perhaps your communication style that leads to these misunderstandings, rather than “how women react”? I think we have quite an interesting misunderstanding at hand…
This is your paragraph: “You have no basis to include gays in a minority status other than they have a deviant sexual lifestyle in terms of the majority, but so do pedophiles, those who have sex with animals, etc… So just because they are deviant doesn’t mean that grants them minority status.”
Now I accept your explanation towards the usage of deviant (not that I approve, because you and I know very well that the word is being used in a negative way, especially in matters of sexuality).
As for the minority status - again it was you who strayed from the main argument (Brokeback Mountain as apologetic propaganda for gay men behaving immorally), as you answered to an implied call for a legal minority status that no one had called for.
As for pedophiles and bestialists (?), read your quote above. I have read this type of argument too many times - even earlier on this very thread - not to call bullshit on it: By putting gay people into the same sentence just like this, you create a connection - whether you want it, or not. In order to avoid misunderstandings like this, just don’t do it; it sucks, is inappropriate and breeds misunderstandings.[quote]
Dude, you need to stop implying things that are not meant or implied.
“Deviant”
adj.
“Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.”
n.
“One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.”
There is nothing implied in the term “deviant” that would indicate it was a put down or a slam. It means to be different than the norm, as since homosexuals are only approx. 5% of the population, they are in FACT deviant.
So the term is correct and does not imply what you have indicated. So please keep to the subject.[/quote]
I did - but I do recognise that we indeed add different connotations to phrases. See this lengthy discussion on deviant behaviour, which clearly adds a moral dimension to the term:
No, he did not. He said:
“If you are a minority group that is persecuted by the majority, who’s had to live a dual or hidden life, who’s been afraid to admit the truth of your feelings to anyone, then perhaps you might want to be able to openly celebrate your existance.”
And he told you that you got him wrong:
“Whether or not you endorse the gay lifestyle is not what the discussion is about. Whether or not they should be granted “legal minority” status is completely besides the point.”
So, while you tell me that I imply stuff on what you say, you do that yourself. Again: Except you, no one discussed the legal minority status.
[quote]Next, the term deviant is accurate per it’s definition.
Lastly, I never compared gays to child molesters in this tread. I believe I compared them to people who like to have sex with animals. The reason is that it is also a deviant practice in terms of the majority, and it is not against the law (as far as I know). So basically both are deviant sexual practices that are legal.[/quote]
See your quote above - in the light of the discussion here, you should not be surprised if you are “misunderstood”.
But honestly, I am glad that you mean deviant only in a statistical sense, we agree on the legal minority status issue and you would not use the terms gay in the same sentence with sexual offences.
And I feared you were one of these guys who call themselves “homorepugnant”.
