Brokeback Propaganda

[vroom]

Lorisco,

All you are doing is succeeding in showing your own bias.

Just because a movie isn’t a documentary does not make it propaganda.

Neither does that fact that there are statistical differences in populations equate to negatives of belonging to a group.

Your logic would just as easily apply to sex, race, and religion. For example, women are generally weaker than men, so any movie involving women must show them as physically weaker.

What kind of retarded statement would that be? Also, even if true, it does not equate to an inherent negative with respect to being a women.

I suspose that concept is too subtle for you to grasp.

[Lorisco]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco,

We are still waiting to hear what the bad side is that needs be shown. What was left out that would turn this into a documentary in your opinion?[/quote]

Well, lets see, they showed the straight life marital conflict with the screaming kids, etc. And showed the blissful gay sex on the mountain. That seems even to you?

How about showing some gay friends with HIV/AIDS? How about showing some gays who are conflicted about being gay? How about showing at least a little negative lifestyle stuff instead of just all positive gay and all negative straight.

[Lorisco]

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
So what makes it propaganda is it’s uneven presentation of the gay condition.

Other than the fact that some people object to it, what is negative about the gay condition?

Well, not to start this debate up again, but statistics show gays with a much higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and depression than straights by percent of population. So that alone would indicate some negative aspects of the condition or lifestyle.

So, you wanted a movie to focus on them getting diseases and being depressed? Any focus on them not getting diseases and not being depressed is propoganda?

Don’t put words in my posts. No! They need to show the good and the bad to be not biased. That is all I’m saying. Just both sides.

Do you even KNOW the difference between art and journalism, fucknuts?

Ang Lee is under no obligation whatsoever to show both sides. He’s telling a story.

You knew that, right?

[/quote]

Hey man, keep your mind off my nuts, thank you!

Art? You think two guys playing hide the salami is Art?

You are a sick man!

[vroom]

How about showing some gay friends with HIV/AIDS? How about showing some gays who are conflicted about being gay? How about showing at least a little negative lifestyle stuff instead of just all positive gay and all negative straight.

You think all movies are supposed to be documentaries?

The director/producer/whoever is telling a story. Holy shit. I can’t believe what you think a movie must contain in order to be acceptable to you.

You know. I think terminator was propaganda. It didn’t show the positive side of machines. I’m going to throw my computer in the bathtub (I’m kidding really… it can see me typing y’know) tonight because I have been influenced.

Let go of your own bias… keep your opinion, but don’t let it stop you from seeing clearly. You are working very hard to defend a bias that even if allowed, accomplishes absolutely nothing anyway. What is the point?

Really, nobody will seriously deny you your own opinion.

[ZEB]

Neither does that fact that there are statistical differences in populations equate to negatives of belonging to a group.

Oh …I’m not sure I like the way you worded that one vroom.

Stats look really, really bad for both male homosexuals and lesbians. The act itself is dangerous. And the lifestyle they have built around it is also very bad for their physical and emotional health.

You know the stats, I don’t have to post them again and again.

[vroom]

The stats are very bad for anyone who takes IV drugs, has plenty of unprotected sex, and so forth.

It is not inherently a gay lifestyle thing.

Are there gay people that do things they shouldn’t? Sure. Are there straight people that do things they shouldn’t? Sure.

I’ll say again, it isn’t inherently negative to be gay. That is not what your beloved stats show.

[Lorisco]

Vroom,

True, it’s not a documentary. So we should accept that it is biased and agree on that. And yes, I also have my bias, as you do.

My point has always been (one that seems to allude you) is that the movie is biased as most all movies are because they just show what the makers want you to see. Brokeback is nothing different. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

[vroom]

Lorisco,

The damned thing is a movie.

There is a difference between a work of art, or entertainment, and something claiming to be a documentary or the truth. This movie claims nothing except that it might offer some entertainment.

If the movie misrepresents itself, then I think you’d have something to talk about.

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:
The stats are very bad for anyone who takes IV drugs, has plenty of unprotected sex, and so forth.

It is not inherently a gay lifestyle thing.

Are there gay people that do things they shouldn’t? Sure. Are there straight people that do things they shouldn’t? Sure.

I’ll say again, it isn’t inherently negative to be gay. That is not what your beloved stats show.[/quote]

If you are gay and do nothing about it, I agree.

But it is very negative to act out those “gay feelings.”

I learned a great deal from my last debate on this forum regarding “the” homosexual act (more than I wanted to learn trust me).

It seems that when you place a penis inside of a rectum you have a situation that leads to some potential for some very serious damage.

That…and the fact that homosexuals do not by and large have “protected sex” leads to even more serious problems.

It shouldn’t be difficult to believe that no good comes from using body parts for things that they were not designed to for.

Look, anyone can do whatever they want to do in America as long as it is legal. Honestly that’s what freedom is all about. And I think that when we get into these debates those who take more of a liberal view attempt to make outrageous claims regarding those of us who are more conservative.

I think homosexuals have every right to live together and practice their form of sexual gratification. I further don’t agree with any sort of discrimination against them. As I have stated before, I have had openly homosexual employees, and rented to homosexual couples. To each his own.

That is NOT the issue…

However, is it healthy? No, it’s very unhealthy in many many ways.

The CDC states:

An estimated 440,887 (non drug using homosexuals) had received a diagnosis of AIDS, accounting for 67% of all men and 54% of all people who received a diagnosis of AIDS [1]

As it clearly states, 67% of all men who have AIDS are homosexuals! This has nothing to do with being a drug user. It has to do with placing your penis inside of another mans rectum…um…it’s not healthy…it’s just not healthy.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=73

You won’t hear this stuff from the main stream media as they are quite biased, (that includes Hollywood too):

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp#The%20Media%20Elite

This does a disservice to all including those young men who don’t understand the dangerous life they are about to embark on.

The gay life is mostly about lonliness, a shortened life span and emotional pain and physical pain. I know that there are some homosexuals who have one partner and are healthy and happy and live to be 90. But, unfortunately, that is a tiny minority. The exception is not the rule!

Again, it has nothing to do with wanting to take away anyones rights to be a homosexual. I don’t smoke but I would never take away anyone else’s right to slowly kill themselves in this manner. The homosexual act and lifestyle is the same thing.

In fact, being homosexual (acting out the desires and living the lifestyle) shortens your lifespan and harms you physically more than being an alcoholic
or being a smoker!

No one talks about this because it’s not politically correct to do so. And that is very sad.

Hollywood and the media in general are liberal. Thus, they want to embrace differences, almost regardless of how dangerous those differences are.

They want to place a certain scenario in your mind. That liberal scenario dictates that you look at two men who are having sex as being no different than one man and one woman.

The problem with this scene is that it is inherently false!

In the real world two men do not go skipping off and live happily ever after most of the time. In fact, most gay men have had hundreds of sexual partners before they reach the age of 30. One poll even demonstrated that even in commited gay relationships there is an understanding that there will be sex with others outside of that relationship. We don’t see this depicted by Hollywood and we never will.

Now, we don’t see a lot of realism come from Hollywood. I’, not arguing that Hollywood even has a duty to show the truth as it is. They are simply an entertainment outlet (actually several entertainment outlets).

But to deny that Brokeback is up for so many awards because it is deserving is turning a blind eye to the real reason that it is up for various awards. It wants to celebrate liberalism!

So…go watch movies about gay cowboys it’s your right. But don’t defend the lifestyle or the act as something that is either good or healthy emotionally or physically.

And please don’t ever make a foolish claim that Hollywood is not liberal.

[veruvius]

Have any of you actually SEEN the movie? There is no propoganda involved, this movie was about what it was like to be a gay cowboy. It really reminded me of a real situation, if any of you remember the name Matthew Sheppard. But I’m sure you have no idea what I’m talking about, because you really don’t know what happens in the movie.

I’ve heard that a lot of Oscar movie reviewers have refused to watch Brokeback Mountain, so the front-runner for best picture is Crash. Maybe any awards the movie has won was due to the fact that IT WAS A GOOD MOVIE.

[Professor_X]

[quote]veruvius wrote:
Have any of you actually SEEN the movie? There is no propoganda involved, this movie was about what it was like to be a gay cowboy. It really reminded me of a real situation, if any of you remember the name Matthew Sheppard. But I’m sure you have no idea what I’m talking about, because you really don’t know what happens in the movie.

I’ve heard that a lot of Oscar movie reviewers have refused to watch Brokeback Mountain, so the front-runner for best picture is Crash. Maybe any awards the movie has won was due to the fact that IT WAS A GOOD MOVIE.[/quote]

I liked Crash. I’m glad it may win. I will probably never see Brokeback Mountain but I think it is plain stupid to complain about how “wrong” it is or how negative the content is if you have also never seen it.

I can’t think of any movie where critics give negative critiques to a movie they don’t watch. That makes no sense at all.

[vroom]

Zeb,

You can quote all the statistics you want about the fact that there are some dangers involved.

However, I don’t believe it is useful to quote the AIDS issue itself. While the numbers could conceivably be correct, any individual person, gay or otherwise can take steps to protect themselves from diseases.

As for the other problems you mention, I remain unconvinced that they are inherent in being gay. I think that gay people are treated poorly by most of society, and I believe that will cause a lot of anxiety, depression and so forth.

Obviously, something calling itself the family research institute will do it’s very best to malign the gay community. While raw stats can be accurate, there is still a lot of room for discussion and interpretation as to what they really mean, especially when a term like “the gay lifestyle” is used.

Anyhow, it is important to understand that it is not our place to designate something wrong simply because it has risk factors attached to it.

There are risk factors involved in driving a car. We all do it. Some jobs are very risky, such as mining. Many people choose to do that as well. People should not be condemned or judged poorly simply because they live a life with risks. It’s risky to fight in Iraq, but these risk takers are heros.

As long as people are law abiding, as you have said yourself, their actions and choices are not ours to judge. I’ll maintain my position that there is nothing inherently negative about being gay.

I don’t consider the increased risks a negative of the condition. I am using the word negative to be a bit more weighty than that. I have yet to see something that is inherent to being gay that makes it a bad thing.

I think it is all too easy to mistake personal feelings of disgust with the concept of right and wrong. Many people will search out reasons to support such conclusions… and I think this has been done for generations with this very issue. The fact that the majority is disgusted by the concept has made it very easy to villify it.

Are we forever to be driven by our emotions, or can we rise above that and tolerate things that are harmless to us and fall within legality?

[ZEB]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,

You can quote all the statistics you want about the fact that there are some dangers involved.[/quote]

And you can’t quote any that claims the homosexual lifestyle is healthy in any way!

Now how about that?

Is there any other subject that you are this illogical about?

um…NOPE!

However, I don’t believe it is useful to quote the AIDS issue itself. While the numbers could conceivably be correct, any individual person, gay or otherwise can take steps to protect themselves from diseases.

vroom…we are not talking about what someone could do. We are talking about what they actually do!

And what homosexuals actually do is very very dangerous. Not just in terms of the sex act which is inherently dangerous. But also the lifestyle which is incredibly dangerous.

As for the other problems you mention, I remain unconvinced that they are inherent in being gay. I think that gay people are treated poorly by most of society, and I believe that will cause a lot of anxiety, depression and so forth.

Yes, I would imagine that is exactly what you would think. That is what is portrayed in the media. And there is some of that no question.

But I think other minority groups have been treated far worse. Because of skin color there is no way that certain minority groups could “hide” the fact that they were minority.

Yet…not one minority group has had or has the incredible amount of suicides, and other psychological problems that gays have.

It just could be that the lifestyle is unhealthy both physically and emotionally.

Instability is part of the homosexual lifestyle, and is not caused by heterosexual disapproval.

The usual response by gay activists to revelations about the risk factors mentioned above is not denial, because these are public health statistics discussed widely among homosexuals themselves. Instead, they place the blame squarely on the shoulders of a disapproving, discriminatory society. The argument goes that, once gays are fully affirmed, even to the legalization of same sex marriage and adoption, that homosexuals’ lives and practices will stabilize. It’s the fault of oppressive Judeo-Christian traditions, once again!

"In San Francisco, where homosexuality has been widely accepted for at least two decades, homosexual sexually transmitted diseases are at an all time high, with deliberate unprotected sex a recent well-publicized phenomenon.

One study showed that the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals in that city is 22 times the national average. There is plenty of evidence that among gays, sexual practices are obsessive, with an ever-spiraling need to search for elusive satisfaction."

And it’s that “elusive satisfaction” that does emotional harm.

Think about it.

Obviously, something calling itself the family research institute will do it’s very best to malign the gay community.

Does it bother you that you cannot attack the CDC organization? They produce the health stats and they are accurate. End of argument there.

Also, who is supposed to shine a light onto the gay lifestyle if not various family and or church groups?

-The media won’t do it!

-Hollywood won’t do it!

-Politicians certainly won’t do it!

Anyhow, it is important to understand that it is not our place to designate something wrong simply because it has risk factors attached to it.

Really?

Okay…

Then drug addiction is not wrong!

Alcoholism is not wrong!

Smoking is not wrong!

And certainly being obese is not wrong!

We have to be careful NEVER to make a judgement- it just would not be politically correct.

How foolish!

There are risk factors involved in driving a car. We all do it. Some jobs are very risky, such as mining. Many people choose to do that as well. People should not be condemned or judged poorly simply because they live a life with risks.

I think when people are killing themselves. AND spreading disease into the community…it might be time to at least point out that what they are doing is not a good thing.

We know that going to war is dangerous and no one is claiming otherwise.

We know that being a miner is dangerous and no one is claiming otherwise.

And many of us KNOW from the volumes of obvious stats that being gay is dangerous. BUT no one can point it out becasue it’s not politically correct.

You see vroom…THAT is the problem.

As long as people are law abiding, as you have said yourself, their actions and choices are not ours to judge.

I agree that it is their choice. But, that doesn’t mean we can’t at least tell it like it is. As I mentioned above.

I’ll maintain my position that there is nothing inherently negative about being gay.

You can maintain that position all you’d like, but it is very obviously wrong.

Some believe we never really landed on the moon. And others think Elvis is still alive…

I don’t consider the increased risks a negative of the condition. I am using the word negative to be a bit more weighty than that. I have yet to see something that is inherent to being gay that makes it a bad thing.

As I stated, you can sit in your room all day long and “be gay.” No harm will come to you. BUT, when you act on that desire, bad things usually follow.

I think it is all too easy to mistake personal feelings of disgust with the concept of right and wrong.

Yes, I think some people do that. I don’t think the CDC did that. And they are claiming that two thirds of all new AIDS cases are male homosexuals!

I know…I know… those pesky little facts keep getting in the way…

Many people will search out reasons to support such conclusions… and I think this has been done for generations with this very issue. The fact that the majority is disgusted by the concept has made it very easy to villify it.

Okay vroom, here’s a challenge for you. cite ONE legitimate study which indicates that it is actually HEALTHIER to practice homosexual acts.

Just one!

Yet, there are volumes of statistics and reasearch by reputable government agencies which demonstrate that homosexual acts and the homosexual lifestyle are dangerous both physcially and emotionally.

This is not about what you or I think is disgusting. This is something that treads far deeper.

Are we forever to be driven by our emotions, or can we rise above that and tolerate things that are harmless to us and fall within legality?

I agree in terms of allowing those who want to pursue this dangerous lifestyle to be free of discrimination. As I said it’s America and God Bless our freedoms.

I even got a bit irritated when the goverment came down so hard on the cigarette companies.

I like freedom-but I also like the truth.

There are many statistics which demonstrate the homosexual act (and lifestyle) to certainly not be “harmless” as you suggest.

And with Hollywoods lates fawning over Brokeback we see once again that it is better to be politically correct than actually correct!

[harris447]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zeb,

You can quote all the statistics you want about the fact that there are some dangers involved.

And you can’t quote any that claims the homosexual lifestyle is healthy in any way!

Now how about that?

Is there any other subject that you are this illogical about?

um…NOPE!

However, I don’t believe it is useful to quote the AIDS issue itself. While the numbers could conceivably be correct, any individual person, gay or otherwise can take steps to protect themselves from diseases.

vroom…we are not talking about what someone could do. We are talking about what they actually do!

And what homosexuals actually do is very very dangerous. Not just in terms of the sex act which is inherently dangerous. But also the lifestyle which is incredibly dangerous.

As for the other problems you mention, I remain unconvinced that they are inherent in being gay. I think that gay people are treated poorly by most of society, and I believe that will cause a lot of anxiety, depression and so forth.

Yes, I would imagine that is exactly what you would think. That is what is portrayed in the media. And there is some of that no question.

But I think other minority groups have been treated far worse. Because of skin color there is no way that certain minority groups could “hide” the fact that they were minority.

Yet…not one minority group has had or has the incredible amount of suicides, and other psychological problems that gays have.

It just could be that the lifestyle is unhealthy both physically and emotionally.

Instability is part of the homosexual lifestyle, and is not caused by heterosexual disapproval.

The usual response by gay activists to revelations about the risk factors mentioned above is not denial, because these are public health statistics discussed widely among homosexuals themselves. Instead, they place the blame squarely on the shoulders of a disapproving, discriminatory society. The argument goes that, once gays are fully affirmed, even to the legalization of same sex marriage and adoption, that homosexuals’ lives and practices will stabilize. It’s the fault of oppressive Judeo-Christian traditions, once again!

"In San Francisco, where homosexuality has been widely accepted for at least two decades, homosexual sexually transmitted diseases are at an all time high, with deliberate unprotected sex a recent well-publicized phenomenon.

One study showed that the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals in that city is 22 times the national average. There is plenty of evidence that among gays, sexual practices are obsessive, with an ever-spiraling need to search for elusive satisfaction."

And it’s that “elusive satisfaction” that does emotional harm.

Think about it.

Obviously, something calling itself the family research institute will do it’s very best to malign the gay community.

Does it bother you that you cannot attack the CDC organization? They produce the health stats and they are accurate. End of argument there.

Also, who is supposed to shine a light onto the gay lifestyle if not various family and or church groups?

-The media won’t do it!

-Hollywood won’t do it!

-Politicians certainly won’t do it!

Anyhow, it is important to understand that it is not our place to designate something wrong simply because it has risk factors attached to it.

Really?

Okay…

Then drug addiction is not wrong!

Alcoholism is not wrong!

Smoking is not wrong!

And certainly being obese is not wrong!

We have to be careful NEVER to make a judgement- it just would not be politically correct.

How foolish!

There are risk factors involved in driving a car. We all do it. Some jobs are very risky, such as mining. Many people choose to do that as well. People should not be condemned or judged poorly simply because they live a life with risks.

I think when people are killing themselves. AND spreading disease into the community…it might be time to at least point out that what they are doing is not a good thing.

We know that going to war is dangerous and no one is claiming otherwise.

We know that being a miner is dangerous and no one is claiming otherwise.

And many of us KNOW from the volumes of obvious stats that being gay is dangerous. BUT no one can point it out becasue it’s not politically correct.

You see vroom…THAT is the problem.

As long as people are law abiding, as you have said yourself, their actions and choices are not ours to judge.

I agree that it is their choice. But, that doesn’t mean we can’t at least tell it like it is. As I mentioned above.

I’ll maintain my position that there is nothing inherently negative about being gay.

You can maintain that position all you’d like, but it is very obviously wrong.

Some believe we never really landed on the moon. And others think Elvis is still alive…

I don’t consider the increased risks a negative of the condition. I am using the word negative to be a bit more weighty than that. I have yet to see something that is inherent to being gay that makes it a bad thing.

As I stated, you can sit in your room all day long and “be gay.” No harm will come to you. BUT, when you act on that desire, bad things usually follow.

I think it is all too easy to mistake personal feelings of disgust with the concept of right and wrong.

Yes, I think some people do that. I don’t think the CDC did that. And they are claiming that two thirds of all new AIDS cases are male homosexuals!

I know…I know… those pesky little facts keep getting in the way…

Many people will search out reasons to support such conclusions… and I think this has been done for generations with this very issue. The fact that the majority is disgusted by the concept has made it very easy to villify it.

Okay vroom, here’s a challenge for you. cite ONE legitimate study which indicates that it is actually HEALTHIER to practice homosexual acts.

Just one!

Yet, there are volumes of statistics and reasearch by reputable government agencies which demonstrate that homosexual acts and the homosexual lifestyle are dangerous both physcially and emotionally.

This is not about what you or I think is disgusting. This is something that treads far deeper.

Are we forever to be driven by our emotions, or can we rise above that and tolerate things that are harmless to us and fall within legality?

I agree in terms of allowing those who want to pursue this dangerous lifestyle to be free of discrimination. As I said it’s America and God Bless our freedoms.

I even got a bit irritated when the goverment came down so hard on the cigarette companies.

I like freedom-but I also like the truth.

There are many statistics which demonstrate the homosexual act (and lifestyle) to certainly not be “harmless” as you suggest.

And with Hollywoods lates fawning over Brokeback we see once again that it is better to be politically correct than actually correct!

[/quote]

Zeb, we get it: you don’t like fags. Give it up.

[ZEB]

[quote]harris447 wrote:
correct than actually correct!

Zeb, we get it: you don’t like fags. Give it up.

[/quote]

Thank you for adding your little shot of “liberal logic” to the thread.

If you state any facts which might not look good regarding the practice of homosexuality you automatically hate them (shaking head).

Matters not that I think they have every right to live any way they want. matters not that I have had openly homosexual employees. Matters not that I’ve rented apartments to openly homosexual couples. Matters not that I have two cousins that are homosexual.

Since I pointed out some very obvious dangers to their practice …I must hate them.

You guys are really funny…

Keep the jokes coming harris, at least you will be adding something to the thread.

[Professor_X]

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Zeb, we get it: you don’t like fags. Give it up.

[/quote]

LOL. I am still trying to figure out what “not healthy” has to do with this movie.

[vroom]

[quote]
Then drug addiction is not wrong!

Alcoholism is not wrong!

Smoking is not wrong!

And certainly being obese is not wrong! [/quote]

Zeb,

Why is smoking wrong? I mean, I could smoke in the privacy of my own home and endanger nobody else. What makes that wrong? It is my life, not yours, so it is my choice.

Addiction is a different issue. I find it hard to condemn people for falling prey to addiction. I would consider it unwise for someone to allow themselves to become addicated though.

However, addicts often do things that are wrong, in order to satisfy their needs. That is true.

Finally, fat people are fat. Where is the need for a moral judgment on this? I suspect it is not healthy, but the moral judgment gets a bit stretched. How fat do you have to be to be too fat? Can you give an absolute percentage that we should all strive to be? Some level of fat is healthy. Some people are too lean. Why is any of them “wrong”.

You are being incredibly foolish, looking at the whole world as if every act is either “right” or “wrong” according to some list. What makes you think you are supposed to judge all these things and attempt to force others to behave within the boundaries you choose? Your religion explicitly tells you not to do so much judging… so why do you persist anyway? Isn’t that wrong?

So, back on topic, I think there is a difference between being gay and “the gay lifestyle” that is used to generate your cherished statistics. Perhaps you should define this “lifestyle” clearly so that people can see where your statistics are coming from.

Also, if you want to argue right and wrong, be clear that I’m not suggesting people should be doing illegal things. Society has set rules of right and wrong that we should follow or work to change the rules. So, yes, using illegal drugs then is “wrong” and I’m not try to argue otherwise.

[ZEB]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Zeb, we get it: you don’t like fags. Give it up.

LOL. I am still trying to figure out what “not healthy” has to do with this movie. [/quote]

Ask vroom.

[ZEB]

vroom,

It’s about trying to help people who are involved in destructive behaviors.

The obese, alcoholic, drug addicted and yes those involved in the homosexual lifestyle all share a common bond.

They lead lives that are self destructive. That you cannot see this is sort of surprising.

Again, they all have the right to live any way they like. But that does not make it healthy either emotionally or physically.

It’s odd that we can show the self destructive end with alcholics, drug addicts and even the obese in movies and TV.

But what ever they do Hollywood will never touch the subject of homosexuality with anything but a politically correct glove.

Make all the movies they want about homosexuals and they can pat each other on the back when they’re finished with plenty of awards.

But that doesn’t change the facts!

[digiboy]

So much bollocks (forgive me, I’m British) has been said over the course of this thread, all from a post submitted by a guy who has never actually seen the movie.

I work in a large retail floorspace in London, England. A staggering number of the guys who I work with are openly gay. Not one of them believes that the ‘gay lifestyle’ is a perfect model for living, any more than the married men I work with believe that their lives are Disney fantasies. They’re relationships, for crying out loud. They all have the potential to nourish us emotionally as well as the potential to take us further from any secure sense of who we are. That is the main message of Brokeback Mountain, in both movie and book form. The book, by the way, was written by ANNIE PROULX, which kind of screws with some idiot’s idea that it’s “all about turning against women”. Are certain gay men mysogynist? Hell, yeah. I’ve met them, and so have the women who they internally despise. Those women don’t scream like teenage girls at a rock concert. They recognise the (sometimes unconscious) bitterness and poison seething within those fellas and simply avoid. Women, some way ahead of guys in the sphere of intuition are under no illusions that the inside of a gay man’s mind is a garden of happiness. They’re under no illusions that their straight counterparts are ‘emotionally normal’ either. Have straight guys never treated women appallingly? You could argue that the man who beats his wife would be doing womankind a favour by finding his inner gay cowboy.

Homosexuality is apparently wrong because ‘gays are putting themselves at a high risk of contracting HIV’; given the epidemic rates of the virus in Africa, being an African is dangerous, but we all have the choice of exercising a little restraint in our sex lives. We have far less input on the subject of who we go to bed dreaming about. Homosexuality is more than just an act, it’s a hunger for connection. In that most important (and human) regard, all forms of sexual longing DO have something in common. For those reasons I completely believe that, the genetic question aside, homosexuality is the way in which certain men balance and heal the malign presences and absences in their personalities, not the way by which they corrupt themselves and blindly set themselves up for a life of misery.

And as for the unthinking twit who stated that ‘being gay and spending your life sat in a room poses no inherent danger’: sit your own ass between four lonely walls for the next five years and see how little harm it does you. The men in white coats will be waiting outside.

Do I think that many, maybe a disproportionately high number of gay fellas have a fair amount of emotional wreckage to clamber over? I’m sure they do. But it’s crucial to note that, unlike those who stand outside of the majority on account of their racial or religious identity, there is no support network for gay men who struggle with issues of sexuality in their teenage years. Most black people, for example are indeed unable to hide the fact of who they are, but most emerge from black families populated by adults who understand certain struggles and can guide a youngster through difficult emotions. Gay men go it alone, from day one. Are the more, uh, conservative of us unable to perceive that such a fact alone is enough to cause the ‘mental problems’ that gay men in particular seem more vulnerable to?

That said, it certainly seems that women, as romantic partners do a damn fine job of protecting guys from their own worst excesses. Straight men who never learn to trust women enough to form a true ‘partnership’ in life are arguably more unstable in their behaviours and identities than those gay men who drift from one horny encounter to another. The reason I’m so staggered by certain posts on this thread is because so many on all sides of this debate are damn keen to disregard any form of serious research (like GOING TO SEE THE MOVIE!) or fair, uncoloured debate in order to serve an agenda that is ultimately formed from a mental list of irrational dislikes. You can’t compare homosexuality between consenting adults to bestiality or paedophilia in the ethical sense. Hasn’t masculinity found itself under such bitter attack over the last 35 years by that minority of feminists who are unable to distinguish between ‘normal’ male heterosexual lust and the rape of a woman? Why are their views any less credible than some of those exhibited here? Yes, I wonder if gay mens’ longings spring from a sense of alienation and incompletion that has been present since childhood. The more gay men I get to know (on a friendship basis, by the way) the more I feel that to be the case. I’ve long since lost belief in that genetic argument. But whether a gay man’s life amounts to a triumph or a mistake, it’s HIS triumph, HIS mistake. And neither I nor anyone else here has the answers any more than he does.

I’m not so liberal to suggest that gay activism is beyond question. It pisses me off that so many who stand for ‘individual rights’ mention nothing of the individual’s obligation to question what he ultimately represents through his actions. Among those I know, guys in longterm homosexual relationships seem a fair bit more well adjusted than any of those lonesome cruisers. But refusal to condemn a gay man for his choices has nothing to do with the ‘bullshit’ of political correctness. The pretence that no-one else is prone to painful confusions of identity, sexual hangups or the danger of dying unloved and alone IS bullshit. To maintain that heterosexuality is not itself a minefield strewn with casualities is a propaganda of it’s own kind.