Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
342

Zeb,

A lot of things have the potential to be self-destructive.

That does not mean that people engaged in such lifestyles are in fact self-destructive.

However, I don’t think addictions are a good comparison at all. This is a medical situation of dependence that removes a persons ability to control their own actions. Sure, that I would say is dangerous.

However, in general, though smoking and drinking have the potential to be dangerous, I don’t think it would be correct to say that people should not smoke and people should not drink because it is wrong. What a crock!

Your so-called facts support various interpretations. A movie is not propaganda just because it is not a documentary of the pro’s and con’s of some issue.

Philadelphia didn’t seem to brush over many of the negatives that were faced by gay people. Bigotry, loss of job and deadly disease. Yeah, quite the propaganda for the lifestyle indeed.

Anyway, I’ve invited you to define this “gay lifestyle” on which your statistics are based. I question whether a gay person has to live this lifestyle in order to be gay. I suspect your “gay lifestyle” definition includes some rather risky behaviors that being gay does not have to include.

It is extremely simple for any responsible person living life openly gay to avoid your “concern” about them catching AIDS. They could screen potential partners via blood test before becoming sexually active.

Now, whether or not a lot of people do this, has little to do with whether or not they are gay, but the level of care they take in their life. Both straight and gay people are notorious for not taking adequate control of situations in their lives.

So far, your facts show nothing of substance with respect to declaring a lifestyle choice inherently wrong.

Keep trying!

344

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,

A lot of things have the potential to be self-destructive.

That does not mean that people engaged in such lifestyles are in fact self-destructive.[/quote]

It sure as heck doesn’t mean that they’re helping themselves!

It’s about dangersous behavior. Matters not if it is classified as “addictive.”

It’s going right over your head my friend.

The behaviors listed all kill people before their time. And they all leave people somehow worse than they found them.

They are not “so called” they are indeed quality studies, surveys and facts.

By the way where are your stats stating that gay behavior is in fact healthier?

They don’t exist…sooo you can’t post them.

According to the best surveys gays engage in sex with many many partners. However, the gay act alone is dangerous enough.

Where are your stats again claiming that it’s not dangerous? Oh yea you don’t have any…

Yea…they could take their “lover” to the doctor before placing their penis in his rectum. But the funny thing is …THEY DON’T DO THAT!

They are permiscuious to a fault according to every study that I’ve read.

[quote]So far, your facts show nothing of substance with respect to declaring a lifestyle choice inherently wrong.

Keep trying![/quote]

Vroom, I could bury you with facts as I have done on other threads (to others who were also blind to reality) and it would not matter.

You want to swallow the liberal line so I’ll let you.

But when it comes to the gay act and or the gay lifestyle every single fact from every reputable source states that it’s dangerous.

Now where are your facts again?

Oh that’s right you don’t have any-

Keep believing the liberal lie my friend.

345

"It is extremely simple for any responsible person living life openly gay to avoid your “concern” about them catching AIDS. They could screen potential partners via blood test before becoming sexually active.

Now, whether or not a lot of people do this, has little to do with whether or not they are gay, but the level of care they take in their life. Both straight and gay people are notorious for not taking adequate control of situations in their lives."

True. The heterosexual who doesn’t exercise sufficient care in his or her sexual behaviour runs the risk of creating an unwanted child, something that is hardly a rarity around the world. The gay man who pays the ultimate price for acting irresponsibly at least doesn’t involve an unwitting youngster in the entire sorry saga.

It may be accurate to say that promiscuity among many gay men arises not from the condition of ‘being gay’ (as though sexual hyperactivity were somehow programmed into the gay male brain and conspicuously absent in straights) than to say that promiscuity is simply what happens when men unbridle their desires without the fruitful compromise of a woman’s more, um, thoughtful involvement. Let’s face it, if every straight fella here could have as much sex as this mythical “gay lifestyle” involved, but with a female partner how many would say no? Would you substitute regular visits to chick-flick hosting movie theatres and romantic meals for two for five-times-daily pumping sessions against the bedroom walls? Would you hell.

Which brings me to the idiotic point made earlier that both gay male AND lesbian lifestyles pose the ‘inherent danger’ of fatal sexual disease. Lesbians are barely affected by these factors at all. A groundbreaking study by Masters and Johnson done in the 1970s revealed that gay men had sex most regularly, straight men second down the line, followed by straight women and finally lesbians. And there you have it.

If those who voice strong reservations about ‘promoting the gay lifestyle’ do so on the premise that heterosexuality encompasses a more balanced, less precarious relationship between caution and wild lust, I’d agree. But even here, a gay man has the ability to curb his enthusiasm. If gay culture is so voracious in its emphasis on sex that those within find restraint a little harder to muster, that’s something for the ‘gay community’ (if such a feeling of community actually exists) to focus on. They haven’t done the best job so far, but there are always a few who serve to prove that a more conservative view of sex among gays is possible. Open homosexuality is in its infancy as a political and social presence, and formerly radical views and actions can settle to function at a tolerable level over time.

Forgive the graphic detailing here, the reason why entering by the back door is comparitively risky is because the anus obviously wasn’t designed as a two way street. There’s no obvious bigotry in stating that. The tissue inside the passage ruptures and lets blood far more easily than vaginal lining and infected semen must contact the bloodstream in order to transmit the HIV virus. A significant number of gay men don’t even practise this form of sex to gain satisfaction; mutual masturbation has long been proposed as a safe form of gratification by mainstream gays. But if 99 per cent of gay men still don’t listen to government health warnings and the advice of others, what has that got to do with the 1 per cent who do anyway? Must every homosexual male carry the burden for those less feckless, any more than a family man should feel guilt over the piece of crud who abuses his own daughter?

What’s funny is that, in reference to my previous post, the gay men I know are the most vocal critics by far of ‘gay culture’. So much of this supposed propaganda is actually being spun by heterosexuals who claim to speak for another group. Writer Annie Proulx, actors Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger and, I assume director Ang Lee are pretty darn straight. Let’s stop assuming that every dyke or queer is on a mission to raze family life to the ground. Most of them emerged from fairly normal families and seem to be seeking something of that stability in their own home lives, even if the young’uns are replaced by a frantic Shih-Tzu named Babette. To list the negatives of any lifestyle strikes me as fair and intelligent: how many kids grow up in broken homes after their parents realise in horror that marriage isn’t an unending romance? But most heterosexuals don’t throw the towel in on the domestic setup, they count the blessings, decide that maturity and stoicism work best, and work with what they have. If too many gay guys lack the maturity to focus on one partner for any decent length of time, let them be foolish. Maybe even in that, they just enjoy the ride (ahem) and think, damn the longterm consequences. I hope they look back and think it was worth it.

PS. Why didn’t any of the Brokeback characters have gay friends with HIV (as one poor damn fool asked earlier)? BECAUSE THE MOVIE IS SET IN THE SIXTIES. That kind of explains why both leads saw such a need to settle down with families in the first place, too. Sheesh, you guys. If there was a single brain cell in some of your heads it would die of loneliness…

346

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Can we just rename this thread “Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong”. [/quote]

Apparently, that is all Zeb wants to make it. This is a thread about a movie…that everyone who has seen it and posted in this thread DISAGREES is propoganda. That means the only ones saying it is are the ones WHO HAVE NOT SEEN IT. That is stupid. There is no other word for it.

I don’t give a shit about what two gay guys do. Why would some of you care so much and hate them so much that any movie that isn’t talking about diseases and death when it comes to being gay is shouted as being propoganda? I don’t understand having that much hatred and not being able to even see that this is exactly what it is.

Don’t log on with that hatred and then try to cover it up with bible verses and statistics. It doesn’t work. I mean, honestly, would a true man of God write the original article without even viewing the movie? I hold the opinion of no.

347

EVERY FILM IS PROPAGANDA! I am a filmmaker, and that is the point. Whatever your story is about, you manipulate the emotions of the audience so that they care. Otherwise, why would anyone want to watch the movie? This is true of “Brokeback,” “Passion of the Christ,” “King Kong,” or any movie, for that matter. Hell, I’ve heard many British historians talk about how Braveheart was “anti-British propaganda.” In fact, I read one review of Gibson saying that he was anti-British for both of his propaganda films- Braveheart and The Patriot.

Film is one of two things- art or entertainment. Often, it’s both. The thing that you have to remember is that art is individual expression. That’s what makes it great. That’s what makes this country great- having individual expression. That’s what freedom of speech is about. Ang Lee is free to make “Brokeback,” and others are free to speak out against it. That’s the most beautiful part about being an American, that freedom of speech. Many other countries lack it. Eastern European regimes and most Asian, Middle Eastern, and African nations don’t have that. Hell, Canada just passed a law that keeps their Prime Minister candidate debates from being parodied on television.

Anyone who tries to destroy that freedom of speech- whether you are trying to keep movies like Brokeback from being seen or you are trying to shut up people who don’t like it- need to step back and take a good look at themselves.

For the rest of you, continue debating.

348

Sometimes you seem like a lunatic Zeb.

What is the liberal lie? Please enlighten me. I’ve never researched this topic anywhere, so I have never seen anything approaching a liberal doctrine on the topic.

Anyway, your statements of “THEY” speaks volumes.

You are now stereotyping gays with the worst behavior that has been noted as if that is the requirement for any gay person.

Also, I’ve already conceded that there are some risk factors involved, personal risk factors, so I don’t see what you are trying to prove by asking me to prove there aren’t any.

Anyway Zeb, doing things that entail risk, such as driving a car, smoking a cigarette, flying in a plane, parachuting, skiing, running marathons and whatever else you may do at some point in your life are not wrong just because they include risk.

You are making a leap when you jump from a stereotype risk factor to the moral judgment of wrongness. That is true no matter what the activity is. It is not wrong to enjoy our lives and partake of legal activities, even if they increase our risk factors.

Addictions, like alcoholism, represent a different kettle of fish. Using them to support you point is preposterous. Enjoying a cigar with an after dinner drink is not the same as being an alcoholic. You surely know this.

You simply can’t be projecting a behavior to its worst stereotype and then using that projection to judge the behavior? Tell me you aren’t that desperate to justify your position?

By the way, what is the word that describes applying a negative stereotype about a group to individuals who may or may not exhibit that stereotype?

349

  1. Zeb, given that the large majority of gay men DO NOT carry the HIV virus, how do you know that THEY’RE not helping themselves? So, gay men do form a massively high percentage of carriers, but carriers don’t form a massively high percentage of gay men! Do you think it’s their pure luck that they have lasted their adult lives so far without finding themselves on the road to premature death? No, they’ve exercised sufficient caution and restraint to avoid the illness. Others have not.

  2. If certain behaviour culminates in terminal illness, damn right it’s dangerous. If it doesn’t, how dangerous was it? If every gay guy was playing Russian roullette with his life, HIV would directly affect the majority. It doesn’t, though it still affects too many. So the question of ‘inherent danger’ remains open. Furthermore, homosexual men have existed for millenia. Many scholars of prehistory believe that what we would term ‘bisexuality’ was once a feature of many pre-civil societies, and a feature of those times and places which heralded the dawn of civilisation. Egyptian tombs and Athenian poetry bear this out. Where were these viruses then, if the danger is ‘inherent’? And should a cure for HIV be found, what will become of that danger?

  3. Tell me without doubt that a gay man’s life is “somehow worse” after taking a lover, whether in a monogamous relationship or promiscuously than it was when he was a self-denying teenage virgin, cheerfully joining in the fag jokes with his friends before going home to agonise himself to sleep.

  4. Regarding your ‘quality studies and surveys’: quality?! What is this, a groceries counter? Did you pay more for 'em? MOST STUDIES ARE CONDUCTED WITH THE AIM OF CONFIRMING SUSPICIONS RATHER THAN ASCERTAINING FACTS. And furthermore, all studies have to accept that situations can change. Gay identity has altered massively since Stonewall, why do you assume that it can never alter again?

  5. In your belief that vroom was stating that life as a homosexual was “somehow healthier”; now you’re talking crap. Vroom never said it was ‘healthier’. He never even voiced specific disagreement with most of your points. He clearly wants you to label your sources rather than making suppositions and naive generalisations.

  6. YOU DON’T EVEN LISTEN TO THE QUESTIONS DO YOU?! What are “the best surveys”, what do they specifically state, where does their ‘evidence’ come from and who conducted 'em in the first place? And as for your clumsy allusions to “the gay act”, are you saying that a guy has never slipped it up said entrance of a lady?! It may be your dominant mental picture of a relationship between two guys, but there has to be more than one ‘gay act’, and I know at least one gay couple who have cheerfully told me (thanks guys, by the way) that they don’t involve said ‘act’ in their, ahem, repetoire.

  7. If a gay man has sex with another man in order to ‘consumate’ his love or fascination for him, some danger which, precaution permitting, need never manifest itself is hardly going to get in his way. No one wants to leave this life without at least one meaningful sexual experience. What do you expect these guys to do, die sexually unfulfilled because a number lack the self control to avoid the contraction of HIV? If a gay man lives to 100 under those circumstances, his life would have been pretty short on pleasure.

The question of whether homosexuality is a condition ‘intended by nature’ or God and therefore a gay man can never learn to truly lust for a woman is a separate issue, at least as I view it.

  1. “Yea…they could take their “lover” to the doctor before placing their penis in his rectum. But the funny thing is …THEY DON’T DO THAT!”

Refer to point 1.

Zeb, you’ve made the mistake that bombarding another with accusatory rants somehow constitutes “intellectual overpowering”. It doesn’t. Come back with listed statistics, ensure that no political or religious wishlists are pointedly served by those statistics and even then, prove that the current situation is an unchangeable one. Gay identity is still emerging from centuries of opposition. If too many gay men have yet to foster what you or I would term ‘self respect’ that might be a reaction to previous suppression of ‘gay culture’ or, more likely individual turmoils. No emerging identity gels to working perfection instantly upon coming out into the open.

350

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Can we just rename this thread “Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong”.
Professor X wrote:
Apparently, that is all Zeb wants to make it. This is a thread about a movie…that everyone who has seen it and posted in this thread DISAGREES is propoganda. That means the only ones saying it is are the ones WHO HAVE NOT SEEN IT. That is stupid. There is no other word for it.

I don’t give a shit about what two gay guys do. Why would some of you care so much and hate them so much that any movie that isn’t talking about diseases and death when it comes to being gay is shouted as being propoganda? I don’t understand having that much hatred and not being able to even see that this is exactly what it is.

Don’t log on with that hatred and then try to cover it up with bible verses and statistics. It doesn’t work. I mean, honestly, would a true man of God write the original article without even viewing the movie? I hold the opinion of no.
[/quote]
For someone who talks a good deal about who should and who shouldn’t pass judgment on racially-infused remarks, your posts are loaded with hypocrisy. All of a sudden you have the capacity to read mens’ minds and hearts, right? Anyone who hasn’t seen the film but warns others about the content is automatically filled with hatred? I stopped taking you seriously a few pages ago because your assumptions are hysterical.

This is the third and last time I’m suggesting you backtrack and read the thread from the beginning. The author of the article saw the film and hailed it as propaganda. In your conclusion, he must be an intolerant, Bible-thumping, gay-basher! Professor X, have you ever encountered an atheist that believes homosexuality is contrary to human nature? I wish you could exchange words with one - then your religious assault would be quite a knee-slapping comedy.

351

Jagrazor, on the last post of page 12 in this thread, none of my comments were indicated in that post although my name was included in the second line of the reply. I agree with where you were heading with that remark nonetheless.

Peace be with you.

352

[quote]Fenris wrote:
EVERY FILM IS PROPAGANDA! I am a filmmaker, and that is the point. Whatever your story is about, you manipulate the emotions of the audience so that they care. Otherwise, why would anyone want to watch the movie? This is true of “Brokeback,” “Passion of the Christ,” “King Kong,” or any movie, for that matter. Hell, I’ve heard many British historians talk about how Braveheart was “anti-British propaganda.” In fact, I read one review of Gibson saying that he was anti-British for both of his propaganda films- Braveheart and The Patriot.
[/quote]
Great post. Although Professor X and some others are vehemently disagreeing, that’s all that was being stated in the first place - that Brokeback Mountain involved propaganda. Regardless of the purpose of the propaganda, or the righteousness of the homosexual lifestyle, that’s all that was being emphasized.

As a filmmaker, I’d take your feedback on the matter any day over what Professor X alleges.

Thanks for the input and peace be with you.

353

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Anyone who hasn’t seen the film but warns others about the content is automatically filled with hatred?[/quote]

No, they would be filled with stupidity. Who doesn’t know this is a film about gay guys? What are you WARNING about? What is the risk of seeing this movie?

Dude, I hate to break this to you, but you don’t exactly have many taking you seriously for what you are writing. You have Zeb who is simply hoping this turns into another gay marriage debate who probably didn’t even read the original article.

[quote]
This is the third and last time I’m suggesting you backtrack and read the thread from the beginning. The author of the article saw the film and hailed it as propaganda. In your conclusion, he must be an intolerant, Bible-thumping, gay-basher! Professor X, have you ever encountered an atheist that believes homosexuality is contrary to human nature? I wish you could exchange words with one - then your religious assault would be quite a knee-slapping comedy.[/quote]

Religious assault? I am a Christian. Did this surprise you? I am the son of a preacher. Get off your high, ever so righteous, horse.

354

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Can you think of any movies that people said they weren’t going to watch because the critics gave them horrible reviews? The author (Dr. Winfield) classified the movie as “boring”. I simply regurgitated an article he published and added my own sentiments. Quit being an extremist and a spinmaster. There wasn’t one single person who posted in this thread who didn’t see the movie who endowed himself with the self-proclaimed title of film critic, but that’s what you’d have others believe. It’s funny how you’re mangling the genuine words and concerns of the “haters” with your own sly tactics; submitting a false impression about them line-by-line from one post to the next.

355

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
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.

Can you think of any movies that people said they weren’t going to watch because the critics gave them horrible reviews? The author (Dr. Winfield) classified the movie as “boring”. I simply regurgitated an article he published and added my own sentiments. Quit being an extremist and a spinmaster. There wasn’t one single person who posted in this thread who didn’t see the movie who endowed himself with the self-proclaimed title of film critic, but that’s what you’d have others believe. It’s funny how you’re mangling the genuine words and concerns of the “haters” with your own sly tactics; submitting a false impression about them line-by-line from one post to the next.[/quote]

Man, we discuss movies ALL OF THE TIME. There are several movie-holics on this board who have probably memorized more random scenes in movies than you can even imagine. This thread was not a simple critique of a movie. It was you not liking gays being presented in a positive light. Prove me wrong by discussing other movies with reprehensible characters that you disagree with. I may never see this movie because I don’t care what gay guys do. I have no desire to see a gay love scene without lesbians involved.

356

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Religious assault? I am a Christian. Did this surprise you? I am the son of a preacher. Get off your high, ever so righteous, horse.
[/quote]
So why are you contesting peoples’ religious inclinations on the matter? And even if you are the son of a preacher, you could be a Christian by name but not in spirit. I know plenty of Christians that wear crosses but curse the name of God, belittle His commandments, and behave along the lines of die-hard satan worshippers (I’ve known a couple of them also). I wish I could say all Christians practiced what they preached, but that’s sadly not the case. I wish I could say that all Christians were good, but I also know that’s not true either.

I’ve known two sons of two different preachers. One became a preacher himself and was modest, simple, kind, and involved Jesus Christ in his life as often as possible as he conducted missionary activities in Africa, Indonesia, and South America. The other became a gambler, a drug-user, a fornicator, and mocked pious Christians who had an affinity for Church-related enrichment. The fact that you’re a preacher’s son doesn’t automatically grant you special status or equate you with someone who’s attained a proper spiritual mindset.

357

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It was you not liking gays being presented in a positive light.
[/quote]
That’s not true. It was the fact that the heterosexual lifestyle was simultaneously being conveyed as burdensome and sub par and that the anti-homosexual religious members of society are reportedly portrayed as possessing hateful traits and unGodly vices. Find me the statement(s) which led you to your conclusion…

358

Ahahahahahaha.

All lifestyles are burdensome… and didn’t you just go on a tirade about how many Christians don’t act very Christian, perhaps possessing hateful traits and ungodly vices?

Ahahahaha.

You are describing life. It’s a reality that many of us see every day. I think you just shot down your whole point and argument.

Nice.

360

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It was you not liking gays being presented in a positive light.

That’s not true. It was the fact that the heterosexual lifestyle was simultaneously being conveyed as burdensome and sub par and that the anti-homosexual religious members of society are reportedly portrayed as possessing hateful traits and unGodly vices. Find me the statement(s) which led you to your conclusion…[/quote]

Being “anti-homosexual”, whatever that means, is wrong if it implies disliking a person or judging them simply because of a sexual preference or the way they interact with others. I have never seen two guys screwing (and I hope I don’t), and I seriously doubt most straight guys have. That means any “anti-homosexual” stance is based off of what you THINK someone is involved in and your judgement of them as a person. The entire act is biased and the Bible speaks against judging others like this. There is no way I would refuse treatment on a gay guy or even allow their sexual preference to influence how I treat them professionally or as a person. I am wondering if someone who claims they are “antihomosexual” could even comprehend this.

I can disagree with the act of sex, but I will not allow that to affect my ability to see them as just another human being with the same needs as everyone else. Therefore, if a movie shows that FOR THEM a heterosexual lifestyle IS subpar, why avoid showing this? The only explanation is that you believe people to be gay by choice as if they can simply switch gears at will and just decided to stay gay. Nothing proves this to be true and being gay is not a new human trait.

361

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
So why are you contesting peoples’ religious inclinations on the matter?[/quote]

because that is not what this topic was about. If you had simply said that you disagree with the act of homosexuality because of religious reasons, there would be no multi-page debate. Instead, you have acted like you are WARNING us about the movie as if we are all too stupid to know what the movie is about or as if this movie will somehow warp our little minds and force…GASP…the acceptance of gay people as human beings like the rest of us.

Special status? Where did I write anything like that? You accused me of being against religion. This is not the case. I am against bigotry and stupid remarks from you about a film you never even saw. That is like “warning” us about Harry Potter in terms of witchcraft simply because it doesn’t present witches as satan worshippers and evil people. On some basic story telling level, ALL stories hold the bias of the author. Your protest is like never having read the books at all yet only knowing it involved magic so you decide to tear it down. It is extremely biased and not based in any Godly act to behave in such a way. No one is denying your opinion on homosexuality. However, to critique a movie negatively that you never saw makes no sense at all. No one needs you to “warn” them of this movie.

362

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I don’t give a shit about what two gay guys do.[/quote]

I agree and have never stated otherwise! You need to stop eating so much and pay attention :slight_smile:

Hmm, when you state facts about the obese is that an act of hate?

No not at all. In fact, some would say that you are helping them by pointing out the very negative consequences of being obese.

I have seen many make fun of obese people right here on the forum and I think that might be taken as “hate.” But no one is making fun of homosexuals on this thread (at least not me).

Facts are facts and pointing them out does not equal hate…unless you use liberal logic.

But then again your opinions are tainted with a very sharp liberal bent…Which means that politically correct is more importan than actually correct!

363

[quote]vroom wrote:
Keep believing the liberal lie my friend.

Sometimes you seem like a lunatic Zeb. [/quote]

Coming from you (and the way you think regarding political issues) I’ll take that as a compliment.

Gee, I don’t want Professor x to get mad because this is so off topic. Should we start another thread on this?

I never said ALL gay men comprise the new AIDS cases. I don’t think you guys on the left like facts…especially when it means your politically correct bubble gets popped.

My premise is: the gay lifestyle and the gay act are dangerous. I have supported that premise with facts.

You cannot support your premise with facts because you have none. And when liberals don’t have facts they either start to name call or run to politically correct lingo.

Tired and old…but expected.

Thank you for finally conceding the point.

Earlier I simply want you to prove your premise with some facts.

I agree, and never said those things were wrong simply because they include risk.

I made no moral judgement regarding “wrongness.” I simply put forth the premise (and backed it up with supporting data) that the homosexual act and lifestyle are dangerous.

Do you have any data that claims otherwise? If so please post it.

Never said it was wrong vroom. But…if those dangers are spread to the greater society then we might have another discussion.

You can sky dive for fun if you want to. But you shouldn’t make others do it.

And you surely know that I was comparing the risk of living the homosexual lifestyle with other risky behaviors. And the fact is it is more dangerous to be an “active” homosexual than it is to be a smoker or an alcholic!

Draw your own consulsions from that…But, don’t assume that I am stating more than I am.

Tell me you are not so blind that you cannot see the dangers in being an “active” homosexual. Tell me that you are not soooo politically correct and such an ultra liberal that you have taken such a preposterous postion.

You first tell me what the word is for turning a blind eye to serious data that effects millions of people through out the world?

Never mind I’ll tell you: “Liberal Logic.” :slight_smile:

Again vroom refute the facts!

If you can’t refute even one of the facts that I have presented all you are really doing is playing the politically correct game. And that game solves nothing.

You stopped short of name calling in your last paragraph. Now think about that. I supply you with facts as to why a certain lifestyle is dangerous. I make no moral judgements.

What do you do? You stick to the politically correct line. And this solves what?

In fact that’s the game Hollywood is plyaing by handing out awards to a film that just might not be deserving. Why do they do this? Becuase all things “gay” are good in Hollyweird and of course in Canada…

By vroom.