Mexico’s media has gone wild with reports that Latina movie stars Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek have become lesbian gal pals.
Cruz and Hayek star together in the new western “Bandidas.”
While doing movie promotion in Mexico, Cruz grabbed Hayek’s butt and began caressing it in front of stunned Mexican photographers.
Now the pair can’t seem to keep their hands off each other.
The lesbian rumors started flying, and neither Cruz nor Hayek seem interested in stopping the speculation.
“I grabbed Salma’s ass just to keep things moving,” Cruz reportedly told the National Enquirer. “And the energy changed when I did that.”
Cruz had lesbian sex with actress Charlize Theron in movie “Head in the Clouds.”
Asked by TV interviewer Diane Sawyer who Cruz thought was the best kisser of all the actors she’s made movies with, Cruz said: “Can I say Charlize Theron? Then I’m out of trouble. Charlize. Charlize. Charlize.”
Cruz was also “romantically involved” with actor Tom Cruise.
?That’s not the case forlife. In fact, homosexuality was officially termed a “mental disorder” until 1973.?
So let?s do the math?it has been 33 years since homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Once these organizations conducted decades of systematic, objective research on homosexuality, they realized that it does not qualify as a mental illness.
?There were many homosexuals who were treated and many successfully returned to heterosexuality.?
Did you read the link that I provided on the Spitzer study? Not only is Spitzer misrepresented, but the findings of his research are completely divorced from the context of the scores of research studies that have shown sexual orientation cannot be changed.
As noted in the Spitzer quote you provided earlier:
?But, Dr. Spitzer said, his findings suggest that complete change–cessation of all homosexual fantasies and attractions (which is generally considered an unrealistic goal in most therapies) is probably quite uncommon.?
I fit the Spitzer definition of ?good heterosexual functioning? during the years that I was married. After all, I was able to have children and repress my orientation during those years. What the study doesn?t tell you though, is that there is a significant long term cost for that repression. ?Good heterosexual functioning? is a misnomer that ignores the devastating effects that can happen in the lives of people who try to live contrary to who they are at the core.
?Granted, not all of them did. But then not all alcoholics can give up the bottle.?
I find this statement reprehensible on several levels. First, homosexuality is not alcoholism. It is more comparable to left-handedness, and there is nothing inherently damaging in it (once you set aside your religious prejudices). Second, you have no idea what kind of effort I put into changing my nature. I have a LOT of willpower, and I spent literally decades trying as hard as possible to change who I was. It NEVER HAPPENED. So don?t accuse me of being weak willed, at least not until YOU are able to become homosexual through sheer willpower.
?But how can 66% of lesbians and about half the men be changed??
They claimed to be ?changed? because they had a religious motivation for wanting to make such a claim. As admitted in the quote you provided earlier, the large majority of them were NOT in fact changed. Only their behavior, rather than their nature, was changed.
Furthermore, what about all of those that COULDN?T change? Are you just going to judge them? Or are you going to admit that sexual orientation CANNOT be changed, at least in some people?
?The American Psycological Association was hijacked by the politically correct many years ago.?
Lame. You can read the research yourself and make a determination whether or not it is up to objective scientific standards. I have done so, and I can tell you that it is. Even if you want to blanketly dismiss all the psychological research, you cannot similarly dismiss the quotes I provided from the medical literature (such as the American Medical Association and the Surgeon General).
?What sort of childhood did you have??
That is a red herring question. If I tell you that I was chronically sexually abused, that my mother was domineering and hateful, and that I used to play with Barbie dolls, will your claims be justified? Not that any of that is true, but even if it was, what would be the point? The origin of homosexuality appears to be due to a combination of genetics and environment. But it doesn?t matter what causes homosexuality?what matters is that you cannot change your orientation. I know it from personal experience, and I have provided you with definitive statements from every major medical and mental health organization.
Lacking a religious motivation, you have NOTHING on which to substantiate your claims. Ignore the facts if you want. I know that I won?t change your religious beliefs. But if you ever try to legislate your bigotry into laws that affect me, expect a fight.
[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Vroom, just give up man. Zeb will not agree with reason on this issue until he at least admits the fear or dislike that he has for homosexuals.[/quote]
And you will never listen to a contrary opinion until you put away the politically correct dogma that you have been spoon fed!
stellar_horizon wrote:[quote]
Even though your post is a damn lie, it’s exactly what you’d have people believe. Be a man and fess up to this comment. Where did I say anywhere in this 16-page thread that the film needed to be “silenced”?
I’d love to call you a jackass right about now but I’ll practice some restraint.[/quote]
vroom wrote:[quote]
Stellar,
You have to be consistent in this regard.
If you and Zeb are being silenced, then you are in fact silencing the movie by speaking against it as you are.[/quote]
I never claimed or conceded that anyone had silenced me. There may or may not have been attempts to silence the fact that the film was loaded with propaganda, but the concept of this thread has been successfully conveyed.
Weak apology but I’ll accept it…
[quote]
The movie is free speech. Your hatred of it is free speech. Criticism of your hatred is free speech. Criticism of such criticism is free speech.
Get over it.
P.S. Don’t hesitate to call me a jackass, I’ve been called worse.[/quote]
I haven’t seen the film to say if I hate it or not. I may, on the other hand, strongly disapprove of the message or effect it replicates. I never said the movie should be outlawed or censored. That was your faulty, rash, and haphazard assumption.
It’s interesting but not surprising how the Brokeback discussion has broken down on the usual party lines.
Posters like harris, vroom, bunyan and others who are well noted for their liberal bent defend the movie and lash out with the usual hate lines when the subject matter is questiond (not you vroom you never do that).
Those of us who are more conservative disagree.
There is a culture war going on. It’s not nearly as heated as it will eventually be.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s interesting but not surprising how the Brokeback discussion has broken down on the usual party lines.
Posters like harris, vroom, bunyan and others who are well noted for their liberal bent defend the movie and lash out with the usual hate lines when the subject matter is questiond (not you vroom you never do that).
Those of us who are more conservative disagree.
There is a culture war going on. It’s not nearly as heated as it will eventually be.
But make no mistake about it…it has begun.
Red states vs Blue states.
[/quote]
I haven’t “defended” this movie. I am defending the right for it to be made. You can disagree with gayness all you want. That’s your right. The issue is acting as if the rest of us are so stupid that we need to be “warned” about the gayness as if it is contagious. I am laughing at some of you…seriously.
Please do not support it or get upset at those who reveal this deep, dark secret of our secret of our society to others.
Marriage is a joke.
[/quote]
Alluding to the beginning of your post, I judge that you’re a self-proclaimed hedonist. Fine. I don’t ascribe to hedonism nor do I seek out pleasure at any cost. Perhaps you do. That’s your business. I’m in accord with another rule of life.
You think marriage is a joke. Fine. I disagree. This may be a stretch, but I don’t believe you’ve ever been in a fulfilling marriage, hence that’s why you think marriage is a joke. Some marriages are a joke.
Perhaps many of them fail because people get married for the wrong reasons; parents/society urging them to do so before a certain age, couples that date for a limited time span getting married on a whim of emotions but eventually growing apart, people getting married to minimize financial struggles, and others getting married because they finally met that “perfect” someone in their own socioeconomic class who fits their materialist & aristocratic standards, etc. In the film, the characters got married (as I understand it) to fit within the ideal model of society - also a wrong reason.
I believe that people who demote the bonds of marriage and deem the ritual a joke (like yourself) should never get married. My parents have been married for decades. From my seventeen maternal & paternal aunts and uncles, none have gotten divorced, although legally permitted to do so.
My godmother did divorce on account of her husband’s continuous infidelity, but he felt marriage was a joke to begin with too. Not to say that marriages fail 100% of the time because a spouse doesn’t take the ritual seriously, but society’s reaction to divorce seems to be a lot more accepting these days.
My advice to you: avoid marriage to save some woman from being corrupted by your beliefs of the ritual.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:
Vroom, just give up man. Zeb will not agree with reason on this issue until he at least admits the fear or dislike that he has for homosexuals.
And you will never listen to a contrary opinion until you put away the politically correct dogma that you have been spoon fed!
There does seem to be some propaganda surrounding this film, but it is apparently related to people attempting to make the argument that because the film is popular, people are accepting gays more – problematic because the film isn’t as popular as it is claimed…
kf Touches the Heart of the Heartland! I hadn’t realized, until someone tipped me off, that Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 had exactly the same marketing strategy as Brokeback Mountain, the gist of which was “Hey, a film sticks it to the conservatives but it’s playing in the red states!” This is the now-familiar Heartland Breakout meme. Moore boasted that his movie was big “in every single red state in America. … It sold out in Fayetteville, North Carolina.” As with Brokeback ( http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113832222206557666-uVZ7ChbWaqLVSsF5WZVEcvI95Tg_20070126.html ; USATODAY.com - 'Brokeback' defies gay cowboy label ; 'Brokeback' broke out in the 'burbs ), the press bought into the story. In 2004, Time magazine wrote:
You would have expected Moore’s movie to play well in the liberal big cities, and it is doing so. But the film is also touching the heart of the heartland. In Bartlett, Tenn., a Memphis subuurb, the rooms at Stage Road Cinema showing Fahrenheit 9/11 have been packed …
I’ve gotten lots of email asking why I’ve written so many items about Brokeback. Forty-two items on the subject would be one thing. But forty-three? I must be an anti-homosexual bigot, or a closeted self-hater, or just generally hateful, etc. Here’s why I think I’ve written so much on it:
The Heartland Breakout Meme seems like B.S.: Fahrenheit wound up reaching about the same number of theaters–approximately 2,000 at its widest distribution–as Brokeback.
But Byron York, for his book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400082390/sr=8-2/qid=1139824868/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-6153861-1505406?_encoding=UTF8 ), got hold of confidential movie-industry data showing that, contrary to the Heartland Breakout scenario, Fahrenheit had done the vast bulk of its business in the usual blue state urban centers (and in … Canada). It had almost uniformly underperformed in red state cities–including Time’s Memphis, where the audience was more than 50% lower than you’d expect given Memphis’ share of moviegoers. Some enterprising reporter should get hold of similar data for Brokeback, once its run is over.
Do you want to bet they show the same insular, blue-state dominance? The only difference would be that Fahrenheit 9/11 (at $119 million Fahrenheit 9/11 - Box Office Mojo ) was about twice as popular as Brokeback, measured in box office.
The Heartland Breakout Meme seems like B.S. of the sort that consistently hurts Democrats (and others who believe it): B.S. is B.S… Bloggers are allowed to point it out (he says defensively)–especially if it’s B.S. the mainstream press has no particular interest in pointing out (because it kills the story, or because they’ll seem homophobic).** But this B.S. falls into a special category: the sort of gratifying myth that in the past has helped lull liberals (and gay rights activists who may or may not be liberals) into wild overconfidence.
Remember when Democrats actually believed that Fahrenheit would help push Bush out of office? It didn’t work out that way. Moore’s film didn’t change many minds in part because, as York puts it, it “never reached audiences that had the power to defeat the president at the polls.” Despite all the “heartland” hype, it was a blue-state movie. York notes that Mel Gibson’s Passion of Christ–a mirror-image “red state” movie that did well where Fahrenheit did badly, badly where Fahrenheit did well–prefigured the 2004 results, in that it attracted an audience roughly roughly three times the size of Fahrenheit’s (or six times Brokeback’s!).
Much of Democratic politics seems to now consist of embracing and fanning similarly comforting, but ultimately deceptive, liberal memes. Enron has fatally damaged Bush, Abu Ghraib has fatally damaged Bush, Katrina has fatally damaged Bush, Abramoff has fatally damaged Bush, the Plame investigation will fatally damage Bush–you can catch the latest allegedly devastating issue every day on Huffington Post or Daily Kos (and frequently in the NYT). If you believe the hype–if you don’t compare Michael Moore’s box office with Mel Gibson’s box office, in effect–you’ll believe that Democrats don’t need to change to win.
After all, they swooned over Ennis and Jack in Plano, Texas! If you don’t buy the Heartland Breakout spin, you’ll press the gay marriage issue much more cautiously (and will especially avoid the moralistic, guilt-tripping attitude that allows Republicans to pull off the Democrats-are-the-real-elitists act that Tom Frank writes about in What’s the Matter with Kansas http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080507774X/sr=8-1/qid=1139826605/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6153861-1505406?_encoding=UTF8)
Misjudging the depth of cultural antipathy to homosexuality can be costly for political groups aside from Democrats. Did gay activists realize, when they pressed the incoming Clinton administration to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, that the result would be to formalize an often-oppressive “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy? Why, wondered Andrew Sullivan in 2001, do “we seem to be going in reverse”? Which brings us to 3.
If the Heartland Breakout Meme is B.S. with respect to Brokeback, it’s B.S. for a reason: A big reason gay rights advocates might underestimate the difficulty of their campaigns is that they accept a facile analogy of civil rights for gays with civil rights for racial minorities. Didn’t Harry Truman integrate the armed forces by decree? Well, why couldn’t Clinton do the same?
Answer: Because integrating by sexual orientation isn’t the same thing as integrating by race. Sexual orientation involves actual differences in behavior (at least a strong tendency–orientation!–toward such behavioral differences). The military might well have difficulty openly assimilating male soldiers who want to have sex with other men–the culture of many military institutions runs on sublimated hetero impulses (something dramatized effectively in the movie Jarhead, among other places). Marines use the idea of “Jody,” the mythical civilian back home who is screwing your girlfriend/wife, to get soldiers committed to battle.
The trick might not work so effectively on Marines who are less hot for the women back home than the men in their own units. No doubt other tricks could be developed to motivate gay Marines. The point isn’t that gays shouldn’t be able to openly serve, but that it’s not a simple adjustment to make. Less simple than opening the Marine Corps to all races.
The Brokeback Breakout idea is both a symptom of this oversimplification–after all, why shouldn’t the red states embrace the benign modern counterpart of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?”–and a cause. If you think the visceral straight male reaction against male homosexual sex has effectively disappeared–look at Plano, etc.–you won’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out the possible deep-seated, even innate ( Bloggingheads.tv ), sources of resistance to liberalization, and you’ll tend to be surprised and baffled by their persistence. At worst, you’ll pass them off as sheer redneck bigotry–a proven way to lose the red states for good.
Maybe the truth won’t set you free. But B.S. seems even less likely.
**–The Brokeback Heartland Breakout story is similar in this respect to the hardy perennial “Seniors Are the New Peace Corps Workers” story that my old boss, Charles Peters, used to talk about. According to Peters, a former Peace Corps official, reporters are unable to resist the idea that kindly Americans in their sunset years would give something back to the less fortunate overseas. They’re probably still writing this story even today.
The only problem, Peters says, is that the story isn’t true–seniors, by and large, make terrible Peace Corps volunteers. But do you want to be the schmuck who points that out?
I am glad to see that stella recognises it as a ritual, nothing else. It appears to be fairly universal throughout cultores, with some differentiation of course.
What it is goo for saying is you belong to me, me belong to you.
One point that you could ask on that is what came first, marriage ritual or the church. My money is on the ritual. the chrch jumped onto the money band wagon.
I had some old woman telling me it was a christian union.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I tried for 30 years to change who I am, and was unable to do so. I was married, because that was what my church said would make me happy. I had children. I never cheated on my wife, but after 10 years of marriage we finally decided to divorce, after realizing that things weren’t going to change.
A lot of pain could have been avoided, had we not listened to the fundamentalist rhetoric about homosexuality. Choosing to live with integrity has brought me happiness and peace.
[/quote]
forlife, the purpose of marriage according to the Orthodox Christian Faith is to ascend into holiness. Marriage does not always bear “happy” fruits of labor. We each have a cross (or multiple crosses) to bear, and perhaps this is yours in the world. I won’t venture far into a religious theme, but Orthodox Christianity teaches that all humans are susceptible to various vices and vulnerable to certain sins and temptations. Some are cleptomaniacs, other are fornicators, others are sodomites, others are adulterers, others are gluttons, etc.
Nonetheless, we are called to be perfect because God is perfect and we were created in His image. Everyone has their own internal battles to fight and God, who fashioned each of us in a unique design, has the capacity to determine who’s truly struggling to inherit the kingdom of God. One of your crosses is to abstain from all sexual relations now that your marriage has been dissolved. I even bear that cross as an unmarried individual, although I have greater control over lusts of the flesh than most others I know.
I have my cross(es) to bear, the Apostles had theirs, and Jesus Christ had His own. I don’t agree with your church’s stance that marriage would make you happy if that was more-or-less a guarantee of some type. Marriage isn’t guaranteed to make even heterosexuals happy, so the fact that your church led you into false hopes is saddening.
I commend you on a faithful relationship with your ex-wife. That to me is honorable. I can only leave you with the warning to remain as physically pure as possible and encourage you to abstain from all sexual relations. This should in no way inhibit your integrity or peace, but perhaps you’ll notice a battle emerge between your spirit and your flesh. Authentic Christianity does not strive to lead mankind into earthly happiness. A review of Christ’s ministry and life as well as the perils the Apostles faced should bring this point home.
Saint Mark 8:34 When He called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.”
Will you deny yourself for the sake of God’s kingdom?
I’m willing to let this wind down, because you are actually admitting the truths now and, honestly, if you are talking about the whole truth, without making it appear worse than it is or misapplying studies, then I don’t have any reason to be concerned with your statements.
Isn’t that amazing to you?
I don’t argue with you because I am liberal or PC motivated, though you often believe that is the case.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Let me translate that for you:
A University has the right to silence those who choose to dissent from politically correct thought.
And vroom…that sucks![/quote]
Well, I don’t know what sucks worse, spending three or four years at a university fighting over racism, sexism and other minority issuesorlearning a great deal about the subjects taught and using that education throughout the rest of your life while having some annoying rules enforced.
I don’t think this issue is truly a cut and dried liberal vs conservative issue, as most really aren’t. If you have the answer to this problem, at schools, perhaps you should share it with the world.
[quote]
But how can anyone change if they are born that way?
Answer: They can’t!
But the study shows that not only did they change but they also were quite happy.
Go figure…[/quote]
Zeb, stop focusing only on the aspect that you want to consider. I am willing to concede that there may be some that are not born that way, but given the current state of affairs you should possibly concede that some may indeed be.
Neither of us has proof to the contrary of either and there are conflicting studies which both sides can use to support their own viewpoints. That is the real truth. Nobody knows – so we have to be careful about jumping to whatever conclusions we prefer.
[quote]1. You keep claiming that IF they take precautions anal sex is fine. However, it seems according to statistics that they DON’T take precautions. Hence, everything is not fine.
Promiscuity often rules the homosexual lifestyle (not with everyone). Hence, homosexuals are often changing partners more often than someone at a country square dance (did you like that one?)
And finally (for the purposes of our discussion at least) placing anything inside the rectum is dangerous! And yes it’s dangerous no matter if the rectum is male or female.[/quote]
See, you’ve gotten very close to what I’d consider reasonable here. However, again, the fact is that some people don’t take those precautions. To respect the rights of others you should push for people to take those precautions.
Separate the act from the precautions, because obviously they are not one and the same. The same holds true with promiscuity.
Finally, these very problems, promiscuity and lack of precautions, happen to be rampant within the straight population as well. It is not a gay issue, per se, but a problem that can be addressed outside of the issue of sexual orientation. You don’t have to combine the issues and then berate every gay man for the actions of some gay men.
Don’t the right proclaim loudly that one person who has not or does not commit an action should not be held responsible for the actions of others? Why do you choose to hold all gay people reasponsible for the actions of some gay people? That doesn’t seem right.
[quote]Just this:
Higher risk of AIDS
Higher risk of STD’s
Higher risk of most major disease’s[/quote]
Strangely, these risks are present for straight sex too.
[quote]And…it seems the gay lifestyle also leads to this:
Higher suicide rate.
Higher anxiety levels.
Higher domestic abuse.
Higher levels of depression.
Yea…there’s nothing wrong with any of that that I can see.[/quote]
Zeb, I am pretty confident that you do know the difference between correlation and causation. I am certainly willing to cede a correlation, as your studies apparently show this, but claiming a causation when this isn’t known, that again, is wrong.
P.S. Zeb, you know I am not shy about throwing around names. If I had wanted to call you something, I would have.
“We each have a cross (or multiple rosses) to bear, and perhaps this is yours in the world.”
I told myself that for years. I wasted decades of my life trying to live according to what OTHERS promised would eventually make me happy. “Don’t worry if you are miserable in this life”, they would say. “It will all be made up to you in a future life.”
But then I woke up from the Matrix. I realized that this life may be all that there is. How tragic to throw it away unnecessarily.
If there is a beneficent supernatural being floating up there in the sky, I imagine that he/she/it will reward me for living with integrity and courage. If there isn’t such a being, then why choose a miserable life because other human beings mistakenly promise me that there is?
I’m not challenging your faith. I respect your right to believe whatever you want. What I do have a problem with is people that try to legislate their religious beliefs in a way that affects my life. As long as you keep your beliefs inside your church or synagogue, we’ll get along fine.
No one has mentioned religion on this thread. Maybe you have not noticed that.
What has been mentioned are cold hard facts!
And…the homosexual sex act IS inherently dangerous.
(See prior posts)
Who mentioned “weak willed?” Not me. Did anyone else mention it? Not that I have read.
I’m sure it’s very very difficult to change. Any dramatic change is difficult. Ask an alcoholic!
I’m not judging anyone. You don’t like the facts that I put forth, sorry.
But, that does not negate the fact that some, or perhaps many can and have changed.
[quote]What sort of childhood did you have??
That is a red herring question. If I tell you that I was chronically sexually abused, that my mother was domineering and hateful, and that I used to play with Barbie dolls, will your claims be justified? Not that any of that is true, but even if it was, what would be the point? The origin of homosexuality appears to be due to a combination of genetics and environment. [/quote]
You think.
Oh but it does!
Let correct you there: “YOU” cannot change your same sex desire. However, others (many others) have indeed changed!
What you know from personal experience is that YOU cannot change. Others have changed.
You might not like it I don’t know, but they have changed. PERIOD.
Scroll back and read the “claims.”
I never mentioned religion. I only mentioned cold hard facts. You don’t like those facts…sorry. It does not make them any less real.
[quote]But if you ever try to legislate your bigotry into laws that affect me, expect a fight.
[/quote]
You seem bitter and sort of vindictive.
I have only pointed out the facts on this thread.
And I honestly think it’s you who is bigoted against those who have left YOUR lifestyle.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I haven’t “defended” this movie. I am defending the right for it to be made. You can disagree with gayness all you want. That’s your right. The issue is acting as if the rest of us are so stupid that we need to be “warned” about the gayness as if it is contagious. I am laughing at some of you…seriously.
[/quote]
It is my theory that certain themes, when applauded by the greater consensus, are sometimes approved of and used as a form of experimentation by a larger percentage of peoples in later generations.
Thousands of years ago being a pedophile in certain regions of the world was accepted as normal behavior. There were no moral repercussions for partaking in the act. There was no shame, no concept of wrongness because society had openly approved of this behavior.
The people in that era who had a craving or a tendency to partake in such an act were influenced to do so because it was socially acceptable. As time went on though (with the tide of religions and warfare), society and the law changed views on the issue and people who possessed this sinful disposition to pedophilia were challenged to repress it or at the very least to avoid experimenting in the act.
Dr. Winfield’s article highlights the Japanese subculture which influences young teenage girls into experimenting with other girls via use of comic books. The walls of discernment for these girls are being torn down brick by brick before they’ve had the chance to study all the facts surrounding such behaviors. The fact that a sector of Japanese society welcomes such propaganda will inevitably lead (in my opinion) to a higher proportion of homosexual experimentation.
Sometimes people engage in experiences they never envisioned they’d enjoy. For instance, a heterosexual girl enticed by friends to have a lesbian encounter. Some geeky guy who joins a gang and beats up his first victim. Some kid turned twenty-one who spent all his years plagued by liver cirrhosis who participates in their first shot-for-shot contest. An academic prodigy who takes their first hit of ecstasy.
Sometimes, experimentation b[/b]leads to addiction and b[/b]ignites traits in someone who otherwise never possessed them.
Ultimately, it’s every individual’s decision and they’ll remain accountable for their spiritual welfare, breaking the law, or damaging their body. The point is (as I believe it) that once society starts to cheer and approve of a certain behavior or theme, future generations will inevitably embrace and engage in this behavior or theme to a magnified degree.
I don’t believe that any mature adult who watches the film will become a homosexual, but I do however believe there’s some type of contagious message which has been spawn upon unsuspecting & undiscerning members of society. You laugh at me for ascribing to this belief while I laugh at you for being so naive in apparently denying that the film has no such effect.
There may be a middle ground between our perspectives, but whether we give an inch or a mile to defiling behaviors or themes is never a righteous cause.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
And is that what gay sex is like? You really believe the contrast between gay sex and a hetero family was portrayed in a realistic manner on all sides?
Yes, the contrast rang true to my personal experience. I thought the movie did a great job portraying the pain and conflict that can occur when people enter into mixed orientation marriages.[/quote]
You know, I can respect that. If that rings true to your experience I can’t argue with that.
I did also catch another one of your posts and have to challenge you belief that people can’t change from gay to straight, because there are people who have done it:
I’ve had similar discussions with religious fundamentalists on other boards in the past, and I know it is fruitless. I’m not going to change your deeply seated belief that homosexuality is a perversion, and you are not going to convince me that homosexuality is inherently wrong or that it can be changed.
I’m curious though: do you apply the same rigor to other parts of the new testament that you apply to Paul’s statements about homosexuality?
For example, are you equally convinced that women should not speak in church, and that they should always have their heads covered? Or are you one of those smorgasbord Christians who picks and chooses from the bible whatever pleases you?
And please don’t tell me this is not a religious discussion. I’ve seen it so many times in the past…people claim to be objective, but when it comes down to it, there is almost always a religious motivation behind homosexual hatred. Fair minded people without a religious bias are far more likely to live and let live.