Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
666

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Are you saying that if you think it you have to act on it? If I was married and saw a sexy babe, that wasn’t my wife, and wanted to get busy with her then I have no choice but to do the deed? Right? Just like gays, right? No choice!

Everyone (out of jail) has thoughts and feelings that are not the best actions for themselves or the situation. So we all, to some extent, control our behavior and don’t act on every random thought that comes into out heads. But you want us to believe that gays just don’t have that ability? They are attracted to the same sex and have to act on it?

So what you don’t get is that yes, many gays have become straight IN BEHAVIOR (not thought) and are just fine with it. We all need to control our urges, why should gays be any different? Welcome to the human race bro!
[/quote]
Excellent analogies. Self-control is something each successive generation is taught less and less about (or so it seems). Acting upon impulse is such a virtuous quality these days you’d think it’s almost commendable. No restraint or contemplation of the consequences: take a drag of this, slap that bitch, hit that punk, bang that chick, watch this dip, keep talkin sh*t…

Entertainment mediums propose we go with the flow and allow ourselves to be mastered by our passions & urges while the price of lawlessness remains concealed.

We must remain discerning at all costs and analyze both the good and the bad potential of what we’re being primed with (whether accidentally or intentionally) by our greater society.

I will however, disagree with your perspective that erotic fantasies are harmless.

assent → desire → action → passion

Peace be with you.

667

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is NOT an answer to the question. Is it that painful? It must be to have skirted such a direct question twice now. First, it was that they can still have sex outside the marriage, and now it is fear that it will turn the whole world gay. Well shit, if it did, more pussy for me. YAAAAAAY!!!
[/quote]
Honest question: do you think your last phrase conflicts with the morality of being a spiritually-grounded Christian?

668

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
You might have a poor gauge of what’s disrespectful and offensive or perhaps I’m being overly sensitive.

Gleemonex wrote:
You DO realise that the person you were responding to in your above quote (Prof X) IS BLACK, right? I think he’s made it clear what he does and does not consider disrespectful and offensive.
-Glee[/quote]

You’re wrong. My original post was directed at harris. I did not know of his ethnic/racial origins at the time. In fact, he inquired about the issue of offensiveness in a manner that insinuated that he was NOT of the black race. Skip back to page 11…

669

forlife wrote:[quote]
I question how many people have truly changed their orientation. For example, I remember reading about John Paulk, an “ex-gay” who was program director for Love Won Out, and along with his wife was the poster child of the ex-gay movement. Paulk was spotted in a Washington, DC gay bar after he supposedly had turned straight.
[/quote]
Lorisco wrote:[quote]
I don’t think one example proves anything.
[/quote]
Gleemonex wrote:[quote]
It proves that ‘ex-gays’ can be Godless hypocrites.
[/quote]
Unless you were there, how can you concretely defame Paulk like that? For all anyone knows, this guy was there hanging out with friends that he felt no attraction to. Maybe he wanted to put his newfound orientation to the test. It’s so acceptable nowadays to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone besides Christians - we’re always being reminded about not judging while the rest of the world can slander whoever they wish to high hell…

that’s Godless hypocrisy.

670

ZEB wrote:[quote]

What homosexuals want are special rights!
[/quote]
Gleemonex wrote:[quote]
No, they want EVERYONE to be allowed to marry someone of the same sex.
-Glee
[/quote]
Being that marriage is changing with our modern day, which you congratulate, I’ve heard about ceremonies where animals get married too. It sounds ludicrous doesn’t it? Maybe in 50 years I can marry a cat, you know, for the emotional support and the “love”.

671

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
If the Bible is God’s word, why isn’t it written in Aramaic?
-Glee
[/quote]
Jesus spoke three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and ancient Greek. Hebrew was the language of the scholars and the aristocratic elite back then. Christ’s Apostles and disciples developed the New Testament in ancient Greek because that was the common language of the layperson in their day. The good news could be relayed to both Jew and Gentile by using the written format of ancient Greek.

672

ZEB wrote:[quote]
2. The Bible states that when a man and women marry they can have all the sex they want.
[/quote]
Gleemonex wrote:[quote]
A very very very very large number of fellow Christians would disagree with you. Consider the “immorality” of contraception, for example.
[/quote]
As an Orthodox Christian, I concur with ZEB if he’s relating to the frequency (five times a day etc). Christians do however, abstain from sex when fasting unless guided with more lenient regulations for particular reasons (a spouse is departing for war, the couple’s trying to conceive, the couple has other constraints such as visitors for the week). It’s not as clear cut but Christians should use good discretion nonetheless when embracing this God-designed privilege. If Christians choose to partake in the act during a negligible probability of fertilization, they conduct their affairs when the woman has finished ovulating for the month.

673

ZEB wrote:[quote]
How can we make you be promiscuous?
[/quote]
Gleemonex wrote:[quote]
By re-defining promiscuity. [1]
[/quote]
C’mon! Is that a real solution? That’s like saying that 55% of Americans are obese so the healthcare industry needs to change the parameters of obesity so that 90% will be re-classified into the “normal” weight range. Promiscuity is correlated to disease. Re-defining the parameters isn’t going to help anyone.

674

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:
It’s not possible for homosexuals to perpetrate or undergo “domestic abuse”, because homosexuals don’t form monogamous relationships, remember?
[/quote]
I know you threw a shot at ZEB, but domestic abuse is not limited to monogamous relationships. Thus, his assertion that homosexuals engage in this type of criminal behavior is still a plausible claim. Talk to any social service employee endowed with a Master’s degree and they’ll define the appropriate context for you.

675

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That is NOT an answer to the question. Is it that painful? It must be to have skirted such a direct question twice now. First, it was that they can still have sex outside the marriage, and now it is fear that it will turn the whole world gay. Well shit, if it did, more pussy for me. YAAAAAAY!!!

Honest question: do you think your last phrase conflicts with the morality of being a spiritually-grounded Christian?
[/quote]

Do you think that it is your job to force your own sense of morality on anyone else besides yourself? I am not married. How I live my life is none of your business and anything beyond that is strictly between me and God. To answer your question directly, yes, if my intentions with other women are honest (I have never cheated on any woman I was exclusively dating), my last comment can be taken as also loving women in general. You can take it as you wish.

676

Thanks for the refreshing dose of rational thought, Glee (and for the humor as well) :wink:

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Unless you were there, how can you concretely defame Paulk like that?[/quote]

Paulk claimed that he was in the gay bar to “use the bathroom”, although he supposedly didn’t know it was a gay bar. But that is not what people reported who saw him there:

[quote]While waiting for his colleagues to arrive, Herschaft engaged the man he believed to be Paulk in conversation. According to Herschaft, the bar patron identified himself as “John” and later said he “was from Colorado Springs, Colo.”

“I asked him if he was gay,” Herschaft recalled, “and he said ‘yes.’” …

Paulk said he was in the gay bar “only 20 minutes,” primarily to use a bathroom. Yet Herschaft said Paulk was in the bar “at least 40 minutes” and socialized with a number of men during that time, including “speaking intimately with one man.” [/quote]

(Here’s a link if you want the full story: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Paulk-Southern%20Voice.html)

Of course, Paulk isn’t the only example of so-called “ex-gays” who have misrepresented their transformation (both to themselves and to others).

For example, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, co-founders of Exodus International, the nation’s largest “ex-gay” group, denounced Exodus after divorcing their wives and holding a commitment ceremony together.

Colin Cook, founder of Homosexuals Anonymous, was exposed as a fraud for giving nude massages and having phone sex with the very people he was supposed to be changing.

Does this prove that ALL ex-gays are frauds? No. But it does show that sometimes people have deep motivations for changing their orientation (shame, religious convictions, a profit motive, etc.) that can lead them to misrepresent how much change has actually occurred.

677

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
ZEB wrote:
How can we make you be promiscuous?

Gleemonex wrote:
By re-defining promiscuity. [1]

C’mon! Is that a real solution? That’s like saying that 55% of Americans are obese so the healthcare industry needs to change the parameters of obesity so that 90% will be re-classified into the “normal” weight range. Promiscuity is correlated to disease. Re-defining the parameters isn’t going to help anyone.
[/quote]

You’re missing the point. If you define promiscuity as “Sex outside of marriage”, and you make it impossible for gays to marry, you are creating a semantic trap. How about using a standard definition of promiscuous like this from dictionary.com:

You’ll note the definition is independent of sexual orientation. If you are in a committed relationship, you are not promiscuous, regardless of whether you are gay or straight.

678

[quote]forlife wrote:

You’re missing the point. If you define promiscuity as “Sex outside of marriage”, and you make it impossible for gays to marry, you are creating a semantic trap.
[/quote]

But of course you have to remember that the history of marriage only includes one man and one woman. Therefore, it’s not like someone included such a thing and then suddenly exempted it.

If it was never there and never accepted then any sex between two people of the same sex, or for that matter two people who are unmarried would be, and always would have been considedered sin according to the Bible.

679

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:

You’re missing the point. If you define promiscuity as “Sex outside of marriage”, and you make it impossible for gays to marry, you are creating a semantic trap.

But of course you have to remember that the history of marriage only includes one man and one woman. Therefore, it’s not like someone included such a thing and then suddenly exempted it.

If it was never there and never accepted then any sex between two people of the same sex, or for that matter two people who are unmarried would be, and always would have been considedered sin according to the Bible.

[/quote]

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

680

Glee,

I enjoyed our discussion on the Bruce Lee thread and I think you are a very intelligent person.

Since you have pretty much told me your belief up front we don’t really have much to discuss. Polar opposites and all.

We could end up shouting back and forth, niether really hearing the other but I’m just not interested in that. (Don’t get me wrong, catch me on the right day and I might be in the mood :wink:

[quote]Gleemonex wrote:(If you think) that the real world is composed of absolutes in material, intellect and moral values. In which case:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… hahahaha… hahaha… heheh… phew![/quote]

Take care, and all the best.

Zeb

681

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:

You’re missing the point. If you define promiscuity as “Sex outside of marriage”, and you make it impossible for gays to marry, you are creating a semantic trap.

But of course you have to remember that the history of marriage only includes one man and one woman. Therefore, it’s not like someone included such a thing and then suddenly exempted it.

If it was never there and never accepted then any sex between two people of the same sex, or for that matter two people who are unmarried would be, and always would have been considedered sin according to the Bible.

[/quote]

So don’t recongize it in the religious sense. Legal recongnition of unions are created and defined by man-both the rules and benefits that accrue with it. There is no authority besides our own that says it must be between a man a woman. Leave religion out of it. Let the participants worry about their relationship with God and how their lifestyle will be judged.

682

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But of course you have to remember that the history of marriage only includes one man and one woman. Therefore, it’s not like someone included such a thing and then suddenly exempted it.
[/quote]

We’re talking about the definition of promiscuous, not the definition of marriage. The definition I shared (from dictionary.com) says nothing about sex outside of marriage. Promiscuity is having frequent, indiscriminate sex with multiple partners. If a gay couple is monogamous, they are by definition not promiscuous.

I think the term you really mean to use is “sinful”. But of course, that gets into religion, rather than being grounded in objective reality. If people want to say that their god prohibits homosexuality, they have that right. But they shouldn’t attempt to force others to accept their subjective religious beliefs as absolute fact.

683

[quote]Professor X wrote:
hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
one word my friend, free will, its a bitch aint it, cant gave us free will, so you cant say that anything in this earth is his plan. so hitler was his plan? stalin was his plan?

Every negative exists in order to identify the positive. Without pain, we would have no true concept of pleasure. Our existance would be stunted if the only thing we knew were positives. With that in mind, it is my complete belief that our universe relies on rules of cause and effect. These rules allow for free will and the existance of the opposite of good, the opposite of pleasure. That is what allows us the ability to make a choice, the difference between the more positive road and the least.

Of course, you will find a way to deny this because you CHOOSE to not accept the concept of an ultimate power that exists outside the realm of the rules governing this universe. That power would be ommipotent because it does not observe the rules we live under. When asked, “why does God then allow evil?”, the answer is that evil is necessary for our own existance. We set the game in motion at the beginning of time when we had the choice of simply following what we were told and we CHOSE to do the opposite. We CHOSE to observe the least positive. That mistake is why this concept exists and we live under it.[/quote]

a very good point professor X, i think if you believe in an entity higher than yourself, i think this is all a big test. you never know if the matrix is true, lol in a sense. Its always easier to take the easy road to pleasure. If you look at jesus for example, i knew he was going to die, and still fulfilled what he was going to do. people today have no concrete belief in anything, nothing even close to dieing for. once people encounter problems and dissagreements, there so quick to drop everything they stand for. Today the world is the worst place its ever been. money rules the world, pleasure rules the world. the world tries to tell you give into what ever you would like to indulge in, regardless of consequences. today your supposed to have to rright to please yourself at anyones expence. its just sad these days, and i cant see how anyone would want nothing after what you do with this life, cause its becomeing a pretty shitty place to have it

684

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:

You’re missing the point. If you define promiscuity as “Sex outside of marriage”, and you make it impossible for gays to marry, you are creating a semantic trap.

But of course you have to remember that the history of marriage only includes one man and one woman. Therefore, it’s not like someone included such a thing and then suddenly exempted it.

If it was never there and never accepted then any sex between two people of the same sex, or for that matter two people who are unmarried would be, and always would have been considedered sin according to the Bible.

[/quote]

on the marriage issue, whats the point for gays to marry. marriage has always been a religious union, since gays marrying is against real religions that have stood the test of time, it now comes down to a monitary gain to get married, so if your in it for that marry a woman and be with you you want sexually.

685

[quote]hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
on the marriage issue, whats the point for gays to marry. marriage has always been a religious union, since gays marrying is against real religions that have stood the test of time, it now comes down to a monitary gain to get married, so if your in it for that marry a woman and be with you you want sexually.[/quote]

Call it a civil union then. Gay couples pay taxes just like straight couples do. Gay couples love one another just like straight couples do. They should be entitled to social security benefits. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital. They should enjoy the same CIVIL benefits that straight couples enjoy.