Brokeback Propaganda

[btm62]

I could care less about someone being gay or not. That being said, I wish I could find one post on here that dealt with the original post and how Hollywood indeed uses devices to depict a message, or theme or whatever you want to call it.

Agree with this particular one or not, it was done and I couldn’t help thinking of the old Batman show. Everytime the crooks came on the background was all crooked. Instead it just degenerated into more name calling and each side is devoid of intellect and blah, blah, blah. I think we all know each other’s views, can we move past it now.

Its like reading the same Goddamn thread with a different title. Man am I glad I’m on vacation in 9 minutes. I feel a little bitchy.

[forlife]

Zeb, you didn’t really address my question though. Let’s assume everything you said was true. Don’t you think gay couples would be more likely to stay together if they could marry, with the associated commitments (legal, financial and otherwise) that go along with that responsibility?

[forlife]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You have to be more specific about exactly what rights you are talking about before I can answer.
[/quote]

The same legal rights (at the federal and state level) that married couples currently enjoy.

[forlife]

[quote]tme wrote:
Here we go with ZEB marrying his dog again…
[/quote]

The slippery slope argument has been tried (and failed) in the past. Back in the 1940s-1960s, people catastrophized that if blacks were allowed to marry whites, people would be marrying their dog next. Far as I know, that hasn’t been sanctioned in the 40+ years that have passed since then.

[harris447]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Zeb, I’m curious why you don’t think society would benefit from gay marriage.

It is a given that gays will continue to be in relationships. For someone that is so concerned about the potential spreading of disease, why don’t you support legislation that would encourage stable commitments in the gay world? I honestly don’t see how society could be anything but benefited by sanctioning gay marriage/civil unions.

I hate to say this again, but we already talked about this. You asked almost the exact same question.

My answer went something like this:

Homosexuals have proven that they cannot have stable relationships on the whole.

I then gave you a survey taken from a gay magazine which demonstrated that even when homosexuals say that they are in a stable relationship that usually means cheating with someone else as a “built in” understanding.

In addition to this I supplied you with study after study after study which pointed out the dangers of anal sex (yes even with a condom). Hence, it might not be something that we as a nation should be promoting.

Now let me see…

Your next post should probably question the first study about how most (not all) homosexuals cannot be monogamous.

I will then post the study to prove you wrong.

You will then post that that study is not nearly sufficient to prove anything.

I will then post other similar studies to back it up.

Somewhere along the line you will compare homosexuals to African Americans and their struggle for equality.

Naturally I will remind you that that is race and not an act.

In the mean time others who are in favor of gay marriage will post that I am homophobic. To which I will ask them the definition of “homophobic.” As I am not afraid of homosexuals. I will also remind them that the word "homophobic’ was coined in order to silence anyone who might want to speak out against homosexual marriage or whatever…

And while that’s going on those who are against gay marriage will post something on the order of homosexuality being against nature, as many (gay people) have anal sex.

To which you will reply something on the order of “many heterosexuals have anal sex too…bla bla.”

I then will get out the medical stats on why anal sex is dangerous even with a condom…thin lining of the bowels and all.

Then at some point you will talk about all the many very very incredibly happy homosexual couples you know that just want a chance…

I of course will supply you with the many statistics which demonstrate that gays have a highe rate of anxiety, depression, suicide and most communicable disease.

You will blame the depression on the fact that society does not help them by accepting who they are.

I will show you that it is not society that has caused their depression, but their lifestyle that causes it.

You will disagree …

Oh I don’t know…

As Yogi Berra once said: This is just like dajavu all over again…

I got it, if you have a question for me simply scroll back through. The later pages have our best stuff.

We were the Hannity and Combs of the gay marriage thread…

[/quote]

We get it, Zeb: you don’t like fags.

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb, you didn’t really address my question though. Let’s assume everything you said was true. Don’t you think gay couples would be more likely to stay together if they could marry, with the associated commitments (legal, financial and otherwise) that go along with that responsibility?[/quote]

No.

I think that committed gay couples are indeed quite rare. And according to all research that I’ve done I am correct.

Is this the part where we do the link thing?

Do we do that now or wait?

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:
tme wrote:
Here we go with ZEB marrying his dog again…

The slippery slope argument has been tried (and failed) in the past. Back in the 1940s-1960s, people catastrophized that if blacks were allowed to marry whites, people would be marrying their dog next. Far as I know, that hasn’t been sanctioned in the 40+ years that have passed since then.[/quote]

That’s actually not true at all.

And again the comparison between people of color (genetic) has nothing to do with an action (homosexuality).

(Yawn)

[ZEB]

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Zeb, I’m curious why you don’t think society would benefit from gay marriage.

It is a given that gays will continue to be in relationships. For someone that is so concerned about the potential spreading of disease, why don’t you support legislation that would encourage stable commitments in the gay world? I honestly don’t see how society could be anything but benefited by sanctioning gay marriage/civil unions.

I hate to say this again, but we already talked about this. You asked almost the exact same question.

My answer went something like this:

Homosexuals have proven that they cannot have stable relationships on the whole.

I then gave you a survey taken from a gay magazine which demonstrated that even when homosexuals say that they are in a stable relationship that usually means cheating with someone else as a “built in” understanding.

In addition to this I supplied you with study after study after study which pointed out the dangers of anal sex (yes even with a condom). Hence, it might not be something that we as a nation should be promoting.

Now let me see…

Your next post should probably question the first study about how most (not all) homosexuals cannot be monogamous.

I will then post the study to prove you wrong.

You will then post that that study is not nearly sufficient to prove anything.

I will then post other similar studies to back it up.

Somewhere along the line you will compare homosexuals to African Americans and their struggle for equality.

Naturally I will remind you that that is race and not an act.

In the mean time others who are in favor of gay marriage will post that I am homophobic. To which I will ask them the definition of “homophobic.” As I am not afraid of homosexuals. I will also remind them that the word "homophobic’ was coined in order to silence anyone who might want to speak out against homosexual marriage or whatever…

And while that’s going on those who are against gay marriage will post something on the order of homosexuality being against nature, as many (gay people) have anal sex.

To which you will reply something on the order of “many heterosexuals have anal sex too…bla bla.”

I then will get out the medical stats on why anal sex is dangerous even with a condom…thin lining of the bowels and all.

Then at some point you will talk about all the many very very incredibly happy homosexual couples you know that just want a chance…

I of course will supply you with the many statistics which demonstrate that gays have a highe rate of anxiety, depression, suicide and most communicable disease.

You will blame the depression on the fact that society does not help them by accepting who they are.

I will show you that it is not society that has caused their depression, but their lifestyle that causes it.

You will disagree …

Oh I don’t know…

As Yogi Berra once said: This is just like dajavu all over again…

I got it, if you have a question for me simply scroll back through. The later pages have our best stuff.

We were the Hannity and Combs of the gay marriage thread…

We get it, Zeb: you don’t like fags.[/quote]

Oh good, this is the part where the far lefty pops in with a drive by hate bomb. He never adds anything, but then again we never expect harris to add anything. And…he never lets us down.

[tme]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think that committed gay couples are indeed quite rare. And according to all research that I’ve done I am correct.
[/quote]

Ok, I’m not sure I want to hear the details of this “research” you did, but… Were you able to personally verify that gay males in an otherwise committed relationship were willing to “cheat” with another person? And how far did you have to go in order to have what you would consider conclusive evidence? Inquiring minds want to know…

Man, this is a side of ZEB I would never have expected to see, but sometimes it’s the most virulently anti-gay who are really closet…well, you know.

[ZEB]

[quote]tme wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I think that committed gay couples are indeed quite rare. And according to all research that I’ve done I am correct.

Ok, I’m not sure I want to hear the details of this “research” you did, but… Were you able to personally verify that gay males in an otherwise committed relationship were willing to “cheat” with another person? And how far did you have to go in order to have what you would consider conclusive evidence? Inquiring minds want to know…

Man, this is a side of ZEB I would never have expected to see, but sometimes it’s the most virulently anti-gay who are really closet…well, you know.
[/quote]

All of the research that I read pointed to there being no such thing (let’s say it’s rare) as a momogamous gay couple.

If you want to read the links that I posted I suggest that you click back and read from page 50 on in this thread.

That you would misconstrue the point of my previous post is pretty much on par for you.

No problem I think most around here know you by now.

[hueyOT]

the author of that piece <i love the doctor title he has, as if that makes his opinion valid> definitely missed the point/theme of the movie.

the movie is not anti-marriage, does not promote homosexuality, does not not imply that all men have it within them to be queer, etc…

p.s. to the original poster, have you seen the film?

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
No.

I think that committed gay couples are indeed quite rare. And according to all research that I’ve done I am correct.
[/quote]

But don’t you think people would be more likely to stay together if they were able to make a formal commitment with legal and social ramifications? Isn’t that part of the reason for marriage in the first place?

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
That’s actually not true at all.

And again the comparison between people of color (genetic) has nothing to do with an action (homosexuality).
[/quote]

Yes, it is true. People used the slippery slope argument when they objected to interracial marriage and they are doing it again when it comes to gay marriage.

The comparison between homosexuality and race has nothing to do with genetics vs. environment. Even if homosexuality were 100% environment, the comparison would still stand because it is a comparison between two groups which are both minorities who have been discriminated against.

Maybe you feel that the discrimination is appropriate for gays and inappropriate for blacks, but that doesn’t make the comparison any less apt. Again, the point of the comparison is simply to underline that bigots never see themselves as such.

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
No.

I think that committed gay couples are indeed quite rare. And according to all research that I’ve done I am correct.

But don’t you think people would be more likely to stay together if they were able to make a formal commitment with legal and social ramifications? Isn’t that part of the reason for marriage in the first place?[/quote]

As I have stated numerous times on this thread. Before we get into “marriage” I would first like to find out why people are gay.

Is it nature?

Is it nurture?

If you legitimize it with marriage you may be promoting something that you yourself have said is a lonely lifestyle. Something that you would not have consciously chosen.

We know that it is a very dangerous lifestyle, both emotionally and physically. And we also know that there is no such thing as “safe” anal sex, even with a condom.

Do I want to promote this sort of thing by changing a 5000+ year old societal institution for less than 1% of the population?

NO.

But then I have already said all of this huh?

[ZEB]

[quote]forlife wrote:

The comparison between homosexuality and race has nothing to do with genetics vs. environment. Even if homosexuality were 100% environment, the comparison would still stand because it is a comparison between two groups which are both minorities who have been discriminated against.[/quote]

Yes, I see your point. They are both “minority groups.”

However, since there is no clear definition, we can also throw in Polygamists and those who are interested in incestual marriage.

They are both also minority groups under your very own definition!

I don’t have to take the “slipper slope” argument as we are already there. A polygamist couple has sued (I think it was in the state of Nevada) for the right to marry.

Are their rights any less important than your rights?

Where do we draw the line on marriage?

Maybe you feel that the discrimination is appropriate for gays and inappropriate for blacks, but that doesn’t make the comparison any less apt. Again, the point of the comparison is simply to underline that bigots never see themselves as such.

I think that’s a crock of crap!

I don’t think there is a thing wrong with discrimination, and neither do you.

It’s whom your discriminating against that matters.

I want to discriminate against child molestors, and you do too right? They should have to register as to where they are living so that those with children would be aware.

That’s just one unrealted example.

But…

I also want to discriminate against polygamists, homosexuals and those practicing incest when it comes to marriage. Neither of the three groups should be allowed to be married under such practices.

Marriage is an institution which should be for one man and one woman. And fortunately that’s how the overwhelming majority of Americans feel.

(Note latest poll and country wide referendums)

However, I would NOT discriminate against any of the three groups above when it comes to hiring practices, or in any other way.

Again, I’m not ready to undertake such a grand experiment as to allow homosexuals to marry when all the facts are not yet in.

And this has nothing to do with people of color. Again, an action is different than a genetic trait.

But…nice try.

[Professor_X]

]

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
We know that it is a very dangerous lifestyle, both emotionally and physically. And we also know that there is no such thing as “safe” anal sex, even with a condom.
[/quote]

Let’s say you’re 100% right.

Given all of that, don’t you think that a formal legally binding union (call it marriage or a civil union, either way is fine) with financial and social consequences would encourage people to stay together?

[forlife]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, I see your point. They are both “minority groups.”[/quote]

Good. I made the comparison for one purpose: to illustrate that bigots have historically believed themselves to be in the right. Bigots who thought women should not vote genuinely believed in their cause. Bigots who opposed interracial marriages (and often quoted the bible to support their discrimination) felt that they were doing God’s work. Bigots who oppose equal rights for gays similarly believe their cause is just, and nobody can tell them any differently.

However, since there is no clear definition, we can also throw in Polygamists and those who are interested in incestual marriage.

Now we’re back to the slippery slope fallacy. Here’s a definition from the Wikipedia:

[quote]In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event given another. Invoking the “slippery slope” means arguing that one action will initiate a chain of events that will lead to a (generally undesirable) event later…

The slippery slope claim requires independent justification to connect the inevitability of B to an occurrence of A. Otherwise the slippery slope scheme merely serves as a device of sophistry.
[/quote]

People could not prove that allowing interracial marriage would lead to allowing people to marry their dog. The argument was fallacious back then, and it is equally fallacious today when applied to gay marriage. There is no inevitability here. Each question of marriage can and must be evaluated on its own merits. To do otherwise, and imply that A -must- lead to B is to invoke the sophistry of the slippery slope.

[Lorisco]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
You have to be more specific about exactly what rights you are talking about before I can answer.

The same legal rights (at the federal and state level) that married couples currently enjoy.[/quote]

The problem is that you are trying to legitimize what should not be legitimate. The State should not be involved in giving “rights” to whatever sexual idea or fetish someone can come up with just because they are two consenting adults. Just because you have sex with someone/something doesn’t mean that should be a recognized union.

Whether people want to believe it or not, the laws of the US were set in place by people who were Christians or who believed in God. NONE of the religions that the founding fathers practiced would allow or condone same sex marriage.

So what you are asking is more than just “rights”. You want to change the moral foundation on which most of the laws were written.

So the problem with same sex marriage is not the union or rights given, it is that it removes some of the moral foundation on which the country was built.

[forlife]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So the problem with same sex marriage is not the union or rights given, it is that it removes some of the moral foundation on which the country was built.
[/quote]

I believe the Constitution was written to support equality rather than discrimination. The founding fathers differed significantly in their definition of what constituted “morality”, and this is one of the main reasons why they did not attempt to specifically define morality in the Constitution.