Hollywood says "too Gay?"

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

We all already know what the bible says about homosexuality, that it's an abomination, what more is there to take from the bible other than that statement? Jesus never says anything about homosexuality, so why is it such a huge deal?

Being gay is not an abomination, which means the bible is wrong, which means it would be pointless to read what the bible says about it since we already know what the answer is and we see that answer as wrong.

I'm not really sure why you even said that other than to play both sides at once. It's not a very productive discussion when you keep flip flopping your argument all around the place, don't you think?

I say it because the term abomination is subjective and reflects the point of view of the individual. It in no way expresses an exact truth in the platonic sense of word.

Some people viewed slavery as an abomination while others supported it. Some people claimed Jews were an abomination while others supported it. Some people claim rich people are an abomination while others support them.

It is subjective and cannot be used to prove the validity of anything other than some people do not like it while others may in fact like it.

FYI the Bible says in the Old Testament that engaging in physical relations with another male or female is an abomination before the Lord. That does not mean it is so to every man, woman, or child.

Speaking of flip flopping you jump around saying Jesus never mentioned homosexuality but then in the next sentence say the Bible is wrong.

I have only been pointing out logical errors in the argument being made and have not said whether I believe something to be an abomination or not.

As I stated earlier both parties here are trying to enforce a consensus of a point of view on others.

But you already stated you are an extremely intolerant person when it comes to people being intolerant of the point of view of others and so you will proceed to attempt to eliminate their intolerance by essentially forcing your POV on your perceived intolerant individual.

In conclusion I have continuously been stating that neither POV is correct in my opinion because there is no scientific backing to any of the claims which have been made.

Indeed, and a main point is the maker of the movie said it was 'Too Gay' shows how even with the progress that has taken place, a movie about a Homosexual is still considered 'Too Gay'

talking about 'Speaking on what i don't know' you say that it makes sense for Homosexuals to be in Hollywood because we crave attention and acceptance, doesn't everyone crave acceptance on a certain level? we just want to be accepted into the population as a 'Human' regardless of sexulaity, of course there are those that "Crave" to be in the spotlight, but you discover that in homosexuals and heterosexuals

Because Black people in prison and Homosexuality have nothing in common

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Your examples do not involve the physical act of love making and were expressions of the non physical love and devotion which can exist between two members of the same sex.

That is your interpretation. There are many who disagree with your interpretation. Your parents probably used the same vow as Naomi's to Ruth, when and if they married. IRONY!

Certainly, the Song of Solomon is about physical love. It celebrates the whole body in the sex act, orally as well as other kinds of exploration. Also, after having his way with his lover, the character in the book asks the woman to "run away with him", indicating that they weren't yet married!

reply to post by windword


Not married? the ruddy heathens they will burn they will burn

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Speaking of flip flopping you jump around saying Jesus never mentioned homosexuality but then in the next sentence say the Bible is wrong.

So only what Jesus said counts then?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

Your examples do not involve the physical act of love making and were expressions of the non physical love and devotion which can exist between two members of the same sex.

That is your interpretation. There are many who disagree with your interpretation. Your parents probably used the same vow as Naomi's to Ruth, when and if they married. IRONY!

Certainly, the Song of Solomon is about physical love. It celebrates the whole body in the sex act, orally as well as other kinds of exploration. Also, after having his way with his lover, the character in the book asks the woman to "run away with him", indicating that they weren't yet married!

So now you are going to continue debating on interpretations which are just opinions? You do know what they say about opinions don't you?

Here are a few;

Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance.
-Plato

My psychiatrist told me I was crazy and I said I want a second opinion. He said okay, you're ugly too.
-Rodney Dangerfield

Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
-John F. Kennedy

The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.
-Mark Twain

Would you like to share any more of your opinions?

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


If you believe that, then why do you assert your own opinions? Are yours superior?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

If you believe that, then why do you assert your own opinions? Are yours superior?

I asserted that it was my opinion that certain participants in this thread are refusing to allow others to have a difference of opinion on a matter.

Are you feeling insecure about something and needing to lash out?

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


That's where debate comes into the equation. Debate and opinions are what drives ATS.

It's my stance that the OP is using a religious militant sect to oppress individuals that are in disagreement with certain religious dogma. The OP seeks to alienate, shame and condemn these individuals and to promote the enactment of religious dogma onto secular society.

It's an argument worth having and an issue worth fighting for.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

That's where debate comes into the equation. Debate and opinions are what drives ATS.

It's my stance that the OP is using a religious militant sect to oppress individuals that are in disagreement with certain religious dogma. The OP seeks to alienate, shame and condemn these individuals and to promote the enactment of religious dogma onto secular society.

It's an argument worth having and an issue worth fighting for.

windword,

In God's eye's sodomy is not up for debate, debate all you want up until the moment you stand before Him.

Since you want to make it "an argument", some advise, attacking people personally weakens your position.


love and God bless you,


colbe

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

That's where debate comes into the equation. Debate and opinions are what drives ATS.

It's my stance that the OP is using a religious militant sect to oppress individuals that are in disagreement with certain religious dogma. The OP seeks to alienate, shame and condemn these individuals and to promote the enactment of religious dogma onto secular society.

It's an argument worth having and an issue worth fighting for.

First of all lets define militant and people can judge for themselves whether the individual is militant or not
www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of MILITANT
1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative

If you want to go by definition number 2 then you yourself are in fact a militant.

Second, how is the OP oppressing individuals who are disagreeing with their dogma
www.merriam-webster.com...

op·pres·sion
noun \ə-ˈpre-shən\
1
a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
2 : a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : depression

The OP and the individual played no part in the film not being distributed to theaters nationally and so now the burden of proof is on you to justify your claims.

Third, you are actually attempting to alienate, shame, and condemn the OP for their views. How are you any different?

Now why is your argument so filled with verbiage so often associated with violence? If your message has been of love and acceptance would not the use of such violent language undermine your message from the beginning?
Debate and opinion may drive ATS but facts, figures, and data are the socially accepted norms for identifying truth in this day and age.

Why can't people merely have a difference of opinion?

Why can't people allow others to have a difference of opinion?

Why are you trying to subjugate others into conformity with your opinion?

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

First of all lets define militant and people can judge for themselves whether the individual is militant or not

The organization defined itself as militant. There are many examples of self declared militant Christian groups around. These Christians have declared was on the secular.

The OP and the individual played no part in the film not being distributed to theaters nationally and so now the burden of proof is on you to justify your claims.

There is no proof the justify the OP's claim that this movie is "too gay." They assumed that because it's not being distributed in theaters. Instead, it's streaming into millions of households through HBO!

Third, you are actually attempting to alienate, shame, and condemn the OP for their views. How are you any different?

I didn't author this thread, and I'm not the one posting disparagement for the purpose of singling out homosexuals to garner support for the perception of aberration and the oppression of their lifestyles.

Now why is your argument so filled with verbiage so often associated with violence? If your message has been of love and acceptance would not the use of such violent language undermine your message from the beginning?

Now you're being intellectually dishonest. I've never advocated violence in this thread or any other. I also haven't made the claim of love and acceptance as my motivation for posting.

Why are you trying to subjugate others into conformity with your opinion?

Stop playing the victim. I'm not subjugating anyone.

reply to post by windword


On your first point I accept that both yourself and ChurchMilitant fit the definition of militant.

As for your second point, the OP was not the one to say the movie was "too gay" it was actually the man Steven Soderbergh who produced the film who cited it as "too gay."

Steven Soderbergh's 'Too-Gay' Liberace Movie Has Arrived at Cannes
www.theatlantic.com...

Third I never said you advocated violence. I stated you are employing violent language.

Finally, you are trying to subjugate people by making attempts to force your views on them. This is no different than the OP trying to convert others to their views.

I think you need to take a breather along with several others in this thread as it is obviously becoming a highly personal issue for you and thus may be hindering the ability for rational thought.

reply to post by windword


Scary vid eh?
I hope Religion dies off I really do.
Doesn't mean Iam Godless I just think it should be a personal thing decided personally without others brainwashing you into something that just causes division in humanity.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by windword

 

On your first point I accept that both yourself and ChurchMilitant fit the definition of militant.

As for your second point, the OP was not the one to say the movie was "too gay" it was actually the man Steven Soderbergh who produced the film who cited it as "too gay."

Steven Soderbergh's 'Too-Gay' Liberace Movie Has Arrived at Cannes
www.theatlantic.com...

The Op's opinion that the video claims are true is evidenced in the thread title: Hollywood says "too Gay?" There is no evidence that this is "Hollywoods'" appraisal.

Third I never said you advocated violence. I stated you are employing violent language.

Source please.

Finally, you are trying to subjugate people by making attempts to force your views on them. This is no different than the OP trying to convert others to their views.

Healthy debate!

I think you need to take a breather along with several others in this thread as it is obviously becoming a highly personal issue for you and thus may be hindering the ability for rational thought.

Projecting hysteria is a common deflection when someone is cornered in a loosing argument, such as you.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

As for your second point, the OP was not the one to say the movie was "too gay" it was actually the man Steven Soderbergh who produced the film who cited it as "too gay."

Yes, this argument. colbe posts the story from a militant Chrisian website and repeats over and over how being gay is a sin and how anyone not on board with Jesus will be sorry come judgement day. Do you think colbe thinks it's "just the right amount of gay"?

CJ

Originally posted by colbe
windword,

In God's eye's sodomy is not up for debate, debate all you want up until the moment you stand before Him.

Since you want to make it "an argument", some advise, attacking people personally weakens your position.


love and God bless you,


colbe

And you have yet to explain to us why you choose to focus on this "abomination" when there are a few hundred other such "abominations" in the same book that millions ignore. Why is that?

reply to post by windword


You seem unable to realize that the term "too gay" which is cited in the video came from Hollywood. If you are upset with the OP agreeing with it then you should have modified your argument to declare such.

The evidence of Hollywood claiming "too gay" would be inferred from the fact that production houses refused to fund the project or distribute it nationally. The man claims he went to several operations and was denied in all cases.

EXCLUSIVE: Steven Soderbergh on Hollywood's Gay Sex Problem
www.motherjones.com...

The movie was simply too gay.

That's why director Steven Soderbergh says Behind the Candelabra, his latest (and possibly last) film, was not shown in American theaters. When the major Hollywood studios declined to pick up the biopic—which stars Michael Douglas as the famous Vegas showman Liberace and Matt Damon as Scott Thorson, his much younger boyfriend—HBO snapped it up. The film premiered on the cable network last month to critical acclaim.

As for my source you can scroll up as terms such as "fight" con notate violence.

As for you thinking anyone is "winning" or "loosing" an argument by claiming they are "projecting hysteria" is hilarious as you are doing just that with the words you choose.

I suggest you take your "argument" to a university level debate club or philosophy class and not make a scene when you get laughed out of the building.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

As for your second point, the OP was not the one to say the movie was "too gay" it was actually the man Steven Soderbergh who produced the film who cited it as "too gay."

Yes, this argument. colbe posts the story from a militant Chrisian website and repeats over and over how being gay is a sin and how anyone not on board with Jesus will be sorry come judgement day. Do you think colbe thinks it's "just the right amount of gay"?

CJ

To answer your question let me inform you that there is a useful function if you scroll over my avatar and click the option on the drop down box list "posts in thread."

I have already stated what my opinion on the matter.

Isn't that the problem though, something being 'Too Gay', what is the cause of that? intolerance? ignorance? or just being uncomfortable with 'gays'

i'll ask your opinion on this, when does personal belief and hate/discrimination/bigotry cross lines?