Hollywood says "too Gay?"

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


You aren't very good at reading between the lines are you? If our responses aren't enough to convince you that we disagree with his opinion, and you need us to spell it out for you, then I am going to say you are either really, really dense or you are just arguing for arguments sake.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

You aren't very good at reading between the lines are you? If our responses aren't enough to convince you that we disagree with his opinion, and you need us to spell it out for you, then I am going to say you are either really, really dense or you are just arguing for arguments sake.

Are you a woman?

Debates are not conducted "between the lines" even though in elementary school you learn to color there.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


What does it matter? Do you have something against women or something?

I should have expected such a childish response. You may as well have said "You're a booger eater!"

If our responses for the past 16 pages aren't enough to clue you in on our opinion, then maybe YOU should go back to elementary school.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
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.

The movie was simply too gay.

Not too gay to get snapped up by HBO and streamed into millions of households.

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

de·bate (d-bt) v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. To fight or quarrel.
5. To fight or argue for or over.

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.

edit on 5-6-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

I have yet to read one intelligent statement from you regarding the issues presented in this thread. Just a bunch of blustering, deflection, twisting of words and subjects, and accusations and name calling.

Originally posted by 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.

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

I guess you missed this post.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by colbe

 

Oh, you see things through God's eyes, now do you? Do you remember Solomon? He practiced sodomy!

16 Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.

A blow job?

Why does the book the Song of Solomon advocate oral sex and other exploration of the body, other than the missionary position, if God disapproves?

If God feels so strongly why didn't Jesus condemn it?

Why do think alternative sexual expression is worse than the many other abominations listed in the Old Testament, like eating pork, or mixing meat and milk.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

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.

That was such a crazy comeback! Did you think of that yourself? colbe actually doesn't believe it is "too gay". There is no "too gay" in his world. Any gay is too gay, so the premise of the thread is baloney.

CJ

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

What does it matter? Do you have something against women or something?

I should have expected such a childish response. You may as well have said "You're a booger eater!"

If our responses for the past 16 pages aren't enough to clue you in on our opinion, then maybe YOU should go back to elementary school.

It was a failed attempt at talking to your level.

There is no "reading between the lines" in a debate.

Perhaps you should go read something attributed to Plato and learn the concept of "proofing" and then come back and try to suggest that reading between the lines is a valid method of debate.

reply to post by windword

Why do think alternative sexual expression is worse than the many other abominations listed in the Old Testament, like eating pork, or mixing meat and milk.

Because they are scared of things they don't ever encounter. Check that. They are absolutely gobsmacked in terror of things they don't encounter. Funny thing how people who never deal with gay people are sooooo terrified of them. It reminds me of children who are terrified of broccoli, without ever having tasted it.

CJ

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Dude,

This isn't a "formal" debate, with rounds, moderators keeping points, a clear cut winner and loser. There is, however, a debate forum here on ATS where that can happen.

In these kinds of threads there are many "between the lines" areas.

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I have said on multiple occasions I think it is a sign of retardation to argue over the truth of an adjective.

My whole point has been that neither of the opposing sides here seem capable of the mental feats required to accept that people have different point of view and arguing over truth found in a subjective term is pointless.

I have also asked time and again why either side can't simply walk away and accept that another person may not approve of their actions.

This has resulted in a group of people here turning their attack towards me and trying claim I agree with the OP's point of view.

It is tiresome and is merely more evidence that they cannot accept their point of view is not the consensus.


EDIT
Let me remind you that you asked what I thought of the issue and I answered several times.

I just didn't provide an answer that certain people here would accept, or maybe it was that they couldn't comprehend it.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Perhaps you should go read something attributed to Plato and learn the concept of "proofing" and then come back and try to suggest that reading between the lines is a valid method of debate.

Another zany zinger. Clearly you are a pseudo intellectual. Enjoy your throne. The peasants are laughing at you while they spit in your food.

CJ

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Lol. Maybe you should learn basic logic? If we have disagreed with colbe this ENTIRE thread, then why do we have to spell it out for you? Can you not see the obvious?

You have yet to debate anything in this thread, only flip flop and call people names and disagree with almost everything anyone has said. Why not state your case instead of going back and forth?

If you are trying to be a mediator or devil's advocate of some sort, then you have pretty much failed so far.

reply to post by windword


Oh dear g o d didn't this already get covered and agreed upon that all these interpretations you are coming up with are opinions?

I think it is high time I just let you all squawk at each other and pat each other on the back a bit and let this thread die.

EDIT
To enlightened1, the problem is that both the your "side" and the OP think that they are right. Also your "side" is a BS concept in the first place as you are trying to place people into groups and not allow anything except your interpretation of some perceived argument.

So please pat your fellows on the back and declare victory.

I am not coming back to this nut house of a thread.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


And colbe isn't doing the same thing? Come on!

I think many here agree in personal beliefs, indeed many agree that anyone has the right to believe, say, and post what they believe, my main problem was the use of the word 'Abomination' we have agreed that they are not calling 'Me' or homosexuals abominations for being Homosexual, the 'Acts' we engage in are abominations, but understand that is associated with 'me'

i can comprehend your logic about separating the person and action, one can be an abomination without the other, but by association engaging in Homosexual acts is an abomination, therefor by association i am an abomination unless i don't engage in any 'Homosexual acts'

that is like saying anyone with Broccoli in their name is an abomination, indeed it is my personal opinion, but i am judging you for keeping it in your name, you become an abomination by association,

and that has been my entire point, i am not the one quoting scriptures and preaching about praying to god to help your confusion,

no one here is trying to force a 'BS side'

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by arpgme

 

My point being that "homosexual" behavior is viewed as self destructive or destructive of others according to the person's religious views.

Nobody is perfect and people do not think the same most people in this thread are up in arms launching assaults on each others' perspectives.

Get over it and get back to talking about Liberace.

"Nobody is perfect" - that is also just another perspective. "Perfect" is an opinion based on different perspectives and ideals.

"Get over" what? I'm not forcing anyone to accept anything. You offered your point of view and I offered mine.

Homophobic people have the right to hate whomever they want, and so do gay people - as long as no one is getting hurt I don't care. I believe in freedom of speech for EVERYONE - EVERYONE should be able to express their view (and they are - here).

Michael Douglas' comments lately about his cancer and its cause. God is our creator, He loved us first.
He knows what He is doing and the plan. Semen goes one place. There have been scientific studies to
confirm.

reply to post by colbe





CJ

Originally posted by colbe
Michael Douglas' comments lately about his cancer and its cause. God is our creator, He loved us first.
He knows what He is doing and the plan. Semen goes one place. There have been scientific studies to
confirm.

He wasn't talking about 'Homosexual Oral Sex', so it wasn't 'Male Semen'

Originally posted by Darth_Prime

Originally posted by colbe
Michael Douglas' comments lately about his cancer and its cause. God is our creator, He loved us first.
He knows what He is doing and the plan. Semen goes one place. There have been scientific studies to
confirm.

He wasn't talking about 'Homosexual Oral Sex', so it wasn't 'Male Semen'

Darth,

Look up the Catholic program for those who believe they are homosexual called "Courage."

I think you know what I meant. It does not matter the gender, God created sex for marriage, sex is an act of self giving love between a married man and a woman who are open to life. Oral sex and the rest is selfish self gratification. And this includes contraception. God decides life not us. If you have a very serious reason for not having a child, in this particular time during your marriage, ABSTAIN from sex during the woman's fertile time. Search Natural Family Planning. Contraception does not work, it is contrary to God's plan. Condoms, the pill, etc.

One inventor's of the pill condemns it now for the physical harm to women and men. Look at the terrible moral consequences these the last fifty plus years since the pill, the destruction of the family.

Oral sex and anal sex are grave mortal sins. Physically, very old news, most everyone realizes...

The reason sodomites are prone to a myriad of infections and an early death is because the lining of the rectum was made by God for one purpose only -- to rid the body of waste.

The lining of the vagina is tough, like the skin on our hands, so it can withstand the trauma of intercourse and child bearing, but the lining of the anus is too delicate to withstand any trauma.

Anal intercourse, penile or otherwise, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream."

Furthermore, comparable tears in the vagina are not only less frequent because of the relative toughness of the vaginal lining, but the environment of the vagina is vastly cleaner than that of the rectum. Indeed, we are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel.

Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom."

In addition to the trauma of intercourse, semen can eat away at the intestinal lining. This allows a person to "infect themselves" as the bacteria from their feces enter the blood stream.

As a result of this, a man is 2,700 times more likely to get an HIV infection from anal intercourse than he is from vaginal intercourse.