Posterwire.com

The Cowboy Way

November 21, 2005posterwirePosters127
Brokeback Mountain vs Titanic

Brokeback Mountain vs Titanic movie posters

Brokeback Mountain versus Titanic

Ang Lee’s new film, Brokeback Mountain, starring Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, isn’t your run-of-the-mill western… or love story. Commonly referred to as the “gay cowboy movie” (although the film’s trailer and Oscar buzz imply it could rise above that label), the film could prove a tough sell to certain audiences.

For the Brokeback Mountain movie poster, the film’s producer James Schamus wanted to emulate the one-sheet for the biggest film of all time — the ultimate “chick flick” — the Titanic movie poster.

When it came time to design the poster for the film, Schamus didn’t research posters of famous Westerns for ideas. He looked at the posters of the 50 most romantic movies ever made. “If you look at our poster,” he says, “you can see traces of our inspiration, ‘Titanic’.”

In this case, “traces of our inspiration” means “traces of an exact copy”.

Comparing the two posters side-by-side, the similarities become clear — the layout of Heath Ledger’s shoulder even matches the clothing “steam iron” ship of the Titanic one-sheet.

Buy Brokeback Mountain movie posters at: AllPosters, eBay, MoviePosterShop.com, Amazon

Buy Titanic movie posters at: AllPosters, eBay, MoviePosterShop.com, Amazon

Tagged , , , ,

Related Posts

127 Comments

  1. MartyNovember 21, 2005 at 9:41 PMReply

    From my blog:

    Take your man to see Brokeback Mountain!

  2. hadassahNovember 22, 2005 at 4:13 AMReply

    Start off by reading the short story that the film is based on.
    It’ll get your eyes used to crying . It has soooo much “soul”. It should have been titled Brokeheart Mountain.

  3. JuliusNovember 22, 2005 at 8:14 AMReply

    Getting back to the poster design… I think this treatent is very clever. I could not have seen the Titanic inspiration without you pointing it out, but now it is clear.

    Smart design.

  4. naNovember 23, 2005 at 1:35 PMReply

    Are you crazy? Stop trying so hard to be clever.

  5. adminNovember 23, 2005 at 1:53 PMReply

    Hello BLT. ;)

  6. Dave CullenNovember 29, 2005 at 4:08 PMReply

    Yes, the similarities are stunning. I was intrigued when I read that quote in the Newsweek story, thanks for digging it up to compare.

    (But I’m still more amazed that they managed to airbrush Jake into Jared Leto in that pic. Prettier than Jake has ever looked before, but I greatly prefer the more rugged Jake in the film. (Though I would take either. hahaha.) Especially when Jake has the three-day growth . . . yow.

  7. Frakety FrakDecember 7, 2005 at 10:11 PMReply

    What a load of crap…Marty, I’m sorry your parents were too selfish to teach you the facts of life. My cats knows the difference between human and animal, but apparently you haven’t figured out the birds and the bees yet. All of the “gays” I have ever known are 100% selfish, shallow and immature.

    Now we’re rating posters for something that our grandparents would have been ashamed of (or should be ashamed of). Shame on us for letting this get this far.

    America is done. This is exactly how it ended for Ancient Rome. How sad for our great country. I know someone will write some scathing reply to my post (and I won’t return to this site to read it), but I have history on my side.

  8. adminDecember 7, 2005 at 10:17 PMReply

    So what you’re saying is your cat prefers Titanic to Brokeback Mountain? That must be one amazing cat. ;)

    (I’m sorry you won’t be back to read this.)

  9. frankDecember 8, 2005 at 8:52 AMReply

    Loved the poster. It also reminded me of The Hunted with Tommy Lee Jones:
    http://www.keepmyfile.com/image/734fc9256858

  10. MartinDecember 8, 2005 at 9:17 AMReply

    Frak, history will brush you off its sleeve and forget about you, just as it did your ancestors who heralded greater rights for women and minorities as the end of our great country. We are now a more tolerant nation than we ever were before, and America is still here, and better for it.

    I guess you did come back to read this, didn’t you? ;)

  11. Rodger DonaldsonDecember 8, 2005 at 4:42 PMReply

    Actually, Frak, it ended for the Western Roman Empire after they adopted Christianity as the state religion and began persecuting pagans and adopting Pauline views on sexuality.

    It ended for the Eastern Roman, that is, the Byzantine, Empire after centuries of assaults by Roman Christian Western Europe and the Mulsim Ottoman Empire.

    Perhaps you should learn something about history before seeking to draw lessons from it.

  12. RaoulDecember 9, 2005 at 8:18 AMReply

    hahaha. Right. And the pigs fly.

  13. TylerDecember 9, 2005 at 3:27 PMReply

    Give me a fucking break, They share similar design structures, one uses a huge picture of a fucking boat and the other doesn’t, maybe you overlooked that one. Titanic uses a faded image with a mask on it, the other doesn’t. Do some homework or have some design sense before you call people out for stealing a design.

  14. adminDecember 9, 2005 at 3:41 PMReply

    Don’t recall saying they “stole” the design — we simply were drawing attention to the “traces of inspiration” producer’s quote disparity — the image comparison is there for people to judge for themselves. (Some judging more harshly than others, apparently.)

    But yes, you are right, there is no “huge fucking boat” on the Brokeback Mountain poster — you got us there.

  15. MarkDecember 12, 2005 at 10:56 AMReply

    Marty, your first post is so typical of the desensitizing agenda. I even read a writeup on MSN’s frontpage that said all the same stuff. “get over it and just go see the movie.” No, I will not get over it. Thank goodness it’s rated R, I would hate for my 10 year old boy to see this and fall in love, the way my 14 year old daughter did when she saw Titanic. Oh but wait, your BORN gay…right? No. The human race is so totally influencable, as evidenced by the huge increase of the gay population, which parallels the ‘tolerance’ that the media has forced on the people for the past 30 years. How about a movie where a gay man becomes aware of the truth, rejects homosexuality, and finds true love with a woman? Can I force you to go watch it? Maybe I’ll have your boyfriends withhold sex until you do. I really think you are all kidding yourselves, and the more people in society that is tolerant, the more people that are “out”, the easier it is to keep your blinders on and ignore the truth. That in itself is selfish, because you corrupt others to feel secure in the lie. You know that little itch in you mind that says “I suppose it is possible that I am gay because of envirnmental factors in my life”…but you never dare say it, because it is contrary to your movement. You lie to yourself to justify your self imposed gag order with “just because I MIGHT have been influeced into a gay orientation doesn’t mean that’s the typical way it happens to my fellow gays. I’ll keep it to myself.” Well you know what? You ALL are doing it. For a while, I had many addictions. I know what it’s like to justify your actions. It’s the easy road. But ahhh the joy of making through the long tough journey to abandoning the lies.

  16. KarenDecember 12, 2005 at 11:02 AMReply

    Wow Mark, learn how to spell before you spam.

  17. MarkDecember 12, 2005 at 11:22 AMReply

    By the way, I’m sorry I had to do that on a weblog that is meant to appreciate poster art. But Marty started it. It really doesn’t belong here, but as long as his post is left up, so too should my post be left up.

    As for the artwork, I think it is pretty well done. But the parallel with the Titanic poster is not meant to be the “huge f—ing boat” that’s missing. It is with the general method of utilizing a large black space of the actual artwork to house the printed text, instead of just having a picture above the text at the bottom. It’s a common method that works well. Since no baot was available for this movie, they used the jacket area.

    “”have some design sense”” ??? Tyler, You are showing your own ignorance.

  18. MarkDecember 12, 2005 at 11:51 AMReply

    Sorry about the mispellings and grammer. They are mostly from typing too fast.

    Interesting comment though. You are insinuating that I’m stupid. Therefore my comments have no validity. That’s a pretty common tactic, but meaningless and irrelevent. Re-read my post, and try to ignore the irrelevant typos.

  19. JoraDecember 17, 2005 at 12:13 AMReply

    “Marty started it,” brilliant, what a stellar display of maturity!

    I truly hate to parallel homosexuality with mental illness, but for this one example I feel it’s got enough similarities to justify a comparison — schizophrenia is not considered to be genetic by psychologists — in that there doesn’t seem to be a gene that directly causes it. Researchers think there could be a gene that causes people to be susceptible to whatever causes it, but apparently it has “external” causes. That said, do you think you could go up to a schizophrenic and tell him he can fix his affliction with the power of prayer? Or that, because a schizophrenic became that way because of environmental factors (which are probably out of his control), he chose to become that way or could consciously change it? Just because someone isn’t born a certain way (and most schizophrenics don’t “become” schizophrenic until adulthood) doesn’t mean they decide to be that way or that they can change it, otherwise people wouldn’t need to spend so much money on medicine. (It’s not a perfect parallel, of course, since schizophrenia is a chemical imbalance and homosexuality doesn’t seem to be — hence why the former can be changed with medication and the latter can’t. Because you can’t change homosexuality with medication, you’re pretty much out of luck, Mark.) So, even if what you say is true and people become homosexual because of environmental factors and no genetics are involved, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they can change it.

    Just so people don’t get on my back about comparing homosexuality to a mental illness when the APA states that it isn’t, I chose schizophrenia because it’s a condition that doesn’t appear to be genetic, is something that people try to change or reverse, and can’t be done just by willing it to be so. I hate to post this off-topic rant, but I can’t stand to see poor logic go unquestioned. It’s an unfortunate compulsion of mine.

    To get back on topic, I definitely see the similarity between the two posters, and it has much to do with composition. A large, dark, triangular shape at the bottom/centre, criss-crossed heads at the top, clouds at the side(s), even the words are in almost the same place. Sorry to burst everyone’s bubble, but the composition is pretty much a direct copy; the subject matter in the poster is irrelevant (even though it’s still pretty similar, despite the lack of boat). If someone made a dress and someone else made exactly the same design of dress but in a different colour, it wouldn’t be a totally different dress. I guess there were some interesting changes to this poster, but rather than an entirely different person’s work, it feels like maybe two different sketches an artist did for the same painting to see which composition he liked better. Just my opinion, though.

  20. MarkDecember 29, 2005 at 12:45 PMReply

    Wow. Another post that attacks me personally before discussing the issue. My point with “Mark started it” is relevant because I would not have posted this in a ‘poster art forum’. But wherever the homosexual propoganda is displayed without a counterpoint, impressionable minds are in danger. It has nothing to do with my level of maturity. One thing we agree on, it does have “external” causes.

    But the big problem with your schizophrenia analogy is this: There is not a group of schizophrenics that are trying to validate schizophrenia as an acceptable condition that we should all embrace. In fact, it is very troublesome to those who suffer from it and would gladly go through the work required to be free of it’s grip.

    You call my logic poor, but did not give any examples of my poor logic. Again, a tactic that discredits me without actually saying anything.

    Here’s the cliff’s notes of what you said that actually pertained to my post. “You are immature” “You have poor logic”. Mixed in with a long comparison to schizophrenia. The reader is left thinking I’m the bad guy.

    Really, I’m not angery at gay people. I have family members that are gay. I love them very much. The problem that I have is the way the world is being desensitised to accept a behavior that does not make God happy. If you love and defend something that displeases the Lord, you are lost. You become angry at the Lord for imposing such rules. Eventually, bit by bit, you stop going to church, you find vilidity in worldly things, and then…you deny Christ. It’s not just homosexuality, it’s pornography, prostitution, theft, adultry, ect. Please note, that I am not without these sins, and the least of mine is as bad as the worst of any. But I detest my sins. I try to repent of them. I do not defend them. I do not try to convince others that my sins are acceptable. If I did then not only am I separating myself from the Lord, but separating others as well. I become no better than the serpent who said, “Did God really say that? It will be Okay. Go ahead and do it.”

    You may find yourself somewher in the middle of the journey, or well beyond the choice. But if there is at all a chance, hold tight to Christ. You can argue and even win, but please don’t let it get to the point that you deny Christ.

  21. adminDecember 29, 2005 at 1:15 PMReply

    It’s interesting how this post continues to generate discussion, no matter how far it strays from the original topic.

    Considering Brokeback Mountain will slowly be released to more and more cities after the New Year (and may pick up a few Oscar nominations), I wonder if new people will continue to find their way here. (I’d be interested to know where/how some of the previous commenters found this site/post.)

  22. NeilJanuary 1, 2006 at 9:12 AMReply

    God commanded that I make sense of the poster for Brokeback Mountain. I must tell her that there’s much divisive debate still in the world and to refrain from bringing it to an end.

  23. WilJanuary 4, 2006 at 12:38 AMReply

    Ever since I saw the poster, I knew it looked familiar with the intimate-yet-not-too-intimte stance of the men. Stolen, influenced or not, the result was that my mind saw a similarity. Thanks Marty.

    As for Christ, I’m no follower so there’s no point in arguing. But I wish people didn’t depend on books, what people say, movies or television to create their morals. Follow the Golden Rule It’s obvious that murder, stealing and many other things are wrong. Gays and the imaginary agenda are pretty harmless. And while environmental factors may have contributed to some people becoming homosexuals, some were just plain born that way…perhaps as God intended.

  24. MarkJanuary 9, 2006 at 7:33 AMReply

    Well, some call it an agenda, others call it a ‘movement’. But to call it imaginary is misinformed. The AFA is just one site of many that shows the steps that are being taken by the movement. These are just the facts. Read these articles for a start: (check out the “other Articles when you scroll down)
    http://www.afa.net/homosexual_agenda/Default.asp?y=2003&m=10&id=7

  25. MarkJanuary 10, 2006 at 12:06 PMReply

    What exactly are you thanking Marty for? He didn’t say a thing about the poster.
    Some people call it an agenda, some call it a movement. But to call it “imaginary” is wishful thinking. There are plenty of articles to read that document the way people’s minds are being conditioned to look down on “closed minded” people like me. The Golden rule works fine for the obvious wrongdoings like murder, but homosexuality WAS on the list of “obvious” just 60 years ago. How much more conditioning will it take before society looks down on those of us who try to “oppress” child-adult sexual relations? It has already begun. There are authors out there that are spreading ideas like this, along with the desensitizing that go on through the illegal child porn already in circulation. It is a two-pronged attack. Each prong consists of many individuals. Is there an official agenda for it? Not with a leader, or even an organization. But when enough desensitizing has been accomplished, there will be some outspoken advocate that will step up, call together the goats, and there you have an organization ready to topple the old law. When this happens, will you then be able to look back and see that this is how homosexuality did it? Larry Flint did it for “mainstream” pornography. No one is born gay. Society shapes our preferences. These influences have evolved over thousands of years. If you trust your own instincts, you are still a slave to the influences that you’ve been subjected to. For this reason, we have scripture to test all things. Scripture is not outdated; it simply is incompatible with today’s society. In my home I have a rule. No touching the electrical outlets. But just because my rule is incompatible with my 2 year old’s desire, does not mean that the rule should be abolished. Step aside from political correctness and your own desires for just a minute or two. Does it make God happy? Proud? Scripture will answer these questions. Can your conscious answer them without coming to your own desired conclusion?

  26. WilJanuary 18, 2006 at 1:11 AMReply

    Whoops! My bad. Thanks to whomever made the first analysis.

    Well, if you believe people can be turned gay then you might feel there’s an agenda. The truth is it’s more of a civil rights movement and for the corporations, a money maker. Gays would like to be treated fairly and companies don’t care so much who’s gay as they do about what brings in the bucks. It may have been “obvious” 60 years ago that being gay was wrong but go back several centuries in other parts of the world and it was okay back then. And if no one is born gay, then no one is born straight. But if society shapes our sexuality, shouldn’t we all be straight? And where, when and how does it happen to people never exposed to such things such as the characters in Brokeback Mountain (had to try and work it back something close to the subject somehow)? No one can turn gay anymore than one can turn straight. We can choose whom we sleep with but not whom we want to sleep with. Why would anyone choose to be gay with so many people visciously against it? The increasing acceptance of the world is simply allowing people to be themselves. And while one might only focus on the similarities between what’s happening with homosexuals and things such as pornography, the comparison can also be made to the Black movement and women’s rights. Desensitizing people to turn them from racism, gender oppression, ageism, homophobia and any form of bigotry is a good thing.

    Oh, and some rules are bad. That’s why we have amendments and laws overturned such as the requirement that one has to own land before being able to vote.

  27. MarkJanuary 18, 2006 at 1:26 PMReply

    First off, Wil, thank you for your intelligent discussion. You make some good points.

    You are right on the money (no pun intended) about the corporations willing to market wherever there is money. Corporations have long since sold out moral values for cash. With the advancement of marketing techniques, corporations have great influence on our preferences, often devoid of morality.
    However, I think you assume too much. Just because I say people are not born gay, does NOT mean that they “therefore are not born straight”. We are in fact all born straight. Shouldn’t we all be straight, you ask? Yes, we should, and we are. But the world has not been without the corruption of evil influence for a long, long time. I’m not sure how it all happened. But I’m not surprised that other cultures in past centuries has failed at this morality test. But that is not an argument to advocate it. There was an author whose book entitled “Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West” is just a prime example of how past civilizations can be wrong. (by the way, that book was never published because of it’s positive spin on adult-child sex between males) Read more here:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46447

    Also, the parallel you make with the Black movement and women’s rights doesn’t work either, because equality by race and gender is a good thing. Equality for moral choices is not. If it were, there would be nothing considered criminal. That last list should really be two lists. By lumping “homophobia” in with “racism, gender oppression, and ageism” you have essentially made innocent a practice that should be repented of. It is supposed to carry guilt. Race, gender, and age are all truely blameless. Neat trick.

    By the way, this brings me back to the ultimate goal of evil: to make us not feel guilt for our sins, to not repent of them, but rather to fight for the right to sin, and be angry at God for not approving of our sins. We choose a side, and it is not God’s side. This is how all sins are, not just homosexuality. A poor thief will say “I had to steal to feed my family”. If he then says, “I didn’t want to do it, but I was in a tight spot, I am truely sorry” then he is forgiven. But if he says, “I will not apologize for taking what wasn’t mine. You just don’t understand what it is like.” then he is not forgiven. THIS is the goal of evil. Not so much to convince us to sin, but to make us proud of our sins.

  28. sstJanuary 22, 2006 at 10:00 AMReply

    To get this mind-numbing discussion back on track for a second, since the producer readily admitted how they borrowed elements from “Titanic”, I don’t think anyone could be offended or upset. The design elements were purposely lifted from the Titanic poster because it works. Both are love stories, both share the same sense of something big coming between two people. It works.

    And to Mark and the rest of his ilk, as the only gay poster here, I proclaim myself ambassador, and as such, I represent the gay community. I think all of us in the gay community would really like to give you a big “fuck you”, and to come out of that closet. I know I did. The only people who have problems with gays are gay themselves. Of course, you being to the right of Hitler on matters of christianity and politics doesn’t help your case. What’s it gonna take?

    Oh and when do I get my pink triangle to wear? Certainly, this country is heading fast into the direction of 1940s Germany. But you embrace those old-fashioned values don’t you? ;)

    To think anyone who comes to this site, with the intention of discussing art, could be such a bigoted asshole puzzles me. Usually open-mindedness and tolerance go together in the art world. Obviously something must be attracting your penchant for fascism.

    Finally, what a great site. Who knew there were other movie poster geeks out there. :)

  29. adminJanuary 22, 2006 at 10:10 AMReply

    Who knew there were other movie poster geeks out there.

    I’m guessing most of the people commenting in this thread are not “movie poster geeks”. ;)

    (I’m still curious how some of the commenters, who have no interest in the original subject — the Brokeback Mountain movie poster — found this thread.)

  30. sstJanuary 22, 2006 at 10:25 AMReply

    Hey that’s true, they’re more like “jesus freaks”. Hey it rhymes though.

    Be careful, the same powers that compelled the faithful followers of the big J to come here to denounce your horrible homsexual propaganda, could be turned around on you for supporting my (and the rest of those gays) agenda to destroy the very fabric of our great nation. :)

    Praise the almighty James Dobson.

  31. yekkkaterinaJanuary 23, 2006 at 7:53 AMReply

    “Your husband, boyfriend or Match.com date needs to see Brokeback Mountain. You must insist that he see this movie. Beg. Plead. Withhold sex. Do whatever you need to do. Watching two cowboys get it on will do him good.”

    Marty: Your comments disgust me.

    My husband and I discussed seeing the movie and he didn’t want to. That was that. I might have gone if he had said yes, but neither of us was up to it.

    Suppose we had disagreed. It depends on the nature of the disagreement, but I do not beg, I do not plead and I do not withhold sex when we disagree. That is disgusting.

    My attitude towards human relationships, esp. the sacred one I have with my husband, is that unless you _really_ want something, you should compromise. Begging, pleading and withholding sex are simply not done. Especially withholding sex. The only kind of man who would say this is a misogynist. You are a gay woman-hater–the worst kind.

    I read the short story and thought it was slick, second rate and shallow. In the short story Ennis repeatedly forces anal sex on his unwilling wife. Doesn’t she suffer physical consequences from this? The story doesn’t say. Emotional consequences? Story doesn’t say. This is great writing? Not in my opinion. Can you tell us what are the physical and emotional consequences of suffering unconsensual anal sex for years, and does the movie tell us about this?

  32. MarkJanuary 24, 2006 at 8:33 AMReply

    TO SST: You haven’t made a single comment that compels me to believe that the Bible is wrong in it’s denouncement of same sex intercourse. But, once again, a gay advocate rallies the troups by merely comparing me to a Nazi, saying “fuck you”, accousing me of being gay, and calling me an asshole. (are those points your making? because I missed ’em) You also made a subliminal connection between “old fashioned family values” and “Nazis”. Do you REALLY think that it’s a good creed for society to refute family values? I never said “let’s round em up and kill em”. I have family that are gay, and I don’t wish any pain to anyone. You calling be a biggot is like an anarchist calling the police fascits (but lo, you probably LIKE that comparison). It seems as though the only tactic that gay advocates ever use is to attack me with hate speech without ever speaking to the points I make. Shameful. Which brings me to your next post, where you say “Jesus Freaks”. You have attached a strong negative association to believing in Jesus. YOU make them choose “gay pride” or “Jesus Christ”. Let’s forget about homosexuality for just a second. Put it all aside. Do you not believe in Jesus? Ahhh. The true gay agenda –the one not even gays themselves are aware of. —Mission accompished, devil. They refute the Lord.— Here’s what I ask of you. Pray for the answers. Be open-minded to the thought that we maybe aren’t sure if God approves or not. Read the NEW TESTAMENT, it say’s nothing of homosexuality, so you don’t have to be afraid. Find God’s gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. Even if you remain gay, the true agenda will have failed.

  33. MarkJanuary 24, 2006 at 1:59 PMReply

    ADMIN: I happened across this site when I was browsing the internet for discussions on the movie subject matter. I really would not have posted in this forum, but the very first post is a very aggressive statement (that doesn’t discuss the poster at all, by the way). I’m sorry that it has turned into this. I’d be curious how many other “non-relevent” websites and blogs have a gay endorsing,family value bashing,be-tolerent-or-be-shunned propoganda mixed in to a message post. Well, this is one location that it didn’t squeak by without a counterpoint. Just a drop in the bucket, I know, but at least it’s something.

  34. MistyJanuary 25, 2006 at 7:25 AMReply

    Wow!! I come to this page lookin for an article about the poster similarities, and somehow end up in the middle of a battlefield!! After reading all these replies, I have to apologize to the Admin, because I’m about to share my two cents on the topic at hand. (ie, NOT the movie posters!)

    First of all, I am a self-proclaimed Jesus Freak. I’d even go so far as to say you’d be correct in classifying me as a *gasp!* fundamentalist. However, I’m not blinded by stupidity and hatred like most. For one thing, moral and ethical rules are a product of one’s belief system. If God thinks homosexuality is wrong, but John Doe doesn’t believe in God, then he’s not going to think that being gay is a sin. To the nonbeliever, the only rules that apply are those written by men. Therefore, the aforementioned John Doe won’t rob a bank, because stealing is a crime punishable by law, but he won’t think twice about going out with his neighbor Jim, because being gay is not a CRIME. Now, before the religious/moral folks on here get heated and come looking to lynch me, let me reiterate: God’s rules only apply to those who believe in HIM. Like I said, I happen to fall into that group. I try to live a good life, and consider myself to be an okay person, if not exactly an upstanding citizen. But you know what? I think the people on here who are condemning gays are ignorant and should be ashamed. You call yourself a Christian, yet you spew all this hate at John and Jim. Why? Jesus didn’t turn anybody away. He was a kind and gentle man who looked out for those who were down on their luck. And yet you think you’re somehow ABOVE Him? That although He loved the WHOLE WORLD, it’s beneath you to love someone as disgusting and morally debased as a queer? Puh-lease!! Now I’m not going to get into whether or not God approves of homosexuality. As someone stated already, there’s no mention of the subject in the New Testament. But let’s look at it this way. God is the Heavenly Father, right? (Even those who don’t beleive He exists know that this is what He represents.) Well as a parent, I know my kids have done things that I don’t agree with. In fact, they’ve done some pretty horrible things. But I never stopped loving them! I never said “You know what kids, you’re just too bad. I don’t want you anymore.” So why would God, who is the living incarnation of love, do the same to His children? Like I said, I’m not going to try to determine what God’s standpoint is. That’s between Him and the gay populace. But IMO, we should respect each other just a tad more.

    PS- If you’re gonna reply and rip me a new one, you better do a good job. I won’t quit until I’m proved wrong. :)

  35. MarkJanuary 25, 2006 at 8:58 AMReply

    That’s good stuff. I’m not about ripping anyone. In fact, I’m not even condemning gays. Lot’s of people say “Live and let live”. Or “There not hurting anyone”. Well, yes and no. I don’t condemn anyone, because I am not the judge. It is not people, but actions & moral choices that should be condemned. It is wrong to mainstream the advertisement of promiscuity. I remember in gradeschool when they said “Just say no to drugs”. I thought to myself, “there is no way I’LL ever do drugs. What a stupid thing to do. Who in thier right mind would willingly do drugs?” But then in highschool I witnessed the pleasure that some friends had, and the apparent “no consequences” for them the next day. Weekend after weekend I watched the party, and then the school week would be business as usual. These kids weren’t going to the emergency room. They were still doing thier homework and getting good grades. Plus, they were having fun doing a little bit of drugs. It wasn’t long before I gave it a try. I liked it, and I kept doing it. This was social conditioning. When children are exposed to the “option” of having a homosexual relationship, and it is accepted in society, why wouldn’t they try it? They already have strong bonds with a few friends in school, plus their hormones are beginning to come into the picture. There is no reason left to keep these kids from trying it. The taboo is being removed. Plus, they are at the same point in development, so there appears to be a perfect compatibility that you just can’t share with a girl. And like I said before, once you think of yourself as gay, you become angry at biblical teaching. You question scripture and seek a more “enlightened” belief system. One that is open to homosexuality. Try to read a bible to a gay man. Just try. Even if you don’t talk about homosexuality. Just try reading the gospel. You will be shunned. This is the problem that the gay movement has created. Either you’re gay, or you’re christian, but not both. (there is a group out there that claims both, but it is a small percentage of homosexuals — so there is some hope).

    So this is the delima. We don’t want to outcast existing gay people. We don’t want them to feel discriminated against. But we also don’t want to openly say it’s okay to our children that haven’t even experienced sexual arousal yet. You can associate sexual arousal with ANYTHING on a subconscious level. This is simple psychology. There are more gay people per capita in this country today than ever before. Some may argue that there have always been lots of gay people, but theye are just now coming out. Though there is no way to prove either way, just by inspection of how the psychology of marketing works it’s easy to see. Now, If your gay, fine. I treat you the same as I treat everyone. But STOP TELLING ME I HAVE TO TEACH MY CHILDREN THAT IT IS OKAY! The media is forcing this idea down our throats that we are either tolerant and accepting (which opens the door to “endorsing”) or we are “hateful condemners”. I am neither.
    Lastly, since you call me “ignorant”, which means I don’t know the facts, please give me the facts that I am lacking. You did pretty good in your post, but you still succumbed to calling me a hateful name without any substance behind the name you called me. Why do smart people always ruin thier arguments with that tactic?

  36. MarkJanuary 25, 2006 at 9:35 AMReply

    “You call yourself a Christian, yet you spew all this hate at John and Jim.”

    That’s an unfounded propoganda line. The reader is left thinking I spew hate, and connects it to Christianity —that’s not something you want to do is it?

    What exactly have I said that was hateful to anyone. I’m debating morals here, not people. Please, I am begging you, quote my hateful words from any of the above posts so that I can avoid this in the future.

    On the contrary, the only hateful spewing in this thread thus far is from the other folks. Honestly – quote me.

  37. MistyJanuary 25, 2006 at 11:51 AMReply

    Dear Mark,

    Whoah!! Never said I was singling you out, but you seem to feel as though I am. I typed all this out once, then my pc crashed, so forgive me if I don’t go to all the effort again. (It’s my lazy day off today.)

    #1 Promiscuity. Since when does gay automatically equal slutty? I don’t like the idea of sleeping around, and evidently neither do you. How did that even come up? Straight people sleep around too (some not all, same as gays) so I don’t even regard that as factoring into the equation.

    #2 Use of the word ignorant. I didn’t specify that YOU were ignorant. Maybe you are and maybe you aren’t. I don’t know you well enough to judge. Hating the gay lifestyle doesn’t make one ignorant, it merely makes them homophobic. Hating gay PEOPLE makes one ignorant. If that applies to you, then yes you could say I am calling you ignorant. I think that homosexuality is not a part of God’s plan. But that doesn’t mean I hate those who disagree. Just as I don’t hate you for disagreeing with me. I do respect and understand what you said about not wanting your kids to think it’s okay. (Nice drug analogy too. Couldn’t have said it better myself.) That’s your choice and if it works for you then fine. God will judge us all as He sees fit. But hating someone just for being gay IS in fact ignorant and foolish.

    #3 Speaking of hate… Why shouldn’t I associate hate with christianity? The Crusades were all about Jesus. The Nazis started out with (somewhat warped) Christian beliefs. Wars have been fought since time began over spiritual beliefs, and Christianity is among them. Doesn’t mean I’m proud of it. In fact, I think it’s insulting to God to go do a bunch of heinous acts and say that “It’s okay, we did it for Him!” It’s been my observation that a lot of people who call themselves Christian percieve homosexuality as a sin, and therfore they feel the need to pass judgement on the “evildoer” and condemn him/her for their lifestyle. I find these to be dangerous waters. Look how many times you’ve watched the news and seen some zealot who does what they think is right, and in doing so they destroy families and communities.

    I think that’s all I wanted to say. Let me know if I left anything out. :)

  38. WilJanuary 26, 2006 at 1:12 AMReply

    First of all, I’d like to add my apologies to the admin for the twist that this has taken. I had tried to be somewhat on topic and continue to try to say something back on the original subject matter. And thank you Mark for your thought-out responses, all of which I respect and find interesting. And now, there is soooo much to respond to.

    The poster I found interesting because it borders on showing intimacy between the men but is far from being blatent. If it were, I might have seen the similarity to Titanic sooner. It’s also interesting because to me, it’s an awkward shot with Jack’s face partially blocked and in the other direction. On top of that, he’s apparently right up against Ennis yet they are not obviously touching and it seems almost as if he’s not in the same picture. The relationship in the Titanic poster is very different and both represent the characters’ relationships in their respective movies.

    And now for all that other stuff!

    We are all born inherently bi-sexual as are all sexually reproductive creatures. For what we ultimtely become, for some, it is a product of environment but for others it is not. I do not believe we can all control what it is we truly desire. Some like chocolate and strawberries. Some like one and detest the other. Some dislike both. Who was taught to like one or the other? Some don’t believe in bi-sexuals but who are we to tell people what they are or should be? I believe some people are exclusively gay, some are straight and some are in between. And a person can be married to a person of the opposite sex, with children, never having had a homosexual experience. But that doesn’t make him or her straight. Deep down, that person could be gay. Just the same that a person who has had one or a few homosexul experiences, who has decided it’s not for him or her, is not gay but heterosexual.

    Oh, and maybe “Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West” would have been published if was exclusively about homosexual adults.

    The parallel I made with gays and other oppressed groups works perfectly fine becuase being gay is not a choice. Yes, that is my belief but that is the primary basis for all these arguments. So then being gay is as blameless as race, gender and age. No trick there. Just a different belief.

    And how evil is it to make someone feel guilt for doing nothing wrong? Depression and even suicide is often a result of what young men go though when they feel guilty about being gay. Those that have accepted who they are are often live happy, fulfilling lives. That did not happen in Brokeback Mountain because society led these men into living what they believed would be right, the “heterosexual agenda” if you will. Had they gone down the other path in a world where it’s all right to be gay, they and the people in their lives would have been much happier. It’s because of the oppressive society that so many ultimately got hurt. I think that this is one message Ang Lee hopes to reach people with.

    Now with the whole Christian thing, what I’ve learned is that saying you’re Christian means little more than you believe in God and Jesus Christ. Plenty of “Christians” steal, murder, lie and cheat; are Black, White, democrats, homosexuals, millionaires, etc. What I hope is that anyone reading all these posts realizes that this is only a small cross-section of people and none of the opinions stated here (or anywhere) should be belived to represent the opinions of an entire group of people.

    Again with the gay agenda? Agenda implies there’s an ultimate goal in mind and that’s certainly not going on with the various different groups. They all have different purposes. And if you think it’s to turn people away from Christ, you are very, very wrong. There are gays throughout the country that will never turn away from God. There are gay ministers, priests and so forth. There are churches that accept gay members. There are churches that marry gay couples. Like most of this country, most gays are Christian. I didn’t think so myself until recently when I found out how many gay people I know go to church and can recommend gay-friendly churches. I will buy that there is a gay movement, one to protect the rights of individuals that are gay because no one should fear for their lives or livelihood simply for what they are.

    There are promiscuous gays and there are monogomous ones. There are Christians who belive homosexuality is a sin and those who don’t. Unfortunately, it’s often only the loudest and angriest we hear from so clearly. And the gays that speak so fiercely against Christianity are most likely those that have lengthy experiences with those on the other extreme end. It is those Christians that are turning people away from the bible. It’s people like Fred Phelps who say it’s “gay pride” or “Jesus Christ”.

    I like what Misty says. Christianity is for Christians and not for non-believers. We do choose to believe in what we want to, be it in aliens, ghosts, angels, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, whatever. The important thing is to be at least tolerant of others’ beliefs and hopefully respect them.

    All people should have the “option” of having a homosexual relationship. No one should be coerced into it or be fearful of it. There’s nothing wrong with thinking being gay is okay and experimenting. Some have tried it and never gone back. Others discovered who they are. Plenty of straight people, young and old, accept gays or even have had a gay experience and it’s done nothing to make them any less straight.

    Now if you do believe all gays are so by choice, my first response is you’re dead wrong. But that is your belief and that is fine. That will also satisfy many arguments against homosexuality. But if you teach children that at an early age, there will likely come a very difficult time when that child grows up and makes gay friends or becomes gay. Hopefully, he or she will be open-minded and strong enough to make the realization that it hurts no one and therefore all right.

  39. MistyJanuary 26, 2006 at 5:22 AMReply

    *jumps up and applauds* Bravo Wil!! Beautiful post!! (You even hit some of the points I was unable to articulate) Well done sir.

  40. MarkJanuary 26, 2006 at 2:46 PMReply

    Great! Two well thought out posts in a row! Thanks Wil & Misty for being civil!

    I’ll just go in order starting with Misty.
    #1. My promiscuity comment was actually meant as another parallel, actions that should not be glorified, but that “don’t hurt anybody”. I admit though, that it was partly a bit of spillover from a different level of this discussion, evidences that the homosexual lifestyle is self destructive, which has been thoroughly documented by the gay and lesbian surveys.
    take a quick look at this and then come back.
    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

    #2. Thank you, for clearing that up. Hating ANYONE for ANY reason is ignorant, you are right. I’ve said it before, I am not against people, I am against the glorification of immorality. The problem is (and you pointed this out well already) that my morality is not necessarily Marty’s morality. This is what happens when you leave it up to our own experiences to define what’s right and wrong. However, the ebb and flow of society has a funny way of exposing our errors many years after the choices are made. You can judge anything by it’s fruits. Again, read that page and come right back!
    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

    By the way, that is hard data. As much as some folks wish it weren’t true, it is. Hollywood has a tendency to show straight folks being nice to gay folks. This presents the illusion that straight folks should accept homosexuality as an equal alternative to heterosexuality. I behave like that in life, being nice and even having a good repoir, but I do not accept homosexuality as equal, I accept the PEOPLE as equal. As soon as I start rejecting homosexuality, I am percieved as a people hater (gay people). It simply isn’t true. (By the way, “homophobic” has become a derrogotory term thanks to society evolving the word, and Webster’s listing it as “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals”. I am not afraid, averted to, nor discriminating against gay folks. They should receive all the rights I do. Including the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (smirk). I would like a new word…something like “homosympatic: one who opposses the open lobbying for a public acceptance of the gay lifestyle, while remaining sympathetic to the individuals that are a part of it”. (not bad) Before SST call’s me a hypocrite, let me remind you that I spend every holiday with two gay family members and share hugs and even my roof. I love them very much. I only wish they could see the error in thier ways.

    #3. Again, I don’t wish to pass judgement on the evil-doer. Fred Phelps is terrible at this, and does more harm than good in bringing light to the subject. It is the “lobbying of the lifestyle” that I am against. It should not be presented to our youth as a healthy alternative lifestyle. (But I’ve already covered that) It’s like saying that all policemen HATE thieves. They don’t. Most cops don’t harbor any hate. But they must arrest them, nothing personal.

    Thanks Misty! Wil, I’ll have to get back tomorrow. I’m gonna go after your comment that “We are all born inherently bi-sexual”. Really, we are all born inherently addicted to crack-cocaine, too. We just have to try it once to realize it.

    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homophobic

  41. MarkJanuary 26, 2006 at 2:57 PMReply

    I hereby coin a new term:

    Homosympatic: one who opposses the open lobbying for a public acceptance of the gay lifestyle, while remaining sympathetic to the individuals that are a part of it.

  42. earthcaressJanuary 27, 2006 at 2:02 AMReply

    Wow! This is a most interesting example of “getting off on a tangent.”

    I hope the spelling and grammar in this post is forgiven, as well as the content.

    To address the poster, I will briefly say that as a marketing tool,it definitely grabbed my attention. Artistically, I don’t have the background to make an informed critique, but I can see that it could be viewed as making an artistic statement, and not simply a social one. As a movie-goer, I believe this poster to be as appealing as many others being distributed.

    To address the other subject matter of these posts, I will say that I personally believe that this is all a matter of personal freedom. However we live our lives, whether in or out of a myriad of social, sexual, religious, or political closets, we have a responsibility to be tolerant towards all others who chose to step out and be recognized. All moralities aside, for a moment, please take another moment to consider the fact that as we struggle to all find a little space on this rapidly crowding planet, we must see each other as the great extended family that we really truly are. I hope that we all remember that love, in one form or another, is what truly binds us all. Let love open your eyes, not blind you to the beauty you can appreciate and express every day.

  43. MarkFebruary 1, 2006 at 2:04 PMReply

    Ok Will. You are exactly right in a lot of your points, but the points you make don’t make homosexuality morally viable.
    Some like strawberries, some like chocolate. That is true. But what if God doesn’t want us to eat strawberry. What if he told us not to. If we tried it anyways, there would surely be a large group of folks who would prefer it. It IS a good thing to love one another, men and women. But it is forbidden to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex. I’m not saying that it isn’t pleasurable. I’m not even saying that some good can’t come from it (avoiding suicidal tendencies is a good thing).

    What I’m saying is that when we are left to our own opinions of right and wrong, we can find lots of good things about something that is wrong. Now, if I am a truely loving person, and my first experiences with sexual stimulation are of a homosexual nature, then the love and sexuality get tied together and POW…I’m gay. I didn’t choose it, and I won’t likely be able to change it. But that doesn’t make it right. This is why society needs to stop pushing this openness to homosexuality. It is self replicating. Now someone might say “my first sexual stimulations weren’t homosexual in nature, but I’m still gay.” I never said that your first sexual stimulations had to include genital arousal, or that it has to occur when you are a teenager. We can’t possibly say where the influence came from for each individual. But when the SOURCE influences are limited, you’ll see a decline in homosexual oriented adults. If the SOURCE influences are great in number, thanks to internet, TV and now motion pictures, the odds of one’s mind connecting love of fellow man (which is a good thing) with SEXUALITY, an increase is seen. This is the path we are on. So yes, I guess we are all inherently “bi-sexual”, if by “bi-sexual” you mean “capable of associating sexual arousal with love”. Even many hetero relationships are based on sex, and the love within some homosexual relationships put the hetero relationships to shame. That doesn’t make it right. I don’t want anyone that is gay to feel guilty about it, we all have sins. But I would appreciate it if they could see that we are damaging society by advertising the lifestyle. I know they didn’t choose it. But they ARE choosing to promote it. If you think that the influence these public debates over legal gay marriage in the states has no effect on the so-called “natural percentage of homosexuals” in the population, you are dead wrong. In ten years there will be more homosexual people per capita than ever before. And, no, that will not be proof that it is a natural occurance. On the contrary, it will prove that the widespread availability of media (tv,internet,movies,music) that promote homosexuality and the “we will accept you for who you are when you’re gay, when bigots do not” CAN influence sexual orientation. I know that was a run-on sentence.

    I once was at a restaurant where a gay couple (men) were kissing and laughing and looking around. It was like they were saying “in your face!” But what they were really saying was “in your children’s face” which angered me beyond what I am capable of writing here. I knew they were gay before those antics. So did all the other grown-ups. But the kids didn’t. They didn’t have to do that. Now it is a piece of forbidden candy in the back of thier minds waiting to emerge when they enter puberty. If any of my kid’s end up gay, I will still love them and accept them for who they are. But I will not celebrate their breaking God’s law. I will be angry at society for winning the battle of shaping my children’s perception of love and sexuality.

    You say “all people should have the option to be homosexual”. But I hear you say all people should have the option to accept or reject moral teaching. Fine. This brings me back to the need of God’s law. Whether we accept the bible or not as God’s law we should strive to obey God’s law. Which means we must seek the TRUTH of God’s law. (This is easy for Bible beleivers, because it is already written) If you are a God believer, but not a bible believer, you can still come to the conclusion that it is wrong. But only if you believe in God, and that He created us by design, not by evolving us from fish. (I won’t go into evolution here, but please don’t get me wrong, evolution is a very important study. However, it should never negate our Creator). If you don’t believe in ANY TYPE of God or God’s law, then you might as well quit reading. ANY morality is empty without God. If you do believe in God, then keep reading, and please comment.

    So let’s start from the very beginning. Just pure philosophy, outside the bible, not talking about homosexuality here. Okay?

    Truth #1. God created the universe, the world, and all of it’s inhabitants. How he did it is beyond any of us to understand. Perhaps some biological evolution was a part of it, I don’t know, and it’s irrelevant to this topic.

    Truth #2. Sinful behaviour displeases God. (I’m not defining what sinful behaviour is yet – I’m just saying sinful behaviour that we can all agree is sinful behaviour). In order to avoid taking away our free will, he has a perfect law. We are free to obey or not to obey His perfect law.

    Truth #3. We must accept that God’s law is perfect in all ways. And that whether we understand it or not, it should be obeyed. If not, it is sin. Whether different “sins” have varying degrees of “displeasing God” is not relevant to this discussion.

    Truth #4. God is a personal being, he is perfect, and therefore capable of every emotion that we humans are capable of. Happy, sad, disapointment, joy,—you name it, He understands. He is not just a ball of energy. He is omnipresent and knows each of us by name.

    Now, I want you to review that list, make sure you agree with those 4 things. Again, I’m not talking about homosexuality here. Just those 4 truths. This is the foundation of a truely moral way of living. If you have no objections (atheist’s follie ignored) then I will finish up this apology in my next post.

  44. MarkFebruary 1, 2006 at 7:00 PMReply

    Now, in my next post, if I demonstrate an undeniable understanding that God disapproves of homosexuality, will you close your ears because the road is too difficult? In other words, would you knowingly and willfully abandon the truth and hold fast to a lie? Hypothetically that is. If I were to demonstrate that, would you accept the truth? And start down the road to reform?

  45. WilFebruary 2, 2006 at 10:23 PMReply

    Dear admin,

    I came to this website via a link sent from a friend. A part of that message said:

    Seen That Poster Before?
    Wonder why the BBM poster sent tingles down your spine? It’s not the
    subject mater, it’s because it was designed to recall the poster from
    1997’s Titanic.
    Compare:
    http://www.posterwire.com/archives/2005/11/21/the-cowboy-way

    He doesn’t recall exactly how he came here but said it might have been through imdb.com.

  46. WilFebruary 2, 2006 at 11:35 PMReply

    Apologies and thanks to all again for tolerating this and or participating.

    FRC and similar groups are biased organizarition that will look for statistics that support their view. But bias is unavoidable in any human conducted research. Regardess, homosexual relationships might last longer if marriage or the like were allowed and the statistical tendencies that separate, not differences, would shrink. Therefore, it may be that preventing gays from marrying may help statistics show the higher occurance of infidelity, lower number of children being raised, etc. More importantly, statistics may show trends but it says nothing of the individual. It is unfair to judge anyone based upon what someone else has done.

    Now, I admit there are very weak-minded people out there and on some level, they have to be protected. But a movie is for entertainment. Sadly, the news is too. I would hope we’d do more to educate people than shield them from reality. And they need to know that movies aren’t real but sometimes they do represent real life. Personally, what I know of on tv and movies out there is mostly crap and a few good things here and there. But it’s not going to make me or the people I know do anything except maybe see or avoid something made by the same people. I don’t see an unhealthy number of vigilantes, boxers or police out there.

    I do think homophobia is an inaccurate word for many people. There are many, many people who do not approve of homosexuality but are very accepting of gays. Sorry that a friendlier word probably won’t catch on as it should.

    And to compare sexuality to being addicted to cocaine?! I’m surprised at that remark. Cocaine has physically addictive and harmful properties. If gay sex were addictive, well, I’m sure many lives would be VERY different.

    Now if God didn’t want his followers to eat strawberries, then his FOLLOWERS probably shouldn’t eat them. And if someone does eat strawberries, Gods followers may think it’s wrong and shun hi m, perhaps even try to change him, but since no one is getting harmed, in this world that we are trying to be fair to others, they must accept them in a larger society as Catholics must accept Protestants. We must accept people who eat pork, people who are atheist, people who like to play video games and even people that are left-handed or even gay.

    Does accepting homosexuals mean you see more of them? Of course! That’s how ghettos have formed. Big cities that tend to have more liberal thinking will have more people that accept gays. Wouldn’t you rather live in a town where you could be yourself and not live in fear than a place where you had to live a lie where if people knew just one fact about you having nothing to do with your personality or how you treat others could make them turn against you? Ennis and Jack from the movie longed for such a place but it didn’t exist in hteir place at that time. You want a place without homosexuals? Go to Korea. They don’t have any…so they say. Think that’s true?

    And then it goes back to religion. Again, if that is the basis of your argument then there is no point in making it here.

    “So let’s start from the very beginning. Just pure philosophy, outside the bible, not talking about homosexuality here. Okay?”

    Outside of the bible with God mentioned in every “Truth” listed? Not acceptable. Give a good reason against homosexuality that doesn’t require mentioning the bible or God and a lot of people will listen. As mentioned before, you are free to believe what you will as we all are. But we need to be open to gays as we need to be open to people who belive it’s wrong to be gay. Such people exist. They always will. Some people can change to behave one way or the other. Some will never change. I simply belive we all have the right to life and the pursuit of happiness unless we attempt to take it away from others.

  47. MarkFebruary 3, 2006 at 8:44 AMReply

    “Outside of the bible with God mentioned in every “Truth” listed? Not acceptable.”

    You didn’t read what I said. I said, outside the bible, BUT you must believe in God. Polls show that 98% of Americans believe in SOME type of God. Yes, God is a part of those truths. I also said, I WASN”T talking about homosexuality. What exactly in those 4 truths do you disagree with? Likely, nothing. But you see where I am headed.

    Yesterday, Jacob Robida in Massachusetts took a hatchet and a gun into a gay bar and started harming people. 3 people injured, one shot in the face, and one (perhaps the same one) is in critcal condition.

    This is horrible. The police have found Nazi regalia and anti-Semitic writings in his bedroom. He is still on the loose.

    Jesus said “let he who has no sins cast the first stone”. But this nutcase seems to think that he is allowed to dole out punishment for his own opinions. Yes, I said opinions.

    Just because I am a part of this discussion does NOT mean that any harm should be done to ANYONE. Is there a way to debate these things without inadvertently leading some nutcase to harmful action? I feel like it is important to discuss the issues, but I don’t want to form any sort of militia against the gay community. I can’t stand this. Why can’t they love thier fellow man (gay and lesbian included) AND refute homosexuality? It is a real problem, and when things like this happen, it is a problem worse than homosexuality itself. Not only has the message that I preach been harmed, but 3 lives have been harmed in ways (physical and emotional) that will likely not heal for a very long time, if ever. I’m not trying to be righteous when I say this, I mean it: I pray for those victims that they recover from this lunatics damage.

    WIL: Good comments. I don’t know what to say right now. I’m ashamed at what appears to be a common link between people like me and that psycho. I would like to comment on a lot of your points, but I just don’t know how to get the message across without putting myself in that wretched camp.

    Here’s a little story.

    There once was a potter. He made the most beautiful and exquisite bowls and pitchers and the like that anyone had ever seen. One day a patron came into his shop. Amazed by all of the pieces, he approached the potter. “they are all so beautiful” he said. The potter responded, “Not a single one is like any other. I pour my heart into every single piece.” The patron took sveral minutes browsing and cg his favorites. He returned to the potter with two cannisters. The potter smiled at his choices, added up the total, and the patron paid. The patron got into his car with his new purchase. The potter noticed from his window that the man sat for a long in the parking space. Finally, the man got out of his car, placed the canisters on the doorstep of the potter’s shop, and got back into his car, where he kept the ornate lids to the canisters, and started the car to leave. The potter ran out to stop him. “Is there something wrong?” asked the potter. The patron said, “I really just wanted these ornate lids. I felt it a shame to just throw out the canisteres, so I left them for you.”

    “Had I known that you were going to separate the parts, I wouldn’t…” but the potter was interupted.

    “I paid the price you asked for. Now the peices are mine, to do with what I like. Perhaps I should have thrown the cannisters out secretly, so that your feelings wouldn’t have been hurt. I’m sorry, but displaying the lids alone is why I purchased them.”

    “You are right.” said the potter. “They belong to you now. You are free to do what you like”. The stunned potter collected the lidless canisters and returned to his shop, where he began to fashion replacement lids to sell with them.

    This is how I believe God feels. He loves us very much. And he will always take us back. He will not take away our freedom to do with his gifts what we like. It is our choice. But in the beginning, God intended a certain beauty in His creation. We should strive to live in a way that fulfills His vision.

  48. observerFebruary 6, 2006 at 2:06 AMReply

    Haha. Funny Mark and cry your eyes out like everyone else. Go see the movie. Haha.

  49. MarkFebruary 6, 2006 at 6:32 AMReply

    All of my posts negated by a single mocking. Good job observer. You really stuck it to me.

    As for reasons to not be gay that don’t have to do with God, there are plenty. But no, lots of people don’t listen. The link I listed earlier to the FRC does not create it’s own statistics to further it’s agenda. All of it’s facts come from sources like the US Census. So you see, even when there’s data, the proponents tend to scream “BIAS”. I honestly think there are a lot of people that know deep down inside that what they are doing is wrong. They argue and argue until even they believe it is acceptable. And the nation supports the delusion with “tolerance” making it even harder for them break ranks. When Cheryl Swoopes turned lesbian last year, the entire gay community shunned her because she said she wasn’t born gay. Where’s the tolerance?

  50. MartyFebruary 7, 2006 at 1:12 AMReply

    Wowee! I leave a comment two months ago and come back to see I stirred up quite a discussion. First, Frakety Frak claims to feel remorse for my parents’ selfish act of not teaching me about the birds and the bees. Yeah, that’s why I’m gay. I just never heard about heterosexuality.

    This fella, Mark, seems to think gay folks can just try harder and heterosexual desire will come forth. Tried that. Didn’t work. Now I know true love and the only problem with that is people like Mark.

    Reading on, Mark “comes out” as the fundamentalist Christian that he is, linking to some of the most virulent anti-gay organizations out there. Hey Mark, I wonder if your gay family members appreciate your assertion that your ability to host them in your home and give them hugs somehow makes you not anti-gay. Do they know you “wish they could see the error in thier (sic) ways”? That’s so sanctimonious, hardly “homosympatic.”

    Then, my tongue-in-cheek suggestions for women to drag their men to the movie manage to “disgust” Yekkkaterina. “You are a gay woman-hater–the worst kind” she huffs. Dig deep, Yekka. Find a sense of humor.

    With all the awards and stellar reviews, Yekka’s opinion that this is a mediocre story is clearly in the minority on this one. Yes, “Alma” is a sympathetic character in this movie. You’re supposed to feel for her. And as I said in my first review, Ennis, like many gay men who marry a woman, is a lousy husband. Imagine a world where he could have spared her that pain by following his true love.

    Mark further reveals what I call heterosexual arrogance with this comment: “I once was at a restaurant where a gay couple (men) were kissing and laughing and looking around. It was like they were saying ‘in your face!’ But what they were really saying was ‘in your children’s face’ which angered me beyond what I am capable of writing here.” We all see heterosexual displays of affection all day long in the media, on park benches, and yes, even in restaurants. If you’re so interested in treating people the same, where’s your outrage about all this heterosexual smooching going on in public? I just was on a plane where a gay man felt comfortable enough to put his arm around his partner. Imagine a world where that wouldn’t have even caught my eye.

    Finally, about the poster, I had some fun with it and made a Christmas card with myself and my partner as stand-ins. By now, I’m sure you’ve all seen the versions with “W” and Cheney, and with Bert and Ernie.

  51. EricFebruary 7, 2006 at 4:56 AMReply

    Mark,

    You have no idea how hurtful these types of screeds are, and how enervating it is for gay people to have to hear them in various forms day after day. I’m sure you don’t mean it, or perhaps you do, but ultimately what you are saying to gay people is that down in their core, no matter what they do, they are bad people. I’m sure you believe that by saying these things you are punishing the sin an not the sinner, but I can tell you that for people on the receiving end of that punishment, there is no difference. Doctor, truck driver, priest or prostitute, sexual or abstinent, no lifestyle change will make someone who isn’t attracted to people of the opposite sex into someone who is.

  52. MarkFebruary 7, 2006 at 7:05 AMReply

    They are NOT bad people. But the actions are bad. I will stop making that point if they stop fighting in our public square for acceptance of the actions. I DO accept all people for who they are. But not for what they do. Don’t think that they are non-seperable, because if you do then you ARE defined by your actions. That includes the things you have done that you are truely ashamed of (like shoplifting when you were a kid). Your person CAN be separated from your actions in times of weakness. That’s why sins are forgivable. It is the person that I accept.

    But what you are suggesting is that we don’t bring criminals to justice because we shouldn’t make them feel like bad people. (No, I’m not calling gay people criminals, it’s just an example)

    Lastly, I don’t expect someone who is not attracted to someone of the opposite sex to suddenly become attracted to someone of the opposite sex. These things take time. The first step is to realize and admit that it is a problem. I guess that’s how my scrolls are so hurtful. They open gay peoples eyes momentarily to a mirror. They then have a choice to break the mirror and pretend they never saw it and go back to thier happy lives, OR start down the road of reform which likely includes a long period of depression. It is a horrible diabolical trap, I know. From there it is a long difficult road, but there are huge groups of people that have succeeded. And even for those who haven’t succeeded, but are trying, God is well pleased. Even successful ones don’t neccesarily become attracted to someone of the opposite sex. But they DO cease the homosexual practices of sexuality. They may even slip back. Just as I do with my own sinful behaviours of sexual deviency with women (it’s no different). But we press on, and repent, and offer our weaknesses up to God. It is proof that we need Him so much more.

  53. EricFebruary 7, 2006 at 10:19 AMReply

    Mark,

    I know you believe you are talking only about actions not people. Take it from the people who’ve been there, being gay has nothing to do with actions. You can be celibate for years, (which I gather is what your relgion recommends gay people do) but it still doesn’t make you straight. Any gay teenager and any gay senior can tell you, you are gay before you first have sex and still gay after you stop. All anyone wants is the opportunity to have crushes, date and fall in love. And once you’ve known the experience of being in love and being loved in return, it’s very difficult, even wrong, to pretend to love someone you don’t. What I think is special about the movie, at least for gay people, is that it shows what love feels like from the point of view of the people who are experiencing it, not just what it looks like to the outside world.

  54. MarkFebruary 7, 2006 at 11:06 AMReply

    The movie probably does portray a wonderful love. This is the problem. It makes everyone understand that good people deserve to feel good feelings. We should all be able to experience love. I agree with all of that. But in the fine print, it says “even at the expense God’s word”.

    They could spin a movie to make smoking a cool thing to do. That doesn’t make it good for you. But more people would smoke because of it.

    By the way, you haven’t really disagreed with me on the points I make, but rather you give reasons why being gay should be a special exception. Go to the website and read some testimonies.

    http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_left_HomoSexuality.shtml

  55. MarkFebruary 7, 2006 at 12:15 PMReply

    Here’s a good article.
    http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-harren.html

  56. EricFebruary 7, 2006 at 12:28 PMReply

    Mark,

    I do agree that if your sincerely held beliefs and your religion demand that you not have sex with someone of the same sex, then you shouldn’t have that kind of sex. I know Exodus very well. People I’ve met from there are, for the most part, nice, honest and sincere. Exodus is largely about helping people lessen their attraction to people of the same sex, primarily through religious reflection and talk therapy. They don’t spend much time on helping people become attracted to the opposite sex. Again, if you are gay and your religion requires that you not have sex with someone of the same sex and Exodus is helpful in coming to peace with that requirement, then it seems to me that they are doing some good.

  57. MarkFebruary 7, 2006 at 1:09 PMReply

    Well said Eric. (but you’re creeping towards my old danger of abandoning true religion for the sake of homosexuality…the diabolical trump card) As for becoming attracted to someone of the opposite sex, it’s really just one step at a time. But here is a snippet from another article:

    Sexual-Orientation Change is Possible
    If any conclusions can be drawn from the literature, it is that change in sexual orientation is possible.For instance, in their review of the literature on once-married lesbians, Bridges and Croteau (1994) found that 25-50% of lesbians in various reports had once been in heterosexual marriages. While heterosexual marriage alone may not be a complete gauge of sexual orientation, the reasons for the marriage should offer some insight into the sexual identity of the women at the time. Kirkpatrick (1988) reported that once-married lesbian women often married because they were in love with their husbands. In examining the reasons for the shift in sexual expression, Charbonneau and Lander (1991) found two broad explanations. One group felt they had always been lesbian and were becoming true to themselves. However, another group viewed their change as a “choice among sexual options.” If counselors are not to assist clients in their wishes for a shift in sexual orientation, how would ACA’s governing council wish for counselors to respond to such women wanting to become more settled in their choice of a lesbian identity?

    More practically, I do not know with certainty if I have ever been successful in “changing” a person’s sexual orientation since I do not know how to precisely define sexual orientation, or if it is even a valid clinical concept. However, I have assisted clients who were, in the beginning of mental health counseling, primarily attracted to those of the same gender, who declare they are now primarily attracted to the opposite gender. I fear that resolutions such as passed by APA and ACA will prevent such outcomes, which are viewed quite positively by the clients who have experienced them.

    The complete article found here:
    http://www.narth.com/docs/attemptstomodify.html

  58. MarkFebruary 7, 2006 at 1:55 PMReply

    Marty, you use adjectives in place of substance.

    “Reading on, Mark “comes out” as the fundamentalist Christian that he is, linking to some of the most virulent anti-gay organizations out there.

    If I remove the negative connotations that you put in that sentance, and leave in only the substance, you really just wrote this:

    “Mark is a fundamentalist Christian. He Has given links to some anti-gay organizations.”

    That’s true Marty. But they are not “virulent” and being a fundamentalist Christian is not an evil thing as you lead the readers to believe. Be factual please, and save the adjectives for your rant in the car on your way home.

    “And as I said in my first review, Ennis, like many gay men who marry a woman, is a lousy husband. Imagine a world where he could have spared her that pain by following his true love.”

    So what you’re saying is that in order to spare innocent women “the pain of broken marriages” we must accept openly homosexuality? That’s the strangest thing I’ve ever heard. It’s like a threat, do you see that? “If society would just accept homosexuality, gay men wouldn’t have to work down the hard road of reform, which ,for those in denial, can lead to broken homes. Yes, she’s a victim, but whos the bigger victim here? The gay man who had an affair that’s who!” Logic at it’s best (sarc).

  59. EricFebruary 7, 2006 at 2:42 PMReply

    Mark,

    There’s not too much I can say about the article you cited about women who’ve had partners of different genders. My first reaction is to say what the women who “viewed their change as a “choice among sexual options” are decribing is bisexuality. However, my experience in this area is primarily with Exodus, which is composed mostly of men.

    It seems our different points of view may be grounded in this idea of “true religion”. Not understanding the concept, I think we have reached an impasse.

    Before signing off, I’d like to reiterate my original point though. Accusations of “sinner” and “mentally ill” are often more hurtful, more divisive and I believe, less therapeutic than people may realize. I’ll leave it at that.

    Thanks. It’s been a good discussion.

  60. MarkFebruary 7, 2006 at 3:02 PMReply

    “Before signing off, I’d like to reiterate my original point though. Accusations of “sinner” and “mentally ill” are often more hurtful, more divisive and I believe, less therapeutic than people may realize. I’ll leave it at that.”

    Very true. Thank you Eric. Well spoken.

  61. MarkFebruary 10, 2006 at 3:07 PMReply

    Is there nothing in this world that I am actually allowed to be intolerant of? When it comes to teaching virtues to my children, don’t I have a right to protect their trusting psychies from convincing, but flawed, doctrine? Some might say I can teach them whatever I want. True, but if society teaches something contrary, many of my kids will falter regardless of what the parents teach. It’s like peer pressure to be tolerant. Then you are desensitsed and then it’s too late. You’ve tasted the forbidden fruit.

    I will not tolerate society teaching my children that women are valued only as sex objects. Yet that’s exactly what society is doing through television, pornography, strip clubs, and pop-music, MTV. Have you watched the NBC show “Vegas”? What can I do about this? I will be called a “censor of free speech” if I become outspoken. I will not tolerate society teaching my chioldren that sex before marriage is normal, or that multiple partners is normal. Yet that is the message sent. I will not tolerate society teaching my children that abortion is an alternative for failed birth control. I will not tolerate society teaching my children that there are no taboo sex practices. There ARE taboo sex practices.

    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/taboo

    If something is taboo, it doesn’t just get removed from the taboo list because enough people have begun to do it. Once taboo, always taboo. Unless of course, someone has had a divine revelation announcing the removal of the taboo status. Nope, it hasn’t happened.

    Kids today seem to think that pornographic style sex is normal. They have been desensitised into thinking that horrible practices like anal sex or threesomes or even “facials” are standard. Our poor daughters. These things ARE taboo. Read that definition link again. It says nothing of “popular with the majority”. Once taboo, always taboo. You better come to grips with the fact that you are engaging in the forbidden fruit.

    This is my final post. I know I will not change the world with all of this. And I fear for my grandchildren because of it. Please stop battling over what YOU get out of it, and think about society. You are fighting for the right to pervert ALL things sacred.

  62. adminFebruary 15, 2006 at 8:38 AMReply

    On the other hand…

    http://thetyee.ca/Life/2006/02/14/MarriedWrong/

  63. AlbertFebruary 22, 2006 at 11:59 PMReply

    Wow, I can’t believe I read the whole thing … but I did. I guess I’m a sinner though for wasting so much precious time wehn I could have been reading the Bible & praying instead. God forgive me! Anyhow, I think this discussion about homosexuality is passe & society’s acceptance of the “new morality” is pretty much a forgone conclusion given the rulings of the courts. Anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty much going the way of the dinosaurs. In a few more years, people won’t even remember that there was an issue with homosexuality just as equal human rights for all people is now considered the norm. That only leaves a few more areas for the “conspiracy” agenda to focus on: gay marriage, gay adoption, pedophilia & bestiality. I don’t care one iota what other people do … just leave me alone & let me love my beasty dog. He’s a real cute fella! And what can I say? He simply loves me & I love him! I guess you could say we love each other & would like to get married one day. Is it wrong that we express our emotional love in a physical relationship outside the sanctity of marriage? We sleep together, he likes it when I jerk him off for pleasure, he likes to lick my ass, the oral sex is fantastic and it’s all safe sex & we’re monogamous. What isn’t there to like. Try the new bestiality lifestyle … you just might like it! And watch for the movie, Gumby & Pokey, coming to a theatre near you! It’s all about the love between a man & his horse! The love scene is indescribable. And maybe the movie poster will look like Brokeback Mountain & Titanic together! Yee-ha, ride em cowboy!!

  64. steveoFebruary 23, 2006 at 9:25 AMReply

    Albert: Wow, your comment/logic is both profound and interesting. (cough)

    But seriously, I’ll never understand why people like you will try to equate the sick crime of having sex with animals/children with a consenting relationship between two adults. You mentioned pedophilia, which is about as serious a crime as you can get, and made it part of your stupid little tirade about homosexuality. I’m sorry you think so little of abused children (and animals?) that you would lower yourself to make light of them as part of some weird sarcastic post letting everyone know how much you hate gay people. Why would you belittle and show such hatred for children, others, etc.? Why are you harboring such sick thoughts to spin such a yarn?

    I feel sorry for you and your family.

  65. NancyFebruary 23, 2006 at 1:11 PMReply

    HOLY SMOKE….I came peeking in here to check out the posters…and WHEW!! I’m exhausted from reading these posts. My head is spinning!! Here I am…a little old grandma…and I’m SHOCKED at the intolerances and the spewing.. that I just can’t believe that in this day and age there are STILL so many homophobes in this sweet world.
    I guess I’m NOW considered a “Brokie” or a “Brokeaholic” after seeing this absolutely beautiful movie!! I wobbled out of the movie simply STUNNED at the beauty of this story. It was PURE LOVE….from start to finish. The rubbish that people spew out about this MOST beautiful relationship between two LOVING…CARING….”PEOPLE” is disgusting. These are TWO PEOPLE IN LOVE…people!! Two living breathing human beings who fall into an absolutely WONDERFUL STORY!! I don’t have a good enough grasp on the english language here to express my feelings for these two wonderful people. Their love was true..loving…hurtful…painful..sad..and comforting.

    In one of the posts above…someone said that “God was mad”!! GOD made these two beautiful men….why the F**K would he be mad at them? FOR LOVING?? I guess you can tell by now…I’m trying to suppress my anger at these bigoted narrow minded ‘voices’ trying to make themselves heard.

    I’m leaving now…gonna go listen to my BBM CD right now…and drift off in the arms of Ennis & Jack. And BTW…I am a heterosexual Grandma here..who only WISHES she had experienced a love like these two found together!! AMEN!!!
    Thanks for listening folks…and let’s all LOVE ONE ANOTHER!!

  66. PaulFebruary 25, 2006 at 5:48 PMReply

    I, like Nancy, was looking around for poster information. But I ended up reading all the postings and Whew! Oh my! It’s interesting that a simple comparison on poster art could bring out such in depth dissertations about gay civil rights, religion and the way straight people view us (Queers). My partner and I just celebrated our 18th anniversary and this is a great ‘date film’!
    I think the poster’s inspiration was of course trying to appeal to straight women in an attempt to gain a wider audience for the film. And BTW it’s really moving when a straight woman tells me she loves this film as much as I do. Whatever the marketing plan behind the film, I’m so glad this story got on screen and found an audience.
    As far as posters though, I must say the picture of Ennis holding Jack by the campfire towards the end of the movie is my favorite image from the film. That’s the poster I want to find.
    I would also like to say that I never thought I would live to see such a movie receive such critical acclaim in my lifetime. I was a child throughout the 60’s but I have a solid understanding of how adults regarded gays (That was one thing folks didn’t keep secret!) For me that element of the story rings so true. Yet it’s not really a “message” kind of film. The characters don’t waste a lot of time whining about how much society sucks because people just can’t mind their own business. It’s just a beautiful moving love story.

    Marty, don’t try to make the straight boys see the movie. They’ll go if they want to.

    Mark, you keep right on likin’ us as “people”. :-)

    Wil, you’re a very smart guy. :-)

    Everyone, Thanks for reading and please be good to each other!

  67. MarkFebruary 27, 2006 at 12:52 PMReply

    There is no irrelevant sin in the Bible. All sins are wicked in the eyes of God. The Bible is clear in its condemnation of adultery, false witness, theft, and murder, to name just a few. We are all sinners who deserve condemnation, and it is only because of the love and saving grace of Jesus Christ that we can be reconciled to our Father and have eternal life.

    However, there is no organized activist movement that exists worldwide today to legalize and encourage theft, adultery, or lying. But there is a mobilized movement that challenges God’s truth on a daily basis with regard to homosexual behavior. That is why we are responding to the “Day of Silence” to counter attempts to legitimize and promote homosexual behavior.

    On Thursday, April 27, students from across the country will stand together on the Day of Truth…will you be one of them?

    http://www.dayoftruth.org

  68. steveoFebruary 28, 2006 at 9:07 AMReply

    “The Day of Silence, a project of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in collaboration with the United States Student Association (USSA), is a student-led day of action where those who support making anti-LGBT bias unacceptable in schools take a day-long vow of silence to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment — in effect, the silencing — experienced by LGBT students and their allies.

    The Day of Silence takes place April 26, 2006.”

    http://www.dayofsilence.org

  69. WilMarch 2, 2006 at 10:12 PMReply

    And so it continues!

    Thanks admin for your story link.
    Thanks Mark for not making your final post final.
    Thanks everyone for all your words. We’ve read all these posts because it is interesting and enlightening to know how others think.

    Forgive me for this long post but I’d like to comment on the many things that have been said since my last post a month ago.

    Mark, sorry but I won’t accept your truths BECAUSE they mention God. It doesn’t matter that most Americans, including gays, believe in God. Such truths are only truths to some people, not all. We must respect the rights of minorities and not impose beliefs on anyone. I don’t disagree that believers in God agree with your list but worded as it is, it is not for everyone

    Even so, many Christians accept gays and even entire churches accept gays to the point where they allow them to marry in the eyes of God. Perhaps your arguments shoud be with them. I think Christians that embrace gays should at least be tolerated if not accepted.

    And before going on, it is very clear that you are not at all like the homophobes we hear about in the news. Never, ever can the actions of an individual or even a large number of people be accepted to represent another individual or an entire group of people.

    Unfortunately, the impressionable will see something cool and try it. Wolverine (of the X-Men) in the comics is a heavy cigar smoker. The movie eliminated this characteristic because of the target audience. For the rest of us, such a thing is entertainment, honors artistic intent and even gives a reflection of reality. If we were all stronger, smarter people, we wouldn’t have to blame video games for turning kids onto guns, McDonald’s for making us fat or movies for making people accept gays. If your problem is what your kids see on tv and movies, you should know what they see and talk to them about it. And if you can’t control what they see, then you need to teach them that that is not real life. And there is something very unreal in what we call reality shows. In any case, behavior seen portrayed in any form of entertainment needs to be just that, entertainmemt. It can be educational, an eye-opener or new information. Allow it to make you ask questions, not run your life.

    Once taboo, not always taboo. Interracial marriage, women in the workplace, being a single parent and divorce are just a few examples of what was, but no longer (or less so) taboo.

    There is no organized activist movement that exists worldwide today to legalize and encourage theft, adultery, or lying because these things are harmful to people. The act of sex and love between two people, no matter their gender, and without commitment to others harms no one.

    The most important points I believe in have already been stated.

    It’s a small world that’s getting smaller and with more and more people on it. There will always be people of different beliefs and opinions. The lives in our homes cannot define how everyone should live on this planet. We will never all accept everything but at a minimum, we must exhibit tolerance.

    ‘nuf fer now.

  70. GrigorioMarch 5, 2006 at 11:08 PMReply

    Back on topic: Brokeback Mountain Poster vs. Titanic Poster;

    These two images profoundly symbolize the divisions between straight and gay in American society: the Brokeback Poster is a shallow copy of the Titanic poster in the same way that gay men shallowly imitate the gender roles laid down for them by the biological imperatives of heterosexual agenda (ie. reproduction). Furthermore, the Titanic poster shows a large (phallic) ship entering the waters/skies (traditional feminine imagery) whereas in the Brokeback poster there are phallic pointy mountains Narcisistically reflecting and imitating each themselves in the shallow reflection of the lake. Clearly, the un-American director of Brokeback (and his mincing team of homosexualist poster-designers) is trying to plant homosexual urges deep in the subconscious minds of poster-viewers, aping the iconography developed by the All-American creator of True Lies and Titanic (and his super-hetero set of poster prodigies).

    Is that not enough to convince you of the subtle, manipulative attempt of the homosexualists to rape the minds of poster-viewers, planting the seed of their agenda deep within their bowels? Still have doubts? The real clincher in the iconographic imagery of the poster is that, whereas Kate Winslet is looking off to the RIGHT (symbolic of political conservatism, the Republican Party, truth, justice and American family values), Heath Ledger is looking off to the LEFT (ie. anti-American, pro-terrorist, decadent, liberal propaganda for THE homosexual agenda).

    There’s more… It’s no mistake that whereas the names of the main actors in Titanic reflect the traditional concept of man first, woman second, as per the Biblical creation account in Genesis 2:15 – 25, the Brokeback Mountain names are set up as a coy sexual pun, note that Jake Gyllenhall plays the Bottom to Ledger’s Top, and the man-loving, sexist, gay men still push their women beneath them further.

    Do you think I am reading too much into this poster? I’d argue that my interpretations are no more absurd than some of the claims of some of the message “posters” on this board who are more fixated on pulling the prick out of my eye than removing the Brokeback Mountain from their own (paraphrase of Matthew 7:3).

    But, fun is fun, and let the flamethread carry on…

    Post-Scrpit:
    Cheers to Misty for exemplifying the Jesus-spoken principle of “Judge not, lest you be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) And perhaps I should remind Mark of the words of [his?] Christ: “…but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly father forgive your tresspasses.” (Matthew 6:15) And to Wil, I commend you your patience and forbearance in this string of bickerings: how ironic that you, who make no pretense of being a Christian, have shown the most Christian characteristics of love: patient and kind (I Cornithians 13:4). Yet even the Devil himself can quote scriptures, how much more difficult it is to live them!

  71. MarkMarch 6, 2006 at 10:02 AMReply

    “Judge not, lest you be judged.”

    I don’t judge any individuals. The action has already been condemned. I’ve said it before.

    “but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly father forgive your tresspasses”

    I do forgive. That is quite different from “tolerance”. When someone steals from me. I will forgive them. In fact I have. But I won’t put up a sign that says “Steal my things, it’s Okay” And if a thief puts up a sign on my neighbors house that says “this house is good to steal from” I will work hard to tear down that sign.

    You say I should love and forgive those that put up the sign, which I do. But I will not allow the sign to remain. Why can’t you see the difference?

    Sorry I came back after I said I was done. I just couldn’t let this comment:

    Mark, you keep right on likin’ us as “people”. :-)

    be the last word about me. I’m not sure how that one works, but it somehow says that intentions of loving the sinner and not the sin is impossible. It sends the message that my love for gay folks is a lie. It is not — I love several gay folks. What it comes down to is, you will label anyone a hater if they speak against homosexual sex. Jesus said “go now, and commit this sin no more”. Ahhh, but prostitution doesn’t hurt anyone. They are both consentual. Was Jesus a hater of all prostitutes? No. He loves everyone. But he still labeled the activity a sin. No one wants thier activities to be labeled a sin. We find comfort in our blinders; an osterich with it’s head in the sand.

    Finally, to address this :
    “Yet even the Devil himself can quote scriptures, how much more difficult it is to live them!”

    Yes, we all have sins. This is one of the best weapons of anti-christianity of all time. Calling us “hypocrites”. It sends the message that it is better to be faithful to your sins, to be “real”, than it is to TRY to be good at all. The “hypocrite” argument is a “rally cry” for sinners to embrace their sins, wear them proudly, and don’t bother trying to please God (ahhh pride…dangerous). Surely you see how this tactic works. Are you going to fall for it?

    Uuuuggghhh. We are all truely trapped in our sins. My sin is lust. It pulls at me, I resist. Sometimes, I am weak. It is everywhere, even on network TV. Thank God for salvation in Jesus Christ, because without Him, we can not possibly earn our own salvation.

  72. EricMarch 6, 2006 at 1:19 PMReply

    It’s clear you guys have very strong feelings about gay people grounded in sincerely held religious beliefs. What’s not clear is what you’re asking all the gay people out there, the majority of whom don’t share your religious beliefs, to do about it?

  73. WilMarch 7, 2006 at 2:08 AMReply

    Mark, you keep right on likin’ us as “people”. :-)

    I did not interpret this as a sarcastic comment at all. Mark, you have mentioned before that you have gay people in your life. I felt that the message from Paul (thanks for the compliment by the way) simply acknowledged the fact that you wish no harm for homosexuals at all. It is clear to me that you and others I know that believe homosexuality is wrong do not hate homosexuals. And that to me is tolerance wich is different from embracing or accepting.

    If a person put up a sign that says “this house is good to steal from” in front of his own home, would you work so hard to tear it down? You might think he’s crazy. You might want to talk to him. But ultimately, you have to let him do what he wants with his own property. So, while you might not like the fact that two people of the same gender have sex, you have to let them. Christianity is not the law here and that is so to protect us.

  74. MarkMarch 7, 2006 at 7:44 AMReply

    “If a person put up a sign that says “this house is good to steal from” in front of his own home, would you work so hard to tear it down? You might think he’s crazy. You might want to talk to him. But ultimately, you have to let him do what he wants with his own property.”

    Will, that’s well written. Okay, I guess I would have to let him put up that sign. But what about my kids, who I am trying to raise NOT to be thieves, who want a new TV. But as a good parent, I’ve decided now is not the best time for them to have thier own TV, they face that temptation every day they walk out my front door. They see the invitation to just “come and get it”. Yeah, he has that right to put up the sign. Can you see why I wish he would take it down? Now, I will teach my kids that stealing is wrong, and hope that I do a good enough job that they can resist that temptation. But if I teach my kids that homosexuality is wrong, the gay community teaches them that thier dad is an intolerant bigot.

    Eric: I don’t know what commited gays should do. But I kow what I WISH they would do. I wish they would take the sign down from in front of my house. The sign telling my kids that it is acceptable, and that dad’s opinions are not acceptable.

  75. DaveMarch 7, 2006 at 10:33 AMReply

    I came (urged by a friend) for the collateral conversation but wish to post to the original thread: mimetic behavior (copying the visual structure of the Titanic poster) might happen for a couple of different, though linked, reasons (1) the Titanic Poster had moxie and the BBM poster artist was looking to achieve that same effect. This might be seen as derivative work — a mild form of visual plagiarism. But it seems to me clear that the mimesis of the BBM poster was based on a different motivation: (2) the BBM filmmakers wanted folks (there were lots of them) who went to see Titanic to believe that this movie (BBM) offered a similar emotional experience. When Sav-On puts its generic Pepto-Bismol (R) in a bright pink package it’s not because pink is an effective marketing color so much as it is because they want shoppers to link the generic product with the better-known national brand.
    This doesn’t reach the question of whether the Titanic poster had moxie to begin with — presumably the poster was a part of the movie’s success or at least didn’t get in the way of that. The antacid remedy that was marketed in bilious yellow-green didn’t establish itself as a market leader. lol.

  76. DaveMarch 7, 2006 at 10:39 AMReply

    BTW– I think the sign-in-the-front-yard analogy is NOT contributing to greater clarity on the collateral issue. What’s up with that, huh? I think it should be dropped.

  77. MarkMarch 7, 2006 at 2:06 PMReply

    But the “sign” in the front yard is exactly what I am against. Don’t you see? If you take that away from me, then I really am a bigot. No, I am not a bigot, I have no hatred for anyone. I am against the “sign” — the advertising, the legalization of homosexual marriage, the movies that convince people that sodomy is a beautiful thing (and it did that very well), the tv shows that show heterosexuals as “outsiders”, and the overt suppression of traditional family values and biblical teaching.

  78. MarkMarch 7, 2006 at 2:38 PMReply

    You know, I’m exhausted. I guess I’ve stated it every way I can. I trust that you all understand me, but for some reason, understanding me doesn’t amount to “seeing” the situation as it is (in my mind, anyway). I don’t know what to “do” about it. But that doesn’t make it alright.

  79. GrigorioMarch 7, 2006 at 7:49 PMReply

    Mark, I think you are trying to balance two fundamentally incompatible concepts: teaching others to condemn the sin while simultaneously teaching them not to condemn the sinner. I think that, personally, you CAN hate the sin and love the sinner, the problem comes when you express it (or, in your example, try to teach a child to do so), or worse yet, LEGISLATE it.

    Not all sins are equal, not in a sociological sense. If I murder your mother, that is different than if I sleep with her (sexually), which is yet again different than if I forced her to have sex (rape). Perhaps, in your “Christian” view, all sins are equal – homosexual thoughts = homosexual acts = theft = murder. Sociologically, they are NOT equivalent. They may all be sins, but it seems specious, and contrary to Biblical teaching to equate all sins as equal (otherwise the Hebrew Scriptures punishments/fines for sodomy would be equivalent to the punishments or fines for blinding someone intentionally – but they are not given equal punishment, an indication that sins are not equal in God’s Sociology). Do you think my gay sex is a greater sin than Andrew Fastow’s (ENRON) deceit, lying, manipulation, and theft of millions of dollars from hard-working people? If not on societal impact, on what do you base your conclusion?

    I am assuming that you believe that those who “do not accept Christ as their personal savior” are damned. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) And I believe that your objection to homosexuality being portrayed sympathetically in art, film, song, literature, politics, and law is that it will cause others to “fall into homosexuality,” thus moving more people away from “accepting Christ as their personal saviour” or at least making it more “difficult” to move towards accepting Christ. In other words, you believe that films like Brokeback Mountain promote an amorphous “homosexual agenda”, ultimately damning souls. (ie. the reason you don’t want a pro-gay “sign” visible around your house.)

    Again, I am making some large assumptions about your belief system, based on what I’ve gleaned.

    Several odd points on this then:

    Oddity #1: The Argument that Gay Films Increase the Number of Homosexuals in the World is Specious at Best

    The original author of the short story on which it was based seems not to have been consumed by the gay agenda. The partner team (both heterosexuals) who wrote the screenplay seem not to have been engulfed in the “homosexual agenda”. The two lead actors as well as all their supporting actresses seem not to have become converted to homosexuality either (though I was really wishing Jake would come on over to join our team, but thenm I was gay before this movie happened, and it did not change me). You are concerned about the influence on yourself or your children. It didn’t seem to affect the authors, why do you think it will affect your kids? What evidence do you have that there is a correlation? Sure, maybe a lessening of repression creates an apparent increase in open homosexuality, but I doubt that actually shifts the core inclinations of the homosexuals involved.

    Oddity #2 – There is No Such Thing As THE Gay Agenda

    Granted, maybe all the actors and writers involved were trying to make a buck off the gay community (there ARE easier ways to do it, glorifying violence, vengeance, anger, and hatred – just watch any Jerry Bruckheimer film). Maybe, instead of profit motive, they are just misguided liberals, hateful towards Christ’s message (or willfully ignorant of it), seeking to promote an “agenda” out of misguided sympathies. Maybe they’re all closeted homosexuals. Then again, maybe it’s actually a simple story, screenplay, and film about love – not even really “gay”, and not pushing any particularly “gay” agenda. maybe they have an agenda of tolerance, love, and aesthetics – but that doesn’t mean it’s part of a GAY anything.

    Oddity #3 – If All Sins are Equal, Attack Something More Prevalent in Society, Or at least something you can DO something about (like outlaw Divorce)

    If you really believe that all sins are equal, and that those who do not accept Christ are damned, what difference does it make how many sins they heap on themselves. Or are you fearing that by making gay marriage legal, your children will be tempted to become gay? Do you believe that God gives us free will so that we may CHOOSE to resist sin? How does criminalizing homosexuality promote love for Jesus? Should we try to take away people’s freedom to choose Christ and his morality? For those who have already rejected Christ, does this film make them any more damned? Would legalization of gay marriage make them any more damned? Isn’t the point of the film that they will be damned by their inner drives whether or not there are laws or social pressures against homosexuality? Didn’t sin increase not because of their love but because society saw fit to brutally murder one of them? If all sins are equal, why on earth do you bother to attack this one? Aren’t their more heterosexual fornicators roaming the streets? Heterosexual adulterers? Heterosexual liars? If, as conservatives agrue, only 1 – 2% of the population is gay, why bother? Pick a better sin to attack. If, as Kinseyists argue, 10% or more are gay – even so, that’s not even half. If divorce and fornication and adultery are legal, why the desire to enforce laws against a small minority of sinners? Why not clean up the self-proclaimed Christian fornicators, adulterers, and liars?

    Oddity #4 – What Would Jesus Legislate for Non-Christians?

    If not all sins are equal, again, why even bother to spend time and energy on a “sin” between CONSENTING adults? Why not fight violence, rape, murder, child-abuse, torture, and warfare, all of which are NOT sins of consent. I just don’t get it. What makes consensual homosexual relations so BAD? Did Jesus join any anti-prostitution leagues? Anti-gambling coalitions? “Just Say No” campaigns? Somehow I don’t recall Jesus doing that sort of thing at all. The Zealots sure did (anti-Roman clubs), and the Pharisees and Sadducees sure made stinks about heretics (like Jesus), but HE seems to focus on love and God, not legislation and campaigns for bringing an end to particular sins.

    Oddity #5 – Is Christianity Incompatible With Homosexuality?

    What on earth will happen to those Christians who are homosexual? (I am one of them.) Does our homosexual behaviour (unrepentant as it is) negate Christ’s love and sacrifice? Is Jesus that weak? Does that mean Christians who make money off others in the banking industry (usury, also a sin in the Bible), and do so unrepentantly, are equally damned? (Dante puts them lower than gays in his “Inferno”.) Are you going to mount an assault on the banking industry? I don’t recall Jesus saying ANYTHING about homosexuality, but he DOES attack moneychangers…

    Pardon my profusion. But the profession that you want to hate the sin, love the sinner, and legislate their sin into oblivion, complete with job loss for being gay, denial of housing for being gay, denial of representation in film and literature of being gay, enforced silence of their wishes and desires as gays, and denial of loving relationships with soul-mates on the basis of their gender… that’s LOVING the sinner? If that’s the love you offer, I want nothing of it. Give me freedom, not love. You don’t have to see my movies, you don’t have to peek in my bedroom, you don’t have to come to my wedding or meet my boyfriend. And you don’t have to pretend that you love me when all I can see if fear, hatred, contempt, or confusion (I am not sure which).

    Once you are without sin yourself, then sure, cast the first legislative stone and request my invisibility. Until then, keep perfecting your life in Christ and imitate Him in what he would do (which is certainly not a crusade to ban gay marriage). I admire your persistence in these posts, but I wonder how carefully you have thought out your full theology. I can see that you seek to communicate and bring us sinners to Christ, an act which I greatly admire. But it is perhaps for the Holy Spirit to convict us of our sin, and not logic and reason, which seem to fail all tests for societal “sin.”

    God Bless.

  80. MarkMarch 8, 2006 at 7:23 AMReply

    Fabulous. Posts like that are worth more than any movie. Thank you Grigorio. I am humbled by that. Honestly, I’ve probably grown more from all of this than anyone.

    “I am assuming that you believe that those who “do not accept Christ as their personal savior” are damned. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)”

    I don’t decide who IS damned. But I do know that if you accept Christ as Savior, your are NOT damned. Why would anyone reject that gift? Even the criminal crucified next to Jesus is in heaven. He was a sinner. Praise God!

    “Oddity #1: The Argument that Gay Films Increase the Number of Homosexuals in the World is Specious at Best”

    Whether there is proof or not, you have to admit that children can be influenced by what we feed them. Violence in movies, video games, and TV has brought an increase in the number of school shootings. The FDA has argued for years this very comment about mercury in vaccines not leading to Autism: “the data is specious at best”. As if the data has to be complete before anyone will listen. Well, the number of autistic children has dropped in direct correllation to the removal of mercury from vaccines post year 2001. The report was just released. (off topic, I know) It’s relevant because in not so many words, you say “prove it”. Well, I can’t.

    “legislate their sin into oblivion, complete with job loss for being gay, denial of housing for being gay”

    I never said any of that. I see why you said it though, because you think that’s what all of this would lead to. I would hope not.

    I don’t know what the answer is. It is truely quite complex. I am all for loving relationships. But it is the abuse of God’s gift of sexuality that is the problem. Yes, I see it as abuse, because it provides a “loophole” around the purpose, which is two-fold: an expression of love, and having children. So the next logical argument is, “what about birth control, coitus interuptus, and abortion? — these all do the same thing for heterosexuals” They are all sinful as well. I see the world and all aspects of life as a gift from God. We are here to experience it the way the gift was designed. Anything outside that is potentially hurtful to the gift giver. We are under a constant barrage of influences to do just that – screw around with our gifts. You are right that there are many other versions of this problem that I can go after. Drug use is a biggie. When you use drugs, you are saying to God, “Experiencing life is pretty good, but not good enough to keep me happy. I’m going to alter the way the gift of perception functions by using this drug.” That goes for asphixiation, too. The choking game is big with kids today. How offensive is that to God? I’ll quit harping on homosexuality, OK? Just remember that all things are a gift from God.

    You may laugh at these examples, but how about the loud booming bass that comes out of the kids cars? Is it a sin? No, but the gift of hearing is being abused. Pushed to the limits of what it can do, often leading to damage. Tattoos are graffiti on the gift of a body. They say, “my body isn’t pretty enough, God.” Using one’s intelligence to design weapons of mass destruction — that’s abuse of the gift. You see, the devil wants to prove to God that we are not worthy of these gifts. That we will just abuse them all. But God knows that we only abuse them because of the devil’s masterful, subtle, influences. For that reason, he gave us Jesus Christ, to die for our sins, so that anyone who believes in Him might be saved.

  81. MarkMarch 8, 2006 at 7:33 AMReply

    Thanks again Grigorio.

  82. EricMarch 9, 2006 at 1:18 PMReply

    Eric: I don’t know what commited gays should do. But I kow what I WISH they would do. I wish they would take the sign down from in front of my house. The sign telling my kids that it is acceptable, and that dad’s opinions are not acceptable.

    Mark: I’m serious about my question. I’m not talking about signs or lawns or any other metaphors. What is it you want gay people to do? Be specific.

  83. MarkMarch 9, 2006 at 3:05 PMReply

    My first answer is adequate. Don’t try to influence society into beleiving that we should all approve. Don’t try to influence society into beleiving that God approves. If anything, accept that it is questionable, and that it therefore shouldn’t be lobbied. That way, no one is responsible for leading OTHERS down a bad path (which multiplies the sin).

    You want me to speak what I see as the truth, so that you can condemn me for it. That they should somehow spontaneously become heterosexual. I know that won’t happen. Even with lots of counseling, even those homosexuals that actually WANT to change have a long difficult road.

    So, just like the rest of the world, they should try thier best to not offend God. However, we will all offend God in some way. So find Jesus Christ, who died for our salvation. The price has already been paid, we just need to accept the gift. One day, you will find yourself in heaven, and perhaps you will understand what was really going on down here. Perhaps it will be me that gets a whack on the head. Regardless, we will both be there if we accept the greatest gift ever given.

  84. EricMarch 10, 2006 at 6:01 AMReply

    “Don’t try to influence society into beleiving that we should all approve. Don’t try to influence society into beleiving that God approves. If anything, accept that it is questionable, and that it therefore shouldn’t be lobbied. That way, no one is responsible for leading OTHERS down a bad path (which multiplies the sin).”

    Mark, I’m still not sure what your asking for. How does a gay person influence society into believing that we should all approve? Here’s what I think you’re saying: Everyone knows gay people are out there, but I don’t want me or my family to be made aware of their presence. No hand holding in public, no same-sex wedding announcements in the newspapers, no TV shows with gay characters, that sort of thing. Is that right? That’s why I’m asking.

  85. MarkMarch 10, 2006 at 8:05 AMReply

    Eric,

    Your post is useful for a demonstration of the our problem.

    The first paragraph is really not all that objectionable. When stripped down to the core basic category, in fact, many would agree.

    The second paragraph shows what may be necessary to achieve the first paragraph. This is where people begin to be turned off. Even I don’t like the sound of it. This is where repression of the activity begins to morph into repression of the people.

    And, by the way, this also applies to other facets of an american culture that is absorbed into what “pop culture” feeds them. (Pop culture is based on what is popular, not what is right or wrong….there is a difference)

    This entire page of posts could easily be applied to pornography. The arguments are the same. There are those immersed in the porn culture that aren’t hurting anyone, and get a lot of pleasure out of it, even satisfaction, including the producers, performers, and patrons. In many cases though, it’s not so harmless. I would challenge you to get behind all of my arguments for about 10 minutes, against pornography (forget about homosexuality for ten minutes).

    For the fist paragraph to occur, the second paragraph is inevitable. This makes a lot of folks mad as hell, and understandably. The only solution, therefore, is to explain to those folks that are mad as hell WHY they shouldn’t be mad as hell. (thus, all of my rantings onthis page) But for those that are homosexual and proud of it, it’s like trying to explain to an artist why paints are bad. Or to a chef, why spices are bad. But from our point of view, it’s more like trying to explain to a drug addict why drugs are bad. And so it turns on and on and on…

    And so, by my own words and influence, nothing is accomplished. But by the power of God, we can all come to peace. Read the New Testament, and love God. When you read the entire book of Mark, and then the entire book of Matthew, Jesus is revealed as the Son of God. Then read the book of Luke. Every word of Christ is a glimpse into the personality and emotions of God. Peace!

  86. steveoMarch 10, 2006 at 8:54 AMReply

    Mark, all of your arguments, analogies, etc. could be applied towards other groups (such as Jews and Muslims) that are “violating” the tenets you keep repeating.

    Do you dislike Jews and Muslims as well?

    You keep trying to paint so many different analogies, and I submit to you that your flawed “logic” or views could be applied to ANYONE not sharing your religious convictions or violate your interpretation of scripture, and sadly, is the basis of such hatred and intolerance that we seem to be seeing more and more of every day.

  87. MarkMarch 10, 2006 at 9:49 AMReply

    I’m not talking about Jews or Muslims. You’ll tear apart anything I say one way or another, huh. And here I thought that I gave a pretty empathetic post.

    “for those that are homosexual and proud of it, it’s like trying to explain to an artist why paints are bad. Or to a chef, why spices are bad. But from our point of view, it’s more like trying to explain to a drug addict why drugs are bad. And so it turns on and on and on…”

    What’s flawed about that logic? I’d say that’s a pretty unbiased description of the impasse.

  88. EricMarch 10, 2006 at 10:46 AMReply

    Mark,

    You said, “for those that are homosexual and proud of it, it’s like trying to explain to an artist why paints are bad. Or to a chef, why spices are bad. But from our point of view, it’s more like trying to explain to a drug addict why drugs are bad. And so it turns on and on and on…”

    I understand the idea that the drug addict shouldn’t use drugs and the painter shouldn’t use paints. What I’m still not getting is what it is that the homosexual shouldn’t do. (Sorry if it seems like I’m beating a dead horse here.)

  89. MarkMarch 10, 2006 at 12:06 PMReply

    Oh. You want explicit descriptions of what goes on in the bedroom. Then you’ll say thet they’re not hurting anyone. But then you want me to tolerate it, accept it, and teach it through movies, tv and eventually schools. Then I go into an uproar over it, you boil it down to my objections of your private bedroom activities, which isn’t fair. Around and around we go. You see yourself as an artist defending the use of paint. You’ll never give up, and I understand why. Let’s not start all over again OK?

    I stand by my posts dated:
    03/8/06 7:23 AM.
    03/9/06 3:05 PM.
    03/10/06 8:05 AM.

  90. EricMarch 10, 2006 at 1:57 PMReply

    Mark,

    I’m not talking about what happens in the bedroom. I understand that you’re against gay sex. That’s clear. Let me come clean about where I’m coming from. I have two Moms. I grew up in a suburban neighborhood and believe it or not had a fairly normal childhood. Something my Mom’s and my sister and I have heard over and over is “Why do you have to broadcast it?” “Why do you cram it down our throats?” From the beginning it’s always left me confused. I know it confuses my Moms. What I want to know is what is it my Moms and gay people in general are doing that makes you feel they are cramming it down your throat? I’m not trying to paint you into a corner or anything like that. I just think it’s something that a lot of gay people really really wonder about.

  91. steveoMarch 12, 2006 at 9:41 AMReply

    I’m not talking about Jews or Muslims.

    Mark you never answered my question.

    You keep saying every should stop and see your point of view, using various unrelated analogies and other “groups” trying to get your point across:

    I would challenge you to get behind all of my arguments for about 10 minutes, against pornography (forget about homosexuality for ten minutes).

    Why not take your own challenge and apply your “logic” or interpetation of scripture to other groups who (by your own definition) may have not found (as you say) “God’s gift of salvation in Jesus Christ” — such as Jews and Muslims? How do you feel about them? How do those groups (in your mind) compare to your feelings about homosexuals? Please tell me how everything you’ve said only applies to your bias against sexual orientation versus religious beliefs of others?

    I’m not trying to attack you for the sake of it — I would really like to know how you see these relationships with regards to your application of what you believe to be sin/wrong/etc., especially with regards to others trying to live their own life, with their own set of beliefs, religious or otherwise.

  92. MarkMarch 13, 2006 at 8:35 AMReply

    Eric,

    You wrote” what is it my Moms and gay people in general are doing”

    I’ll try to outline the thought progression that leads to my answer.

    First, I don’t believe that it is a natural, at-birth condition. I base this belief on several relationships that I have with gay men and women that I have known since kindergarten. And yes, I also base this on the biblical teaching that it is wrong. Because I beleive in the bible as God’s word, I don’t beleive that God would make an “in-born” condition that is sinful.

    Therfore, if it isn’t in-born, then it must be either by conditioning, or by choice. I don’t know which it is for most, though I suspect it is mainly from conditioning due to the lack of gay people that have any memory of making a “choice”. I also don’t know exactly what the ingredients are for the conditioning that leads to it. The specific examples of the folks I know all had different experiences, but with a common sort of “undefinable” theme of acceptance seeking which FINALLY finds resolution in a deepening relationship with someone of the same sex. (Now, that’s how it happened from my point of view for 3 folks, two of which are siblings…I don’t pretend to know how it happens for ANY other gays)

    Because it is by conditioning (or by “choice” in some instances…college kids “experimenting”) it is not something that a parent wants thier kids exposed to. As society accepts it more and more, the “experimenting” increases more and more, and there will ineviably be more gays than 3%-5% of the population (I beleive that is the current figure). I don’t want that number to include my kids. It brings with it a LOT of baggage, which I won’t list here, but includes many social implications, physical implications, and of course, rejecting a small portion of scripture (which is cancerous to belief).

    So, to answer the question “what are they doing?”

    They are exposing my children to the idea of being gay, being proud of it, and gaining the sexual freedom from it. It will be intersting to see the percentage of children reared by gay couples that end up gay themselves. (and I’m not poking at you on this, you very well could be straight, I understand that) But if the percentage is higher among children raised by gay couples than it is for the population in general, then I will rest my case.

  93. MarkMarch 13, 2006 at 9:13 AMReply

    Steveo,

    The reason that I used pornography is because it is obvious that it is sinful, and therefore easier to see the parallel that I am presenting. For RELIGIOUS beliefs, a whole new set of comparisons is in order. So no, you can’t just drop any old group into my analogies.

    I’m not an expert on other religions, but the Jewish faith relies on the Torrah, which is Old Testament. They beleive with even more fervor what I have said about homosexuality. (forgive my spellings)

    I’m not going to publically comment on Muslims anytime this year.

    As far as living life with “your own set of beliefs”:

    This is a dangerous game that modern society has created. The idea that philosophy can replace theology. The idea that we can determine what is best for us. It’s a subliminal way of saying “we don’t need you, God”. Most people who read that know in their hearts that they don’t mean THAT. Yet they still don’t want to be told what to do, even by God. What if God himself told you what to do? Would you rejoice at the chance to do exactly what He wants you to do? Or would you be bitter and angry at His “rules”? This may be why God has given us free choice. To see which camp we’ll fall into.

  94. EricMarch 14, 2006 at 8:57 AMReply

    Mark,

    You’ve taken it on the chin quite a bit on this board so I want to say thanks for being so up front about your views on all this. For those of us that come from the other side of the debate it’s interesting to get a better sense of where the social conservative folks are coming from. Of course, I was hoping you’d give a really specific list of actions that gay people are doing that you’re unhappy with; something that we might be able to keep in mind when we interact with the more conservative people in our lives.

    Unfortunately, stuff like “Don’t act like it’s OK.” doesn’t give people much to go by. It seems that what you’re objecting to is gay people believing that their lives are OK and acting accordingly. Obviously, there’s not much room for compromise in there. That’s sad because the hostility around this subject has really intensified in the last few years. It would be great if each side could get a little more understanding of what it is that really ticks off the other side. Then maybe we could come up with a few simple guidelines that might help us all get along a bit better and turn down the intensity of the fear, anger and resulting rhetoric on both sides. (Of course, I’m sure you already know that a lot of gay families are as afraid of you as you are of them.)

    On a personal note, my Moms always emphasized that you don’t get to choose who you’re attracted to and that your sexuality, whether it’s directed toward and a man or a woman, is a gift from God and therefore should be treated with respect. As it turns out even though my sister’s and my parents – our Moms and our Dad – are all gay, we’re both heterosexually oriented. So, at least in our case, being raised by gay parents didn’t make us gay.

  95. MarkMarch 14, 2006 at 10:06 AMReply

    Thanks Eric. I made a comment above, “But if the percentage is higher among children raised by gay couples than it is for the population in general, then I will rest my case.”

    But you got me thinking… when the opposite is true, such as is with you and your sister, a little more comfort comes my way. I worry a little bit less about my kids seeing a gay couple on TV. Honestly, there’s nothing I can do about it anyway, so I HAVE to find that comfort.

    As far as more specific “things” that gay couples “do” that I am against: Typically, very little. I don’t worry about my own kids so much even when my gay brother and his partner come over. But they do know what is acceptable behaviour at a family gathering. As long as homosexuality remains a benign portion of society, I have no problems with gays. My gay sister is great, and so is her partner. They are not blatent about anything. Heck, for years I just figured they were roomates.

    But on occasion, they take over a school board and introduce homosexuality to 1st graders (Massachusets). Or they make a film that glorifies the LOVE in a homosexual relationship. No one in thier right mind is against LOVE, so the propogation advances. And lastly, they make posts like the very first one in this thread. It would appear to me to be anything but benign. IF it is possible to socially condition children to be gay, society is doing a heck of a job at giving it a try. I just don’t like the idea of waiting for 20 years to get the results of the social experiment.

    Honestly, this is the first time I’ve been outspoken on the subject. EVER.

  96. MarkMarch 14, 2006 at 11:22 AMReply

    And by the way, I don’t have any hard feelings about anything anyone has said in this thread. It’s all open debate, which I enjoy, even when good counterpoints confront me.

    It is too bad that there is so much hostility. I think it is a result crossing the line from “tolerance” to “propogation”…or at least the appearance of said propogation.

    It used to be that tolerant straight folks would day, “What they do behind thier doors is thier business. Just so long as they don’t shove it in my face.”

    Well, nowadays, the movies, tv shows, and lobbying for gay marriage has taken those same tolerant folks and turned them against gays because of the apparent breech of contract: “Just so long as they don’t shove it in my face.” It’s not the actions of the individuals like my brother, or your moms. But the actions of the group through the movies, tv shows, and lobbying. Thus the term “homosexual agenda” is born to give a name to this aetherous entity.

    What a mess. People like me are fighting against a ghost.

  97. EricMarch 14, 2006 at 12:10 PMReply

    Speaking of ghosts, a friend of mine pointed out that of all the principals responsible for Brokeback Mountain including:
    Ang Lee, Annie Proulx, Larry McMurtry, Diana Ossana, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Randy Quaid, Anne Hathaway, Michelle Williams not a single one is gay. In all honestly, I never thought I’d see a movie about a loving gay relationship made pretty much entirely without the involvement of any gay people – which I guess brings us back to where this whole conversation started.

  98. MarkMarch 14, 2006 at 12:51 PMReply

    It’s that homosexual agenda again. Too bad there isn’t some guy, like Lex Luthor that I can be upset at directly. But it is a movement.

    Thanks again Eric!

  99. WilMarch 23, 2006 at 11:02 PMReply

    It’s that silly and imaginary “homesexual agenda” again. It is as unfair as calling all who disapprove of homosexuality homophobes. It implies that there is a set of plans either by all gays or else some organization to make any and all things gay. Sure, there are groups out there with an agenda. They want to allow gays to marry, protect gays in the workplace, allow gays to adopt, etc. But there is no overall plan by all gays or plans to turn the world gay and certainly not to rid the world of Christianity. There is obviously an anti-gay agenda. Such groups have their links posted above on this list and use words like “family” and “protection” and “defense” to appear more righteous and less antagonistic.

    You want someone to be upset with directly? You’ve been given a list. Ang Lee, Annie Proulx, Larry McMurtry, Diana Ossana, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Randy Quaid, Anne Hathaway, Michelle Williams are just to start. Add Cybil Shepard, Eric McCormack, Tom Hanks, Ellen Degeneres and Tom Selleck to help make a tiny drop in the bucket.

    Oh, and you don’t want me to tell you that homosexuality is all right? Then don’t tell me that homosexuality is wrong or that I have to believe in (your) God. Not all of us need God, especially one that says being gay is a sin. Some people without religion live pleasant lives, treat others with authentic kindness, are fair and have morals that surpass many who call themselves Christian.

  100. MarkMarch 24, 2006 at 8:18 AMReply

    Yikes, that was a bit out of character for you Wil, more anger than usual. I agree that the “homosexual agenda” is imaginary in the sense of being an organized group, but a better term is not available for the advancement of social acceptance of this behaviour. Who is driving this advancement? Yeah, the list above had a part. As you say, though, they are just a drop in the bucket. But you admit, therefore, that there is a “bucket”. The bucket has a name, it is the homosexual agenda. If you can come up with a better name for it, then by all means let’s hear it.

    “Not all of us need God”

    I think we all need God, to keep our hearts beating, to keep the trees growing, and the world spinning. Get some appreciation.

    “especially one that says being gay is a sin”

    Let’s try this:

    “especially one that says cross country skiing is a sin”

    If God said cross country skiing is a sin, I will stop that activity. It is one of my favorite activities, by the way. It will be very difficult for me to give that up. But I will obey because God knows better than I. So where do YOU look to find what God wants from us? I believe that God has spoken through sripture, which is more dependable than a shifting morality created by the huge support system of society’s pop culture.

    Now there is even an HBO series bringing an empathetic look at polygamy in modern society. The machine rages on. After that gets a foothold, it will turn to lowering the sexual consent age. Homosexuality + lowered sexual consent age = NAMBLA. I’m not blaming homosexuality for pedophilia, but look at the evolution. All I ask is that you mark my words and see where this all leads in 20 years. You may even find yourself supporting it all. If not, your grandchildren will.

    “Some people without religion live pleasant lives, treat others with authentic kindness, are fair and have morals that surpass many who call themselves Christian.”

    Very true.

  101. adminMarch 24, 2006 at 8:34 AMReply

    Homosexuality + lowered sexual consent age = NAMBLA

    Excuse me Mark — you are free to voice your opinions on this (off) topic. However, you are not welcomed to correlate, suggest, say, or imply directly, indirectly, or in any other way equate homosexuality and the CRIME of pedophilia on our web site.

    Please take that somewhere else. Thanks.

  102. MarkMarch 24, 2006 at 11:19 AMReply

    My apologies. Truely, lowered sexual consent age is equally troublesome for heterosexual predators as homosexual predators. Sincerely, that was wrong of me.

    I’m getting weary, and I don’t really like who it is that I’m becoming through all of this. But I can’t seem to find peace with the topic. It’s a topic that I used to say “they aren’t hurting anyone.” In fact, I’ve even defended gays back in highschool. Something changed for me.

  103. MarkMarch 24, 2006 at 11:29 AMReply

    Please remove the last three posts. I don’t want to make that point anymore. I don’t want to make any points anymore. I am sorry for it all. I just don’t like where I’m headed anymore with this.

    I’ve got some soul searching to do. My life and frame of mind has become markedly different since my first post on December 12th. It’s so heavy, and my brain hurts. Like I said, this is the first time I’ve spoken out, and I don’t think I like where it took me.

    And no, this isn’t an imposter posting, it’s me.

  104. MarkMarch 24, 2006 at 1:06 PMReply

    Honestly, Admin. That was horrible of me. I don’t want to be associated with saying anything like that. Please delete what I said in that post… we don’t want that “association” popping posterwire up on perverted web searches. Get the word off quick. I wasn’t thinking. At least put ****** in place of the letters.

  105. adminMarch 24, 2006 at 1:30 PMReply

    I’m sorry, but we try to avoid censoring/editing other people’s posts (which has been demonstrated over and over again in this thread).

    We are not in the habit of removing posts that don’t violate site rules (such as spam, etc.).

    Your posts are anonymous (to the public), so if you’re concerned about that, no need to worry. Comments are open to the public and all posts are freely available for anyone to read. If you are worried people will have a false impression of your feelings — if they’ve read that far, I’m sure they have read your follow-ups.

    If you are really concerned about the content of this thread in general, putting it in the past by no longer reading or posting follow-ups may help.

  106. MarkApril 20, 2006 at 11:02 AMReply

    “””© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

    While two parents in Lexington, Mass., are upset about the fact their second-grade son was read a fantasy book in school about two princes getting married, what makes them even more angry is the fact the boy’s teacher said because same-sex marriage is legal in their state there is no way a mother or father can opt out a child from such experiences.

    “We are outraged,” parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin told the local Article 8 Alliance. “This is a highly charged social issue. Why are they introducing it in the second grade? And we cannot present our family’s point of view to our children if they don’t tell us what they’re saying to them.”

    According to a statement from the traditional-values organization, March 24 the Wirthlins’ second-grade son came home from Estabrook Elementary School and repeated to his mother the story read to him earlier that day about men getting married to each other. His teacher had read the book “King and King” to the class, in which a prince doesn’t want to marry any princesses, but instead falls in love with a princess’ brother and marries him in a big palace wedding.

    The Wirthlins say they immediately contacted the teacher, Heather Kramer, who acknowledged she had read the book to the class and admitted that it was not part of the curriculum.

    It was explained to the couple that since same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, discussion of the matter is fair game — parents do not have to be informed before or after the issue is presented. Kramer reportedly told the Wirthlins that the theme of the day was “weddings” and the teacher wanted to present all points of view on the subject. “””

    Now, folks, I know I’ve been tough to deal with and perhaps even unreasonable in previous posts. But I’m just curious how many of you think that exposing our children to homosexuality at this age is a good thing?

  107. WilApril 23, 2006 at 1:44 AMReply

    Plenty of us feel it’s just fine.

  108. MarkMay 1, 2006 at 10:47 AMReply

    It’s one thing to influence our kids to be open and accepting of others (I’m all for it). It’s quite another to influence them to ASPIRE to be in a homosexual relationship. 99.9% of children in 2nd grade were born by heterosexual relationships, yet homosexuals want to fight for the right to teach them this. And “plenty of us feel it’s just fine”. Once again, it comes down to YOU deciding what to teach MY children. This is what got me started on all of this in the first place.

    Listen, we had a family birthday party this weekend, and I saw the gay couples in my family. We had a great time, and shared hugs when it was over. I am very accepting of all people. Just don’t step in and complain about what I do and don’t teach my kids.

    I said I needed some soul searching. I’m done. I have balanced my acceptance of individuals with my rejection of policy and propoganda. And when you’re against the policy and propoganda, it’s easy to blur that line into anger towards individuals. I will focus my efforts on making that distinction clear, and staying on the “acceptance” side of the line.

    Accept the people, but not the policy.

  109. WilMay 9, 2006 at 9:21 AMReply

    Homosexuals are everywhere and especially in a state where same-sex marriage exists, children WILL be exposed to homosexuals. The theme was marriage and the teacher did a good job by presenting the different varieties. Do you think that the children will be influenced any more or less than the other stories presented? Will they aspire to marry Hindus? Older people? Asians? Tall people? Blondes? Rich people? It seems to me that such a story would teach kids to be accepting of others like you do, not aspire them to be homosexual.

    I would like to think that the story presents a same-sex couple in a positive relationship. Moreover, I like the fact that it is about a person who persues his own happiness rather than conform to the ideas of others leading to a miserable life, possibly ruining the lives of others as well. It certainly beats a story about a young girl breaking into stragers’ homes and eating their food, a story where the step-sisters and step-mother are practically evil, any of many stories about a princess that’s helplss until a prince comes to rescue her or a story of a young boy that climbs a beanstalk to find a great castle and robs and kills that man living inside it. I am “all for” affirming stories and I think you should be too.

    And no matter how many children were born by heterosexual relationships, it is not only homosexuals that want homosexuals to be presented in a positive manner. Many, many people are “all for it” and I think you are too.

    There are some limits as to what we can do about what is taught to kids in public schools. History, evolution, literature, etc. There is even less we can do about what our children are exposed to when it comes to the other kids. Your argument could go both ways (as almost all of these could). I certainly don’t want anyone teaching my children that homosexuality is wrong. “King and King” seems to be a good story to expose children to at an age when they are beginning to understand relationships between loved ones and seeing the variety of relationships that exist in this world. Teach them to accept.

  110. MarkMay 10, 2006 at 10:02 AMReply

    “It seems to me that such a story would teach kids to be accepting of others like you do, not aspire them to be homosexual.”

    Because you don’t have children, you are unaware of how story books influence childrens thoughts, preferences, and behaviors. I can tell you that as my girl grew up, we read to her princess type stories where the prince comes and they are married. Now she plays that type of story all the time. With her Barbies, or with dress-up clothes…etc.

    “Will they aspire to marry Hindus? Older people? Asians? Tall people? Blondes? Rich people?”

    Yes. If the story is structured properly, any of those social preferences can be positively ingrained into a childs thinking. Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t claim to know that this is what causes homosexuality for everyone. But I do know that influences and experiences DO cause some cases. I watched it happen with my brother and his friends. The three of them were friends since preschool due to the pre-existing parent’s friendships. Now all three are gay. You may argue that they “gravitated” toward each other BECAUSE they were gay. No, not this case. The friendships were prearranged. Now what are the odds of 3 gay kids to have parents who are all friends who arranged friendships when less than 5% of the population is gay? (That’s a do-able statistics problem, but not within my abilities!) Therefore, 2 were influenced by 1, or even more likely, all 3 were commonly influenced by some other set of inputs.

    “I certainly don’t want anyone teaching my children that homosexuality is wrong.”

    And I don’t want anyone teaching my children that homosexuality is right.

    Therefore, let this issue be kept in the homes, and out of our schools. That is all I am saying. Heck, the nation is so divided on this anyway, it ought to not be taught outside the homes anyway.

    I will never teach my children to hate anyone. I do teach them to be accepting of others. However, I also teach them what I believe to be moral behavior and immoral behavior.

    Teaching them that homosexual relationships are good is on the surface promoting a loving relationship. But the fine print that these kids don’t know about is that when you grow into a sexual adolescent, they will express their sexuality with someone of the same sex, which is where the immoral behavior comes in.

    Now, if they are heterosexual, and they have sex outside of marriage, that too is immoral behavior. But eventually, hopefully, they will enter into a moral sexual relationship within marriage, thus repenting of thier past indiscretions. This opportunity does not exist for the homosexual. (unless they abandon homosexuality and embrace hetersexuality—a process that is very difficult, emotionally painful, and disruptive. I don’t wish that on anyone — which is why I am against the promotion of the lifestyle from the beginning.)

    So I view any sort of “promotion” of homosexuality as an introduction to a path which leads to immoral behavior. True, the path itself can be based on love, understanding, and trust, and may even last for the first 18 years of one’s life, but at the end of the path is immoral sex.

    I can not support the path that you endorse, because of it’s end trap.

    Is Massachusetts the only state where homosexual marriage is legal?

  111. EricAugust 17, 2006 at 5:34 PMReply

    Mark.

    We get it. Homosexuality is a sin. You don’t want your children exposed to it (presumably they aren’t in contact with your bother). OK, so all you homos out there (and all your supportive family and friends) stay away from Mark’s kids.

    This has been going on for months with same arguments being repeated over and over. Everyone has made (and remade) their points. Let’s move on. Isn’t this site supposed to be about movie posters?

    Mark, I may be going out on a limb here, but you do seem to be really stuck on this topic. I think you’d be better served having this conversation with your minister or a Christian counselor or even with your brother.

  112. adminAugust 17, 2006 at 5:37 PMReply

    Let’s move on.

    I thought we had since the last comment was made over 3 months ago. ;)

  113. EricAugust 18, 2006 at 8:13 AMReply

    Oops. That’s embarassing.

  114. MarkSeptember 28, 2006 at 11:23 PMReply

    I am not a heterosexual. I am a man. I behave in a heterosexual manner. One of the greatest injustices society has done is to “define” people by thier actions. Once you accept your definition, you can’t imagine changing your actions. Your actions become a part of you. That’s too bad. The only definition I accept for myself is that of a man. My behavior changes as I grow and mature and learn. If I define myself by my actions of “jogger”, then I will have a real delimma when I learn that God forbids jogging. It would feel like “God is rejecting me, because I am , after all, a jogger”. I would go into depression. But no. I am a man who likes jogging. If I learn that God forbids it, I will give it up, because it doesn’t define me. I am a man. I choose my own actions. And I choose them in accordance to God’s word.

    In the book of Genesis, it doesn’t say “God created tall man” or “God created white man” or even “God created heterosexual man”.

    It simply says “God created man.” So here we are. How should we behave?

    The book continues with God’s prescription for how a man “shall” behave. It does not say “may” or “might”….It says “shall”. Are there any lawyers out there? “Shall” is pretty absolute.

    Genesis 2:24
    Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

    This is an edict.
    http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/edict

    God has reasons for all of His edicts. Sometimes, they aren’t clear to everyone. But we should trust in Him, and follow His commands, lest we deny Him.

    Why do I behave in a heterosexual manner? Mainly, I never gave it much thought. I came to me naturally. Some people aren’t so lucky. They are bombarded with imagery, neglect, abuse, rejection, and who knows what other experiences that lead them to behave in other ways. That’s why I am against media’s and society’s exaltation of homosexual behavior.

    Now as for Eric. Sarcasm is not an argument. In fact, you’re sarcasm was actually an admition! But with the power of sarcasm, it suddenly feels “ok” to go ahead and choose that sinful behavior.

    Here’s the bad part. If my points are valid, and the best anyone can do is call me names (like “intollerant”) or be sarcastic, then I have not only ‘stated’ my case, I have ‘proven’ my case. Do not reject the truth with sarcasm…that is only fooling yourself…purposefully wearing blinders. CHOOSING your sins.

    If you do that, friends, you really should think about investigating God’s plan and edicts for YOURSELF. Stop sleeping at the wheel and take control of your choices.

    THE GOOD NEWS is that it is not too late. Jesus Christ died for not just my sins, but for my grandchildrens sins, my great great great grandchildrens sins, and every person who ever sins sins! But it is a gift that each of us either accepts or rejects. You must learn how to accept the gift. — or else you will be unwittingly rejecting the gift.

    That’s the devil’s secret. He get’s people to UNWITTINGLY reject the free salvation given to us by Jesus Christ.

  115. MarciaApril 10, 2007 at 8:34 AMReply

    Well Brokeback Mountain has been around for a year and a half now, has made several “100 Best Movies” lists and is starting to show up as a topic in college-level film and sociology courses people are still weighing in with theology that’s right on the cutting edge of the 14th century!

    Of course, 9/11 should have taught us all that there are folks out there worshipping a very evil God, but we can all use some reminding from time to time. But Mark can post all the tracts punctuated with all-caps words that he wants – the homophobes are on the wrong side of history.

  116. MarkApril 25, 2007 at 1:48 PMReply

    Well Brokeback Mountain has been around for a year and a half now, has made several “100 Best Movies” lists and is starting to show up as a topic in college-level film and sociology courses

    Good comment, but popularity doesn’t equal morality.

    people are still weighing in with theology that’s right on the cutting edge of the 14th century!

    Just because something is old doesn’t make it false. Truth doesn’t go in and out of fasion. With your logic, you should go burn a bible. Or a textbook by Newton.

    What’s your theological base Marcia? Christianity? Hindu? Aetheist? I’m just curious as to which theological base DOES agree with you.

    Or perhaps you are starting your own church. I’ll bet it goes soemthing like this: “Everything about Christianity is what we beleive (except for the parts about homosexual acts, abortion, and divorce) No repentance required because they are OK.”

    Again, I have to say: I’m not against taking away your freedom to do what you want. But I AM against you marketing it to my kids in the media and schools as an acceptable act that doesn’t require repentance. That’s the only reason homosexuality has such a huge fight on thier hands.

    Now, in an LA times poll in 2005, here was the stance on abortion:

    12% favored making abortion totally illegal.
    41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
    19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
    24% favored making abortion always legal

    With such division within our country, I would suggest that we not teach either stance in our public school system. Let the parents decide how to teach about it. If you DO teach it in our schools, it must be completely non-biased as to whether it is acceptable or not. It is not fair, based on the polls, to make a unilateral decision to teach that abortion is acceptable. Society can argue and debate for ever about this topic, and never agree. Therefore, it should only be taught in a non-biased way, if at all. Any other course would be discrimination against SOMEBODY.

    The same holds true with homosexuality. (No, I’m not comparing homosexuality with abortion. I’m comparing SOCIETY’S DIVISION on the subject of homosexuality with societies division on the subject of abortion. That’s fair.)

    With such division in our country, it should not be taught as either acceptable OR unacceptible. If anything, it should be given an unbiased view. Is it possible to include homosexuality in our classrooms without actually promoting it, OR discriminating against it? I don’t know. That’s a very fine line. But IF it could be done, would the gay rights movement be satisfied? Not likely. Would the “homophobes” be satisfied? Probably not. So leave it out completely.

    Regarding the “unfairness” of teaching hetersexual relationships in the classroom but not homosexual relationships: There doesn’t seem to be ANY division in our country on whether hetersexual relationships are acceptible. Anything that is unanimous is fair game to be taught in our schools.

    Of course, 9/11 should have taught us all that there are folks out there worshipping a very evil God, but we can all use some reminding from time to timeWhat?!? I don’t know what to say to that. I have repeatedly, throughout these posts, emphasised that I am NOT a hater of people. I do NOT condone any sort of violence. So how does that even compare to 9/11? “Of course”…as if!

    But Mark can post all the tracts punctuated with all-caps words that he wants What next, you gonna make fun of my use of apostrophes? Why do I always have to contend with bullsh**? I am forever weeding out the arguments that have zero relevancy to the points I make. You fight dirty. Your first two comments were at least on the radar of the topic. But these two are just smoke and mirrors.

  117. MarkMay 2, 2007 at 2:53 PMReply

    Check out this video. It is a clip from the Gay indoctrination film that is used in our schools.

    http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html

    At one point in the video, a young boy is asked what he means when he uses the term “open-minded”. His response goes something like this:

    “If you have a new vegatable on your plate, if you are not open-minded, you would not try the vegatable. But if you are open-minded, you’ll try it, and you will probably like it”

    Exposed here by this young boy is the real effect of early education on homosexuality. “Try it. You might like it”.

    In the process of opening our childrens minds to accept others that are homosexual, we are actually encouraging them to step outside what comes naturally to them; try homosexuality and see how you like it.

  118. Self Love « Posterwire.com « the movie poster weblogJune 2, 2008 at 12:26 PMReply

    […] Tuxedo” poster look just a bit phallic? Maybe we are seeing things with so much talk about Brokeback Mountain and the Oscars […]

  119. WilNovember 3, 2008 at 3:35 PMReply

    Wow. Two years since I’ve posted but only one for Mark. Where are we today? Are really taking a quote from one child a thought process for all situations? If you’re open-minded, try some lye. You might like it.

    Yes, popularity does not equal morality. That’s why even if prop 8 wins in California, its still wrong.

  120. MarkDecember 8, 2008 at 12:55 PMReply

    Wil said: “”Wow. Two years since I’ve posted but only one for Mark.””

    Irrelevant. I do check in on this thread from time to time while I browse the rest of the posters. ANy point that you are trying to make is irrelevant.

    Wil Said: “”Yes, popularity does not equal morality. That’s why even if prop 8 wins in California, its still wrong.””

    I guess I should have said popularity has no bearing on morality. It’s not an indicator of immorality as you just suggested.

    But it is funny how you will suddenly agree with me when it suits you. But you used faulty logic. Just because “popularity doesn’t equal morality” (which is what I said) doesn’t mean “popularity equals immorality” (which is what you were getting at).

    So logically, I can stand by my comment and reject yours.

    But whats REEALLY funny is that what you actually said is “popularity equals immorality IF Prop 8 passes.” It must be strange having such changeable ideals!

  121. WilJanuary 7, 2009 at 6:16 PMReply

    Popularity can be moral and popularity can be immoral. Both are possible so they are not changeable ideas. I never said one is an indicator of the other. You can obviously reject whatever you want as can anyone. You should not try to interpret anyone’s words to mean anything other than they had intended.

  122. MarkMarch 10, 2009 at 11:06 AMReply

    Will said, “I never said one is an indicator of the other.”

    Well, I guess you weren’t thinking your logic through when you said, “Yes, popularity does not equal morality. That’s why even if prop 8 wins in California, its still wrong.”
    (emphasis added)

    “That’s why” is a loose term for “therefore” which is a logical term. Which is a really major point I want to make. Using loose logical terms like that seem to keep you advancing certain statements as fact, while keeping an “out” available so you can say “I never said it was an indicator”.

    Those little fake logical terms are powerful. They allow you to convince others without providing proof.

    It’s a peeve of mine. I hate to belabour the point, but it seems to be the backbone of many arguments. It is why this thread is over 120 posts long.

    But yes, you’re last post (which pretty much negates your previous post) is correct, popularity can be moral and popularity can be immoral. Or as I said before “popularity does not equal morality.” Now that you agree with me, go back and read why I wrote it, and stop trying to turn it around against me just because you know my position.

  123. MeganDecember 5, 2009 at 4:04 PMReply

    HOLY CRAP, PEOPLE!!!!!! ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN ARGUING, ALREADY!!!!

    The posters have similar designs, but my opinion is that the Brokeback Mountain poster is NOT a copy of the Titanic poster.

    BUT FOR CRYIN’ OUT LOUD!!! SHUT THE HELL UP WITH THE GODDAMN ARGUING!!!!

    Mark, I, too, have gay family members and I love them very much, but homosexuality is NOT a sin. WE’RE NOT IN THE 16th CENTURY, HERE!!!!!

  124. MeganDecember 5, 2009 at 4:07 PMReply

    “Wil Said:“”Yes, popularity does not equal morality. That’s why even if prop 8 wins in California, its still wrong.”””

    Same-sex marriage isn’t wrong. I think it’s perfectly fine. I think that the Prop 8 SHOULD pass!!!!

  125. Movie poster heaven | The Sheila VariationsJuly 13, 2010 at 2:15 PMReply

    […] one example – a side by side analysis of the poster for Titanic and the poster for Brokeback […]

  126. Movie Poster Challenge - Girl with a Virtual CameraMay 25, 2016 at 2:27 PMReply

    […] more closely. Hugely popular and iconic, it has parallels to other posters, as pointed out in this article comparing the Brokeback Mountain and Titanic […]

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

About

Posterwire Posterwire features articles, news, links, and commentary about movie posters.

Check out our movie poster articles, links to movie poster websites, and gallery of movie poster images.

Gallery
  • Drew Struzan: Oeuvre
  • The Art of Drew Struzan
  • Inglourious Movie Poster Illustration
  • Bob Peak Movie Poster Exhibition
  • One Letter Off
  • Personal Bollywood Movie Poster
  • Art of the Modern Movie Poster
  • Animated Terminator Salvation Poster
  • Dane Cook: Movie Poster Critic
Search
Archives
Follow Us