Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Why does America make a big deal about Brokeback Mountain simply because it has two gay guys, yet when they see bloody, gruesome, horrible death they couldn't careless.

I've seen movies that show people cutting there wrists, mutilating people's corpses and no one cares about that stuff - why?

Gay guys are gross

Well. if they're ugly


I mean Jake Gyllenhaal is pretty hot... and Heath Ledger is australian. So... it doesnt matter if hes hot or not cause its already a given hes going to be.



But i do see your point DN

cause the american mentallity is shocked by sex and desensitised to violence when it's the other way in most other parts of the world. That's why a movie like closer would probably recieve a less severe rating than raiders of the lost ark, depending on the country.
Plus it seems like the only filmmaker in this country who has a liscence to depict gay people as the are without any stereotyping is Kevin Smith.

Mostly because our culture just simply has violence as a part of it. (I'm talking America) To be honest, homosexuality is just wierd to those that aren't homosexuals. However, making a big deal out of it just makes no sense on both sides of this argument. If you don't like what the movie is about, your best protest is just don't buy it.

How is homosexuality weird? is it the physical act of love?
These days you can't even watch straight porn without seeing a girl take it in the butt or turn forty without getting a prostate exam (unless your a squeemish dipshit who'd rather die a slow and painful death) so that shouldn't be weird.

Originally posted by Thunderstrike
Mostly because our culture just simply has violence as a part of it. (I'm talking America) To be honest, homosexuality is just wierd to those that aren't homosexuals. However, making a big deal out of it just makes no sense on both sides of this argument. If you don't like what the movie is about, your best protest is just don't buy it.
Don't speak for all heterosexuals.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
How is homosexuality weird? is it the physical act of love?
These days you can't even watch straight porn without seeing a girl take it in the butt or turn forty without getting a prostate exam (unless your a squeemish dipshit who'd rather die a slow and painful death) so that shouldn't be weird.

I don't watch porn. Gross stuff. Men weren't built to have sex with other men. It's not in our chemistry. If you believe in evolution, then the first thought in your mind should be that what the person is doing isn't good for the entire human race.

Originally posted by Eis
Don't speak for all heterosexuals.
Don't you either. A good percentage of America thinks it's odd. Why the hell else would it be illegal in most states for homosexuals to be married? Wait, wait, I know the first thought in your mind is, "They're a bunch of ignorant Rednecks, or bunch of ignorant bigots." To be honset, it takes one to know one in that case. You're just as close-minded if you're telling someone that they're wrong flat out without looking at all the angles.

If your denying someone's liberty than by the tennants of the constitution and the declaration of independance of this country you ARE wrong.

Originally posted by Thunderstrike
I don't watch porn. Gross stuff. Men weren't built to have sex with other men. It's not in our chemistry. If you believe in evolution, then the first thought in your mind should be that what the person is doing isn't good for the entire human race.


Don't you either. A good percentage of America thinks it's odd. Why the hell else would it be illegal in most states for homosexuals to be married? Wait, wait, I know the first thought in your mind is, "They're a bunch of ignorant Rednecks, or bunch of ignorant bigots." To be honset, it takes one to know one in that case. You're just as close-minded if you're telling someone that they're wrong flat out without looking at all the angles.
What the ****? I didn't for a second speak for all heterosexuals. You said and I quote you 'homosexuality is just weird to those that aren't homosexuals.' I said don't speak for all heterosexuals.

I'm not denying anyone's liberty. What the heck are you babbling about?

Originally posted by Eis
What the ****? I didn't for a second speak for all heterosexuals. You said and I quote you 'homosexuality is just weird to those that aren't homosexuals.' I said don't speak for all heterosexuals.

What I was trying to get across is that for the general public, homosexuality is odd. Not every heterosexual thinks it is, but many do. I have friends who are homosexuals, and they know I think it's wierd. My friend Jamie put it best like this: "If I went of and shoved my beliefs down your throat, I might as well try to rape you and force you to think what I think. If I make love to someone, they have a general consensus. Last time I checked, making love was better than rape, and being yourself was better than being a jerk."

Jamie is a lesbian, and it's not her real name either. I just threw one out there so I protect her rights.

you're denying gay couples the liberty to be married and recognized as having the same legal status and rights as a straight married couple.

Originally posted by Thunderstrike
What I was trying to get across is that for the general public, homosexuality is odd. Not every heterosexual thinks it is, but many do. I have friends who are homosexuals, and they know I think it's wierd. My friend Jamie put it best like this: "If I went of and shoved my beliefs down your throat, I might as well try to rape you and force you to think what I think. If I make love to someone, they have a general consensus. Last time I checked, making love was better than rape, and being yourself was better than being a jerk."

Jamie is a lesbian, and it's not her real name either. I just threw one out there so I protect her rights.
That wasn't necessary. You said 'homosexuality is weird to those that aren't homosexuals.' that statement was WRONG, period. Good day.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
you're denying gay couples the liberty to be married and recognized as having the same legal status and rights as a straight married couple.

I didn't deny jack. I didn't vote on the matter. Also, when these laws were written out, Gay marriage wasn't something that people accepted. At all. I didn't write the laws. I just follow them. If such and such wants to get married, find a place that it's legal and get married. If it isn't legal, try to change the laws, but don't go yelling at me because the law is the way it is.

the state laws violate the 14th ammendment of the constitution and so aren't worth shit but are enforced anyway cause federal judges won't do their jobs.

Here it is:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It's Congress' decision then. Nothing is being violated. They're the ones enforcing the provisions by appropriate legislation. If homosexuals are denied, then they have to live with it. There's no violation if you read the whole ammendment carefully.

It doesn't state that enforcing the article is a choice, only that congress has the power to enforce it.

If it's gone through due process, and Congress isn't objecting to anything, it's gonna stand as is. Sometime in the future, maybe 10 or 15 years down the road, it may be legalized. Nowadays, probably no.

Originally posted by Eis
That wasn't necessary. You said 'homosexuality is weird to those that aren't homosexuals.' that statement was WRONG, period. Good day.


Actually, it'd be more of the norm, especially the older the individual. You're young- in your day, homosexuality has broken a lot of stigmas and come out as something very prevalent and almost like a trend. While it's always existed, the attitude towards it is only just now changing in the United States. However, back when I was young (Between twelve and fifteen), it was NOT something well understood or well liked. I went to school in over four different states during that span of time, and in each one suspected or verified homosexuals were picked on and outright attacked on a daily basis. If you looked to the parents, the average parent was against the idea of their child being gay and suspicious of others whom they suspected were different. This doesn't speak for ALL heterosexual people in a nutshell, but it is a point of how viewpoints are only just now changing. Not everyone's going to be comfortable with it yet, and certainly no one should jump down their throat for not being comfortable with it (Unless they're openly being hateful, which is different).

Good point Darth Nepulis,

I'd rather there be no "gay" movies but if people are freaking out over gay movies then movies about blood and gore should be treated the same but they never will be it is a matter of opinion and THAT is a WHOLE other topic

Brokeback mountain is getting a lot of attention because of the Oscars. How ever this is not the first gay movie by any stretch. Anyone remember the one with Wesley Snipes and Patrick Swazee and another one with robin williams? They were all transvestites.

Originally posted by Darth Nepulis
Why does America make a big deal about Brokeback Mountain simply because it has two gay guys, yet when they see bloody, gruesome, horrible death they couldn't careless.

I've seen movies that show people cutting there wrists, mutilating people's corpses and no one cares about that stuff - why?

I rather see people getting shot than two guys holding hands.

Originally posted by Darth Nepulis
Why does America make a big deal about Brokeback Mountain simply because it has two gay guys, yet when they see bloody, gruesome, horrible death they couldn't careless.

I've seen movies that show people cutting there wrists, mutilating people's corpses and no one cares about that stuff - why?

Because its somehow ok to make movies about rapists, serial killers, child abusers and other gruesome things, but God forbid you make a movie with gays in it. That could significantly damage everyone in their decision to be straight.

Obviously making movies with mind numbing violence is ok. Its more dangerous to show people that gay =/= sex, but gay = love too, than some guy getting his head blown off.

But isn't a guy getting his head blown off part of Brokeback Mountain?


I'm confused.

It's only ok to have gay people in movies if they are reduced to stereotypes or comic relief.
like too wong foo, the birdcage, the producers, i could go on and on.

Originally posted by Thunderstrike
Mostly because our culture just simply has violence as a part of it. (I'm talking America) To be honest, homosexuality is just weird to those that aren't homosexuals. However, making a big deal out of it just makes no sense on both sides of this argument. If you don't like what the movie is about, your best protest is just don't buy it.

That's exactly it. Violence is and has always been a large part of American culture and history; and it's nothing new either; it goes way back: the Revolution, killing Native Americans, the Slave Trade, the Civil War, killing more Native Americans, Prohibition, street gangs, the Roaring Twenties, organized crime, Civil Rights, The War on Drugs, etc, etc, etc... So murder, blood, and guts, is not a big deal, because in a way it tells how many Americans feel about different issues and actually gives us vicarious enjoyment because its something to relate to.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, has never been a factor in American history and gays and "gayness" have never really contributed to American development. James Buchanan was "allegedly" gay ; and J. Edgar Hoover was the FBI Director for over 40 years. But they were in the closet. Hoover did a lot, but Buchanan's contributions were minimal. And yes, it's just plain weird and really unnatural to be gay to many Americans.

America has Puritan roots and ideals that trickle down through the laws for the last few hundred years. But now, the world is getting smaller, and the population more diverse, and old laws are being challenged. Hence, views on homosexuality are under revision.

Simple - Screwed up priorities and morals on the part of the most preachy and idiotic folk in the country. Unfortunately, it's usually these loud mouth idiots who voice their opinion the most, thus making it seem as if they're in the majority.

It's been like this for a while. Watching murder and death is okay, watching two people express love - Call the FCC, I don't want my kids seeing that!

because movies are made specificly to garner a response from it's audience. To attain this, generally they include aspects of different characters that people can relate to. Many of us would much rather be gruesomely, violently murdered than ****ed in the ass.

throwing an idea out there how about a horror film with a gay couple in it!!!!!!!shocking

It's been done.

Yeah, I have to agree with that. Gory movies can be depicted as "real" or "epic" or "edgey". There's no great catchphrases for gay dramas.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Yeah, I have to agree with that. Gory movies can be depicted as "real" or "epic" or "edgey". There's no great catchphrases for gay dramas.

How about "disgusting".

No, we're looking for catchphrases that get peoples' interest. But really, who's going to see this movie unless they're women or gay or both? There's nothing to appeal to heterosexual males. Meanwhile, gore has plenty of fun and splatter for everyone.

And really, neither of them "convert" children or society into murderers and gay people any more than say... a novel can. Nobody burns Brokeback Mountain, the book, right? And no one burns all of Stephen King's books. What's the point?

I'd like to think that Brokeback Mountain being a very very good film is enough to get people to see it, but alas, guess that isn't the case for a lot of people who would rather watch Bringing Down the House 3 than a great and important movie.

Great and important are subjective terms. I realize that there's more to this movie than controversy, and that it might be a genuinely good movie, but that doesn't really make me want to run out and watch it. If it comes on tv or something, yeah okay. It's very rarely that I have the luxury to sit down and watch a movie uninterrupted, so I tend to gravitate towards what I really wanna see.

And Bringing Down the House 3 is not one of them. I was holding out for 4... lol

Originally posted by BackFire
Call the FCC, I don't want my kids seeing that!

"Because then I'd have to EXPLAIN IT!"

-AC

A movie being genuinely good doesn't make you want to go and watch it?

Don't follow that reasoning, but alright.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Because then I'd have to EXPLAIN IT!"

-AC

Yeah I know, God forbid people be good parents these days, takes too much time away from watching American Idol and The O.C.!

Originally posted by BackFire
Simple - Screwed up priorities and morals on the part of the most preachy and idiotic folk in the country. Unfortunately, it's usually these loud mouth idiots who voice their opinion the most, thus making it seem as if they're in the majority.

It's been like this for a while. Watching murder and death is okay, watching two people express love - Call the FCC, I don't want my kids seeing that!

Couldn't have put it better myself Nice.

Originally posted by BackFire
A movie being genuinely good doesn't make you want to go and watch it?

Don't follow that reasoning, but alright.

The Ten Commandments is a genuinely good movie. Do you own a copy?

There's a LOT of movies that are "good". But the type of movie (dramatic love story) doesn't really make me want to run out and watch it. If I saw every movie that was "genuinely good", I'd have less free time than I already do. There's just nothing about the story or setting that is appealing.

I don't own it, but I've seen it.

If I think a film is going to be genuinely very good, then I'm going to make a point to see it at least once.

Well, I see what you're saying. I'm just different. And I have a short attention span when it comes to new movies, so I forget that they're out until they're on video.

Originally posted by thorncrawler
throwing an idea out there how about a horror film with a gay couple in it!!!!!!!shocking

"From the co-creator of Halloween and the executive producer of A Nightmare On Elm Street is Hellbent, the first gay slasher film!"

Thunderstrike> "Men weren't built to have sex with other men. It's not in our chemistry."
Says WHO?

"A good percentage of America thinks it's odd. Why the hell else would it be illegal in most states for homosexuals to be married? Wait, wait, I know the first thought in your mind is, "They're a bunch of ignorant Rednecks, or bunch of ignorant bigots." To be honset, it takes one to know one in that case. You're just as close-minded if you're telling someone that they're wrong flat out without looking at all the angles."

This is the best example of bad argumentation-technique I have seen ALL evening. Glad to see you're on teh other side of the fence. That a "good percentage" (which? Where are your numbers?) thinks something doesn't make it true. Once a "good percentage" thought commoners shouldn't be allowed to vote, slavery was alright and the Earth was flat!
Then you go on and ASSUME the stand-point of your opponent to attack him personally!! THIS is really hilarious! Shame on you....

Lil bithiness>"That could significantly damage everyone in their decision to be straight." Good point! YES! Violent movies make people more violent so of course movies with gay people will make us ALL more gay (<=irony, to the intellectually challenged).

BF> Clear, concise and humourous as always.

Originally posted by The Omega
Thunderstrike> "Men weren't built to have sex with other men. It's not in our chemistry."
Says WHO?

Biology 101

^That's a question that doesn't even require an answer.

DiamondBullets>
You DO sound rather brainwashed from time to time.... Seriously. The words "Biology 101" do not say men were not built to have sex with other men.
Where in "Biology 101" does it say men were built to... shave? Drive cars? Wear glasses?
No, wait... Don't... bother...

Originally posted by The Omega
DiamondBullets>
You DO sound rather brainwashed from time to time.... Seriously. The words "Biology 101" do not say men were not built to have sex with other men.
Where in "Biology 101" does it say men were built to... shave? Drive cars? Wear glasses?
No, wait... Don't... bother...

Biology states that reproduction is to occur between members of the opposite sex of the same species.

key word: OPPOSITE

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Biology states that reproduction is to occur between members of the opposite sex of the same species.

key word: OPPOSITE

You would almost have a point if sex was solely for procreation or if homosexuals had sex with one another expecting to reproduce.

I would just like to state that although the very thought of any religion in general makes me sick, The Ten Commandments is my favorite movie of all time.......and I do own a copy.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
I would just like to state that although the very thought of any religion in general makes me sick, The Ten Commandments is my favorite movie of all time.......and I do own a copy.

Yeah, The Ten Commandments is just a classic. It was on tv this weekend and I caught part of it while at work.

Diamondbullets> "Biology states..."

Stop! You're killing me!!! Biology states NOTHING about having sex for fun! Like dolphins have and humans and a species of apes ...
"Where in "Biology 101" does it say men were built to... shave? Drive cars? Wear glasses?"
Why don't you go ballistic over lesbian sex? Because it turns you on, maybe??

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Biology states that reproduction is to occur between members of the opposite sex of the same species.

key word: OPPOSITE

Biology is a denotative. It is purely fact. You should say "If reproduction..." - the way you write it sounds like some sort of imperative.

But anyway - Biologically speaking the female body can be kept in an almost constant state of pregnancy up to menopause - does this mean that nine months of every year a women should be with child? Once back in our more primal days reproduction might have been an instinct and full time like that, but we are beyond that.

Biologically speaking a male can remain fertile up to (and over) the age of seventy. Biologically speaking he can mate and reproduce with many, many, many women. Should he? We are beyond such necessities.

And so on and so on. One of the pleasures of being sentient creatures is that we are not slaves to such conditions, and haven't been for some time. Sex is just as much for recreation now as reproduction. Likewise science has made it now that a same sex couple (two women) can have a child, or that two men or two women can adopt - sperm donors and and children awaiting adoption. We don't run out lives from a biology text book that says "reproduction is to occur between members of the opposite sex of the same species." We have moved beyond that, and it is time to face it.

A homosexual relationship is just as valid as a heterosexual one - whether it is casual, or a full time commitment built on love. Reproduction need not enter into it for either groups, and if it does then there are avenues that can be taken for both. The benefit of living in an increasingly enlightened society.



A sentiment I agree with entirely.

Originally posted by BlackC@


I've seen movies that show people cutting there wrists, mutilating people's corpses and no one cares about that stuff - why?

Why the *BEEP* would I care? It's a friggin movie! It's NOT real! If it would be real I would care and feel disgusted. But is NOT! So if I happen to enjoy a movie like let's say Hostel over Brokeback Mountain and I happen to enjoy it more than BM...does that mean I don't care??? Pleeeaase! The simple fact that BM keeps getting all these awards and praise is leading me to be suspicious that this could the new "Titanic" of this decade. And overblown romantic movie with a tragic end....sounds like something outta of a chick's flick.

Originally posted by Thunderstrike
You're just as close-minded if you're telling someone that they're wrong flat out without looking at all the angles.
I could care less about this topic or BlackC@t's strange diversion from what was a cool username, but I guarantee you that everytime someone makes a statement like the one I'm quoting, nobody will respond to it.

Originally posted by BlackC@
Why does America make a big deal about Brokeback Mountain simply because it has two gay guys, yet when they see bloody, gruesome, horrible death they couldn't careless.

I've seen movies that show people cutting there wrists, mutilating people's corpses and no one cares about that stuff - why?

Sweet, it's changed, and to an even better name than what was probably one of the top 5 usernames here at KMC.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
because movies are made specificly to garner a response from it's audience. To attain this, generally they include aspects of different characters that people can relate to. Many of us would much rather be gruesomely, violently murdered than ****ed in the ass.

True enough.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like anal sex is something anybody does. Not like there aren't a lot of perfectly normal heterosexual couples that like that kind of thing, or have experimented with it.

But seriously, that makes it sound like it is homosexual pornography, which it isn't (if you wished to get all technical one would say it was tasteful.)

And are you actually saying that more people can relate to a person being gruesomely murdered with a rusty meat hook, then we can relate to two people being in a sexual (loving) relationship? I mean, I don't know anybody who has been gruesomely murdered. I haven't been gruesomely murdered myself. Most people are the same. I don know heterosexual and homosexual couples though - I can relate to friends, and characters that have something worth relating to - whether they are fighting for their lives, or just living them.

So I can't see how in this case one situation (the one least likely to happen and the more fantastical - ie gruesome murder) is easier to relate to then another situation (that is a normal part of many societies and a person is more likely to encounter - ie homosexual relationships.)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
True enough.


god, wouldn't it be great if you were put to the test. ****ed in the ass, or death. I suppose you would march, with nobility, into death.

Riiiight.

Please, you'd be bent over faster than a two dollar hooker. Takinging it on one end, and praising Jesus with the other.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
god, wouldn't it be great if you were put to the test. ****ed in the ass, or death. I suppose you would march, with nobility, into death.

Riiiight.

Please, you'd be bent over faster than a two dollar hooker. Takinging it on one end, and praising Jesus with the other.

Indeed. In order to have a basis for comparison, he would have to have experienced both.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
god, wouldn't it be great if you were put to the test. ****ed in the ass, or death. I suppose you would march, with nobility, into death.

I would take death, thank you.--Drowned, burned alive, dipped in acid, fed to wolves, whatever.....

so then are you never getting a prostate exam?

I dont really have anything against gay movies,I mean,I dont like it,so I dont watch the shit.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
I would take death, thank you.--Drowned, burned alive, dipped in acid, fed to wolves, whatever.....

Just a sugestion, maybe you should visit the burns ward at a hospital - trust me, it's easy to say that, but reality is a very different matter.

don't waste your time, the guy pmed me and made it very clear how much he despises gay people

Originally posted by Darth Jello
so then are you never getting a prostate exam?

lol

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
god, wouldn't it be great if you were put to the test. ****ed in the ass, or death. I suppose you would march, with nobility, into death.

Riiiight.

Please, you'd be bent over faster than a two dollar hooker. Takinging it on one end, and praising Jesus with the other.

Whoever this was directed to, they should take the Cap't's rant seriously, for he has clearly stated that he does not serve as the catcher...so this is almost equal footing here.

Some people need to open their mind to the possibilities of anal play.

jawdrop

Originally posted by Storm
Some people need to open their mind to the possibilities of anal play.

Yeah...also some people enjoy to add an animal for even more sexual pleasure.....

Don't blame me...I don't have a Brain to filter my thoughts...

Does it have to be a gerbil? I'd like to be a bit more open to the type of animal involved. I was thinking more along the lines of a raccoon, but is there a need to make sure they don't have rabies first? Thanks.

To say that ALL gay men have anal sex, is very wrong. Its also wrong to think that all gay men LIKE anal sex.
Some do not engage in other than oral, others do not engage in sex at all.

Anal sex is a matter of personal perferance. I don't like it, but there are people who do, and thats cool. Make the best of what you like doing in the bedroom (between consenting adults), I say!

Originally posted by botankus
Does it have to be a gerbil? I'd like to be a bit more open to the type of animal involved. I was thinking more along the lines of a raccoon, but is there a need to make sure they don't have rabies first? Thanks.


I'll PM you about the tips and tricks of what was once referred to as Sodomy.....

Thanks! Be sure to attach pictures. Of you, preferably.

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/1452/7pluckylump1mx.jpg

Originally posted by Janus Marius
http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/1452/7pluckylump1mx.jpg

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
god, wouldn't it be great if you were put to the test. ****ed in the ass, or death. I suppose you would march, with nobility, into death.

Riiiight.

Please, you'd be bent over faster than a two dollar hooker. Takinging it on one end, and praising Jesus with the other.

Absurd logic.

My life will never take that course.

We can play the "what if" game all day if you wish, but it is rather counter-productive.

I would react much different than you suppose anyway.

After death is heaven, I would only go home sooner.

And the power of my Lord and Saviour is greater than that of any would-be rapists who might try to somehow prove that homosexual sex is natural by FORCING IT on me.

(Much in the same way that popular modern culture, the homosexual movement, and movies like "Fudgepack Mountain" are trying to do now.)

Imperial Samurai> No, really, like Dart Jello says, do not bother. DB has even had so much time on his hand he's PM'ed both of us with his homophobic BS.

Lil Bitchiness> I think we're wasting out time... again. It's like with abortion. Some people are set on the delusion that THEIR way is not only the right way, but MUST be forced upon others whether they like it or not.

You know, this is happening more often. It is tedious and rather worrying, I find.

Lil bitchiness> Worrying! If I find a poster tedious I just ignore him. What happened to "live and let live"? Are we just living in a era where some people have a great need to find groups of people and then condemn them to hell and back?? What do you think?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Absurd logic.

My life will never take that course.

We can play the "what if" game all day if you wish, but it is rather counter-productive.

I would react much different than you suppose anyway.

After death is heaven, I would only go home sooner.

And the power of my Lord and Saviour is greater than that of any would-be rapists who might try to somehow prove that homosexual sex is natural by FORCING IT on me.

(Much in the same way that popular modern culture, the homosexual movement, and movies like "Fudgepack Mountain" are trying to do now.)

If you honestly believe that heaven exists and that you will go there when you die, why not kill yourself and get there sooner?

Cuz killing yourself is teh bad too, I think. According to someone, somewhere.

Don't you wish.


Because I have a purpose that I have been called to achieve on earth.

Telling others of the gift that the Lord has given them, if they would choose to accept it.

My eternal life was payed for in blood, and I want to, I CHOOSE to repay him by living my life as he wants me to.


Would you like me to pray for you Adam?

PM me.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you honestly believe that heaven exists and that you will go there when you die, why not kill yourself and get there sooner?

I don't quite understand why are you saying that like it is an unfamiliar/unusal or absurd concept? People are ALREADY doing that.

Originally posted by sithsaber408

Because I have a purpose that I have been called to achieve on earth.



Who told you that? Hearing voices is usually part of a delusion...

Originally posted by The Omega
Who told you that? Hearing voices is usually part of a delusion...

Really?

So your conscience, or your bodies desire for food, or a natural reaction to good food that says "Oooh, I like this" isn't a voice in your head?

But it's okay as long as its YOUR voice, right?

I never claimed to have a one-on-one dialouge with the Almighty, it's more of an impression, a feeling of confirmation or denial about what I'm asking him.

Plus, I take most of what I follow from the Bible, not an out-loud convo with God.





This is neither here nor there, and once again, I find myself dealing with Liberals who would rather shift the focus from the topic at hand to my religious beliefs.


These points are all moot.

No man telling me to get f*cked in the ass or die would change my views, or make me think that homosexuality is a born genetic trait.

No amount of gibberish posting, by people trying to side-step will make my point of view become the minority in this country. (U.S.A.)


And no cause, rally, parade, or movie like "Fudgepack Mountain" will take homosexuality from being a deviant type of sexual behavior, much like bestiality or child molestation, into a type of sexual lifestyle that goes along with life's natural order, biology, or God's will for people.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Really?

So your conscience, or your bodies desire for food, or a natural reaction to good food that says "Oooh, I like this" isn't a voice in your head?

But it's okay as long as its YOUR voice, right?

I never claimed to have a one-on-one dialouge with the Almighty, it's more of an impression, a feeling of confirmation or denial about what I'm asking him.

Plus, I take most of what I follow from the Bible, not an out-loud convo with God.





This is neither here nor there, and once again, I find myself dealing with Liberals who would rather shift the focus from the topic at hand to my religious beliefs.


These points are all moot.

No man telling me to get f*cked in the ass or die would change my views, or make me think that homosexuality is a born genetic trait.

No amount of gibberish posting, by people trying to side-step will make my point of view become the minority in this country. (U.S.A.)


And no cause, rally, parade, or movie like "Fudgepack Mountain" will take homosexuality from being a deviant type of sexual behavior, much like bestiality or child molestation, into a type of sexual lifestyle that goes along with life's natural order, biology, or God's will for people.

Fire up the crematoria and oil up the cattle car wheels people, we're gonna go do god's work!!!

Getting back on topic.....

I think it's already been stated that, at least here in America, we're already desensitized to violence. There actually was a time when it was frowned upon, and as controversial as the gay thing is now. The thing in Utah, with Larry Miller "banning" the show from his theaters? Who cares? It was probably a good business decision for him. Mormons are some of the most conservative people in the country (right up there with the bible belt in some respects). I doubt it would have made much money there even if he had let it play, but by banning it, he gets all those people who agree with that decision to come to his theaters when they go to see something else.

As for the off-topic comments

- I'd definitely take the bullet to the head first
- Banning gay marriage denies no one rights, they can go find someone of the opposite sex to marry just like anyone else.
-I prefer action to romance, and when I am talked into seeing a romance (comedy usually), I prefer a situation I understand. No empathy here for homos.

Again I post:

you aren't. You are a person with feelings, ideas, and you have great value. Its your choice of lifestyle and behaviours that are disgusting.




You post:

You are sick, and your inhumane views scare me.

Or Darth Jello:

Fire up the crematoria and oil up the cattle car wheels people, we're gonna go do god's work!!!




C'mooooonnnnee.


Y'all wanna make me out to be some sort of sadist who hates people?

Then you actually have to try to appear to be better than I am and take a higher ground.



Make that step to turn a blind eye to God, biology, and thousands of years of societies being built on the human family, and tell the people of this world to have unnatural sex in ways that there own bodies would contradict the fucntionality of.



Go on, tell them.

I'll be right here, telling them the Truth, while you're out whooping it up on the town.


One of us is on the right track here.



Time will tell.

Originally posted by The Omega
You sound like some ultra-conservative fundamentalist, when you compare gay sex between consenting adults with something as terrible as child molestation.

They're both biologically unsound, and therefore equally as terrible.

If a brother and sister are fukking yet they are constenting adults (which seems to be the issue) it still doesn't make it ok. Its a perverse abuse of sex as bad as gay sex. (which is why inbreeding is illegal)

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Cuz killing yourself is teh bad too, I think. According to someone, somewhere.

If presented with the choice of having receptive anal sex or being violently murdered, and one chooses to be violently murdered, how is that different than choosing to kill yourself?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Don't you wish.


Because I have a purpose that I have been called to achieve on earth.

Telling others of the gift that the Lord has given them, if they would choose to accept it.

My eternal life was payed for in blood, and I want to, I CHOOSE to repay him by living my life as he wants me to.


Would you like me to pray for you Adam?

PM me.

Apparently, you do not feel strongly enough about this purpose that you feel you "have been called to achieve on earth" to forego death so that you may accomplish it, because you would choose to be violently murdered over participating in receptive anal sex. If this is the case, then there is nothing preventing you from killing yourself now to get to heaven sooner.

Originally posted by docb77
Getting back on topic.....

I think it's already been stated that, at least here in America, we're already desensitized to violence. There actually was a time when it was frowned upon, and as controversial as the gay thing is now. The thing in Utah, with Larry Miller "banning" the show from his theaters? Who cares? It was probably a good business decision for him. Mormons are some of the most conservative people in the country (right up there with the bible belt in some respects). I doubt it would have made much money there even if he had let it play, but by banning it, he gets all those people who agree with that decision to come to his theaters when they go to see something else.

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" - Ernest Gaines



Originally posted by docb77
As for the off-topic comments

- I'd definitely take the bullet to the head first
- Banning gay marriage denies no one rights, they can go find someone of the opposite sex to marry just like anyone else.
-I prefer action to romance, and when I am talked into seeing a romance (comedy usually), I prefer a situation I understand. No empathy here for homos.

We are all impressed with your childish attempt to prove your heterosexuality.

At one time, it was illegal in the United States for a black person and a white person to marry one another. The argument was that banning interracial marriages denied no one equal marriage rights, as a black person could marry a black person, and a white person could marry a white person, they just could not marry one another.

There is a difference between sympathy and empathy. No one expects you to be able to sympathize with something that you have not experienced, but you should be able to empathize with something that you have not experienced. If you cannot, then I would seriously question what kind of a person you are.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" - Ernest Gaines

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Violence is and has always been a large part of American culture and history; and it's nothing new either; it goes way back: the Revolution, killing Native Americans, the Slave Trade, the Civil War, killing more Native Americans, Prohibition, street gangs, the Roaring Twenties, organized crime, Civil Rights, The War on Drugs, etc, etc, etc... So murder, blood, and guts, is not a big deal, because in a way it tells how many Americans feel about different issues and actually gives us vicarious enjoyment because its something to relate to.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, has never been a factor in American history and gays and "gayness" have never really contributed to American development. James Buchanan was "allegedly" gay ; and J. Edgar Hoover was the FBI Director for over 40 years. But they were in the closet. Hoover did a lot, but Buchanan's contributions were minimal. And yes, it's just plain weird and really unnatural to be gay to many Americans.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Absurd logic.

My life will never take that course.

We can play the "what if" game all day if you wish, but it is rather counter-productive.

I would react much different than you suppose anyway.

After death is heaven, I would only go home sooner.

And the power of my Lord and Saviour is greater than that of any would-be rapists who might try to somehow prove that homosexual sex is natural by FORCING IT on me.

Although it is interesting - in cases of rape, many police report will have the witness saying "He threatened to kill me if" - it would seem to me fear of death has a great deal of power. Though I expect someone, somewhere will reply about how a homosexual rape would be worse then a heterosexual one.

And not sure why you concentrated on that post when the "what ifs" started before - the whole "people can empathise more with brutal murder then certain kinds of sexual relationships" - now the anti-gay lobby harks on about the threat of homosexuality and what it could do to society - but then goes on quite happily about being comfortable (or more comfortable) with murder or at least relate to it more. Am I some kind of anachronism as I think it should be more disturbing that people find brutal killings more acceptable then consenting relationships between to men?



When God actually does something of note, or at least gives us something to have faith in, I would consider it.

Biology - to what extent? Men mating with as many women as possible, women having as many children as possible, leaving the old and sick to die for the good of the species genetic pool? Are we animals and slaves to biological impulses, or are we sentient animals that can actually live our lives away from such things?

Years of societies - we could bring back slaves, harems, marrying our sisters and close cousins, castes and so on. All things these family centric societies had at one point or another, and by oath they swore they were the bees knees. Now what happened to all these societies? And did you know that some historians believe that Christianity played a part in the fall of Rome? It's value system aided in killing that "great society?"

Rome was already well on the decline; Christianity's values only helped to end it. Gladitorial games were one of the things to go out the door due to Christianity. And good riddance, at that.

How they feel about different issues? What, kill them all and let God decide? That "yeah, we're cool with it because many of our biggest events involved lots and lots of death" - I would be worried about that, as I said. Something just seems wrong with a situation where killing is more understandable then a gay relationship. I mean really, why is that so hard to understand? Why can't a heterosexual understand? It's exactly the same as a heterosexual relationship only with some minor technical difference. They don't have secret handshakes. No weird cult like practices. It doesn't involve some weird and arcane knowledge known only to a few. They don't invoke Cthulhu.

They, and there emotions are no different to any body else.. It is not hard to understand.



Are you saying that in all of the United States history there have only been two famous gays? And one of them you aren't sure of? You need to crack open a history book. You can if you like forget "alleged gays" (some believe Lincoln might have be a homosexual" if you like - there are plenty of others - scientists, authors, actors and so on. Many more then the two you listed.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Homosexuality, on the other hand, has never been a factor in American history and gays and "gayness" have never really contributed to American development. James Buchanan was "allegedly" gay ; and J. Edgar Hoover was the FBI Director for over 40 years. But they were in the closet. Hoover did a lot, but Buchanan's contributions were minimal. And yes, it's just plain weird and really unnatural to be gay to many Americans.

Homosexuals have contributed just as much to society as heterosexuals, but these individuals and their contributions have been systematically censored by heterosexism in western history.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How they feel about different issues? What, kill them all and let God decide? That "yeah, we're cool with it because many of our biggest events involved lots and lots of death" - I would be worried about that, as I said. Something just seems wrong with a situation where killing is more understandable then a gay relationship. I mean really, why is that so hard to understand? Why can't a heterosexual understand? It's exactly the same as a heterosexual relationship only with some minor technical difference. They don't have secret handshakes. No weird cult like practices. It doesn't involve some weird and arcane knowledge known only to a few. They don't invoke Cthulhu.

They, and there emotions are no different to any body else.. It is not hard to understand.


Killing is more understandable to many Americans than a gay relationship because its far more familiar. Like I said, US history is written in blood. You're Australian, you guys hate guns, so obviously your point of view and ability to relate are very different.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Are you saying that in all of the United States history there have only been two famous gays? And one of them you aren't sure of? You need to crack open a history book. You can if you like forget "alleged gays" (some believe Lincoln might have be a homosexual" if you like - there are plenty of others - scientists, authors, actors and so on. Many more then the two you listed.

I hope you're not lecturing me on US history, because between the two of us, I believe I would be more wellrounded and knowledgable. I would never attempt to unload on you about Australian history. Those two gay men I chose to point out were prominent in political history; one was a president and the other was the FBI Director for over 40 years. I don't think the dad from The Brady Bunch or Richard Chamberlain have accomplishments that compare the other two I mentioned.

And Lincoln wasn't gay! That was probably started by some person who was just trying to cause some shit for laughs.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Killing is more understandable to many Americans than a gay relationship because its far more familiar. Like I said, US history is written in blood. You're Australian, you guys hate guns, so obviously your point of view and ability to relate are very different.

Actually we don't hate guns. We just have laws because we realised most people don't need to have a heap of guns, and if they were going to own a gun it would be for a reason and they would have to be licensed because we thought "hey, maybe it would be harder for a person to carry out another massacre if it wasn't as easy to get guns" - common sense, not a gun hate or gun phobia.

And once again - killing more familiar then gay relationships. Is it more familiar then heterosexual relationships? Oops, I forgot, there is a vast amount different between the two which prevents any sort of understanding.



No, I wouldn't lecture you, because I don't need to. But trust me, you can't study modern history without learning a fair bit about American history, and as a result I feel I can say I am no slouch when it comes to your history, including famous individuals. The point I was trying to make - I know there are a great deal more notable names then you are making out.

And sorry, but The dad from the Brady Bunch? You mean his character or in real life? But regardless he is just one of many, many, many gay people from the US (and the world) who have contributed to the humanities and sciences.



Actually it is a valid theory that has received some attention from historians. Is it true, I can't say, but some people think it could be, and they didn't just make it up for laughs.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And once again - killing more familiar then gay relationships. Is it more familiar then heterosexual relationships? Oops, I forgot, there is a vast amount different between the two which prevents any sort of understanding.

What are you getting at?


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Actually it is a valid theory that has received some attention from historians. Is it true, I can't say, but some people think it could be, and they didn't just make it up for laughs.

I've heard most of the theories as to why they believe he was gay, and they're farfetched. They nitpick on things that apply to many wealthy American men who lived during the Victorian Era.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What are you getting at?

Who knows... that apparantly homosexual relationships are so much more alien then heterosexual ones despite being fundementally the same except in a physical sense. That a familiaraity with historical violence somehow translates to famaliarity with all forms of violence which are all more familiar then homosexuality despite homosexuality not being all that uncommon today.



But the historians who investigate this aren't saying all men who lived during the Victorian era were gay. Personally I don't think it's true, but apparantly there is reasonable doubt for some.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
you aren't. You are a person with feelings, ideas, and you have great value. Its your choice of lifestyle and behaviours that are disgusting.


Originally posted by sithsaber408
Y'all wanna make me out to be some sort of sadist who hates people?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
then you actually have to try to appear to be better than I am and take a higher ground.

Look at all this crap. But, anyone who looks closely will see your real point. I see the word "I" in there a lot. You aren't gay. You never will be. You give yourself so much credit because of it. And you never will be because you never were. And how is that? Because you chose not to? And if you chose not to be gay, that means the notion was, at one point, entertained? No. Because people who are gay have no choice in the matter. As is typical with people like you, you spend so much time talking about yourself that you have no concept of what it's like to see the world through the eyes of someone who sees things differently. Someone who made no conscious descision to see things differently.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Like I said, US history is written in blood.

And who's blood should it be written in now? The past doesn't justify the future.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I hope you're not lecturing me on US history, because between the two of us, I believe I would be more wellrounded and knowledgable.

Why? Because you were raised in America? History is often written by the victors. Geography is actually a hinderence to the truth in many cases. You have to understand that.


Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And Lincoln wasn't gay! That was probably started by some person who was just trying to cause some shit for laughs.

you don't know that. But, more to the point, neither does the guy that wrote the book. But what does bother me, is that for you and others, the idea that he was gay somehow diminishes his accomplishments. More over, the idea is "some shit for laughs"...because all gay people are a joke to you. What Lincoln did for this country, and for all minorities...of whom you are a part...should be applauded becauseof actions, not which gender with which he might have slept. It doesn't matter that he was gay or straight. What matters is what he did. And bringing him up is just silly. You and I both enjoy freedoms based on what he thought was right. And, unlike Bush...I'm willing to bet that he doesn't make descisions based on what he wants and then prays he's right. He did what was right for everyone.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
And who's blood should it be written in now? The past doesn't justify the future.

The past should always be acknowledged. As the saying goes: :"The past repeats itself".

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic Why? Because you were raised in America? History is often written by the victors. Geography is actually a hinderence to the truth in many cases. You have to understand that.

Being born and raised in the US definitely helps. I'm aware of the rest of that.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic you don't know that. But, more to the point, neither does the guy that wrote the book. But what does bother me, is that for you and others, the idea that he was gay somehow diminishes his accomplishments. More over, the idea is "some shit for laughs"...because all gay people are a joke to you. What Lincoln did for this country, and for all minorities...of whom you are a part...should be applauded becauseof actions, not which gender with which he might have slept. It doesn't matter that he was gay or straight. What matters is what he did. And bringing him up is just silly. You and I both enjoy freedoms based on what he thought was right. And, unlike Bush...I'm willing to bet that he doesn't make descisions based on what he wants and then prays he's right. He did what was right for everyone.

I don't believe being gay would diminish his accomplishments, and I don't think its a joke. But I think him being gay is extremely doubtful.

Yes, Lincoln freed the slaves and successfully stopped the attempted secession, but I think saying that he did it for ALL minorities is a bit of a stretch. I doubt he had Koreans in mind during the Civil War.

DiamondBullets> Oh, get off your homophobic high horse, and stop PM'ing me. I don't read your PM's, you see, if I want to study garbage, I have a trashcan...

And since you suffer fropm te delusion that gay sex between consenting adults van be compared with child-molestation and incest, I see you are WAY beyond help.

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" - Ernest Gaines

Actually - I would REALLY like to know that. Have there been made any studies? Quiero Mota doesn't make any sense, since "gayness" is not a lifestyle to be compared to violent gang-behavior or some such. Does anyone KNOW where this hysteric homophobia stems from? Europes history is as violent as the American, with wars for centuries, civil wars, colonizations, revolutions and two world wars fought right here.

I_S>"Though I expect someone, somewhere will reply about how a homosexual rape would be worse then a heterosexual one."
Well, technically... A MAN can rarely be RAPED by a woman, can he? I know there are a few scattered cases here and there, but there are not man. A man can, however, be raped by a man...
(Hmmm, lemme think here...)

Capt_Fantastic> Yeah, I looked. Ignore him. There is NO reasoning or arguing with a raving fanatic... No matter what you, I or anyone else attempts I get this image of someone sticking their fingers in their ears going "NO, won't listen" (well, covering their eyes and going "No, won't read"...

It's just a matter of what we're used to seeing in the mainstream media. Violence no longer has any shock value, we're used to it. Heterosexual promiscuity no longer has any shock value, we're used to it. Entertainment will always push to be more and more shocking.. it seems that gay sex is just next on the list. Someday our kids will look back on this movie and "not see the big deal."

That said, I would never see Brokeback Mountain. Besides the fact that it looks like a sappy romance mixed with a western, I really don't like the idea of watching two dudes get it on. In the words of Dave Chappelle: "sorry, I just find it to be gross."

Originally posted by The Omega
Actually - I would REALLY like to know that. Have there been made any studies? Quiero Mota doesn't make any sense, since "gayness" is not a lifestyle to be compared to violent gang-behavior or some such. Does anyone KNOW where this hysteric homophobia stems from? Europes history is as violent as the American, with wars for centuries, civil wars, colonizations, revolutions and two world wars fought right here.

I'm not homophobic.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not homophobic.

I ain't no homophobe neither, I just don't think homos (or **** as I like to call them) should have the same rights...no homophobe...and they should best be put together in a...hmm...let's call it concentration camp...I'm no homophobe...and then they should be killed in the most horrible ways we can think of...no homophobe....nope.

Also, I don't want to sound racist but blacks (or....) and hispanics (or...) are not as smart as whites and commit more crimes cause they are evil...

I am also not antisemitic...


You get the picture....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I ain't no homophobe neither, I just don't think homos (or **** as I like to call them) should have the same rights...no homophobe...and they should best be put together in a...hmm...let's call it concentration camp...I'm no homophobe...and then they should be killed in the most horrible ways we can think of...no homophobe....nope.

Also, I don't want to sound racist but blacks (or....) and hispanics (or...) are not as smart as whites and commit more crimes cause they are evil...

I am also not antisemitic...


You get the picture....

Are you calling me a liar?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Are you calling me a liar?

Am I?

Chale ese.

El vato estes un tonto primero.


He doesn't have any other point to add or anything to say about anyone else's point, so he's blowing smoke.

(Happens on these boards quite often.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Am I?

I never suggested any of those things you said. Because I don't believe Lincoln was gay doesn't make me a homophobe.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
He doesn't have any other point to add or anything to say about anyone else's point, so he's blowing smoke.

Hit the nail right on the head...damn you are good at this.

My bad, I didn't understand the last part.

Something about ridicule and molestation?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Wait, I'm ridiculous... or he is?

Neither; talking shit is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Neither; talking shit is ridiculous.

No it isn't...

Sure is.

I hate when I'm trying to make a point, and whether or not someone agrees with my point of view (that I can handle) but they point the finger in someother bullshit direction, or try to jump on me about something unrelated to the topic.


Estes mal, no?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Estes mal, no?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Sure is.

I hate when I'm trying to make a point, and whether or not someone agrees with my point of view (that I can handle) but they point the finger in someother bullshit direction, or try to jump on me about something unrelated to the topic.


Estes mal, no?

It's not bad...especially since your points are usually hateful and/or stupid.

On the other hand my post portrayed racist and homophobic behaviour....Quiero Mota'S post was jsut a very nice starting point..

Yo hablo espanol, pero yo soy mas o menos.

Yo estudian el la escuela por dos anos, pero me notas en la clase estes 'F''s. Pinche mierda, no?

Mi amigos de San Jose, el barrio de Eastside, hablo mucho....

Orale huero, o Que Queres puto?


Tu sabes?

Como Esta? Has this become a secret language thread?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Orale huero, o Que Queres puto?

Both!

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The past should always be acknowledged. As the saying goes: :"The past repeats itself". But why should it? I'm not trying to be naive. I'm a pretty realistic guy. But I'm asking you a question. Whose blood should it be written in at this point?


Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I don't believe being gay would diminish his accomplishments, and I don't think its a joke. But I think him being gay is extremely doubtful.

Yes, Lincoln freed the slaves and successfully stopped the attempted secession, but I think saying that he did it for ALL minorities is a bit of a stretch. I doubt he had Koreans in mind during the Civil War.

I don't think he was gay either. But, I don't know he was straight. What I know is what he accomplished. And while he stopped secession, he faced it largly because of his convictions of the equality of one man and the next. He could easily have let the slaves remain slaves and prevented a lot of the turmoil of the war. And if you say that you don't think it was a joke, you wouldn't say that the guy wrote the book for laughs. And I didn't say he did it ALL for the slaves. He did it for everyone.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Both!

You know, the two of you making jokes about **** in other languages doesn't mean people can't read it and understand it. Sith can get his ass banned, but you're better than that.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You know, the two of you making jokes about **** in other languages doesn't mean people can't read it and understand it. Sith can get his ass banned, but you're better than that.


For what, I didn't say anything about any gay people!

Get a Spanish speaking mod to read it if you don't believe me.

We were talking about Bardock throwing in little jabs that were off-topic, and he asked me how I learned Spanish.



As for my normal posting, all I have done is to express my views and beliefs, and have done so quietly without flamming anybody.

I made one mistake by getting personal over a month ago, apologized for it, and PM'd the mods.

Nothing happened then, and nothing will now.

Take a chill pill.
soap

calling people idiots and bringing up male prostitutes certainly isn't out of line. I call you an idiot all the time.

Well, true enough you do.


And when I said "puto" I was explaing to QM that my friends in san Jose used to talk to me like "Orale Huero" ... meaning "hey white-boy" or "que queres puto" ... meaning "what do you want b*tch".

Among us, puto means b*tch, or punk, or whatever.

Friends say it alot.

Truly dude, nobody was trying to have a secret Spanish gay-bash.

As for tonto (idiot) I was saying that about Bardock, as he was being one.

I stand guilty on that charge.

Originally posted by The Omega

And since you suffer fropm te delusion that gay sex between consenting adults van be compared with child-molestation and incest, I see you are WAY beyond help.

Why is one perverse biologically unsound sexual behavior better than another?

If ya wanna use that petty "they're constenting adults" argument, then I can always point out that siblings who are fukking and are consenting adults still doesn't make it any better.

Originally posted by BlackC@
Why does America make a big deal about Brokeback Mountain simply because it has two gay guys, yet when they see bloody, gruesome, horrible death they couldn't careless.

I've seen movies that show people cutting there wrists, mutilating people's corpses and no one cares about that stuff - why?

Violence has gotten so common in movies now days that many people have chosen to shut it off and dont focus on it anymore. But a movie depicting two homosexuals is not made everyday and certainly doesn't get as much popularity as "Brokeback Mountain" received, so more Americans were shocked. I wasn't.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well, true enough you do.


And when I said "puto" I was explaing to QM that my friends in san Jose used to talk to me like "Orale Huero" ... meaning "hey white-boy" or "que queres puto" ... meaning "what do you want b*tch".

Among us, puto means b*tch, or punk, or whatever.

Friends say it alot.

Truly dude, nobody was trying to have a secret Spanish gay-bash.

As for tonto (idiot) I was saying that about Bardock, as he was being one.

I stand guilty on that charge.
El unico tonto en esta discusion sos vos.
...bueno y DiamondBullets.

And Capt, they're right puto is like bit.ch, hardly anyone thinks of it as male prostitute.

Originally posted by Eis
El unico tonto en esta discusion sos vos.
...bueno y DiamondBullets.

And Capt, they're right puto is like bit.ch, hardly anyone thinks of it as male prostitute.

Orale guey!

Es possible yo soy el tonto primero.

Pero mas, es possible tu eres el presidente de Estados Unidos.

Todo esta bien EIS, no estes necessito ridiculo personas.

Tu llevas un opinion, y yo tengo un opinon.... para siempre.

(how do you say "opinion" in Spanish)?

No habla Espanol mucho........me ojos loko.............Es su madre in el bano....(with a little squiggly line over the "n"

Originally posted by Darth Nepulis
Why does America make a big deal about Brokeback Mountain simply because it has two gay guys, yet when they see bloody, gruesome, horrible death they couldn't careless.

I've seen movies that show people cutting there wrists, mutilating people's corpses and no one cares about that stuff - why?
Well, I'm not one of them. I was appalled by Hostel, if that's what you're thinking of.

(And here I come back to KMC, after a short respite, and I find that nothing has changed.)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Orale guey!

Es possible yo soy el tonto primero.

Pero mas, es possible tu eres el presidente de Estados Unidos.

Todo esta bien EIS, no estes necessito ridiculo personas.

Tu llevas un opinion, y yo tengo un opinon.... para siempre.

(how do you say "opinion" in Spanish)?
'Orale Guey' jaja, ni siquiera se lo que significa eso, no hablo mexicano.

Y si se perfectamente que cada persona tiene su opinion, tu diste tu opinion, yo queria que tu supieras la mia.

Opinion in Spanish is spelled just like in English, opinion. It has an accent somewhere though... I think...

That scene in 'The Craft' were Sarah cuts her wrists was pretty cool...

I really don't understand the fascination with watching depressing, plotless movies that involve the maiming and torturing of people in the most realistic manner. If they have a plot it helps them become more watchable, but 'Saw II' was just garbage situation after garbage situation. It put me off seeing 'Hostel', dispite the fact that I enjoyed the absurdity of 'Cabin Fever'.

Alright, someone else who liked "Cabin Fever." Most people think admitting you liked "Cabin Fever" is like admitting you think Clay Aiken's a genius, but it's really not.

Word. It was funny, bizarre and a little creepy. I loved that final bit with the 'homies' bustin' out with the inbreds. Class.

Suspenseful movies are always better then the hacking and bloody inside out body parts laying around....IMO.........Though I can't resist vampire movies........something just sooooooo......mmmm about em......popcorn3

Originally posted by debbiejo
Suspenseful movies are always better then the hacking and bloody inside out body parts laying around....IMO.........Though I can't resist vampire movies........something just sooooooo......mmmm about em......popcorn3

Vampire movies pwn...

R.I.P. topic

Oi, everyone. Remember when Debbiejo used to...oh.

Never mind.

-AC

Originally posted by The Omega
Well, maybe we'd be getting somewhere the day where there are gays in a movie, but that isn't the story of the movie??


Eureka! You're absolutely right.

Cheers


There need be no seperation of gay or straight.