Brokeback Mountain

I have not seen Brokeback Mountain yet, but it has won 4 Golden Globes.  Interestingly, the movie and the surrounding issues will be debated on Larry King Live tonight.  Representing the narrow minded anti-gay bigots?  Albert Mohler, whose daily radio show I listen to via podcast almost daily.  He's an able Christian spokesman, so it should be lively. 

I'm sure, like when I watched Angels in America, I will be both moved by sentiment and sorrow, as well as repulsed by the seemier side of gay life and practice, not to mention gay sex and romance in general (sorry, eww - but don't feel singled out - I think anal and oral sex among heteros is gross too - call me a prude, go on, you know you want to). 

Even though I haven't seen the movie, I have a feeling I will agree with some of the mixed reviews like these from Rotten Tomatoes:

• "The hubbub seems more politically driven in the wake of the gay marriage debate. And an Oscar win will be pandering to that."  7M Pictures
• "Overall, the movie is a solid, entrancing love story, but all the Oscar buzz is nowhere near justified. It's an above-average film overpraised for its social significance." ARIZONA DAILY STAR
• "If the filmmakers weren’t trying so hard to deny the characters' failings (read "justifying sin"), Brokeback Mountain might have lived up to its immense reputation."  Northwest Herald
• "Essentially, [this] is the same as most stories of lust and infidelity -- two people who 'can't control' their desires end up hurting others, lying, and denying responsibility for their actions."   Looking Closer    

The last reviewer, a Christian, has a very long and indepth interview worth reading.  I esp. like the following quotes, which may or not be a good interpretation, I'll let others judge:

This is not the stuff of a "love story," no matter how many critics call it that. This is lust, pure and simple. And regardless of how Ennis feels about it, he has made promises he must uphold....

We can surely feel compassion for Jack and Ennis, grieved that they grew up in such a harsh and lonely world, where they have not seen a good model of heterosexual intimacy, where they know nothing of God, and where they thus believe they can only find fulfillment in each other. By letting their sex drives lead them, they weaken their freewill....

All of us, if we’re honest, can relate to the story of Jack and Ennis. Their story is the human story, from the Garden of Eden to The Treasure of the Sierra Madre to Hamlet to The Lord of the Rings to Grizzly Man: At one time or another, we have all transgressed… we’ve pursued something we wanted, something that wasn’t what was best for us, without regard for the consequences our actions would have on each other, on the future, and on the world around us. Human desire oversteps its bounds, we are weakened by our inappropriate appetites, and it costs us something. That’s the real story of Brokeback Mountain.

Comments

[jpe]

I think anal and oral sex among heteros is gross too - call me a prude, go on, you know you want to

I didn't know people from 19th century England were still alive! Well good for you, and I'm sure the next 100 years will be just as great as the next 100 years.

Re: the movie: I haven't seen the movie, but I can imagine I'd agree with mixed reviews, too. First, anyone that thinks the movie is political is probably a cohort of Phelps; second, it's a love movie. That all but guarantees its likely craptacularity. (am I allowed that word on this site? if N, feel free to delete that and this)

[Louis]

Gee, what a surprise! The anti-gay position will be upheld by a Christian.

So, seeker is "repulsed" by the "seemier" [sic] side of gay life which includes "gay sex and romance." Yes, of course, gay romance can only be seamy - what else would a gay-hating bigot think? And, of course, one can pull critical views of any and all films, expecially when the film has a gay theme.

Your christer interpretation of the film can only be expected, for christianists just cannot, whatever the case, concede humanity to gays or the reality of gay romance (it's "seemy" after all). As I stated elsewhere, it's people like you, seeker, and your christianist ideology which helped create the tragedy which was dramatized in "Brokeback Mountain." Yours is an evil ideology. Evil.

[Louis]

And one other thing: gay love or romance can only be dismissed as "lust," or, in christer parlance, sin. Otherwise, how would you fit it into your narrow worldview? Only hetero romance can be real, after all.

And this is precisely what the film is about - the consequences of such views. I wonder just how many lives have, like the fictional Ennis and Jack, been destroyed by your twisted ideology. If your god exists (which I doubt) I hope he's happy with the evil he's created and condoned.

[seeker]

1. Who are you to judge my sexual preferences? Hypocrite ;) Do as you say, not as you do, eh?

2. Sorry for my spelling mistakes, but at least you can use that as an opportunity to portray me as ignorant. Nice b.s. tactic.

3. I think that anal sex, and probably oral sex, are against nature, not to mention gross. I also think purity till marriage is appropriate and doable for those who are raised to develop virtue. I don't expect many "unregenerate" unbelievers will agree - how can they understand holiness when they have not allowed the holy God into their lives.

But of course, those "19th century" values are just a point of ridicule in a society that has slidden so far into perversion that normal healthy lifestyles and relationships seem quaint. It is pathetic and tragic.

4. I do agree that some view any gay romance as always something gross or lust driven, but I don't agree. I think gay romances are probably often driven by a desire for friendship and relationship, just like hetero. The difference is, same-sex romance and sex is an unhealthy response to gender identity disorder. Sure, people get into hetero relationships for the wrong reasons. But while some hetero relationships may have dysfunction, they can become healthy. Homosexuality, in my view, is always dysfunctional.

I don't say this to make myself superior to others. I say it because I find hx to be against nature and morality. The things that have been in my life that were unhealthy or dysfunctional, including sexual immorality, unforgiveness, effeminacy, and gender identity dysfunction, I have admitted, forsaken, and healed with the help of psychology and developing a biblical view of myself and God.

That's part of the spiritual path - forsaking dysfunction and lies, both religious and secular lies. The truth is that gays can change, and I want to continue to present that truth to anyone who wants to change, and I will continue to confront the liars who deny such so that their victimization of those with unwanted SSA does not go unanswerd, and so that some can have hope for change.

This movie will obviously not be popular among xians because, though it may be a touching human story of a love that social mores won't allow, it is polluted by it's low view of their existing marriage comittments, and its tacet moral approval of gay dysfunction.

[Stewart]

Seeker, I'll take this opportunity -- and your invitation -- to call you a prude. And not just any kind of prude. No, you're a suprisingly prudish prude.

"I think that anal sex, and probably oral sex, are against nature, not to mention gross."

You continue to top yourself in the field of unbalanced, unreasoned, logically indefensible statements. How can you call anal and oral sex "against nature?". Sadly, I think we're going to have to get into some nitty gritty, here...

Presumably you think this because they are sexual actions that cannot lead to procreation. Okay. Is kissing against nature? You'll probably say "no" and you could try to back back that up by saying that Jesus kissed people, so it must be okay. Jesus never made out with anybody in the back of his car, though. At least, if he did, the gospels left it out. What about hand jobs? I don't mean to be crude for the sake of it, but the bible doesn't mention hand jobs explicitly, and yet they also don't lead to procreation.

In fact, I don't want to upset your Lord, so let's just be safe and say that there's never any natural justification for touching a penis, ever unless it's with a vagina. Oh, and you have to be planning on making a crapload of children. After all, these sexual organs we have? We're not allowed to use them unless it's to make craploads of babies. With vaginas. And penises.

Since you're such an upstanding guy, Seeker, I can only assume that you and your wife never, ever, do anything that's unnatural. I bet you've never even touched your wife's vagina with your hands, right? You couldn't have, because that's just soooo unnatural. Actually, forget that. I'm going to assume that you have had the decency to engage in foreplay with your wife, and that neither of you have had any moral qualms with it.

But what, then, is the difference between your hand and your tongue?

There's NO difference, aside from moisture. If God exists, he does not care what you and your wife do in bed. Why would he? Do you think he's such a simple, irrational being that he would give a crap what you do with your bodies in private, particularly when the upshot is exactly the same? You Christians have such a paradoxially high and low view of your own deity. It's truly bizarre to watch you confabulate reasons to cover up your own mistaken beliefs.

[Aaron]

Okay back on to the topic of Brokeback Mountain - I haven't seen it so I can't say much. Only that I probably won't see it because it is not the type of movie I like (regardless of the gay thing).

I don't like melodramas of leaving your comfort zone and going out to "find yourself"." blah, blah, blah. And I don't want to see sex scenes (gay or straight), so this probably isn't the movie for me.

Having said that, I think Christians are wasting their time getting in an uproar about this movie. Most of Hollywood is leftists and supportive of gay rights, so of course they will support this film.

I don't really care if BBM wins an Oscar. It won't affect me. It won't change anything for anyone. It might be the case that the movie is getting more push and play because of the pro-gay message, why is that surprising?

Christians help the movie by complaining and screaming about a indy movie showing in a couple dozen theaters, then the protests roll in and everyone wants to see what all the fuss is about and as soon as a fuss is raised then the awards roll in. We are so stupid, we shoot ourselves in the foot time and time again.

Christians should spend more of their time producing and making high quailty media (film, music, tv, etc.) instead of ripping every thing they disagree with.

[seeker]

Listen, the bible allows people to decide what they want to do in such questionable areas. I'm not saying everyone else is wrong (but they could be). But seriously, what do YOU think the intended purpose of the anus is? It's to crap, pure and simple. Sticking things IN it is just not part of it's design.

The mouth, while it is designed to put things in AND out, could arguably be used for sex, but again, I don't think we should be putting our mouths around our excretory organs.

My main reason for disliking such things has nothing to do with the bible or sqeamishness, and before I was a Christian, I engaged in most of the debaucheries that I decry today, so I'm not a prude in the sense that I've been captive to prudishness my entire life.

But my main arguments, as outlined above, are based on my arguably logical deductions about the purpose and function of our various orifices - and that misuse of these leads to illness. Anal sex is easily dismissed as unnatural by the disease risks it entails (pun intended), including the facts that
- It initially causes rectal fissures and bleeding
- It can be damaging to the external anal sphincter, which can lead to rectal incontinence
- Anal bacteria can cause serious vaginal infections and bladder infections (cystitis).

Oral sex is harder to pin down regarding its negative consequences, but again, I'm not using my opinion on oral sex as part of an argument against hx, even though I think oral sex is an abuse of the body.

And stewart, I can't believe you would make such a dumb claim as "there is little difference " between the hand and the tongue. The primary difference is that the tongue allows bacteria directly into the body, while the finger is protected by skin, and so is MUCH, MUCH safer. Also, with two humans in the same physical orientation, the fingers are located at the correct height, along w/ the sexual organs. There is a VAST, VAST difference between the two, not just "moisture" as you say.

I am a little miffed, but again, not surprised that such simple and unextreme positions (chastity and opposition to perversions of intercourse) are so vehemently opposed and ridiculed - it shows again how far our culture has drifted, not from prudishness, but from purity. The prevalence of sexual immorality and extraordinarily permissive sexual mores have led to disease, divorce, and teen pregnancy so high that we take them as acceptable norms that we can't do much about, rather than a deplorable state of immorality which we can certainly do something about if we would turn from sin and return to purity and devotion to our Creator.

I don't consider these positions extreme at all, though they may be rare in our debased times.

[seeker]

BTW, did anyone watch Larry King last night? It was interesting, but no surprises, except that I learned a new name - the conservative woman, Janet Parshall, was impressively eloquent, even better than Albert Mohler - Mohler concentrated a little too much on the gospel, and not enough on the questions asked. But Janet nailed it time after time.

What was also interesting was Chad Allen, the gay star of the upcoming End of the Spear. I was not aware of this controversy. He actually seemed like a very nice guy (no I am not surprised, but he was suprisingly composed and kind is his responses to the evangelicals, which is NOT typical of many gays).

But I didn't learn much new - same posturing on both sides, but it was very civil all around. At least I found Janet's podcast. Nice.

[Stewart]

Seeker, are you suggesting that anything you could do that might cause you harm is somehow "unnatural", and prohibited by God? Yes, anal sex can be harmful if precautions and thoughtfulness about the area's sensitivity aren't taken into account. And yes, you could potentially collect a bacterial or viral infection through your mouth. Actually, that's an excellent point. I guess kissing is unnatural. God must hate that so much!

I maintain that there is no ethical difference between sex with your hands, sex with your mouth, sex with your genitals, sex with your anus, sex with toys, or sex with fruit. There are clearly logistical differences, but ethical? Give me a break.

If God exists there is no way that he cares about something as trivial as how you and your partner make each other happy. Why would he possibly care about something so ridiculous? And if God doesn't exist -- and I'm relatively sure this is the case -- then it certainly doesn't make a difference.

[Sam]

Seeker,

God, what's wrong with gays? Why on Earth wouldn't they be nice to evangelicals who simply want to prevent them from having sex, and ever getting married, and voting if they could work it out? Why not be nice?

I can't possibly think of a single reason. Why aren't Jews nice to Nazis? Why are Tutsis nice to Hutus? I can't think of any logical reasons. The gays must be real meanies.

(You're crazy, as usual. Evangelicals hate gays. Why should gays be nice?)

Also, Stewart - God cares. He is sitting up there on his throne positively PISSED OFF when women orgasm. He grinds his teeth to powder when couples have sex with the woman on top. He can't sleep for days when couples both orgasm. Read the Bible! It's in there! It's true!

[seeker]

BTW, you can see some excellent clips of Janet from last night's Larry King Live at mindandmedia.

[seeker]

Actually, kindness in the face of opposition is a virtue, a sign of personal maturity. Kind and civil disasgreement is rare on such topics, and worth remarking on. All of the guests exhibited such maturity, and I was surprised because I have seen few gays that respond maturely to evangelical views on the subject.

Regarding your extreme example of Jews and Nazis, God commands us to fight evil, but not to hate, and to forgive the penitent. For a couple of nice examples of maturity in the face of opposition, see Corrie Ten Boom's forgiveness of the Nazi who killed her family. There are countless other examples. So yes, I do hope that people respond this way. Jesus said love your enemies. But I won't hold you to such an "inferior, crazy" xian ethic.

I am crazy? I am not the one that keeps using the hate word (erroneously). What kind of an argument is an ad-hominem attack that conflicts with a clear definition of hate? Derogatory namecalling is hate. Who is the guilty one here?

And your mischaracterization of the xian view of sex is cute, but based on your own misconceptions, not on anything said here. But of course, I can not control the difference between what is said and meant here, and what you hear through your filter.

[Aaron]

Sam,
You do know that it is possible to disagree without engaging in totally over the top sarcasm.

No one said that evangelicals wanted to prevent gays from having sex or voting (gay marriage is as always a different subject).

The comparrison to Nazis and other violently oppresive regimes is also beyond response.

The standard canard about God caring about something is silly. The Christian theology of God understands Him as outside of time (He created it), so He is able to listen and respond to millions of prayers to Him "at the same time."

Which also means that He can "care" about small details, while also caring about the larger issues of war, famine, etc.

I think God is concerned about sex, as I explained in my post, but I don't think God is concerned with any of the topics you raised. He is concerned when Christians disobey Him (non-Christians are a seperate issue that would take more time to explain), none of those things really have anything to do with God's boundaries on sex.

[seeker]

are you suggesting that anything you could do that might cause you harm is somehow "unnatural", and prohibited by God?
When it comes to deciding what is "natural" biologically, I am assuming that any practice that, without complicating factors such as pre-existing sickness, leads to disease is probably unnatural and may be sinful.

So for example, kissing someone is not dangerous, but if they have a sickness, that makes it stupid, but not necessarily immoral.

Anal sex, however, can make you sick just from the tranmission of normally non-pathologic bacteria.

But this logic must also be exentended to what makes *society* "sick." For example, promiscuity's main risk is due to pre-existing sickness, but in and of itself it may not make people sick. So you might not be able to make a biological argument against it. However, you might be able to make sociologic arguments against it, in that it spreads disease, and may weaken relationships and marriage, thereby harming society.

there is no ethical difference between sex with your hands, sex with your mouth, sex with your genitals, sex with your anus, sex with toys, or sex with fruit. There are clearly logistical differences, but ethical?
It depends on what your ethic is. If it is "not harming the body", then some of those might be immoral. If it is "don't harm the soul or relatioship" some sex might be eliminated (promiscuity, adultery, impersonal sex). If your ethic is "it's good as long as it feels good" then you could include just about anything you think feels good, even pain (SM).

I do not expect others to adopt my perspective on these things, nor do I want to use them for legislation.

However, the question remains, how do we define what is ethical, moral, and natural in the sexual realm. I have made my arguments, and find them consistent and compelling. Maybe some think that the anus was made for sex. Me, I think it's a one-way portal for crap, and I'm not gonna pack the fudge in the opposite direction and call that healthy or natural.

[Louis]

It's interesting reading the comments from the christianists here. They are illustrating the forces at play in our culture which, in the context of BBM, led to the tragedy it dramatizes. Of course, christianists are so wrapped up in their cult that it is impossible for them to see, much less admit, this. I guess part of the anger so many gays display comes from the frustration at the impossibility of penetrating the steel curtain of heterosexual and monotheist arrogance and blindness surrounding this issue.

As for me, I no longer see any reason to be "kind" to anti-gay bigots. I hate them with a pure hatred and I wish them ill. I don't believe in turning the other cheek to evil.

btw - BBM is receiving widespread critical acclaim not because it is a "pro-gay" piece of propaganda, but because it is an excellent piece of filmmaking. Of course, you will all deny this because it doesn't fit into your ideology. As seeker readily admits, he doesn't see homosexuality legitimate in any form, so the pain and tragedy the men and women undergo here is irrelevant. Of course, everything you people say convinces me even more thoroughly of the bankruptcy of your religion. Thanks.

[Stewart]

Asking how we define what is ethical is a good question, I think. Answering "Because God told me so," is not a good answer, though, since literally billions of people disagree on what that even means. And when somebody questions that logic, saying that God exists outside of time so he's allowed to care about arbitrary matters if he wants, does not make the argument any stronger.

Yes, God could care about all sorts of meaningless drivel. God (if he existed) could say "Gosh, I hate nose pickers! Nose picking is unethical!", but it's hard to imagine why he would, since it's totally meaningless. Saying that he exists outside of time, as if that's some get-out-of-jail-free card, will not work. I could just as easily say that, since God exists outside of time, he would not care about anything. Neither of those arguments makes any logical sense, though, since the point of saying that God exists outside of time is merely to suggest that nothing he does has to make sense to us. And that blade can cut both ways.

As far as an "ethic" goes, I don't see a lot of room for argument here. In what way does oral sex harm the body that vaginal sex cannot? Oral sex is demonstrably safer, less likely to transmit disease, and less likely to cause pain than vaginal sex. And even if it were fundamentally dangerous to engage in oral or anal sex (and it is not fundamentally so), there's not a lot of solid basis to claim that personally-chosen danger is inherently unethical. In fact, just the opposite seems to be intuitively true to most people. Crimes without victims simply don't exist.

By the way, if you guys want to claim the high ground when Sam throws over-the-top comments at you, maybe you should refrain from using intentionally-offensive phrases like "pack the fudge". Hmmm? Maybe? Just a thought.

[seeker]

Actually, I find the pain distressing and sad, but I will not cause MORE pain by denying the truth of what the solution should be - turn from sin and be made whole.

Janett Parashall said this excellently last night on Larry King Live - just because we find human pathos and tradgedy in a character's life doesn't mean that we must agree with their responses to life - it doesn't mean the pain is irrelevant - what is relevant is that, although social mores "caused" the suffering of these men because they had to supress their sexuality, the assumed universal solution of accepting their infidelity or justifying their lust and sinful fullfillment of valid needs is objectionable. I see their pain. I hurt when I see their choices, and how they feel driven by forces they can't control. I also know that this movie probably does not present the righteous response to their situations.

Now, I am coming to see that a belligerent approach to gays is not helpful. In fact, there is even one ex-gay guy who believes that we should not resist the gay political agenda at all, but merely promote reparative therapy. Maybe removing the legal taboos would help gays feel less repressed, but I don't think that will solve the real problem which is that gays need healing.

And gays will have to live with the idea that their questionable lifestyle can not be pushed on the rest of us to make them feel better. Kindness, yes, official approval and acceptance, no. Empathy for gays, wonderful, accepting hx as normal and healthy, that would be accepting a lie.

[Louis]

Spoken like a true bigot.

[seeker]

Well, I was using a euphemism to paint the picture of crap going the wrong way. Probably a bit tasteless. Sorry bout that.

I admitted that my argument against oral sex is weak. It's not safer than vaginal sex, in there is no pre-existing disease in your monogamous relationship, they are equally safe. But the arguement that makes it "unnatural" is not that it causes disease, but that the mouth's primary design is for eating, speaking, breathing, and kissing (arguably). That's not as strong an argument as that against anal sex. But again, I'm not going to stand on this hill as if it's entirely defensible.

Regarding BBM, it is probably a good movie if you can overlook it's charicatures of hetero men, and it's moral acceptance of homosexuality. At least it shows the consquences of supression and infidelity.

[seeker]

Lewis, don't be a namecalling troll ;)

[Stewart]

How is kissing "arguably" the intended purpose of your mouth? It's not even culturally universal. It's just something we do because it's an incredibly sensitive area that responds positively to intimate touching. That same argument can be made for licking nipples and anuses, too.

Explain to me, please, how Brokeback Mountain makes a caricature of any group, let alone heterosexuals. Actually, don't bother. You're not remotely capable of placing qualifications on a movie that you have never even seen. You're criticizing this film based on the reviews of people who dislike it because it sympathetically portrays the plight of gay men in decades past. You are in absolutely no position to argue anything about the film's message or its contents.

[Louis]

The name is "Louis" jerk.

And you have obviously disqualified yourself from commenting on anything whatsoever to do with gay people. You are beneath contempt.

[Aaron]

Stewart,
I didn't say my comment about God existing outside time was reason to believe that He did care about smaller things, only that that fact allowed Him to care about smaller things.

Much of the arguments I hear against God caring about {insert your own "small" thing] is that if He exists He is much too busy with all of the huge topics facing the world. Kind of like the argument ripping players for saying that God helping them win a football game (which may be tacky, but the argument used against it is silly) - the offended sports writer always says something to the effect of - "As if God cares that John just won the Super Bowl when we have people dying of war in Iraq and starving in Africa."

I don't have a dog in the fight as regards to the oral, anal sex thing. You also have to consider that seeker is mainly arguing about what Christians should do. Beneficial or not, nonchristians are not going to care about what the Bible says.

You should also know that I made the comment to Sam about the sarcasm because I know he is capable of debating things and I like to read his actual thoughts (and address them) not some sarcastic jab to make a point. Also, seeker made the "fudge" comment. So neither had anything to do with the other.

[Louis]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005512310342

[seeker]

Louis (lewis, louie, lou lou), that is a sad story. However, it seems that he could have recieved the ranch if he had checked his will with a competent lawyer - he didn't need a legal marriage to get inheritance rights.

But it is a good point that the man's will was overridden on a technicality, which then allowed the default to happen - the man's BLOOD relatives got his stuff.

But if the dead guy was set on not giving anything to his blood relatives, he should have written them out more carefully.

However, I'd barely call cousins blood relatives. That really seems stupid and unfair.

[Louis]

The point is not about their negligence regarding the will; rather, it's about the necessity of crossing every "t" and dotting every "i" in order to prevent what happened. The fact is that, had they been allowed marriage or civil union, none of this would have happened. They had a real marriage, but because the state (under the influence, no doubt, of christianists and other bigots) refuses to acknowledge this elementary reality the calamity happened. Yes, it's stupid and unfair, but the stupidity and unfairness belongs to YOUR camp. No wonder I get so disgusted dealing with straights.

[seeker]

The problem with calling it a "marriage" is that, though you get better property transfer and other legal rights (all obtainable through other legal means), you also have the affect of forcing approval of this lifestyle upon the rest of the country, which will then include teaching it to our kids as a normal healthy lifestyle.

Many people disagree with that conclusion, and DON'T want it taught in the schools. I don't think there is any way you could avoid that. I think many people understand and agree with the financial and legal needs of gays, but you don't need government law to call your relationship a "marriage" to do that, and requiring government sanction (as opposed to neutrality) of what many consider to be an immoral, unhealthy lifestyle is what most people are worried about.

Would you force that opinion on the majority because you think you are right? Is that what is really happening here? Why are you not happy w/ the legal rights that are already there, other than making it easier to get those legal rights without jumping through legal hoops?

[Louis]

You know what? I don't give a damn what the majority thinks. Just because they are the "majority" doesn't mean they are automatically right - in fact, majorities are often wrong. Just because some people don't like my "lifestyle" doesn't mean they get a veto over it. If we are truly going to have a country with "liberty and justice for all," straights are going to have to come to terms with gay rights. Either that or admit they are bigots living a hypocrisy.

I'm aware that many - if not most - straights wish gay people would just go away or die. But we won't. Too bad.

[seeker]

The point is, the majority nor the minority are always right, but the minority must win the battle of public opinion in order to make legislation. Until then, they must be patient, and open to the fact that they may not be right, or at least, that they may have to live without official sanction.

[Louis]

Yes, of course, live under an unjust and tyrannical regime. It sort of reminds me of what the blacks were told in the fifties and sixties when they, too, demanded equality: don't rock the boat, it'll take the majority time to be convinced, be patient, defer your need for justice and equal treatment under the law, eventually you may get what you want.

That was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. Justice delayed is justice denied. You are an apologist for the unjust and the oppressor. How does that feel? And what is it, exactly, that you seek?

I do have to thank you for one thing: you clarified my views on xianity and helped me jettison that (bleep) forever. Thanks.

[Louis]

btw: BBM is now numero uno at the box office:
http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2006-01-18&p=.htm

[seeker]

OK, bbm is doing well at the box office. I am mildly interested. I'll wait for the video and plop it into my blockbuster list of about two hundred videos waiting.

[Louis]

bfd

[seeker]

Exactly ;p

[Louis]

Apperantly you christers think so.

[Steve]

Louis,

How very sad for you.

Calling those in believe in God and Jesus "christers" and "christianists" is just so very sad.

There is just such overwhelming evidence of the bible's authenticity and accuracy that it is inarguable.

One day, even you Louis, will bow to the name of Jesus to the glory of God the father.

God does not hate homosexuals, he hates the act of homosexuality. Movies like Brokeback Mountain are just examples of the pro-gay agenda trying to get non-gays to accept the homosexual life style. The more we normalize the behavior, the more paletable it becomes, until it no longer is offensive.

Why should Christians need to be tolerant of such an abhorrent thing as homosexuality? That "we're here, we're queer" crap got old really quick. We should tolereate this behavior as much as murder or rape or any other thing that is an abomination to our God. Homosexuality is a sin, just as pre-marital and extra-marital hetero sex is.

I must admit to sinning in this manner many times. I even tried to justify the sin by saying to myself that it was okay, and my life, etc. But I have since repented of my 'sins,' and face it, that is what it is, sin! That is all one has to do to be free from their sin. Repent, renounce Satan, ask Jesus to come into your heart as your Lord and Savior, profess belief that He died for your sins, and you too will be born again. It takes a tremendously higher level of faith to not believe in God. It is so easy just to believe and trust in Him.

You can get angry, and call us unflattering names, but when it all comes down to it, we are right. The god of the bible is the One True Living God, and all of your ranting and raving and gnashing of teeth against it will never change that fact.