Brokeback Mountain

Chantal · Post by **Chantal** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:04 am

IBD, I'm not in a closet! I'm not promoting it. It was in the news headlines yesterday.

The Holy Bible says "let your speech be always gracious and in good taste"

niss · Post by **niss** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:10 am

How come your speech always includes excerps from the holy bible?

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:03 pm

Chantal wrote:I wonder why this film will make money? Because all the gays are going to support it, and promote it! as I hear its won number one Gay film pfft......

Personally I think it's probably terribly BORING

It will probably make money because it is being shoved down everyones throats by the gay lobbyists - the wierd thing is, gays comprise about 1% of the population, I am not interested in arguing that number, it is relatively small either way you look at it. So why is a film of very little relevance to the majority getting so much press. I say little relevance, I also mean interest, most people are not much interested in the finer points of sodomy, so what is behind (no pun intended) all of the hoopla? Some broader agenda would be my guess.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:35 pm

" most people are not much interested in the finer points of sodomy, "

Or male on male blow jobs.

Chantal · Post by **Chantal** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:45 pm

fogghorn, I agree with you

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:09 pm

Hmm...was "Fight Club" only of interest to paranoid schizophrenics?

Was "Crash" only of interest to racists?

Was "Fatal Attraction" only enjoyed by homicidal lesbians?

Just beacuse the characters in a movie aren't representative of who you are doesn't mean that you can't possibly enjoy the movie. What would prevent you from enjoying the movie (or understanding why someone else would) is being a prejudiced, close-minded homophobe.

If you find part of the subject matter distasteful, that's fine. If you don't enjoy movies of that genre, that's fine too. If you find the thought of a homosexual affair occuring between two cowboys to be funny and want to make some jokes about it, that's great (because I've been laughing pretty hard at some of them)

HOWEVER...

One or more of the above things being true doesn't mean that the movie is being used as a piece of propoganda by special interest groups.

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:12 am

[quote="w squared"]
Just beacuse the characters in a movie aren't representative of who you are doesn't mean that you can't possibly enjoy the movie. What would prevent you from enjoying the movie (or understanding why someone else would) is being a prejudiced, close-minded homophobe.

I did not say no one else would enjoy the movie. That is called freedom of choice. If you are going to label people for avoiding material they disagree with and even possibly speaking up about it, then you are the person carrying the prejudice.

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 7:47 am

I think w squareds point was if you avoide it because you think it is just propaganda by gay lobbysts then that makes you prejudice.

Why did roots do so well? Because it brought hardship to light. And it was a good series. Now what kind of individual would say that that is just propaganda from the Blacks trying to gain sympathy?

If you think that then get your hood and your matches cause its cross burning time.

... · Post by **...** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:19 am

For a typical group known to be traditionally homophobic...this thread has gone far.

The ironic thing about the macho airline industry is...you work up through the industry to finally arrive at the airline level where you wish to finally indulge in stories of sexcapes with young virginal female flight attentdants only to find that now a days the cabin crews are all gay men!!!

Life's a bitch eh!?

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:45 am

I am Birddog wrote:... now a days the cabin crews are all gay men!!!

Life's a bitch eh!?

That's part of the international gay conspiracy, didn't ya know? (Rolled eyes when someone brough up that tired ol' canard earlier in this thread -- gay agenda!)

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:32 pm

Foghorn...

Read my post again, please. I didn't say that you must be a homophobe if you didn't like Brokeback Mountain. I said that if you were a homophobe you wouldn't like Brokeback Mountain.

For someone who's making plenty of statements about groups of gay lobbysists and broad agendas, you seem awfully quick to accuse others of being prejudiced.

I have no problem with you saying "I don't want to see Brokeback Mountain, as homosexual love scenes are distasteful to me."

I do have a problem with the fact that homosexual love scenes are distasteful to you causing you to make bizarre allegations about the film being rammed down people's throats by gay lobbyists with a broad agenda.

N2 · Post by N2 » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:06 am

Not a movie I would run out to see but I heard that the cowboy gets it in the end!

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:03 am

N2 wrote:Not a movie I would run out to see but I heard that the cowboy gets it in the end!

Yes, well, you have heard how the mounties always get their man, same ending here.

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:17 am

w squared wrote:Foghorn...

being rammed down people's throats by gay lobbyists with a broad agenda.

Now you have hit the nail on the head my boy. The radical feminists came along 30 odd years ago with a stated objective to bring equality. The result was the emasculation (not really but for appearance sake and superficially it exists and makes life hell for a lot of men) and the dismantling of the traditional family. That is why in large part the divorce rate in the west has gone sky high and men are continually, consistently screwed over by the courts now on settlements. Now everyone just shacks up, the traditional family is finished in most ways. That was an agenda of the feminist movement and is also part of the broader gay agenda. Why does a group that comprises 1% of the population swing so much clout? Why do movies like brokeback ( and the coming load of crap called davinci code ) get such hoopla and fanfare. Because there is a broad agenda at work. It is plain as the nose on anyones face, but the promoters of this garbage would rather come out with diatribes and vitriol and labels directed at the people who call a spade a spade. I really dont care, the truth is there for all to see.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:28 am

fogghorn:

It is a generational thing, if you were brought up in a culture that taught you to sodomize your dog if you got bored with your game boy you would look at dogs as a sexual need provider rather than a companion pet.

Cat

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:27 am

fogghorn wrote:
w squared wrote:Foghorn...

being rammed down people's throats by gay lobbyists with a broad agenda.
Now you have hit the nail on the head my boy. The radical feminists came along 30 odd years ago with a stated objective to bring equality. The result was the emasculation (not really but for appearance sake and superficially it exists and makes life hell for a lot of men) and the dismantling of the traditional family. That is why in large part the divorce rate in the west has gone sky high and men are continually, consistently screwed over by the courts now on settlements. Now everyone just shacks up, the traditional family is finished in most ways. That was an agenda of the feminist movement and is also part of the broader gay agenda. Why does a group that comprises 1% of the population swing so much clout? Why do movies like brokeback ( and the coming load of crap called davinci code ) get such hoopla and fanfare. Because there is a broad agenda at work. It is plain as the nose on anyones face, but the promoters of this garbage would rather come out with diatribes and vitriol and labels directed at the people who call a spade a spade. I really dont care, the truth is there for all to see.

Ya know, buster, you are so ill-informed and your mind is so full of sickening poison that you don't deserve to own a modem. That's all I've got now, and ever will have, to say about you and the sewage you call opinions. You're not worth the extra pixels.

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:40 pm

i'm glad that you said Torontoboy. Now I don't have to.

Foghorn: I'm not your "boy". Referring to someone in that patronizing tone won't get you anywhere.

If I was indeed your child (the only person who you should be referring to in that manner), I'd probably be petioning the court for emancipation.

TorontoGuy · Post by **TorontoGuy** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:50 pm

error post.

Springbok · Post by **Springbok** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:31 pm

Hey Torontoguy, someone crap in your porridge this morning?

fogghorn · Post by **fogghorn** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:39 pm

Springbok wrote:Hey Torontoguy, someone crap in your porridge this morning?

Boy, I'll say. I guess its high time i got myself re-educated and headed on down to watch ole brokeback badass. I could use a good laugh after some of these posts

. They really should have made that thing a comedy - it could have garnered an award or two, instead they had to go and get all sensitive on us - yeesh

.

Brokeback Mountain

Have you seen it?