I have already explained to you in several other posts that it is the act of homosexuality I disagree with, not the person. For example, I hate that a friend of mine is addicted to alcohol, but I don't hate him for it. I have a friend who is gay, and I don't agree with her lifestyle, but I still love her despite that. There is a difference that you are either failing to see, or refusing to see.
If you are disagreeing with the 'act of homosexuality' (what is the act of homosexuality?) because you think it is morally wrong, and I have… more engaged in the 'act of homosexuality', then the logical conclusion is that you think I was being, and am being, morally wrong for engaging in said act.
She's saying it is wrong to engage in the 'act of homosexuality', which means that people who do it are: unprincipled, wrongful and unscrupulous about the issue, to use words from your internet synonyms.
She's saying it is wrong to engage in the 'act of homosexuality', which means that people who do it are: unprincipled, wrongful and unscrupulous about the issue, to use words from your internet synonyms.
I'm probably totally botching this explanation, and I probably should just let people speak for themselves, but I would say that there doesn… more't necessarily have to be such absolute views when it comes to morality. It really comes down to semantics I guess. It depends on how you define morality and immorality. A perceived "incorrect" view doesn't necessarily have to be one that is immoral. A person with an absence of a particular moral view point doesn't necessarily = that person being perceived as immoral.
Let's take a look at some synonyms of immoral: unethical, bad, wrongful, wicked, evil, foul, unprincipled, unscrupulous, dishonorable, dishonest, unconscionable, iniquitous, disreputable, corrupt, depraved, vile, villainous, nefarious, base, miscreant. I don't think Tinni is labeling homosexuals as anything of the sort.
See, but staying strong in your views that engaging in the 'act of homosexuality' is bad is going to make them feel isolated, whether you want them to or not. Regardless of whether it certainly will be, which we don't know, it certainly COULD be, because my parents at first didn't try to make me feel isolated, and they did just by holding those views. If there's even the slimmest chance of saving someone from years of misery, it's worth a shot.
See, saying you think I'm being arrogant or whatever would have been okay. It's that you said i am that as a person which is horrible. But anyways, thanks for the apology.
Again what is the act and what is the lifestyle? Some definitions of those would be really helpful as otherwise discussion is impossible
What is the difference between disagreeing with a lifestyle a person is constantly embroiled in and disagreeing with them morally on something?
Oh come on, us having sinned doesn't mean we can't say things aren't immoral. Like, I personally think racists are immoral. Me having lied once doesn't prevent me from holding that opinion.
Sorry, what specifically is a choice? Being attracted to the same sex? Engaging in a sexual act with the same sex? You'll have to explain further. In the case of the former I assure you that there is no scientific evidence contradicting the notion that homosexuality isn't a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice and a whole bunch supporting it. I'll be happy to send it to you if required, it's been extensively researched
I don't believe I have been as rude as you, Tinni. I have not made personal comments about you as a person, just your actions. The former I regard as the lowest of low.
It sure seemed like you implied it. If I do have a child that is homosexual, I will still stay strong in my views, but I won't make them fee… morel lesser or isolated for that. You have no idea if I would be negatively affecting them, just because your parents affected you negatively, doesn't mean it will be the same for me and my child.
I found your behavior to be arrogant, I am sorry for saying you were arrogant. That was out of line.
I seem to have to keep repeating myself with you, I didn't say that the person was immoral for engaging in homosexuality. I disagree with the act and lifestyle, but I have no right to say that they're immoral, because I am not free of sin myself. All I was ever asserting in our conversations is that homosexuality is a choice, not something you're born with, and it can be controlled if they wanted to control it.
Just you implying that I would negatively affect my child, or hurt them is none of your business,… [view original content]
" A perceived "incorrect" view doesn't necessarily have to be one that is immoral."
Debating about this particular part doesn't really even matter. One could very well think homosexuality is immoral (I'm not going to put words in anyone's mouth), but that doesn't mean that person necessarily believes homosexuals to be immoral themselves. This is what I was talking about in regards to absolutism. And again, semantics has a lot to do with it. One's viewpoints on immorality could be different from someone else's. There really isn't any set, concrete definition on what immorality is. If Tinni does not find homosexuals to be evil, foul, dishonorable, dishonest, corrupt, depraved, ect., then she may not find them to be immoral. Considering immorality is such a subjective view, it doesn't really seem right to put words in her mouth and insist that she finds homosexuals to be immoral people.
She's saying it is wrong to engage in the 'act of homosexuality', which means that people who do it are: unprincipled, wrongful and unscrupulous about the issue, to use words from your internet synonyms.
" A perceived "incorrect" view doesn't necessarily have to be one that is immoral."
Debating about this particular part doesn't really ev… moreen matter. One could very well think homosexuality is immoral (I'm not going to put words in anyone's mouth), but that doesn't mean that person necessarily believes homosexuals to be immoral themselves. This is what I was talking about in regards to absolutism. And again, semantics has a lot to do with it. One's viewpoints on immorality could be different from someone else's. There really isn't any set, concrete definition on what immorality is. If Tinni does not find homosexuals to be evil, foul, dishonorable, dishonest, corrupt, depraved, ect., then she may not find them to be immoral. Considering immorality is such a subjective view, it doesn't really seem right to put words in her mouth and insist that she finds homosexuals to be immoral people.
I'm not going to change my core values and morals just because you're assuming that a child of mine would be isolated if they decided to pursue their homosexual thoughts. I doubt it would happen seeing as it is caused by outside factors, so I would be sure to raise them in a way so they won't be confused. Honestly though, I'm not even a mother yet, so this conversation is kind of pointless.
Now you're just purposely not understanding those two words. You can easily look up the definitions yourself without being condescending.
I don't agree with the way they're deciding to live their life, because I believe it will hurt them in the end. I disagree with them acting on thoughts that I believe can be changed. I have already explained this to you Flog, and you know it.
Racism isn't the same as Homophobia. Yes, it is immoral to disagree with race, because race can't be controlled, you can't change the race you were born as. I disagree with homosexuality, but I don't think homosexuality is immoral just because I don't agree with it. I have **never ** said anything about it being immoral, and all the posts I've made about it support that fact. Again, I seem to have to repeat myself a lot with you Flog.
Ok, now you're just splitting hairs, all you're doing is asking me for definitions of words that you damn well know the definition of. If you can't have a civil and mature conversation about this, maybe we shouldn't be having it in the first place.
You aren't free of blame Flog, you have called me plenty of names and have been rude to me.You have also been rude to several other users on here, and every time you're called out for it, you make yourself out to be the victim instead of apologizing for it. The fact that you can't admit you're wrong and that you've been rude and won't apologize for it despite our differences shows what kind of person you are deep down. I have apologized to you already, but I still don't really like you or these pointless debates we've had so far. I know you don't like me either, so how about you stop replying already.
See, but staying strong in your views that engaging in the 'act of homosexuality' is bad is going to make them feel isolated, whether you wa… morent them to or not. Regardless of whether it certainly will be, which we don't know, it certainly COULD be, because my parents at first didn't try to make me feel isolated, and they did just by holding those views. If there's even the slimmest chance of saving someone from years of misery, it's worth a shot.
See, saying you think I'm being arrogant or whatever would have been okay. It's that you said i am that as a person which is horrible. But anyways, thanks for the apology.
Again what is the act and what is the lifestyle? Some definitions of those would be really helpful as otherwise discussion is impossible
What is the difference between disagreeing with a lifestyle a person is constantly embroiled in and disagreeing with them morally on something?
Oh come on, us having sinned doesn't mean… [view original content]
She's saying it is wrong to engage in the 'act of homosexuality', which means that people who do it are: unprincipled, wrongful and unscrupulous about the issue, to use words from your internet synonyms.
Well obviously, it has to be subjective by definition. The point is that if one believes an act is immoral, they must believe one who has partaken in said act to have acted immorally.
The point is that if one believes an act is immoral, they must believe one who has partaken in said act to have acted immorally.
Obviously, but we don't know that Tinni finds homosexuality to be immoral or not (well, actually we do, as she has said several times that she does not view it as immoral). That is entirely the point of what we have been discussing. It's kind of ridiculous to put words in her mouth when everyone has a different view on what they perceive to be immoral or not immoral. I really don't see how this is even a discussion.
p.s. Sorry to somehow end up in the middle of this guys, I just can't help myself sometimes <_<
Well obviously, it has to be subjective by definition. The point is that if one believes an act is immoral, they must believe one who has partaken in said act to have acted immorally.
I'm not going to change my core values and morals just because you're assuming that a child of mine would be isolated if they decided to pursue their homosexual thoughts. I doubt it would happen seeing as it is caused by outside factors, so I would be sure to raise them in a way so they won't be confused. Honestly though, I'm not even a mother yet, so this conversation is kind of pointless.
There's a chance they would feel isolated. I'm not assuming they would feel that way, I'm saying it's a possibility as it happens a great deal.
Hold on a sec. If you think it's caused by OUTSIDE factors, how can you possibly believe it's a choice? And yeah, as lovely as specifically raising them in a way that they 'wouldn't be confused' (what do you think most parents of gay kids do, paint them in rainbows and refuse to show them the opposite gender?)
Hypotheticals also aren't necessitated to be pointless. They can help.
Now you're just purposely not understanding those two words. You can easily look up the definitions yourself without being condescending.
I know what act means obviously. I'm asking your personal definition of an 'act of homosexuality' as people have different views about what that is.
I don't agree with the way they're deciding to live their life, because I believe it will hurt them in the end. I disagree with them acting on thoughts that I believe can be changed. I have already explained this to you Flog, and you know it.
In what way will it hurt them in the end?
Racism isn't the same as Homophobia. Yes, it is immoral to disagree with race, because it can't be controlled. I disagree with homosexuality, but I don't think homosexuality is immoral just because I don't agree with it. I have never said anything about it being immoral, and all the posts I've made about it support that fact. I seem to have to repeat myself a lot with you Flog.
You can pay to have your race changed just like you can pay to have psychologists attempt to make you not attracted to the same sex.
If I could control homosexuality, I wouldn't have tried to kill myself for it.
I also feel I have to repeat myself with you. If you don't think it is immoral, then in what way do you disagree with it?
Ok, now all you're doing is asking me for definitions of words that you damn well know the definition of. If you can't have a civil and mature conversation about this, maybe we shouldn't be having it in the first place.
Again, I know what the word 'lifestyle' means: I'm asking what your personal definition of a 'gay lifestyle' means. Is that a lifystyle where one is attracted to the same sex? Or one where someone makes love with the same sex?
There's no need to be so aggressive about the definitions I'm asking for, I'm trying to get a better understanding of your opinions. Seems particularly unnecessarily nasty when I phrased it in an amicable way.
You aren't free of blame Flog, you have called me plenty of names and have been rude to me.You have also been rude to several other users on here, and every time you're called out for it, you make yourself out to be the victim instead of apologizing for it. The fact that you can't admit you're wrong, and that you've been rude and apologize for it despite our differences, shows what kind of person you are deep down. I have apologized to you already, but I still don't really like you or these pointless debates we've had so far. I know you don't like me either, so how about you stop replying already.
I didn't say I was free of blame, I said I haven't been as rude as you due to the fact I haven't made comments about you as a person, only the opinions you hold.
And actually, I apologised above. Twice. So, uh, yeah.
You're doing it again: you're saying my words here say something about me as a person 'deep down'. And again, you think I didn't apologise when I actually did.
And I do like you. I have a lot of respect for you standing up for your opinions. Granted, the insults did leave me uncertain, but I still think you're a cool human.
I'm not going to change my core values and morals just because you're assuming that a child of mine would be isolated if they decided to pur… moresue their homosexual thoughts. I doubt it would happen seeing as it is caused by outside factors, so I would be sure to raise them in a way so they won't be confused. Honestly though, I'm not even a mother yet, so this conversation is kind of pointless.
Now you're just purposely not understanding those two words. You can easily look up the definitions yourself without being condescending.
I don't agree with the way they're deciding to live their life, because I believe it will hurt them in the end. I disagree with them acting on thoughts that I believe can be changed. I have already explained this to you Flog, and you know it.
Racism isn't the same as Homophobia. Yes, it is immoral to disagree with race, because race can't be controlled, you can't change the race you were born as. I disagree with… [view original content]
Thanking someone for an apology, and then saying you haven't been as rude as another person(even when you very well have) isn't apologizing. Because it's true, if you can't apologize, or be the bigger person, it does show what kind of person you are.
This was never a conversation or a debate. It was a fight from the start when you first replied to me. I took the bait, and I shouldn't have done that.
I'm not going to change my core values and morals just because you're assuming that a child of mine would be isolated if they decided to pur… moresue their homosexual thoughts. I doubt it would happen seeing as it is caused by outside factors, so I would be sure to raise them in a way so they won't be confused. Honestly though, I'm not even a mother yet, so this conversation is kind of pointless.
There's a chance they would feel isolated. I'm not assuming they would feel that way, I'm saying it's a possibility as it happens a great deal.
Hold on a sec. If you think it's caused by OUTSIDE factors, how can you possibly believe it's a choice? And yeah, as lovely as specifically raising them in a way that they 'wouldn't be confused' (what do you think most parents of gay kids do, paint them in rainbows and refuse to show them the opposite gender?)
Hypotheticals also aren't necessitated to be pointless. They can help.
Now you're just… [view original content]
If one person doesn't view their opinions as immoral, that does not make them not so. I think saying you disapprove of homosexuality is a moral statement. She has up till now refused to clarify her meaning.
Don't worry, I was expecting you to get involved. You and Tinni are close moustache friends or whatever they're calling them now and you have both literally never agreed with a word I've said.
The point is that if one believes an act is immoral, they must believe one who has partaken in said act to have acted immorally.
Obv… moreiously, but we don't know that Tinni finds homosexuality to be immoral or not (well, actually we do, as she has said several times that she does not view it as immoral). That is entirely the point of what we have been discussing. It's kind of ridiculous to put words in her mouth when everyone has a different view on what they perceive to be immoral or not immoral. I really don't see how this is even a discussion.
p.s. Sorry to somehow end up in the middle of this guys, I just can't help myself sometimes <_<
I didn't just thank you for an apology. I apologised myself. Scroll up. I literally said I'm sorry for being harsh towards you. It was in one of the first posts I made in our conversation.
If you want I quote, I'll give it to you:
'Look, I know I get too emotionally involved at times, and I know I'm often rude. Particularly to you, because we fundamentally disagree on so many levels, and I'm sorry for that.'
So, uh...yeah?
It's kind of harsh to imply I never said sorry or anything when I did, and have evidence that I did.
And thus, nothing really has been said about my personality. Except that I like you, and don't think you have any specific faults as a person, just some misled opinions.
Thanking someone for an apology, and then saying you haven't been as rude as another person(even when you very well have) isn't apologizing.… more Because it's true, if you can't apologize, or be the bigger person, it does show what kind of person you are.
This was never a conversation or a debate. It was a fight from the start when you first replied to me. I took the bait, and I shouldn't have done that.
It's fine Belan, you don't have to apologize. I should have known better than to get into this discussion again. But thanks for sticking up for me, I appreciate it.:)
The point is that if one believes an act is immoral, they must believe one who has partaken in said act to have acted immorally.
Obv… moreiously, but we don't know that Tinni finds homosexuality to be immoral or not (well, actually we do, as she has said several times that she does not view it as immoral). That is entirely the point of what we have been discussing. It's kind of ridiculous to put words in her mouth when everyone has a different view on what they perceive to be immoral or not immoral. I really don't see how this is even a discussion.
p.s. Sorry to somehow end up in the middle of this guys, I just can't help myself sometimes <_<
I have already explained to you in several other posts that it is the act of homosexuality I disagree with, not the person. For example, I h… moreate that a friend of mine is addicted to alcohol, but I don't hate him for it. I have a friend who is gay, and I don't agree with her lifestyle, but I still love her despite that. There is a difference that you are either failing to see, or refusing to see.
If one person doesn't view their opinions as immoral, that does not make them not so.
Depending on who you ask... which is entirely the point.
I think saying you disapprove of homosexuality is a moral statement.
Wrong =/= immoral.
She has up till now refused to clarify her meaning.
I haven't read every single response, but I'm pretty sure she has clarified her meaning. She shouldn't need to anyway. You're the one attaching meaning that she didn't even necessarily imply (as we have gone over above). She never came close to saying homosexuals are immoral human beings. You pulled that out of nowhere really. This shouldn't even be a discussion. There is no shame in admitting that you were simply not on the same page..
you have both literally never agreed with a word I've said.
I don't know, I feel like we had a streak going at one point where we were in agreement on a few things... lol.
If one person doesn't view their opinions as immoral, that does not make them not so. I think saying you disapprove of homosexuality is a mo… moreral statement. She has up till now refused to clarify her meaning.
Don't worry, I was expecting you to get involved. You and Tinni are close moustache friends or whatever they're calling them now and you have both literally never agreed with a word I've said.
Consistently putting words in my mouth, such as saying I think you're immoral for being homosexual, that I think homosexuality is immoral/wrong, calling me a homophobe and a Bible Basher, insulting me and invalidating my thoughts because of my religion, saying that my values and morals are going to hurt my child etc. You vaguely apologizing and saying that you have the tendency to be harsh because you are emotionally involved, but then going on to say that my disagreement is pretty much the equivalent to emotional torture and abuse if I were to ever have a child that might engage in homosexuality isn't much of an apology. I apologized to you for the specific instances I was out of line, you didn't.
I didn't just thank you for an apology. I apologised myself. Scroll up. I literally said I'm sorry for being harsh towards you. It was in on… moree of the first posts I made in our conversation.
If you want I quote, I'll give it to you:
'Look, I know I get too emotionally involved at times, and I know I'm often rude. Particularly to you, because we fundamentally disagree on so many levels, and I'm sorry for that.'
So, uh...yeah?
It's kind of harsh to imply I never said sorry or anything when I did, and have evidence that I did.
And thus, nothing really has been said about my personality. Except that I like you, and don't think you have any specific faults as a person, just some misled opinions.
It's fine Belan, you don't have to apologize. I should have known better than to get into this discussion again. But thanks for sticking up for me, I appreciate it.:)
Consistently putting words in my mouth, such as saying I think you're immoral for being homosexual, that I think homosexuality is immoral/wr… moreong, calling me a homophobe and a Bible Basher, insulting me and invalidating my thoughts because of my religion, saying that my values and morals are going to hurt my child etc. You vaguely apologizing and saying that you have the tendency to be harsh because you are emotionally involved, but then going on to say that my disagreement is pretty much the equivalent to emotional torture and abuse if I were to ever have a child that might engage in homosexuality isn't much of an apology. I apologized to you for the specific instances I was out of line, you didn't.
Just got it. I'll say it in public too, I don't really dislike you, I just got pretty heated as well. I accept your apology, and though we will probably never agree on anything, let's let bygones be bygones, and at least try to be friends.
5 things I like about you:
I admire that you are so passionate in your views/opinions.
You are a very strong person for having gone through what you did as a child, and I can relate to that from having a similar experience as a child.
You are actually very nice, even though we haven't been very nice to one another lol.
Though I often disagree with your opinion, they are usually backed up with a lot of good evidence and support.
You are capable of being the bigger person.
I hope that something like this doesn't happen again, we may just have to be careful on what we talk about in the future, because we are so different.
All of those are about your opinions, not your characters. One of hem also isn't true: I never said your morals ARE GOING to hurt your child.
I'm sort of upset about some stuff and..well anyway i've sent you a pm, could you have a read?
That's quite the advantage you have, I wish my memory was that efficient. I also excelled in History and English in school, but math was always my biggest struggle. You probably could study the Bible professionally if you ever wanted to.
and the fact that this was even allowed to become a movie
This gave me the impression that she thought it shouldn't have been made into a movie, simply because it took a story from the Bible and made dramatic changes to it. If she meant for it to be interpreted as something else, then I apologize.
So, you're saying that these people should not be unhappy with movies such as "Noah" simply because there are worse things out there, correct? Doesn't that seem a tad fallacious? I'm sure there are worse things out there that could possibly illicit a stronger outcry, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these people should therefore be more accepting of the lesser offense to them.
I never said people shouldn't be unhappy if they're offend by them. I said that if the material offends them, they should just ignore it and move on. Pay it no mind. Don't accept it. Don't acknowledge it. They are free to be upset about it if they want, don't get me wrong. I just think saying that "Noah" was insulting to Christians and the Bible, as well as disrespecting God is a little over the top. I'm pretty sure the movie doesn't flat out go out of its way to say that you shouldn't be a Christian or show and say anything that might insult Christians with intent. For all I know, the director was most likely just incorporating his own interpretations and new ideas for the plot and characters to make the film more interesting for a broader audience.
The reason why I can understand them being more upset over the issue is the fact that us religious individuals are seemingly becoming more and more of a minority, and we're beginning to be looked down upon enough as it is without movies/media adding to the mentality vs religion. It's honestly very easy to get defensive about these days.
When you say "us religious individuals," do you specifically mean Christians, or every last religious person who exist all around the world? Because religion is far from becoming a minority and I personally don't think it'll actually reach minority status anytime soon. What are mainly increasing here in the US and around the world are skeptics, which is natural given how advanced and far our society as a whole has come in terms of science, and trying to ascertain various cultures and other religions. And this isn't a bad thing. One can even be a skeptic and still be religious. Every religion and non-religion gets looked down upon to a certain extent. Some religious people look down on other religious people. Some atheists look down on agnostics and vice versa. From what I've notice, if someone questions something pertaining to Christianity or any of its sects, whether its scripture or whatever, or takes a story and character (s) and interprets them differently, some people take it the wrong way and proclaim that they're being prosecuted. I'm inclined to believe that the people who honestly believe that are in the minority though. And this can happen with any religion as well.
Yes, There are some distasteful and questionable products that people design, write, and direct. However, they are still within their rights… more to develop those types of projects no matter how questionable or disgusting we find it. For instance, it's perfectly legal for someone to write a book on how to hack a computer or software files (I know this because I've seen numerous of these books at Barnes & Nobles and on Amazon). Technically that falls under freedom of expression and the author is allowed to write and publish it
As I said in my last post, no one is saying that there should be any legal restriction emplaced. I understand that these people are within their individual rights to produce these kinds of movies, even if they are offensive to certain groups of people.
I just think some people are blowing the Noah movie out of proportion simply because it doesn't follow the Bible exactly, which you honestly can't expect it t… [view original content]
I have to wonder what Charlton Heston would say, if he could see how Hollywood is totally disrespecting a character he once portrayed
And what he would say, in response to the contempt Hollywood is showing both the Bible and religion?
Charlton Heston was Episcopalian, incidentally.
As far as Christian Bale, for the his arrogant and disrespectful comments he's made, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he loses a huge number of his fans, as there are still those of us that hold the Bible in high regard.
And as far as I'm concerned, if that were to happen to him, it would serve him right.
That's quite the advantage you have, I wish my memory was that efficient. I also excelled in History and English in school, but math was always my biggest struggle. You probably could study the Bible professionally if you ever wanted to.
There are a number of people that have passed on, including Charles Heston, who I wonder what they would say about the current state of not only Hollywood, but American society itself. The one I think about the most lately is Ronald Reagan, what would he think when he sees the pitiful state his beloved country is in? I find myself wishing often that a celebrity would stand up against the contempt for the Bible's teachings for once, because as much as I hate to admit it, their voice will be heard far louder than the everyday citizen.
I think so too. I believe he is entitled to saying what he thinks, but that doesn't change the fact that the comment itself was very ignorant and lacked any real foundation. Maybe if he read the Bible, I could deal with his odd interpretation, but he learned this from the Quran..it makes no sense to me.
I have to wonder what Charlton Heston would say, if he could see how Hollywood is totally disrespecting a character he once portrayed
And w… morehat he would say, in response to the contempt Hollywood is showing both the Bible and religion?
Charlton Heston was Episcopalian, incidentally.
As far as Christian Bale, for the his arrogant and disrespectful comments he's made, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he loses a huge number of his fans, as there are still those of us that hold the Bible in high regard.
And as far as I'm concerned, if that were to happen to him, it would serve him right.
John Wayne was such an actor who wasn't afraid to speak his mind, even if it wasn't very popular.
His support of the war in Vietnam during the sixties was proof of that.
And if you watch the 1976 interview aboard his yat; off the coast of Mexico, Wayne had some interesting views about the civil rights movement.
You can find that interview on YouTube.
There are a number of people that have passed on, including Charles Heston, who I wonder what they would say about the current state of not … moreonly Hollywood, but American society itself. The one I think about the most lately is Ronald Reagan, what would he think when he sees the pitiful state his beloved country is in? I find myself wishing often that a celebrity would stand up against the contempt for the Bible's teachings for once, because as much as I hate to admit it, their voice will be heard far louder than the everyday citizen.
I think so too. I believe he is entitled to saying what he thinks, but that doesn't change the fact that the comment itself was very ignorant and lacked any real foundation. Maybe if he read the Bible, I could deal with his odd interpretation, but he learned this from the Quran..it makes no sense to me.
John Wayne was a true patriot, I love his movies. His opinions were and are unpopular with several people, but I agree with him on most things he says in that interview to be completely honest.
John Wayne was such an actor who wasn't afraid to speak his mind, even if it wasn't very popular.
His support of the war in Vietnam during … morethe sixties was proof of that.
And if you watch the 1976 interview aboard his yat; off the coast of Mexico, Wayne had some interesting views about the civil rights movement.
You can find that interview on YouTube.
I can't believe you just compared the story of Thor with the Bible. If you can seriously make that comparison, then there is no use even talking to you about this matter.
Let me ask you this, you homosexuals claim to be open, right?
And yet when someone disagrees with your lifestyle, you begin resorting to insults, how does that make you, and your kind, any different than the close minded people you claim to be against?
I'm not trying to be insulting.
I'm just asking a simple question.
But if one day you choose to become a mum, that could very well be your kid. They may happen to be homosexual, and live in fear of being hon… moreest with you because you think their unchangable preferences are immoral.
Look, I know I get too emotionally involved at times, and I know I'm often rude. Particularly to you, because we fundamentally disagree on so many levels and I'm sorry for that.
Thinking homosexuality is wrong is exactly the kind of views that are damaging.
My parents didn't think I wasn't human. They didn't want me to die.
They thought homosexuality was immoral. They used to send me notes every months saying that they hoped I had reconsidered my 'sinful decision'. How could I possibly reconsider a decision I never made? That kind of stuff physically and mentally tortured me for years before my husband gave me the courage to cut contact.
I can't move on because I can't sit idly by while the beginnings of the same thin… [view original content]
I'm surprised that Clint Eastwood isn't more like him.
When asked about his stance on homosexual marriage, he avoided the issue and directed the conversation toward other issues going on in the country.
Which was smart, cause if he answered that he didn't approve of them, his comment could've been used against him, and it could've seriously hurt his career.
For instance, several years ago, the woman who was voted miss California was asked about her views on homosexuality.
When she stated that she didn't approve of them, shortly afterward; she lost her title of Miss California.
Just like that poor girl was setup, they were going to do the same to Clint.
Aware of how much power homosexuals carry in Hollywood nowadays, Clint was smart to avoid the question like he did.
John Wayne was a true patriot, I love his movies. His opinions were and are unpopular with several people, but I agree with him on most things he says in that interview to be completely honest.
Comments
I have already explained to you in several other posts that it is the act of homosexuality I disagree with, not the person. For example, I hate that a friend of mine is addicted to alcohol, but I don't hate him for it. I have a friend who is gay, and I don't agree with her lifestyle, but I still love her despite that. There is a difference that you are either failing to see, or refusing to see.
All I have ever said is that I don't agree with it, that I don't support it.
She's saying it is wrong to engage in the 'act of homosexuality', which means that people who do it are: unprincipled, wrongful and unscrupulous about the issue, to use words from your internet synonyms.
See, but staying strong in your views that engaging in the 'act of homosexuality' is bad is going to make them feel isolated, whether you want them to or not. Regardless of whether it certainly will be, which we don't know, it certainly COULD be, because my parents at first didn't try to make me feel isolated, and they did just by holding those views. If there's even the slimmest chance of saving someone from years of misery, it's worth a shot.
See, saying you think I'm being arrogant or whatever would have been okay. It's that you said i am that as a person which is horrible. But anyways, thanks for the apology.
Again what is the act and what is the lifestyle? Some definitions of those would be really helpful as otherwise discussion is impossible
What is the difference between disagreeing with a lifestyle a person is constantly embroiled in and disagreeing with them morally on something?
Oh come on, us having sinned doesn't mean we can't say things aren't immoral. Like, I personally think racists are immoral. Me having lied once doesn't prevent me from holding that opinion.
Sorry, what specifically is a choice? Being attracted to the same sex? Engaging in a sexual act with the same sex? You'll have to explain further. In the case of the former I assure you that there is no scientific evidence contradicting the notion that homosexuality isn't a choice any more than heterosexuality is a choice and a whole bunch supporting it. I'll be happy to send it to you if required, it's been extensively researched
I don't believe I have been as rude as you, Tinni. I have not made personal comments about you as a person, just your actions. The former I regard as the lowest of low.
" A perceived "incorrect" view doesn't necessarily have to be one that is immoral."
Debating about this particular part doesn't really even matter. One could very well think homosexuality is immoral (I'm not going to put words in anyone's mouth), but that doesn't mean that person necessarily believes homosexuals to be immoral themselves. This is what I was talking about in regards to absolutism. And again, semantics has a lot to do with it. One's viewpoints on immorality could be different from someone else's. There really isn't any set, concrete definition on what immorality is. If Tinni does not find homosexuals to be evil, foul, dishonorable, dishonest, corrupt, depraved, ect., then she may not find them to be immoral. Considering immorality is such a subjective view, it doesn't really seem right to put words in her mouth and insist that she finds homosexuals to be immoral people.
What's the difference, though?
I believe racism is immoral, therefore I believe that racists are immoral. Is that wrong?
No. That's totally up to you. Like I said, immorality is a subjective viewpoint.
I'm not going to change my core values and morals just because you're assuming that a child of mine would be isolated if they decided to pursue their homosexual thoughts. I doubt it would happen seeing as it is caused by outside factors, so I would be sure to raise them in a way so they won't be confused. Honestly though, I'm not even a mother yet, so this conversation is kind of pointless.
Now you're just purposely not understanding those two words. You can easily look up the definitions yourself without being condescending.
I don't agree with the way they're deciding to live their life, because I believe it will hurt them in the end. I disagree with them acting on thoughts that I believe can be changed. I have already explained this to you Flog, and you know it.
Racism isn't the same as Homophobia. Yes, it is immoral to disagree with race, because race can't be controlled, you can't change the race you were born as. I disagree with homosexuality, but I don't think homosexuality is immoral just because I don't agree with it. I have **never ** said anything about it being immoral, and all the posts I've made about it support that fact. Again, I seem to have to repeat myself a lot with you Flog.
Ok, now you're just splitting hairs, all you're doing is asking me for definitions of words that you damn well know the definition of. If you can't have a civil and mature conversation about this, maybe we shouldn't be having it in the first place.
You aren't free of blame Flog, you have called me plenty of names and have been rude to me.You have also been rude to several other users on here, and every time you're called out for it, you make yourself out to be the victim instead of apologizing for it. The fact that you can't admit you're wrong and that you've been rude and won't apologize for it despite our differences shows what kind of person you are deep down. I have apologized to you already, but I still don't really like you or these pointless debates we've had so far. I know you don't like me either, so how about you stop replying already.
I haven't ever said it was wrong, or that homosexuality is immoral. You're putting words in my mouth again.
Well obviously, it has to be subjective by definition. The point is that if one believes an act is immoral, they must believe one who has partaken in said act to have acted immorally.
Obviously, but we don't know that Tinni finds homosexuality to be immoral or not (well, actually we do, as she has said several times that she does not view it as immoral). That is entirely the point of what we have been discussing. It's kind of ridiculous to put words in her mouth when everyone has a different view on what they perceive to be immoral or not immoral. I really don't see how this is even a discussion.
p.s. Sorry to somehow end up in the middle of this guys, I just can't help myself sometimes <_<
There's a chance they would feel isolated. I'm not assuming they would feel that way, I'm saying it's a possibility as it happens a great deal.
Hold on a sec. If you think it's caused by OUTSIDE factors, how can you possibly believe it's a choice? And yeah, as lovely as specifically raising them in a way that they 'wouldn't be confused' (what do you think most parents of gay kids do, paint them in rainbows and refuse to show them the opposite gender?)
Hypotheticals also aren't necessitated to be pointless. They can help.
I know what act means obviously. I'm asking your personal definition of an 'act of homosexuality' as people have different views about what that is.
In what way will it hurt them in the end?
You can pay to have your race changed just like you can pay to have psychologists attempt to make you not attracted to the same sex.
If I could control homosexuality, I wouldn't have tried to kill myself for it.
I also feel I have to repeat myself with you. If you don't think it is immoral, then in what way do you disagree with it?
Again, I know what the word 'lifestyle' means: I'm asking what your personal definition of a 'gay lifestyle' means. Is that a lifystyle where one is attracted to the same sex? Or one where someone makes love with the same sex?
There's no need to be so aggressive about the definitions I'm asking for, I'm trying to get a better understanding of your opinions. Seems particularly unnecessarily nasty when I phrased it in an amicable way.
I didn't say I was free of blame, I said I haven't been as rude as you due to the fact I haven't made comments about you as a person, only the opinions you hold.
And actually, I apologised above. Twice. So, uh, yeah.
You're doing it again: you're saying my words here say something about me as a person 'deep down'. And again, you think I didn't apologise when I actually did.
And I do like you. I have a lot of respect for you standing up for your opinions. Granted, the insults did leave me uncertain, but I still think you're a cool human.
Thanking someone for an apology, and then saying you haven't been as rude as another person(even when you very well have) isn't apologizing. Because it's true, if you can't apologize, or be the bigger person, it does show what kind of person you are.
This was never a conversation or a debate. It was a fight from the start when you first replied to me. I took the bait, and I shouldn't have done that.
If one person doesn't view their opinions as immoral, that does not make them not so. I think saying you disapprove of homosexuality is a moral statement. She has up till now refused to clarify her meaning.
Don't worry, I was expecting you to get involved. You and Tinni are close moustache friends or whatever they're calling them now and you have both literally never agreed with a word I've said.
I didn't just thank you for an apology. I apologised myself. Scroll up. I literally said I'm sorry for being harsh towards you. It was in one of the first posts I made in our conversation.
If you want I quote, I'll give it to you:
'Look, I know I get too emotionally involved at times, and I know I'm often rude. Particularly to you, because we fundamentally disagree on so many levels, and I'm sorry for that.'
So, uh...yeah?
It's kind of harsh to imply I never said sorry or anything when I did, and have evidence that I did.
And thus, nothing really has been said about my personality. Except that I like you, and don't think you have any specific faults as a person, just some misled opinions.
It's fine Belan, you don't have to apologize. I should have known better than to get into this discussion again. But thanks for sticking up for me, I appreciate it.:)
But what is the act of homosexuality?
Like,do you mean sex or just attraction or what?
Depending on who you ask... which is entirely the point.
Wrong =/= immoral.
I haven't read every single response, but I'm pretty sure she has clarified her meaning. She shouldn't need to anyway. You're the one attaching meaning that she didn't even necessarily imply (as we have gone over above). She never came close to saying homosexuals are immoral human beings. You pulled that out of nowhere really. This shouldn't even be a discussion. There is no shame in admitting that you were simply not on the same page..
I don't know, I feel like we had a streak going at one point where we were in agreement on a few things... lol.
Consistently putting words in my mouth, such as saying I think you're immoral for being homosexual, that I think homosexuality is immoral/wrong, calling me a homophobe and a Bible Basher, insulting me and invalidating my thoughts because of my religion, saying that my values and morals are going to hurt my child etc. You vaguely apologizing and saying that you have the tendency to be harsh because you are emotionally involved, but then going on to say that my disagreement is pretty much the equivalent to emotional torture and abuse if I were to ever have a child that might engage in homosexuality isn't much of an apology. I apologized to you for the specific instances I was out of line, you didn't.
Anytime.
All of those are about your opinions, not your characters. One of hem also isn't true: I never said your morals ARE GOING to hurt your child.
I'm sort of upset about some stuff and..well anyway i've sent you a pm, could you have a read?
Why has this thread turned into posts about religion? This is meant to be about movies, folks. Just saying.
Just got it. I'll say it in public too, I don't really dislike you, I just got pretty heated as well. I accept your apology, and though we will probably never agree on anything, let's let bygones be bygones, and at least try to be friends.
5 things I like about you:
I hope that something like this doesn't happen again, we may just have to be careful on what we talk about in the future, because we are so different.
Oh, it's you Kiwi. Sorry, the intensity was just too high.
I think we're done lol.
lol how ya doing Belan? good to see ya.
I hear ya on that one. That movie should never have been made. Mike Myers has some great movies, but that wasn't one of them.
I have quite the vendetta against The Purge.
My bad, I'm kind of at fault here.XD But on the bright side, it's pretty much resolved now, I think?lol
Thank you.
That's very nice of you to say.
This gave me the impression that she thought it shouldn't have been made into a movie, simply because it took a story from the Bible and made dramatic changes to it. If she meant for it to be interpreted as something else, then I apologize.
I never said people shouldn't be unhappy if they're offend by them. I said that if the material offends them, they should just ignore it and move on. Pay it no mind. Don't accept it. Don't acknowledge it. They are free to be upset about it if they want, don't get me wrong. I just think saying that "Noah" was insulting to Christians and the Bible, as well as disrespecting God is a little over the top. I'm pretty sure the movie doesn't flat out go out of its way to say that you shouldn't be a Christian or show and say anything that might insult Christians with intent. For all I know, the director was most likely just incorporating his own interpretations and new ideas for the plot and characters to make the film more interesting for a broader audience.
When you say "us religious individuals," do you specifically mean Christians, or every last religious person who exist all around the world? Because religion is far from becoming a minority and I personally don't think it'll actually reach minority status anytime soon. What are mainly increasing here in the US and around the world are skeptics, which is natural given how advanced and far our society as a whole has come in terms of science, and trying to ascertain various cultures and other religions. And this isn't a bad thing. One can even be a skeptic and still be religious. Every religion and non-religion gets looked down upon to a certain extent. Some religious people look down on other religious people. Some atheists look down on agnostics and vice versa. From what I've notice, if someone questions something pertaining to Christianity or any of its sects, whether its scripture or whatever, or takes a story and character (s) and interprets them differently, some people take it the wrong way and proclaim that they're being prosecuted. I'm inclined to believe that the people who honestly believe that are in the minority though. And this can happen with any religion as well.
And i haven't seen this one but it's worth mentioning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGql8sKjJwA
I have to wonder what Charlton Heston would say, if he could see how Hollywood is totally disrespecting a character he once portrayed
And what he would say, in response to the contempt Hollywood is showing both the Bible and religion?
Charlton Heston was Episcopalian, incidentally.
As far as Christian Bale, for the his arrogant and disrespectful comments he's made, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he loses a huge number of his fans, as there are still those of us that hold the Bible in high regard.
And as far as I'm concerned, if that were to happen to him, it would serve him right.
There are a number of people that have passed on, including Charles Heston, who I wonder what they would say about the current state of not only Hollywood, but American society itself. The one I think about the most lately is Ronald Reagan, what would he think when he sees the pitiful state his beloved country is in? I find myself wishing often that a celebrity would stand up against the contempt for the Bible's teachings for once, because as much as I hate to admit it, their voice will be heard far louder than the everyday citizen.
I think so too. I believe he is entitled to saying what he thinks, but that doesn't change the fact that the comment itself was very ignorant and lacked any real foundation. Maybe if he read the Bible, I could deal with his odd interpretation, but he learned this from the Quran..it makes no sense to me.
John Wayne was such an actor who wasn't afraid to speak his mind, even if it wasn't very popular.
His support of the war in Vietnam during the sixties was proof of that.
And if you watch the 1976 interview aboard his yat; off the coast of Mexico, Wayne had some interesting views about the civil rights movement.
You can find that interview on YouTube.
John Wayne was a true patriot, I love his movies. His opinions were and are unpopular with several people, but I agree with him on most things he says in that interview to be completely honest.
Its all good Tinni. You know I love ya
I heard the Purge Anarchy was pretty decent. But the Purge itself was pretty bad.
I agree. To compare the Bible, to a story from Greek mythology, is ridiculous.
Greek mythology, is just that, mythology.
Let me ask you this, you homosexuals claim to be open, right?
And yet when someone disagrees with your lifestyle, you begin resorting to insults, how does that make you, and your kind, any different than the close minded people you claim to be against?
I'm not trying to be insulting.
I'm just asking a simple question.
I'm surprised that Clint Eastwood isn't more like him.
When asked about his stance on homosexual marriage, he avoided the issue and directed the conversation toward other issues going on in the country.
Which was smart, cause if he answered that he didn't approve of them, his comment could've been used against him, and it could've seriously hurt his career.
For instance, several years ago, the woman who was voted miss California was asked about her views on homosexuality.
When she stated that she didn't approve of them, shortly afterward; she lost her title of Miss California.
Just like that poor girl was setup, they were going to do the same to Clint.
Aware of how much power homosexuals carry in Hollywood nowadays, Clint was smart to avoid the question like he did.