Brokeback Mountain

[Mara]

Oh and for the record, I don't really want to see this movie, I am not really that into sad movies that make me cry and contemplate how hard life can be for people. Of course life can be very hard sometimes. I don't really want to pay $10 to see it and be upset about it. I like my happy la-la bubble of romantic comedies and the like.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/10/2006 11:50:49 AM
Author: aljdewey
Marrying solely because it's 'expected' as acceptable behavior, to me, could constitute a form of infidelity. Marrying one person when you actually pine for another (who you would want but cannot have) could constitute a form of infidelity. In either instance, one is entering a union less than whole-heartedly.

I find this a fascinating line of inquiry, Al. I do not feel this way at all, and given that, your posting was illuminating.

I can understand your point of view-oh, very easily!-but it is no longer mine. It might once have been, but people change [and not always from having children ]. In fact, I have come to find that marriages that endure, whether they are arranged or not, whether they involve romantic love or not, even whether they involve sexual fidelity or not, are to be honored. As long as the couple continues to hold each other in affection and they both support and care for each other.

I have come to see the marriage of Tevye and Golde in "Fiddler on the Roof" as proof of how humans can behave lovingly and responsibly to each other even if they did not enter into a union deeply in love or free from feelings for someone else.

Long, enduring marriages in which people suffer through many tough times hold my admiration...as long as they are not rife with bitterness after the dust settles.

Deborah

 

[Caribou]

Why does this have to even be an issues anymore. Why do people care who other''s fall in love with!?!?!?!

Unless it directly impacts you..LET IT GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 1/10/2006 7:09:16 AM
Author: Momoftwo
The Bible is what many people around the world live by and you confuse not believing something is right with intolerance. Being tolerant of what I feel goes against my life values would be going against everything I believe. I received a couple of messages of support from people that didn''t want to be attacked the way I was. Kaleigh, I thought you were a nice person. I asked a question and got flamed. How very mature and respectful of all of you. Gee, sounds like Pot, Kettle, Black to me.

For the record, I am a nice person momoftwo. I just said out loud what many have been thinking for a long time.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/10/2006 1:27:34 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/10/2006 11:50:49 AM
Author: aljdewey
Marrying solely because it''s ''expected'' as acceptable behavior, to me, could constitute a form of infidelity. Marrying one person when you actually pine for another (who you would want but cannot have) could constitute a form of infidelity. In either instance, one is entering a union less than whole-heartedly.

I find this a fascinating line of inquiry, Al. I do not feel this way at all, and given that, your posting was illuminating.

I can understand your point of view-oh, very easily!-but it is no longer mine. It might once have been, but people change [and not always from having children ]. In fact, I have come to find that marriages that endure, whether they are arranged or not, whether they involve romantic love or not, even whether they involve sexual fidelity or not, are to be honored. As long as the couple continues to hold each other in affection and they both support and care for each other.

I have come to see the marriage of Tevye and Golde in ''Fiddler on the Roof'' as proof of how humans can behave lovingly and responsibly to each other even if they did not enter into a union deeply in love or free from feelings for someone else.

Long, enduring marriages in which people suffer through many tough times hold my admiration...as long as they are not rife with bitterness after the dust settles.

Deborah

Let''s be clear......I didn''t that say was *my* point of view. I said that I could see how it *could* constitute infidelity to some.

Expounding on your comment, though, from a purely discussional standpoint.....I wouldn''t quite equate an arranged marriage with the situation I was describing. I haven''t seen the movie, so I cannot profess to know the details of the storyline.

Having said that.....presumably, the setting takes place during a time when it was not prudent to disclose feelings of homosexuality. If one partner married another KNOWING that it was a marriage for the sake of societal acceptance.....with no expectations on the part of the spouse in thinking it''s something more, then sure.....I could see your point. But I can readily understand a viewpoint that would think it''s infidelity for a man (or woman) to enter a marriage with less than disclosed intentions---that the wife would think it''s a marriage in the sense of HER expectations and not something less.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/10/2006 1:51:12 PM
Author: aljdewey
If one partner married another KNOWING that it was a marriage for the sake of societal acceptance.....with no expectations on the part of the spouse in thinking it's something more, then sure.....I could see your point. But I can readily understand a viewpoint that would think it's infidelity for a man (or woman) to enter a marriage with less than disclosed intentions---that the wife would think it's a marriage in the sense of HER expectations and not something less.

I (now) understand that the point of view you offered up was not your own but a hypothetical one. (I thought it was pretty nice and romantic .)

I went to NYU and lived for many years in the East Village with a lot of gay men. The ones who had been married were all across the spectrum: those who were denying their homosexuality during their marriages to those who were trying to overcome it with a spouse who "knew" and tried to be supportive and understanding.

Taking the long view of marriage: sometimes one starts with the very best intentions, but cannot make the marriage work. I can imagine someone entering into a marriage with less than a total commitment and yet developing one over time. I can also see entering a marriage with clear, pure intentions and being thrown a curve by life that rendered the best intentions useless. For example: many marriages break up when there is a death of a child.

Deborah

 

[bar01]

Date: 1/10/2006 1:27:34 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/10/2006 11:50:49 AM
Author: aljdewey
Marrying solely because it's 'expected' as acceptable behavior, to me, could constitute a form of infidelity. Marrying one person when you actually pine for another (who you would want but cannot have) could constitute a form of infidelity. In either instance, one is entering a union less than whole-heartedly.

I find this a fascinating line of inquiry, Al. I do not feel this way at all, and given that, your posting was illuminating.

I can understand your point of view-oh, very easily!-but it is no longer mine. It might once have been, but people change [and not always from having children ]. In fact, I have come to find that marriages that endure, whether they are arranged or not, whether they involve romantic love or not, even whether they involve sexual fidelity or not, are to be honored. As long as the couple continues to hold each other in affection and they both support and care for each other.

I have come to see the marriage of Tevye and Golde in 'Fiddler on the Roof' as proof of how humans can behave lovingly and responsibly to each other even if they did not enter into a union deeply in love or free from feelings for someone else.

Long, enduring marriages in which people suffer through many tough times hold my admiration...as long as they are not rife with bitterness after the dust settles.

Deborah

This line of debate from you two ladies - is among the most insightful I have seen lately

- and is in my mind when I consider wether to see this movie - and I lean agasint it for the ideas aljdewey mentions -not the gay thing - it appears the gay thing is just a layer of complexity to an old story that has been told before. I can see both sides of this kind of debate, except that sexual fidelity and honor for marriage do go hand in hand. The question is were to define "fidelity" or maybe "Afffair" and where your cross the line of honoring a marriage and family. Complex ideas.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 1/10/2006 1:19:42 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 1/10/2006 12:37:47 PM

Author: Demelza

Date: 1/10/2006 11:49:00 AM

Author: fire&ice


What I see here is defending of a lifestyle. It makes it seem that to be an open homosexual as some courageous act.

I do think that, in many instances, being an openly gay person, even today, is a courageous act. Look at the prejudice they face, the people who say that they are immoral or disgusting, the extent to which they have to defend themselves against insult or even injury. Remember Matthew Shepherd. No, being gay does not make you a better, smarter, kinder person -- but I do think it takes courage to be out, particularly if you live anywhere other than LA, SF, NY, or a few other select places across the country.

This is the insanity of it all. I don''t think it''s courageous at all. You are being yourself. I don''t think it should be looked at as some noble act. One is faced with being oneself and facing the ramification in ALL aspects of oneself. Is one courageous for being blonde in a sea of people who think they are ditzy?


Momof2 has a viewpoint that would likely incite flames. Not a very popular viewpoint on PS. Does it make her courageous? In your POV, it would. Look at the ramifications of her beliefs. I''m sure the delivery had something to do with it - but it wasn''t an embraceable POV - as I knew it wouldn''t be.


It just seems like any belief that is out of the mainstream should be thought of as embraceable. I can remember years ago a conversation I had with an associate. She went on and on about how great someone was. I thought the person to be a complete Ahole. When I expressed my opinion, she proclaims - ''well, you know he''s gay.'' Like that had anything to do with shaping my opinion - and as if it should.


In the end, it seems like one is enlightened to go see this film. I don''t think so. It''s just a movie.

Well, first of all, blondes aren''t exactly an oppressed minority; they haven''t been killed or told that they are immoral sinners because of their hair color. That is a pretty big distinction. I''m not at all saying that being gay is a ticket to sainthood. I''m simply commenting on how difficult it must be to realize that who you are is simply unacceptable to much of the mainstream. And that I can only imagine it takes a certain amount of courage to come out of the closet when there is often the risk of being ostracized becuase of your sexual orientation. Depending on the cultural milieu in which you grew up, this could also mean losing the love and respect of your parents, friends, or church. The mere fact that we are debating this issue on PS suggests that the current social climate is far from accepting. This movie depicted the pain of that experience so vividly that I am having a hard time shaking it.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/10/2006 2:51:03 PM
Author: AGBF

Taking the long view of marriage: sometimes one starts with the very best intentions, but cannot make the marriage work. I can imagine someone entering into a marriage with less than a total commitment and yet developing one over time. I can also see entering a marriage with clear, pure intentions and being thrown a curve by life that rendered the best intentions useless. For example: many marriages break up when there is a death of a child.

What I''m trying to say (and not doing very well at it) is this: It''s not just the intentions that one goes into it with, but what the OTHER person thinks the his/herintentions are at the time and how that jives with his/her OWN expectations. Maybe a little simplification might better illustrate.

Dick and Jane are getting married. Dick is gay. He goes into the marriage knowing it''s not what he wants, and not being in love with Jane. He does so because he thinks it''s what he supposed to do.

MY concern is what JANE thinks. If she KNOWS he''s gay and decides to marry him any (for legitimacy of her own, for security, for status, for whatever reason and has also been frank about her reasons to him), it''s hard to make a case that''s "infidelity". Rather, it''s a mutual arrangement/agreement.....both are getting something from the arrangement even though it might not be what most expect from marriage in the idealistic sense.

What if it''s not that drastic? What if they just both go into it with reservations that it''s for them or that it will work? Again, as long as it''s clear on both sides, hard to make a case for infidelity.

Similar with marriages of convenience, arranged marriages, and marriages for citizenship.....in all cases, EACH of the partners enters the relationship knowing WHY the other is doing it and doesn''t have expectations that it is something more than it is. Yes, maybe those relationships develop into more....and maybe they don''t. But no one is shell-shocked or left feeling cheated if it doesn''t happen.

However, back to our example......if Jane goes into the marriage duped.....thinking that Dick does love her/cherish her/wants to be married in every traditional sense of the word and never realizes he''s anything less than fully committed on any level.....that *could* be construed as an infidelity by some.

That''s the standpoint I''m coming from in this discussion. Whether or not it can be construed as infidelity often depends on what EACH spouse''s expectations are coming into the union.

 

[aljdewey]

In fact.....even better example, and real life at that.

Prince Charles loved Camilla PB long before Diana was even a random twinkle in her father''s eye...or somewhere close to that.

Circumstances dictated, though, that he could not marry her, and he HAD to marry someone in order to produce heirs. Resigned to his lot, he may even have thought to himself "Well, I''ll give it my best, and I''ll do my level best to stay away from CMP." But do you think that''s how he framed his mindset to her? Likely not.

It might have been more successful had Diana gone into the marriage knowing and ACCEPTING what it really was....that it was a marriage to produce heirs, that he would still continue to see Camilla and seek her counsel, that he would always have a thing for her.

It would appear that wasn''t her expectation. At best, she maybe knew of his torch but figured he''d get over it or set it aside. At worst, she may not have realized their relationship was more than a friendship and expected his allegiance. Either way, it''s fairly certain she expected his physical fidelity, and that didn''t happen.

I obviously don''t know the ins and out, but let''s presume for a moment that it was never Charles'' intention to cut off all communication with Camilla, and that information was never revealed to Diana. It could be argued that entering the union under false pretenses was an infidelity.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 1/10/2006 3:39:14 PM
Author: Demelza

Date: 1/10/2006 1:19:42 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 1/10/2006 12:37:47 PM

Author: Demelza

Date: 1/10/2006 11:49:00 AM

Author: fire&ice


What I see here is defending of a lifestyle. It makes it seem that to be an open homosexual as some courageous act.

I do think that, in many instances, being an openly gay person, even today, is a courageous act. Look at the prejudice they face, the people who say that they are immoral or disgusting, the extent to which they have to defend themselves against insult or even injury. Remember Matthew Shepherd. No, being gay does not make you a better, smarter, kinder person -- but I do think it takes courage to be out, particularly if you live anywhere other than LA, SF, NY, or a few other select places across the country.

This is the insanity of it all. I don''t think it''s courageous at all. You are being yourself. I don''t think it should be looked at as some noble act. One is faced with being oneself and facing the ramification in ALL aspects of oneself. Is one courageous for being blonde in a sea of people who think they are ditzy?


Momof2 has a viewpoint that would likely incite flames. Not a very popular viewpoint on PS. Does it make her courageous? In your POV, it would. Look at the ramifications of her beliefs. I''m sure the delivery had something to do with it - but it wasn''t an embraceable POV - as I knew it wouldn''t be.


It just seems like any belief that is out of the mainstream should be thought of as embraceable. I can remember years ago a conversation I had with an associate. She went on and on about how great someone was. I thought the person to be a complete Ahole. When I expressed my opinion, she proclaims - ''well, you know he''s gay.'' Like that had anything to do with shaping my opinion - and as if it should.


In the end, it seems like one is enlightened to go see this film. I don''t think so. It''s just a movie.

Well, first of all, blondes aren''t exactly an oppressed minority; they haven''t been killed or told that they are immoral sinners because of their hair color. That is a pretty big distinction. I''m not at all saying that being gay is a ticket to sainthood. I''m simply commenting on how difficult it must be to realize that who you are is simply unacceptable to much of the mainstream. And that I can only imagine it takes a certain amount of courage to come out of the closet when there is often the risk of being ostracized becuase of your sexual orientation. Depending on the cultural milieu in which you grew up, this could also mean losing the love and respect of your parents, friends, or church. The mere fact that we are debating this issue on PS suggests that the current social climate is far from accepting. This movie depicted the pain of that experience so vividly that I am having a hard time shaking it.

Some blondes would differ.

...and I''m saying that being yourself - or true to oneself is courageous on many levels. One is going to be judged. If that is what you are saying - then we agree. But, I don''t think it''s commendable. It''s what one should do. One is always going to be faced with possible rejection and loss of respect.

Maybe it''s because of my occupation. But, I''m not seeing mainstream saying homosexuality is unacceptable. And, clearly, it''s not something new under the sun.

It sounds like the movie depicted this painful experience. I''ll never know. I won''t see it - not because of the gay thing. But, because I have an automatic turn off switch with "western" themes. And, call me plebian - but I''m with Mara - give me some dopey comedy any day. I wrestle with painful experiences in my own life. I can''t wrestle with someone else''s on the big screen.

Do you think that someone would change their mind about the issue if they saw the film? Honestly, I can''t say. But, I would venture a guess - no.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 1/10/2006 4:48:35 PM
Author: fire&ice
Some blondes would differ.

...and I''m saying that being yourself - or true to oneself is courageous on many levels. One is going to be judged. If that is what you are saying - then we agree. But, I don''t think it''s commendable. It''s what one should do. One is always going to be faced with possible rejection and loss of respect.


Maybe it''s because of my occupation. But, I''m not seeing mainstream saying homosexuality is unacceptable. And, clearly, it''s not something new under the sun.


It sounds like the movie depicted this painful experience. I''ll never know. I won''t see it - not because of the gay thing. But, because I have an automatic turn off switch with ''western'' themes. And, call me plebian - but I''m with Mara - give me some dopey comedy any day. I wrestle with painful experiences in my own life. I can''t wrestle with someone else''s on the big screen.


Do you think that someone would change their mind about the issue if they saw the film? Honestly, I can''t say. But, I would venture a guess - no.

You''re probably right that it wouldn''t change too many people''s minds. I suspect those who go to see the movie are already fairly liberal. I doubt any super right wing Christian groups are going to be flooding the movie theaters. Anyway, I totally respect you or anyone else not wanting to see the movie. It''s not for everyone and it is very, very sad.

I don''t know where you live, but I do think that there are parts of the country where there is still a lot of homophobia. Even in Hollywood where gays are well-represented, they are often type-cast as the comical, flamboyant neighbor or best friend. This is the first movie I''ve seen where they are treated as whole, complex human beings, not just someone''s humorous side-kick.

 

[Momoftwo]

Before you keep bring Matthew Shepherd into this argument, see this ABC news piece: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1
The ones who attacked him said they attacked him to rob him, not because he was gay. I do not condone the violence not matter the reason, just as I don't condone some in the anti-abortion movement and the way they handle things with violence. I don't hate anyone and I certainly have met gay people and my former hairstylist was. When I moved, he gave me a big hug. I loved him, but did not approve of his lifestyle and we talked about it and he was cool that it was my belief system and not about him. I speak plainly and honestly about my feelings. I didn't realize I had to say things the way everyone else wants in order to state my feelings. I guess because I pretty much let everything roll of my back since I realize everyone is different and speak the way they do for a variety of reasons. What I started with was an innocent question. I'm offended by the adultery in the film and was shocked to see some see nothing wrong with it. I do not mean to deliver what I say in an offensive matter. I don't like being attacked though for having a different viewpoint. My original question had what offensive word in it? Gay thing? To me that's all it was in the movie, just a piece of it and I was addressing the other part, adultery. We can argue whether being gay is acceptable in the mainstream or not. I work with a great variety of people and only know one that has any interest in seeing the movie and she said her husband wouldn't. I think everyone's idea of mainstream depends on your occupation, belief system, and upbringing.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/10/2006 3:39:14 PM
Author: Demelza

Well, first of all, blondes aren''t exactly an oppressed minority; they haven''t been killed or told that they are immoral sinners because of their hair color. That is a pretty big distinction. I''m not at all saying that being gay is a ticket to sainthood. I''m simply commenting on how difficult it must be to realize that who you are is simply unacceptable to much of the mainstream. And that I can only imagine it takes a certain amount of courage to come out of the closet when there is often the risk of being ostracized becuase of your sexual orientation.

OK...disclaimer first. I''m not anti-gay, nor do I care what others do in the privacy of their own home.

***********

Having said that, a few random thoughts:

"I''m simply commenting on how difficult it must be to realize that who you are is simply unacceptable to much of the mainstream. And that I can only imagine it takes a certain amount of courage to come out of the closet when there is often the risk of being ostracized becuase of your sexual orientation."

I''d suggest that many walks of life have long understood this problem in the first-person point of view. Blacks have long understood what it is to be unaccepted by much of the mainstream. Obese people have long understood what is means to be unaccepted by the mainstream. Homeless people have long understood what it means to be unaccepted by the mainstream. All of them understand what it''s like to be ostracized by the "mainstream", and there is no closet available to hide those things in.

(I''m not suggesting anyone should have to closet or hide any behavior; simply that some victims of ostracizing don''t even have that option.)

***********

I think, too, that it''s a bit of an oversimplification to compare being blonde (or black or obese or anything else) to being gay. Being obese/blonde/black doesn''t violate anyone''s religious beliefs (to my knowledge). Being gay isn''t just who one is; it emcompasses behavior that violates some folks moral or religious values.

I''m personally fine with the notion that others don''t believe in what I do, and therefore shouldn''t be made to conform to behaviors I believe in (or not). I live according to the standards that I think are right, and I''m fine with others living by standards they believe are right. I value the personal freedom each of us has to live according to our own individual values. So I don''t care who is gay, who is straight, who believes in my God, who believes in a different God, and anything else that involves BELIEFS. That''s me.

Some folks. though, are not fine with accepting differences in ideology. They believe that their way is the right way (morally, religiously, ethically, etc.) and feel compelled to promote and to expect similar behaviors from others. (One might think of the Crusades here or jihad.....a feeling that ones own beliefs/cause is just, to the point of imposing beliefs/causes on others.)

There is conflict for such people in trying to accept a person whose behavior violates a deeply held religious or moral position. It doesn''t make them right (in my opinion), but it doesn''t necessarily make them bigots, either. They are objecting to the *behavior* which runs counter to/violates their beliefs.

***********

For those who would argue that "homosexuals cannot control how they feel" and "they are who they are"...I personally agree with that. I would also argue that pedophiles don''t choose to be attracted to children....they just are. I would argue that adulters don''t choose to be feel attracted to people other than their spouses.

Here is where I see less tolerant folks having a problem with the "how they feel" argument. Religious expectations acknowledge that one may have wayward thoughts/feelings/temptations toward actions/behaviors that don''t conform. However, the accompanying expectation is to turn away from such thoughts and to choose not to act on them.

Again, I''m not personally endorsing it or saying it''s right. I''m saying that I can see the thought process behind someone who is deep in their faith rejecting behavior that doesn''t fit in with their faith. Look at how constituents of many religions define themselves.......they acknowledge that they are sinners (who they are?), but they expect themselves to reject and turn away from sinful behavior. It''s one thing to feel it; another to act on it.

*********

Anyway - just some things to think about as this discussion evolves.

 

[Hest88]

I think one can deplore the infidelity in the movie and still support the love driving the infidelity.

One of the saddest--and most admirable--aspects about the movie (and short story) is the multiple tragedies involved. You have two people who live in a time and place where the idea of an open relationship is impossible. That leads to betrayals of each other, betrayals of their true selves, and, yes, betrayals of people who love them and whom they love as well.

I do not condone infidelity. And I do not condone deceit. But I also don''t condone circumstances that make it shameful and possibly deadly for someone to live a life that harms no one else. That''s what makes the movie tragic on so many levels---it portrays the wide-reaching repercussions that ensue when one cannot be true to oneself.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/10/2006 5:53:14 PM
Author: Hest88
I think one can deplore the infidelity in the movie and still support the love driving the infidelity.


One of the saddest--and most admirable--aspects about the movie (and short story) is the multiple tragedies involved. You have two people who live in a time and place where the idea of an open relationship is impossible. That leads to betrayals of each other, betrayals of their true selves, and, yes, betrayals of people who love them and whom they love as well.


I do not condone infidelity. And I do not condone deceit. But I also don''t condone circumstances that make it shameful and possibly deadly for someone to live a life that harms no one else. That''s what makes the movie tragic on so many levels---it portrays the wide-reaching repercussions that ensue when one cannot be true to oneself.

You know what, Hest? That is really profound. I am serious. Not to condone infidelity, but to support the love driving it. I don''t know if that is my position, but it is a clear position, beautifully stated, and I think it is close to how I feel.

Deb

 

[larussel03]

Date: 1/10/2006 5:40:07 PM
Author: Momoftwo
Before you keep bring Matthew Shepherd into this argument, see this ABC news piece: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1

The ones who attacked him said they attacked him to rob him, not because he was gay.

This is a bit of a digression, but now I have a question. That could be true, but that's also what murderers claimed, so I don't feel they're the most reliable source. Could they have gotten into more trouble if they killed as a hate crime, as opposed to killed as a robbery? I know murder is murder, but I think that different "motives" may wield slightly different punishments... Does anyone know if it would have affected their case (any legal expert in the room?

) And I think that the murder part was pretty clear in his case, that it wasnt purely to just rob him?

 

[larussel03]

Date: 1/10/2006 5:58:48 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/10/2006 5:53:14 PM

Author: Hest88

I think one can deplore the infidelity in the movie and still support the love driving the infidelity.



One of the saddest--and most admirable--aspects about the movie (and short story) is the multiple tragedies involved. You have two people who live in a time and place where the idea of an open relationship is impossible. That leads to betrayals of each other, betrayals of their true selves, and, yes, betrayals of people who love them and whom they love as well.



I do not condone infidelity. And I do not condone deceit. But I also don''t condone circumstances that make it shameful and possibly deadly for someone to live a life that harms no one else. That''s what makes the movie tragic on so many levels---it portrays the wide-reaching repercussions that ensue when one cannot be true to oneself.

You know what, Hest? That is really profound. I am serious. Not to condone infidelity, but to support the love driving it. I don''t know if that is my position, but it is a clear position, beautifully stated, and I think it is close to how I feel.


Deb

I think you''ve just convinced me to go see the movie and I usually hate tear jerkers!!!

 

[BrownEyes]

Hest:

I couldn''t have said it better myself.

Thanks for making the point so clearly.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/10/2006 6:07:08 PM
Author: BrownEyes
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Oh, I can one-up that! I couldn't even have conceptualized such a thought, let alone have expressed it half as well!

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/10/2006 5:47:26 PM
Author: aljdewey
Some folks. though, are not fine with accepting differences in ideology. They believe that their way is the right way (morally, religiously, ethically, etc.) and feel compelled to promote and to expect similar behaviors from others. (One might think of the Crusades here or jihad.....a feeling that ones own beliefs/cause is just, to the point of imposing beliefs/causes on others.)


There is conflict for such people in trying to accept a person whose behavior violates a deeply held religious or moral position. It doesn't make them right (in my opinion), but it doesn't necessarily make them bigots, either. They are objecting to the *behavior* which runs counter to/violates their beliefs.

I understand and agree with what you have said here. Those people judge others according to their belief system and I, like Demelza, judge them according to mine. They feel it is wrong to do certain things (perhaps to engage in homosexual acts). I feel it is wrong to tell others whom to love and to whom to be attracted. They are offended by the sexuality. I am offended by their daring to tell anyone else how to live.

I do not see a solution to this dilemma. I would say, "respect" and "dialogue" might help...but I am not sure they will. If you believe something is wrong, you believe it's wrong. But perhaps humanizing the "enemy" is a good thing. Perhaps it will reduce the violence between people of good faith who just disagree.

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

Here''s the disconnect with me - I don''t *believe* that homosexuality is sinful. I''m not convinced that is what the Bible says.

One of the reasons I don''t follow my "brought up" religion is because it believes that only people of that *particular* faith will succeed to the Kingdom of God. I don''t think one particular religion has carte blanche on good kind person. I have always felt like God is inclusive and not exclusive. Hence, my reason for not believing that homosexuals are sinners.

That said, that''s why I do equate - be it ever so tongue in cheek - with being blonde. You are who you are - someone will judge you no matter what you are. You stand true to yourself. For the record, I am not blonde.

I''m smart because I am brunette.

My whole problem with the film is that many of the reviewers are saying it''s a very good film. They get criticized for saying that many are elevating it to a great film b/c of the theme. Don''t know if that is true or not - but it certainly does seem like going to see this movie puts you in a "better" catagory - like a badge of honor.

OT, but a friend and I want to see Pride and Predjudice. Would it be appropriate to take a 6th grade gal?

 

[Hest88]

Date: 1/10/2006 6:28:01 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 1/10/2006 5:47:26 PM
Author: aljdewey

There is conflict for such people in trying to accept a person whose behavior violates a deeply held religious or moral position. It doesn''t make them right (in my opinion), but it doesn''t necessarily make them bigots, either. They are objecting to the *behavior* which runs counter to/violates their beliefs.

I understand and agree with what you have said here.

See Deb, this I disagree with. It''s easy to let people off the hook because, as Americans, we believe in the sanctity of religious beliefs, but it makes us impotent. How do we differentiate between a religious or moral position as opposed to something else? It''s okay for someone to be a bigot because of their religious beliefs but not because their parents told them gay people were bad? And the whole "I don''t hate the person only the behavior" argument doesn''t hold water either, as far as I''m concerned. It smacks too much of "I don''t mind black people---as long as they know their place."

 

[Demelza]

Date: 1/10/2006 6:44:08 PM
Author: Hest88

Date: 1/10/2006 6:28:01 PM

Author: AGBF

Date: 1/10/2006 5:47:26 PM

Author: aljdewey


There is conflict for such people in trying to accept a person whose behavior violates a deeply held religious or moral position. It doesn''t make them right (in my opinion), but it doesn''t necessarily make them bigots, either. They are objecting to the *behavior* which runs counter to/violates their beliefs.

I understand and agree with what you have said here.

See Deb, this I disagree with. It''s easy to let people off the hook because, as Americans, we believe in the sanctity of religious beliefs, but it makes us impotent. How do we differentiate between a religious or moral position as opposed to something else? It''s okay for someone to be a bigot because of their religious beliefs but not because their parents told them gay people were bad? And the whole ''I don''t hate the person only the behavior'' argument doesn''t hold water either, as far as I''m concerned. It smacks too much of ''I don''t mind black people---as long as they know their place.''

Excellent point

What makes someone a bigot is that he or she is obsinately devoted to a prejudiced belief system (e.g. gays (or their behavior) are immoral). It shouldn''t matter, as Hest said, whether that belief was learned from the church, one''s parents, or Daffy Duck. Once that belief is held and presented to others as an immutable truth, a bigot is born.

 

[soulsis]

Normally I try to stay out of these conversations for various reasons being that I do not want to get flamed because I am opinionated.

I think that one thing that everyone SHOULD be able to agree with is the simplest of all. It seems that once a topic gets off the ground, race, religion or sexuality comes into play...when in fact the conversation has nothng to do with any of it. I don''t care if my neighbor wants to f%ck a donkey...really. It does not affect me. My values and beliefs are just that, right? Mine. We are all entitled to our opinion. Who am I to say that I walk the straight and narrow. Even true Christians sin. But I believe that the definition of a Christian is not to be a martyr. I make peace in my own life everyday and pray I pass on some good values to my kids. But in the end, who am I to judge. I go on living my life, just like the rest of you. In the end no one knows what waits for us on the other side (if there is another side).

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Date: 1/10/2006 6:54:41 PM
Author: Demelza


What makes someone a bigot is that he or she is obsinately devoted to a prejudiced belief system (e.g. gays (or their behavior) are immoral). It shouldn't matter, as Hest said, whether that belief was learned from the church, one's parents, or Daffy Duck. Once that belief is held and presented to others as an immutable truth, a bigot is born.

I'm not trying to argue here, but I'm curious as to who decides if a belief is prejudiced? I happen to believe that there are certain behaviors/lifestyles- some liberal and some conservative- that are immoral (and for the record, I'm not talking about gays- I'm pro-gay rights). If someone disagrees with me, does that make me a bigot? I'm just trying to understand earnestly.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/10/2006 6:42:51 PM
Author: fire&ice
Here''s the disconnect with me - I don''t *believe* that homosexuality is sinful. I''m not convinced that is what the Bible says.

One of the reasons I don''t follow my ''brought up'' religion is because it believes that only people of that *particular* faith will succeed to the Kingdom of God. I don''t think one particular religion has carte blanche on good kind person. I have always felt like God is inclusive and not exclusive. Hence, my reason for not believing that homosexuals are sinners.

I don''t believe it''s sinful either.....but I can assure you that some religions feel that it is, and firm constituents of that religion believe it wholeheartedly.

I don''t follow my "brought up" religion either......I''m a bit too "free-thinking" to fit well with most religions because I don''t believe one is more "right" than another.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 1/10/2006 6:44:08 PM
Author: Hest88

It's okay for someone to be a bigot because of their religious beliefs but not because their parents told them gay people were bad?

I didn't say it was okay for people to bigots...in fact, if you go back and reread, I specifically said just the opposite. I said *I* dont' believe that makes it right.

Date: 1/10/2006 6:44:08 PM
Author: Hest88

And the whole 'I don't hate the person only the behavior' argument doesn't hold water either, as far as I'm concerned. It smacks too much of 'I don't mind black people---as long as they know their place.'

I see. So then, Mary has to approve of every behavior by John, whether she believes it's morally right or wrong, and if she doesn't, she's a bigot?
I love Mara to death. If tomorrow, she decides to steal something, I most assuredly won't respect or approve of that behavior. Will I be a bigot then? No. I'll still love Mara, but I won't approve of that behavior. Do you really define everyone by ONE label only? Do you say "they are thieves, and that's all they are?" No....they are also husbands, fathers, sisters, girlfriends. They are rich, they are poverty-stricken....they are as diverse as the reasons to steal. In any case, I don't approve of stealing. That doesn't mean I cannot apply judgment to see BEYOND a singular behavior to accept other, broader facets of a person.

If Sally doesn't believe in a woman's right to an abortion and I do, are we then both bigots? Does it mean we can never be friends? NO. Tolerance means that I don't have to like, condone, or agree with her value system or a given behavior (nor will she like mine), but that I can accept we see things differently and look beyond that to find things we can agree on.

The black example in this case doesn't hold water at all, by the way. Not even remotely the same stratosphere.....not an appropriate correlation.

 

[hlmr]

Date: 1/10/2006 8:16:25 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 1/10/2006 6:44:08 PM
Author: Hest88

It''s okay for someone to be a bigot because of their religious beliefs but not because their parents told them gay people were bad?

I didn''t say it was okay for people to bigots...in fact, if you go back and reread, I specifically said just the opposite. I said *I* dont'' believe that makes it right.

Date: 1/10/2006 6:44:08 PM
Author: Hest88

And the whole ''I don''t hate the person only the behavior'' argument doesn''t hold water either, as far as I''m concerned. It smacks too much of ''I don''t mind black people---as long as they know their place.''

I see. So then, Mary has to approve of every behavior by John, whether she believes it''s morally right or wrong, and if she doesn''t, she''s a bigot?
I love Mara to death. If tomorrow, she decides to steal something, I most assuredly won''t respect or approve of that behavior. Will I be a bigot then? No. I''ll still love Mara, but I won''t approve of that behavior.

If Sally doesn''t believe in a woman''s right to an abortion and I do, are we then both bigots? Does it mean we can never be friends? NO. Tolerance means that I don''t have to like, condone, or agree with her value system or a given behavior (nor will she like mine), but that I can accept we see things differently and look beyond that to find things we can agree on.

These are indeed words to live by. Unfortunately people are not always able to think so rationally. They think with their hearts and with a lifetime of prejudices that they have within. That''s where the trouble starts - tempers flair, feelings are hurt and judgement is clouded with emotion. It is so hard to be tolerant at times but I think it is so important to try and be aware of how productive it is.

Heather

 

[Demelza]

Date: 1/10/2006 7:57:38 PM
Author: Logan Sapphire

Date: 1/10/2006 6:54:41 PM

Author: Demelza



What makes someone a bigot is that he or she is obsinately devoted to a prejudiced belief system (e.g. gays (or their behavior) are immoral). It shouldn't matter, as Hest said, whether that belief was learned from the church, one's parents, or Daffy Duck. Once that belief is held and presented to others as an immutable truth, a bigot is born.

I'm not trying to argue here, but I'm curious as to who decides if a belief is prejudiced? I happen to believe that there are certain behaviors/lifestyles- some liberal and some conservative- that are immoral (and for the record, I'm not talking about gays- I'm pro-gay rights). If someone disagrees with me, does that make me a bigot? I'm just trying to understand earnestly.

The way I would define a bigot is someone whose belief system discriminates against others based on race, gender, creed, or sexual orientation. I'm not sure what you mean by "lifestyles," but I believe that if someone is denied certain rights simply because she is African American, gay, Jewish, etc., then this qualifies as prejudice. Gays are not allowed to marry in this country. That, to me, is bigotry, the same way it was bigotry when segregation was in effect in the first half of the 20th century.