Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Shame, Shame on you, Eastman Kodak

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Shame, Shame on you, Eastman Kodak (Page 7)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author

Topic: Shame, Shame on you, Eastman Kodak

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 11-15-2002 05:04 AM

If condoms are what you are implying Leo, then I think that is already pretty well advocated. However if your solution is implying that people should abstain from sex, that will NEVER happen.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 11-15-2002 05:45 AM

I'm not saying abstain totally, just realise the risks involved and behave accordingly. OK, if the biggest issue in your life is the risk of AIDS and you're totally obsessed with it, then abstention might be an option. It's known to work - how many nuns and monks have ended up contracting AIDS? But for most of us it's a case of balancing that risk. For example, someone who lives with the same partner for 30-40 years is going to be far safer than someone who goes to a nightclub every night and shags someone [s]he's never met before.

What I'm questioning is the extent to which society should be expected to invest vast amounts of money in developing medical technologies which enables someone to do the latter without the risk of contracting a fatal disease. Personally I don't think it should, and that the same amount of money could save a lot more lives and improve the health of a lot more people if it were spent elsewhere.

| IP: Logged

David Koegel
Film Handler

Posts: 55
From: Alexandria, VA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-15-2002 08:37 AM

There's a huge difference between HIV/AIDS and cancer: One disease can be transmitted to another person by multiple routes; the other can't be (virtually) at all. An effective AIDS vaccine would stop the transmission and spread to uninfected people. An AIDS cure would stop further transmission from, and the subsequent death of, an infected individual. It makes no sense to compare the $$ investments made in AIDS research and/or AIDS cures with those made in the areas of cancer.

Condoms are clearly recognized as an effective way to stop the transmission of HIV, yet just how many religions and/or governments will not even mention the word "condom", which then leads to more and more victims and their subsequent death. You don't want to wear a condom? Fine, then don't. But to say "don't have sex" is the answer if you don't want to get HIV is just plain, well, ignorant and out of touch with reality and today's way of life. That answer assumes that everyone even knows what HIV is and how it can be spread. While the Western world is a lot more educated about such facts of life (in spite of the fact that people like Ronald Reagan wouldn't even talk about this issue), thousands more in the developing worlds are being exposed and dying from this disease. "Just say no" just isn't going to work when there's not even a way to share this message with the masses.

What's not said about this "uneven" difference in research funding of research is that it's not just the gay community that's going to benefit from such vaccines or cures; look at the statistics: it's the straight world that's most affected by HIV/AIDS, and increasingly so with each new day. THEY (the non-gay people) are the ones that have the most to gain from whatever efforts and successes are being made and gained by the gay community's fight for more and more funding for research. If the gay activists hadn't been so successful in their fight for research dollars, all the conservatives of the world living their own little "Leave it to Beaver" existances wouldn't give a hoot about those who didn't practice the same life styles dying of this disease. That is, until someone in their own family was suddenly struck down when they might have deviated from the "good and godly" path of life. But then those newly infected people would be called "victims", wouldn't they?

Clearly this discussion has gotten far away from the whole "tolerance" issue dealing with accepting and embracing diversity, whether is be on the subject of minorities, ethnic groups, religion, or sexual orientation. And to discount one over another because of the mistaken belief that one group has a "choice" versus another, well, that means that you shouldn't be tolerant of those with a different religion because they, too, have a choice in the matter.

If someone doesn't like working with or being around "known" lesbians and gays, they probably have similar issues with other diversity issues as well. And they shouldn't be forced to work with such people either. They can, afterall, just up and quit. Afterall, where they decide to work is their own "choice."

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-15-2002 02:13 PM

There will be no end to the spending/research until a cure is found -- and it ain't got nothin' to do with gays.

It's all about sex. People of all walks of life want to live in a world where they can have sex without wondering whether it's gonna kill them.

And I would agree that the pharmaceutical entities are probably all scrambling for the cure/vaccination for the wrong reasons: They're probably in it more for the money than for any benevolent, philanthropic reasons. But prostitution, Viagra and penis enlargement "programs" have proven that there are (and probably will always be) a lot of people -- mostly men, I'd bet -- who will spend $$$ when it comes to their sexuality and the enjoyment thereof.

By the way, when is coming out day, anyway? Will the Film-Tech logo get all gussied up in rainbow colors in support of its gay members? Maybe the site could go from having this powder blue background to a nice, soft shade of pink?

| IP: Logged

David Koegel
Film Handler

Posts: 55
From: Alexandria, VA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-15-2002 02:39 PM

Based on a quick search of the web (it's a slow day for me at the office), National Coming Out day in the States was October 11th this year. It began October 11, 1987, when an estimated half a million people marched on Washington, DC, for gay and lesbian equality. The first Coming Out day took place in 1988.

Looks like there's plenty of time left to plan for next year's event.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 11-15-2002 02:41 PM

Somewhere in the archives is a thread on being out in the workplace. Perhaps someone can find it and bump that up for national coming out day. As I don't change the background to black for the month of February, I don't see much of a need to alter the color scheme whenever coming out day is for gays. Besides, when is WHITE history month? Why do blacks get a whole month when gays only get a day? When is bi-sexual day? Do bi-sexuals get a week to celebrate? Should we set a day for people with a Mexican background? It's all a bit silly to me.

ALL are welcome here at all times. No one needs a special day to be who they are.

| IP: Logged

David Favel
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 764
From: Ashburton, New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-15-2002 05:29 PM

This is silly.
Lets face it, no one with the exception of perhaps Hugh Hefner has sex more than 10 times per week. So why are people judging others on that one aspect of their lives.
Jesus we probably eat takeaways more than have sex. Lets discriminate on that basis. Maybe I will start to dislike anyone who goes to McDonalds & eats a salad.
Or not, I could not care who or what people have sex with. I have many gay friends who have never "come on" or tried to convert me.
However Jehovah's Witnesses ............

| IP: Logged

Will Kutler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1506
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 11-19-2002 07:51 PM

A reply to my last post on this thread back on page 4:

1) All of the incidents that I related to all are fact. I have not made them up.

2) Over the years I have been hit on twice by homosexuals. I attempted to be polite when telling them that I am straight. My temper runneth over ONLY after they refused to back off.

3) I am not saying to go out and actively seek out gays for physical abuse. But I do believe in protecting oneself. Are women not permitted to use force (if needed) to fend off unwanted sexual advances by a potential rapist?

4) Some time ago, a straight man was invited onto of of the stupid talk shows because there was someone who had a secret crush on him. The guy agreed to appear because he thought that the secret crush was a woman. Turns out that the secret crush was a homosexual! The poor guy was traumitized on national t.v. and reacted by defending his honor and killed the homosexual. My sympathies to the guy who was suckered and embarrassed on t.v. And the talk show should have done a better job of screening. This story made national news some time ago.

5) Someone said that my "homophobia" is a result of my own sexual insecurity. What a crock of psychcobabble bullshit that is!

6) As I said before, if a person comes to work, does a honest days work, etc, etc, then I have no problem and will reward/promote the person accordingly. But when a person attempts to use his/her sexual preference, gender, race, skin color, religion, etc over and above his/her own merits to gain employment and/or advancement, then I have a problem!

7) Personally, I do find homosexuality morally irresponsible and disgusting. Any guy who "gets off" on "doing" another guy is sick! After all, God created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve!

8) Although I am not the most religious of individuals, I do believe that the Bible is a Book of Life that teaches us about the consequences of our actions, for better or worse. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a no-no...and I do believe that AIDS is a result of sexual irresponsibility...largly due to homosexuality!

T AND A ALL THE WAY..........

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 11-19-2002 08:23 PM

Will, my guess is you keep getting hit on by gays because you're just too damn sexy for your own good. [sex]

Seriously though you completely avoided my questions to you on page 4 of this discussion. Specifically, how do you feel about lesbians? I think it's only fair you tell us how you feel about two homosexual women.

(And let's not forget your feelings on Asian food too!)

| IP: Logged

Will Kutler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1506
From: Tucson, AZ, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 11-19-2002 08:52 PM

Two women are great....as long as they are damn good lookin and I'm between them [Big Grin]

!

I do enjoy good Chinese food. And what "Nam" Vet cannot help but love...KIMCHE [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 11-19-2002 09:52 PM

So do you really not see the bigotry in your answer, Will?

What does the good book say about this?

What if you were a woman?

| IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 11-19-2002 10:27 PM

I think the word Brad was looking for is "hypocrisy". That's when you say two things that contradict each other. Like "Gays are disgusting" and "I wanna get it on with two lesbians".

I know women who would love to watch two guys go at it. Or even better, be in bed with two guys. Using Will's logic, that shouldn't be a problem.

Can someone point me in the direction of these Biblical references that specifically discuss homosexuality or same-sex relationships? I haven't been able to find them.

| IP: Logged

Mathew Molloy
Master Film Handler

Posts: 357
From: The Santa Cruz Mountains
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 11-19-2002 11:34 PM

There's a couple very good books on the subject by John Boswell, "Same-Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe" and "Christianity, Social Tolerance & Homosexuality".

I've taken a gander at "The Children Are Free, Reexamining The Biblical Evidence On Same-Sex Relationships" and "What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" but have yet to sit down and read those two.

I feel that these books have an obviously skewed yet more accurate interpretation of the few (only five or so?) possible references to the subject in the Bible.

So if God didn't create Adam and Steve, who did? Hmmmm? Could it be, SATAN?! [evil]

| IP: Logged

Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 11-20-2002 12:04 AM

quote:
So if God didn't create Adam and Steve, who did? Hmmmm? Could it be, SATAN?!

And to think, Matthew, your member number happens to be 666 [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 11-20-2002 12:33 AM

Adam wrote:

quote:
Can someone point me in the direction of these Biblical references that specifically discuss homosexuality or same-sex relationships? I haven't been able to find them.

In the book of Leviticus (18:22?) it says that a man shall not lay with another man as he would with a woman.

Gays do not lay with men as they would with women -- they don't lay with women! It would seem, then, that The Bible is speaking out against bisexuality. The Bible is strangely silent on the subject of lesbianism. Possibly, this is because the authors were men who really didn't give a damn what happened to the women, just as long as the men weren't going to have to worry about getting it up the ass. Lots of mysogyny to go around in the Old Testament.

Then there is the story of Sodom and Gommorah, which can be found somewhere around Genesis 13 (goes on for a few chapters). This is where the word "know" gets translated to mean "rape" and/or "fuck." The people cry out to Lot to hand over the angels "so that we might know them." Hence, the term, to "know someone in the biblical sense."

Some say that the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah had nothing to do with homosexuality but, rather, was due to their poor hospitality. Personally, I think that's a stretch. The point is that homosexuality is still around, so if God was trying to bring about an end to it by wiping out the people of Sodom and Gomorrah then, clearly, we would have to admit that he failed. We all know that God is perfect and, thus, incapable of failing. Hence, his intention must have been something else. (When you're done reading this, check out Paul Linfesty's summary of the Sodom and Gommorah story at the top of the next page.)

(God allegedly also tried to eradicate sin by flooding the world. One could easily argue that it didn't work. What does this say about God?)

What the Old Testament has to say about the subject is irrelevant to Christians. The OT documents the history and laws of the Jews. A Gentile -- such as myself -- had no hope of Heaven until Jesus came along. Jesus left two instructions: Love thy neighbour as thyself and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Jews are said to be "under the Law" while Christians are "saved by Grace."

In Romans, Paul makes reference to homosexuality, but in the context of idolatry, worship of the flesh and narcissism. In that same book, Paul shares some interesting ideas about the concept of sin:

"The Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation." (Romans 4:15)

"The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Romans 5:20)

What is interesting here is that Paul seems to be saying that the point of labeling something as "sin" has little to do with the "sinful" act being bad in and of itself. Rather, Paul seems to be implying that God was merely creating as many opportunities as possible for us to be forgiven. (This all makes God come off as being a sadistic, codependent control freak. Indeed, if God were a human parent, he probably would have lost custody long ago.)

In addition to the first of those two quotes, Paul also warns us not to go around telling people that they are sinning. He says that it is a sin to make another feel guilty for doing something that he/she may not feel guilty about doing.

Here is what the New Testament has to say about homosexuality and sin:

Words of Jesus: "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone" (John 8:7) and, lest we feel that we are without sin, Paul clarifies: "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" (Romans 3:23). But the good news is that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that WHOSOEVER believeth should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16). Clearly, heterosexuals are covered under the word "all" and, likewise, homosexuals are covered under the word "whosoever."

"Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:10). So you see, Love can never be a bad thing. I will admit that promiscuity and lust are something else entirely but homosexuals do not hold the monopoly on these; we are all guilty of these and a myriad of other sins. Furthermore, it is wrong to assume that all homosexual relationships are based on lust. Certainly, many are. But I have always felt that gay men tend toward promiscuity because (a) they are men and (b) because there is nothing in place to promote the notion of monogamy. Generally speaking, gay men cannot get married. Besides, if marriage and monogamy -- an institution of the straight world -- doesn't work for straight people then why should gays take it seriously?

Something else: I find it interesting that someone can get so worked up about the idea of Adam loving Steve and, yet, not see anything wrong with waging war. I do not have a problem with war: Kick Osama's ass and fuck Sadam! I'm proud of veterans and I have been known to be very generous to people in uniform. Hell, I wanted to serve in The U.S. Navy but was turned down due to my age. War is an unfortunate necessity. But if we must have war, then we'd better have love, too -- in all its manifestations.

Will, I'd like to see the guy that made you fearful of being raped! But, seriously, if -- as you say -- it was possible for you to successfully beat the guy(s) up then clearly they were no real threat to you, right?

Homophobes have serious issues with the idea of penetration. Seems for them that penetration goes hand in hand with some sort of demotion. Also, the whole notion of pain seems to be an issue. Oddly, these men (like most men) want a bigger dick! What for? If they think penetration is painful, why would they want to make it even more painful by wishing they had a bigger tool? I'll never understand it!

~Manny (Like a virgin)

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.