|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Shame, Shame on you, Eastman Kodak
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-20-2002 12:41 AM
quote:
T AND A ALL THE WAY..........
Whew, Will, thanks for reassuring us! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
I do have some questions/observations/etc, however:
quote:
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.
Only two? That's probably a lot less hits than the number of women you have probably approached in your life. I'm sure it was uncomfortable for you, but how far did these hits actually go?
quote:
Are women not permitted to use force (if needed) to fend off unwanted sexual advances by a potential rapist?
So you think you were close to the point of needing violence to prevent being raped?
quote:
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.
I am not very religious, but OH MY GOD! Being embarrassed on trash TV (wasn't that what going on the Jenny Jones show was all about?) is reason to go out and kill someone? The victim (no, I'm NOT talking about the killer here) was clearly someone who was to timid to hit up on this guy without the encouragement from the side circus atmosphere of these kinds of shows. If you think THIS is the level of being hit on that deserves death, then I can only imagine how mild the attempts were on you( since you didn't go that far). And asking about "screeners?" Come on, their job is to GET these kinds of guests on the air. Their only failing was not having a camera crew available to record the shooting.
quote:
Someone said that my "homophobia" is a result of my own sexual insecurity. What a crock of psychcobabble bullshit that is!
Well, I think your statements speak for themselves.
quote:
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!
See above. If something disgusts you, try thinking of something else. BTW, are you against homosexuality because God says it is bad? Or are you relieved that your God just happens to share your ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif) at the concept? What a relief. That puts YOU on high moral ground for your opinion.
quote:
The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a no-no
Hmmm...Sodom and Gomorrah, perhaps? Let's see, the sodomy mentioned in this rather odd tale involves forcible RAPE! A mob, not realizing Lot's family was entertaining an angel (instead of a man) demanded he let them "have their way" with him. The Godly man of high morals that Lot was drove him to do the only decent thing possible...offer the mob his DAUGHTERS to rape instead! After God nukes the two cities for the evils of RAPE, Lot gets a free pass with his daughters (his wife conveniently destroyed). After getting dear old dad drunk, they each end up pregnant. I LOVE the moral of this story; that is, if I ever figure it out!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.
Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 11-20-2002 05:38 AM
Thanks, Manny.
quote:
What the Old Testament has to say about the subject is irrelevant to Christians. The OT documents the history and laws of the Jews.
I believe that's the point I was trying to make earlier when I mentioned laws which just don't apply anymore, such as slavery and how women must obey their husbands. Although, there seems to be some run-over into the New Testament, as my previous citations of slavery in 1 Peter and 1 Corinthians suggest.
What do other religions say of the subject of homosexuality? Is it spoken of in any Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Mormon or other text? Would Tibetan monks consider a homosexual to be a creature of [diety] and worthy of the same respect as a bug or a goat?
Speaking of animals ... shoving an animal up one's ass is an act of bestiality, not homosexuality. I don't know any gay people who keep "small pets", but (thanks to the internet!) I've seen all kinds of people stick all kinds of things in all kinds of places.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 11-20-2002 05:52 AM
As a woman, I find the phrase "T AND A ALL THE WAY" a very healthy and respectful heterosexual view of females. So does this mean if someone with this attitude hits on me, I can shoot him? In such circumstances, I tell them I'm a lesbian. Unfortunately, sometimes, they feel that their virility would be enough to straighten me out.
Did anyone else hear that our military threw out several (six, if I recall correctly) ARABIC TRANSLATORS, because it was discovered that they were GAY? HORRORS! I'm SO glad our government has its priorities "straight" at least. ![[Confused]](confused.gif) In this time of war with terrorism, we're throwing away some of the people we need most because of this ridiculous fear.
I also have the Boswell book, "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality," and he points out that in any reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in the New Testament, the sins attributed actually are pride and lack of hospitality. This includes scripture spoken my Jesus Himself. If being Gay were so bad, I'd think He'd throw that in while telling the story. I don't have the book in front of me, but can find the passages later. I do find it rather hypocritcal that Lot was considered the only good man in town, though he offered his daughters for sex. Priorities.
And finally, I want to see if I have this correct, Will. If I find eating shellfish morally wrong and disgusting. (which isn't a far stretch as a vegetarian), and have Levitical law to back me up (which I do), I am righteous to walk into a Red Lobster and shoot those who are breaking that law? After all, they ARE IN THE ACT of committing a sin equivalent to Lev 18:22... And unless you want to be accused of picking and choosing which laws you want to exploit, you had better grow a beard (also in Leviticus).
| 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 08:36 AM
Leo writes: quote:
I agree. Thanks to a politically powerful minority, this is the case.
You really think that men are a politically powerful minority?
quote:
Then why is it that, in the developed world, the vast majority of HIV sufferers are either homosexual or have a history of drug abuse?
FYI in the U.S.A. most new HIV+ cases are not gay men. Rather, young hetero women seem to be contracting the virus faster than anyone else. I don't think I need to tell you that young women aren't likely to have gotten infected by gay men.
quote:
That isn't being homophobic, any more than acknowledging a link between lung cancer and tobacco is discriminating against smokers or acknowledging a link between road accidents and dangerous driving is discriminating against car owners.
Just because the so-called "patient zero" was a gay man does not mean that he was the first person to get the disease. He was simply the earliest KNOWN case in North America. I don't know what is "current thinking" over at the CDC but there certainly was a time when they were saying that HIV originated somewhere over in Africa. My point is that -- as far as the CDC knows -- the disease was discovered among gays. It is likely that the disease got that initial headstart with the gays because gay men have more sex and maybe this has more to do with being male and less to do with being gay. Possibly also the disease seemed to favor gay men because they were not using condoms but one must bear in mind that, back then, condoms were mainly a form of contraceptive. I'll grant you that being on the receptive end of anal intercourse seems to be the easiest way to contract the virus, but anal sex and male homosexuality are not mutually exclusive. My point is that it is not fair to take it for granted that the appearance (and purpose) of the disease is as closely linked to homosexuality as you would have us all believe.
quote:
And I want to live in a world where I can drink a bottle or two of a very nice single malt whisky every day without ever feeling hung over or risking liver damage.
Ah -- and what a worth cause this is! Maybe you should gather a few of your drinking buddies and become a politically powerful minority! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:
But we all live in the real world, which means we have to modify our behaviour in order to avoid damaging ourselves and other people.
The problem here is that there are a lot of straights out there who don't want to "modify their behaviour" and allow homosexuals the quiet enjoyment of their sexuality. You are being hypocritical. As for the rest of your statement, the reality is that all too often, homophobes end up "causing damage to others." Will can tell you all about it.
And, before you go on any further about how gays are a very vocal minority, consider the following:
(a) Gays are vocal right now because they have to be. They are fighting for rights. Do you think that African-Americans or women would have come nearly as far as they have come by remaining silent? (I know, I know: You think they are minorities and, as such, should have kept it to themselves. But, I beg your indulgence.)
(b) We don't really know for sure whether homosexuals comprise a minority. Certainly, there are more than we'll ever know about right now because so many are pressured by society to remain invisible.
~Manny.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 11-20-2002 09:56 AM
From Manny's post:
quote:
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."
This is interesting:
Genesis 19:5 in several common translations:
KJV: And they called vnto Lot, and said vnto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out vnto vs, that we may know them. [Exactly as it appeared in the 1611 KJV -- note the v's and for some reason, bring is not capitalized].
RSV: and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
NASB: and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
NIV: They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight?" Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
NKJV: And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." [Note that the word carnally appeared in italics, indicating it was put in by the translators.]
NRSV: and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them."
Douay-Rheims: And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them [Note that bring isn't capitalized, like original KJV1611]
The word being translated as "know" or "relations", or "have sex", written in English letters, is the Hebrew "yada". The word occurs around 1040 times (995 in Hebrew and 47 in Aramaic) in the bible. It essentially means (1) to know by observing or reflecting (thinking), or (2) to know by experiencing. The problem with this word is that it can mean various things when used in different contexts, and the translators must decide whether be safe and go with the generic "know", or whether to attempt a more specific meaning when translating.
I find differences in translation of this sort very interesting. When translations differ, I like to do this sort of investigation.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-20-2002 10:01 AM
quote:
You really think that men are a politically powerful minority?
No, I think that AIDS activists are. If anything, men (caucasian and heterosexual ones, at least) are a politically disregarded majority.
quote:
FYI in the U.S.A. most new HIV+ cases are not gay men.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, I was refering to the total number of cases out there, not the current rate of new infections. From what I read in the papers from time to time, this seems to vary. And in anycase, the current number of total cases give an indication of what has been happening over the last 10-20 years, whilst the current rate of new infection will only give you a short term indicator.
quote:
My point is that it is not fair to take it for granted that the appearance (and purpose) of the disease is as closely linked to homosexuality as you would have us all believe.
Well in that case I find it interesting that gay rights activists and AIDS activists often tend out to be one and the same group of activists. Which is fine - people are allowed to be active about what they like. But when the argue - as in this case - for substantial amounts of taxpayers' money to be spent on research into a disease which affects a minority of the population, then I reserve the right to argue that this money could more usefully be spent elsewhere. There are two activities which vastly increase the risk of contracting AIDS: sexual promiscuity, both homo- and heterosexual (by which I mean sleeping with far more partners than most people would consider normal or acceptable) and injecting illegal drugs. Both of those activities cause countless other social problems as well.
quote:
The problem here is that too many straights don't want to "modify their behaviour" and allow homosexuals the quiet enjoyment of their sexuality
I would never defend anyone who discriminated or harassed someone on account of their sexual orientation. But neither would I defend someone who claims, on the grounds of their sexual orientation, the right to preferential treatment. Attempting to push AIDS so far up the political agenda, given how low its public health impact is relative to those of other killer diseases, strikes me as claiming the right to preferential treatment.
| 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 11:56 AM
quote:
If anything, men (caucasian and heterosexual ones, at least) are a politically disregarded majority.
Some would argue that it is about friggin' time. Furthermore, men are not the majority. White men are even less a majority. Curiously, they have wielded a disproportionate amount of power for eons. You need to get clear on the facts.
quote:
I was refering to the total number of cases out there, not the current rate of new infections.
The problem with this is that gays were not using condoms in the pre-AIDS era because there was no fear of pregnancy. This, combined with a lack of information about the disease, left them susceptible to infection. As a group, straights were more likely to use condoms to avoid pregnancy and, inadvertently, escaped widespread infection. It had nothing to do with straight people being less promiscuous or otherwise inherently less susceptible to the disease. In order to be fair, you really have to look at how this is playing out now that we are all on a level playing field.
quote:
But neither would I defend someone who claims, on the grounds of their sexual orientation, the right to preferential treatment.
What "preferential treatment"? Gays just want to be able to walk down the street hand-in-hand or kiss in the back row of a movie theatre or gaze longingly into each others eyes in a restaurant without the fear that they will regret doing so. John P. used the example of having his wife's photo on his desk. Some gays want to get married.
I don't think these are extraordinary rights and I don't think that they ought to be reserved for the exclusive enjoyment of straight folks. As long as there are tax benefits for married folks, then the gays ought to have access to that institution.
Same for the military: I think gays ought to have the opportunity to get a free education and/or retire at the age of 38 just like straight soldiers. But I think it's wrong to ask them to serve in silence, unless their straight counterparts are forced to remain silent about their sexuality as well. (I am commenting on the U.S. Military. In case anyone thinks it matters, I should probably state here that I am a U.S. national even though I currently reside outside the country.)
What we have here is a modern-day example of "taxation without representation." If you don't want gay couples having tax benefits and if you don't want gays in the military then gays should be exempt from taxation, or taxed to a lesser extent.
By the way, I am in favour of outlawing ALL public displays of affection -- gay, straight or whatever.
~Manny (Ride A Horse On The Beach)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic