Spielberg's Munich causes controversy

[Ana4Stapp]

Olympic horrors:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4631142.stm

A new film has been released giving a fictional account of events after the 1972 Olympics which saw 11 Israeli athletes killed by Palestinian militants.
Steven Spielberg's film, starring Eric Bana, has been criticised by both Israelis and Palestinians. The film explores the issue of whether responding to terrorism with violence can be justified, or whether it just prompts further terrorism - as Spielberg's Munich suggests.

Anyone saw it ? Reviews?

[Chase]

Haven't seen it yet... and I'm not sure I want to. I'm getting tired of Hollywood putting their liberal spin on movies. It's sad... movies like Brokeback Mountain will receive all sorts of critical praise and awards because it's about two homosexual cowboys... but when Mel Gibson creates an amazingly produced movie in The Passion of the Christ, Hollywood intentionally tries to discredit him and overlook the film. The academy even went as far to give Michael Moore an award... and not Mel Gibson. Moore makes a living off of lying, whereas Gibson went against the Hollywood norm. It's sad.

One or two 9/11 movies are ALREADY being filmed. One of them is being directed by Oliver Stone, a man who is looking for controversy in everything he does. Don't believe me? Go watch his horrible attempt at an epic, Alexander.

[RMadd]

To be honest, the movie looks rather interesting to me. But I haven't really read much about controversies surrounding it or anything (I'd prefer to see it without any preconceptions or misconceptions).

A blurb about the 2 9/11 movies to which Chase was referring can be found here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/24/film.2006preview.ap/index.html), about 2/3 of the way down the page. It'll be interesting to see them when they come out (the other--not Stone's--is due out in April). IMO, it's still too soon, not only because many people still have emotional scars of some sort, but also because we can't accurately analyze and assess something that happened so recently (much for the same reason that historians and political scientists hold off on assessing presidents and wars until they've been out of office or over for a good 10 or 20 years). But we'll see if they have an almost-kitschy, excessively-patriotic feel, or if they seek to tear down or villainize Pres. Bush.

Haven't seen Brokeback, and have no intentions to. It's not behavior of which I approve, and, since it's my dinero, I'll choose not to spend it on a movie that seems to advocate behavior that, in my opinion, is morally contemptible.

[RMadd]

On IMDB:
Flight 93 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0475276/) (last updated Nov '05)

World Trade Center (http://imdb.com/title/tt0469641/) (last updated Oct '05)

[Ana4Stapp]

Haven't seen it yet... and I'm not sure I want to. I'm getting tired of Hollywood putting their liberal spin on movies. It's sad... movies like Brokeback Mountain will receive all sorts of critical praise and awards because it's about two homosexual cowboys... but when Mel Gibson creates an amazingly produced movie in The Passion of the Christ, Hollywood intentionally tries to discredit him and overlook the film. The academy even went as far to give Michael Moore an award... and not Mel Gibson. Moore makes a living off of lying, whereas Gibson went against the Hollywood norm. It's sad.

One or two 9/11 movies are ALREADY being filmed. One of them is being directed by Oliver Stone, a man who is looking for controversy in everything he does. Don't believe me? Go watch his horrible attempt at an epic, Alexander.

Im looking foward to see Munich...(I think it will be released next friday) after all its historyand I can see how Spielberg (a jewish) paints the terrorism, but Ive already hear that this film is more from entertainment than for taking a ' side'--which is understandable in Hollywood: you cant excpect a big public going to see documentaries ...

Well I disagree Chase-- I think that we that have history/political degrees --we certainly need to see the controversial movies - with a certain distance -of course: without too much passion involved.. . but for the clear purpose to maybe warn others people - 'hey it isnt the exactly way this movie is showing'-- Dont let that your political views supplants your scientific/historic interest.

And even though I didnt like Passion of the Christ too much and thought that Bowling for Columbine was very interesting i admit that Hollywood hardly chooses something real good -prefering gives a prize to. the blockbusters entertainement ones. because they are definitely commercial what means money, my dear. ;)

And also about Oliver Stone I certainly believe in you-- I saw Alexander (bad movie), JFK(good) but his movie which I always remember is Platoon ( very good) ...hey i was forgetting a memorable film - Salvador (excellent) did u see it? Im assuming not...

[Ana4Stapp]

To be honest, the movie looks rather interesting to me. But I haven't really read much about controversies surrounding it or anything (I'd prefer to see it without any preconceptions or misconceptions).

This is was the exact reason i dslike Passion of Christ: I heard so much about the polemic involved it: so I expected too much...


A blurb about the 2 9/11 movies to which Chase was referring can be found here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/24/film.2006preview.ap/index.html), about 2/3 of the way down the page. It'll be interesting to see them when they come out (the other--not Stone's--is due out in April). IMO, it's still too soon, not only because many people still have emotional scars of some sort, but also because we can't accurately analyze and assess something that happened so recently (much for the same reason that historians and political scientists hold off on assessing presidents and wars until they've been out of office or over for a good 10 or 20 years). But we'll see if they have an almost-kitschy, excessively-patriotic feel, or if they seek to tear down or villainize Pres. Bush.

Lol...Its interesting the coincidence because after Chase posted it I looked for Oliver Stone movies exactly in this site (the best) --btw is it the same you go when you are in text based games?? lol lol lol :D And I agree September 11 is too much 'present' in America's memory...

Haven't seen Brokeback, and have no intentions to. It's not behavior of which I approve, and, since it's my dinero, I'll choose not to spend it on a movie that seems to advocate behavior that, in my opinion, is morally contemptible

I was watching its trailler yesterday in web (another coincidence) and the story didnt call much my attention- have no interest in se this movie...even though (male) homosexuality is an assue that dont causes me discomfort at all...but i understand your points -you two are men-and men clearly dont deal with this very easy.

[Chase]

This is was the exact reason i dslike Passion of Christ: I heard so much about the polemic involved it: so I expected too much...


.

Lol...Its interesting the coincidence because after Chase posted it I looked for Oliver Stone movies exactly in this site (the best) --btw is it the same you go when you are in text based games?? lol lol lol :D And I agree September 11 is too much 'present' in America's memory...



I was watching its trailler yesterday in web (another coincidence) and the story didnt call much my attention- have no interest in se this movie...even though (male) homosexuality is an assue that dont causes me discomfort at all...but i understand your points -you two are men-and men clearly dont deal with this very easy.

The 9/11 movies are being released way, way too soon. I went to Ground Zero a year ago, in January 2005, and felt all sorts of emotions. I remember going to see Saving Private Ryan, and in the audiences there were quite a few World War II veterans. That was the most crying I have ever seen in any movie... even more than the Passion of the Christ. These men, decades after the war, were so emotionally scarred from their experiences. 9/11 is too fresh. I mean, we still have the same president in office for crying out loud and are still viciously egaged in combating terrorists. There will be a lot of Americans boycotting these films. We don't need someone to tell us what happened. We watched those towers fall to the ground on live television. If there is ANY attempt, in these films, to villainize the United States... there are going to be a lot of pissed up Americans.

In regards to Munich, I will probably see it soon. I am a fan of Speilberg as a director. It does disappoint me, however, when there Hollywood tampers with history to make political points. That does not sit well with me at all. In fact, I think Team America: World Police was more accurate than Fahrenheit 9/11.

Brokeback Mountain is a film that won't pay to see. I don't agree with its message, at all. Me being a man doesn't make me disagree with homosexuality... it's religion, biology, and the field of medicine.

[Ana4Stapp]

The 9/11 movies are being released way, way too soon. I went to Ground Zero a year ago, in January 2005, and felt all sorts of emotions. I remember going to see Saving Private Ryan, and in the audiences there were quite a few World War II veterans. That was the most crying I have ever seen in any movie... even more than the Passion of the Christ. These men, decades after the war, were so emotionally scarred from their experiences. 9/11 is too fresh. I mean, we still have the same president in office for crying out loud and are still viciously egaged in combating terrorists. There will be a lot of Americans boycotting these films. We don't need someone to tell us what happened. We watched those towers fall to the ground on live television. If there is ANY attempt, in these films, to villainize the United States... there are going to be a lot of pissed up Americans.

In regards to Munich, I will probably see it soon. I am a fan of Speilberg as a director. It does disappoint me, however, when there Hollywood tampers with history to make political points. That does not sit well with me at all. In fact, I think Team America: World Police was more accurate than Fahrenheit 9/11.

Brokeback Mountain is a film that won't pay to see. I don't agree with its message, at all. Me being a man doesn't make me disagree with homosexuality... it's religion, biology, and the field of medicine.

Well...I cant understand in the first post you said you probably wont se Munich and in this you see will se it soon...You confused me to death...:confused:


Ah Chase .. being a man is a point to consider homosexuality as wrong or perverse--its cultural: men avoids this issue - i dont know a man who didnt feel 'disturbed' by this. And i m not judging you men --not saying you are right or wrong--but its obvious. And I think with women we have the same situation.

I almost agree with your first comments( I dont know why I started by the end of this...lol) about movies that vilanizes US...its so naive see things in this way...its the same if I tell you that I dslike all the movies that treat US as the good guy , like US President saving the whole world like in that movie when a meteor is going to collide with the earth (deep impact? I think). Did you like this movie?

[Ana4Stapp]

In regards to Munich, I will probably see it soon. I am a fan of Speilberg as a director. It does disappoint me, however, when there Hollywood tampers with history to make political points. That does not sit well with me at all. In fact, I think Team America: World Police was more accurate than Fahrenheit 9/11.
.

I think I never heard about this movie...but I found something very interesting:
" Team America an international police force dedicated to maintaning global stability, learns that a power hungry dictator is brokering weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. The heroes embarck upon a harrowing mission to save the world."

Wow ! I easily can see you loving this movie, Chase.:rolleyes:

[Chase]

I think I never heard about this movie...but I found something very interesting:
" Team America an international police force dedicated to maintaning global stability, learns that a power hungry dictator is brokering weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. The heroes embarck upon a harrowing mission to save the world."

Wow ! I easily can see you loving this movie, Chase.:rolleyes:

Yeah, in it they kill terrorists... so I can easily see why you wouldn't like it. ;)

They also hilariously satirize the outspoken Hollywood idiots like Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, and Matt Damon.

[Ana4Stapp]

Yeah, in it they kill terrorists... so I can easily see why you wouldn't like it. ;)

Oh dear... will you someday understand my point??? :rolleyes:

[Ana4Stapp]

Yeah, in it they kill terrorists... so I can easily see why you wouldn't like it. ;)

They also hilariously satirize the outspoken Hollywood idiots like Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, and Matt Damon.

Let me try ...are these guys idiots because they are against Bush ????? :rolleyes:

[Chase]

Well...I cant understand in the first post you said you probably wont se Munich and in this you see will se it soon...You confused me to death...:confused:


Ah Chase .. being a man is a point to consider homosexuality as wrong or perverse--its cultural: men avoids this issue - i dont know a man who didnt feel 'disturbed' by this. And i m not judging you men --not saying you are right or wrong--but its obvious. And I think with women we have the same situation.

I almost agree with your first comments( I dont know why I started by the end of this...lol) about movies that vilanizes US...its so naive see things in this way...its the same if I tell you that I dslike all the movies that treat US as the good guy , like US President saving the whole world like in that movie when a meteor is going to collide with the earth (deep impact? I think). Did you like this movie?

How can you dictate why I don't like something? I told you why I don't think homosexuality isn't a good lifestyle. I believe in God, don't see they biological importance of it, and see a population in which STDs run rampant. Why isn't that enough? Trust me, the fact that I'm a man has nothing to do with it.

I said I'm sure I want to see Munich, but I probably will end up seeing it sometime. I don't see the confusion behind that. If someone makes a 9/11 movie that is saying that the U.S. is to blame for Islamic extremists attacking this country... I will be pissed off. If I remember correctly, the U.S. President didn't save the world from being hit from a meteor... in fact, I think the meteor did hit. He simply brought the survivors together. I didn't think the movie was anything special... it was your typical blockbuster.

[Chase]

Let me try ...are these guys idiots because they are against Bush ????? :rolleyes:

Um, no. They're idiots because they would rather condemn Americans instead of Osama bin Laden... and Sean Penn called Iraq a "paradise" when it was ruled by Saddam Hussein. If you've heard or seen Michael Moore speak, as I have, you can see that the guy is lying to make a buck.

[Chase]

Oh dear... will you someday understand my point??? :rolleyes:

Absolutely, once you understand mine. ;)

[Ana4Stapp]

How can you dictate why I don't like something? I told you why I don't think homosexuality is a good lifestyle. I believe in God, don't see they biological importance of it, and see a population in which STDs run rampant. Why isn't that enough? Trust me, the fact that I'm a man has nothing to do with it.

Dictate???? God!!!!! RELAX Chase, RELAX!!!!!

I said I'm sure I want to see Munich, but I probably will end up seeing it sometime. I don't see the confusion behind that. If someone makes a 9/11 movie that is saying that the U.S. is to blame for Islamic extremists attacking this country... I will be pissed off. If I remember correctly, the U.S. President didn't save the world from being hit from a meteor... in fact, I think the meteor did hit. He simply brought the survivors together. I didn't think the movie was anything special... it was your typical blockbuster.
Hey..I was JOKING about the confusion thing right? Honestly i dont rememebr if your courageous president survived or not...but of course if he dies is for a very good cause , isnt it ? He paid with his own life to save the whole world!!!! :rolleyes: But believe me or not (hey make your choice Im not dictating ...lol) every person out of america saw this movie as the exactly way Im saying .... This is the image your country has all over the world...and guess 'who' has been passionately contributed to reinforce this image? ???:rolleyes:
Well you said you are planning to visit Europe this year, isnt it? So you'' ll can see that Im not lying...

[Ana4Stapp]

Um, no. They're idiots because they would rather condemn Americans instead of Osama bin Laden... and Sean Penn called Iraq a "paradise" when it was ruled by Saddam Hussein. If you've heard or seen Michael Moore speak, as I have, you can see that the guy is lying to make a buck.

I cant believe Sean Penn said this stupidity!! Hey ...are you going to (finally) realize that I dont love Saddam?

But i dont think they were condening Bush instead of Osama...(no Susan Sarandon, please ! )

[Ana4Stapp]

Absolutely, once you understand mine. ;)


I understand your point ...but you never understand mine...anyone can see that: you are constantly saying Im pro Osama...like terrorists and was pissed off because Saddam was in a prison cell...:rolleyes:

[RalphyS]

Haven't seen it yet... and I'm not sure I want to. I'm getting tired of Hollywood putting their liberal spin on movies. It's sad... movies like Brokeback Mountain will receive all sorts of critical praise and awards because it's about two homosexual cowboys... but when Mel Gibson creates an amazingly produced movie in The Passion of the Christ, Hollywood intentionally tries to discredit him and overlook the film. The academy even went as far to give Michael Moore an award... and not Mel Gibson. Moore makes a living off of lying, whereas Gibson went against the Hollywood norm. It's sad.

The Hollywood norm ???
A movie like "Brokeback mountain" goes directly against the so-called norm of conservative America, last time I checked the majority that voted that idiot into office for a second term.
So I think it's braver to make a movie that goes against the way the majority feels and not one like Gibson's, who only reenforces the madness of the myth that JC was.

And btw Michael Moore received awards all over the world, just because you don't like the message, it doesn't make it a bad film, it doesn't make it absolute truth either, but it sure reflects in a good way the feelings that a whole lot of people in and outside the US have towards your current leader.

[RalphyS]

Haven't seen Brokeback, and have no intentions to. It's not behavior of which I approve, and, since it's my dinero, I'll choose not to spend it on a movie that seems to advocate behavior that, in my opinion, is morally contemptible.

Haven't seen it either, but I do feel it addresses something that's need to be adressed that is indeed morally contemptible, the way a intolerant society can push people into relations, that will end unhappily, because they can not be true to their real selves. In other words homosexuals shouldn't be socially enforced to try heterosexual relations, it won't work for either partner in such a relation. Consenting adults should be free to choose the partner of their choice.

And Ana, you do have a good point. I have no problem with homosexuals, but still to watch 2 men kissing passionatly or even more, gives me the heebie-jeebies, every heterosexual man has a homophobe in him, some show him more openly than others.

[RalphyS]

How can you dictate why I don't like something? I told you why I don't think homosexuality isn't a good lifestyle. I believe in God, don't see they biological importance of it, and see a population in which STDs run rampant. Why isn't that enough? Trust me, the fact that I'm a man has nothing to do with it.

Lots of people believe in God and don't have a problem with homosexuality. I understand why you feel your religion prohibits it, so don't do it, but don't force the viewpoint of your religion upon others and as homosexuals support your viewpoint to choose the partner that's right for you, show them the respect to do the same for themselves.

No biological importance for homosexuality? You gotta be kidding. How many people choose to enter a relationship, because of the biological importance?
So you also see no reason for women to start a relationship after menopause, or for women who had a histerectomy or man who are not fertile?

Fot the third reason, I have never seen any proof that suggests that STD's are more passed over by homosexuals as by heterosexuals, but I am no authority on that. I would advise the use of condoms for both, at least if you're not having sex for biological importance, but I guess that is/will be the only reason for you to have sex.

[Ana4Stapp]

And btw Michael Moore received awards all over the world, just because you don't like the message, it doesn't make it a bad film, it doesn't make it absolute truth either, but it sure reflects in a good way the feelings that a whole lot of people in and outside the US have towards your current leader.

Thanks Ralphy, this is what I always trying to say to Chase.

[Ana4Stapp]

Haven't seen it either, but I do feel it addresses something that's need to be adressed that is indeed morally contemptible, the way a intolerant society can push people into relations, that will end unhappily, because they can not be true to their real selves. In other words homosexuals shouldn't be socially enforced to try heterosexual relations, it won't work for either partner in such a relation. Consenting adults should be free to choose the partner of their choice.

I agree with your views -homosexual people in major of the times need to live a 'double life' -what is too unfair and sad.

And Ana, you do have a good point. I have no problem with homosexuals, but still to watch 2 men kissing passionatly or even more, gives me the heebie-jeebies, every heterosexual man has a homophobe in him, some show him more openly than others.

Its cultural Ralphy, my best friends are homosexuals and I really cant see any problem concerning to way they live their sexual lives....they are both great people, but even for me it was 'unconfortable' tthe first time I saw one of them with his boyfriend.

[RMadd]

The Hollywood norm ???
A movie like "Brokeback mountain" goes directly against the so-called norm of conservative America, last time I checked the majority that voted that idiot into office for a second term.
i'm pretty sure Chase was trying to draw a distinction between what Hollywood produces and what the majority of Americans (albeit a slight majority) believes.
So I think it's braver to make a movie that goes against the way the majority feels and not one like Gibson's, who only reenforces the madness of the myth that JC was.
a myth, you say? the Bible accounts for alot. plus, both Jews and Muslims hold Him to be a great prophet

And btw Michael Moore received awards all over the world, just because you don't like the message, it doesn't make it a bad film, it doesn't make it absolute truth either, but it sure reflects in a good way the feelings that a whole lot of people in and outside the US have towards your current leader.
by the same token, just because some international film societies and certain leaders are hopelessly liberal doesn't mean that they're right. imo, sensationalism sells, and that's all it is.

[RMadd]

Haven't seen it either, but I do feel it addresses something that's need to be adressed that is indeed morally contemptible, the way a intolerant society can push people into relations, that will end unhappily, because they can not be true to their real selves. In other words homosexuals shouldn't be socially enforced to try heterosexual relations, it won't work for either partner in such a relation. Consenting adults should be free to choose the partner of their choice.
i love how you try and twist everything i say into some crappy, extreme liberal rhetoric. "true to their real selves?" what bullshit is that? they are the only ones stopping them from being true to themselves. there's always been people in history unafraid to go against a social norm, so why should society suddenly be seen as intolerant and calloused and allegedly indifferent towards differences that people may possess? just some liberal cop-out of a defense that doesn't really require putting any actual thought into a position.

[RMadd]

and I really cant see any problem concerning to way they live their sexual lives....they are both great people
i can't speak for Chase, but I consider myself to be a religious man: I've attended church regularly from my youth, and my girlfriend has helped to reinvigorate my relationship with God. i also tend to possess conservative views when it comes to social issues such as these. for one, I do see a problem in the way they live their sexual lives (not only in homosexuals, but in millions of others who have premarital relations, etc.). also, to be a bit crude, the parts aren't exactly interlocking. in my belief, our sexual (reproductive) organs were created only for reproduction (not to please ourselves, or others, as many might believe), and that gay sex naturally breaks this "rule."

people may also point to homosexuality in other animals as evidence that it's perfectly natural to occur in people. unless i'm mistaken, animals aren't exactly capable of high forms of reasoning. so, that extrapolation would assume, then, that humans, likewise, are incapable of such reasoning. i'm pretty sure the opposite is true. God also created man to be lord over the beasts; similarly, sinful man has a beastial nature (that is, a desire to ignore certain qualities that make us distinctly human).


i'm not denying that homosexuals can be nice people. i've worked with more than just a few over the past few years, and i talk with and to them regularly, just as with any of my other co-workers. i know i've said this before in a previous debate on the same topic, but we should love the sinner, and not the sin.

[Ana4Stapp]

i can't speak for Chase, but I consider myself to be a religious man: I've attended church regularly from my youth, and my girlfriend has helped to reinvigorate my relationship with God. i also tend to possess conservative views when it comes to social issues such as these. for one, I do see a problem in the way they live their sexual lives (not only in homosexuals, but in millions of others who have premarital relations, etc.). also, to be a bit crude, the parts aren't exactly interlocking. in my belief, our sexual (reproductive) organs were created only for reproduction (not to please ourselves, or others, as many might believe), and that gay sex naturally breaks this "rule."

people may also point to homosexuality in other animals as evidence that it's perfectly natural to occur in people. unless i'm mistaken, animals aren't exactly capable of high forms of reasoning. so, that extrapolation would assume, then, that humans, likewise, are incapable of such reasoning. i'm pretty sure the opposite is true. God also created man to be lord over the beasts; similarly, sinful man has a beastial nature (that is, a desire to ignore certain qualities that make us distinctly human).


i'm not denying that homosexuals can be nice people. i've worked with more than just a few over the past few years, and i talk with and to them regularly, just as with any of my other co-workers. i know i've said this before in a previous debate on the same topic, but we should love the sinner, and not the sin.

I really think that love cant be ruled...but anyway I tried to say that I REALLY love my homosexual friends the exact way they ARE,btw I was up to now working with both at school (they are excellent professionals WITHOUT any problem) Homosexuality has nothing to do with character and this is certainly the most important thing to me. I choose my friends not by their sexual orientation.

And also I cant understand wahts the problem of pre-marital relations...

and why sex is always recognized with a 'dirty' and sinful thing when sex is a complement for LOVE??!!!

[RMadd]

Oftentimes, sex isn't a complement of love. As a Christian, I believe that God commanded for sex to take place between a man and his wife: there exists little doubt that they would love each other. However, today, people often confuse "true love" with more of an infatuated love. Do two high schoolers have a grasp on what love is, if they say they love each other? In my experience, no. To me, the mind of most 14-18 year olds doesn't quite grasp what exactly love is, and what it entails. They think it's just sort of a feeling you get when you're around someone, or missing someone when they're gone, etc. People, both in high school and college, take this false conception of what love is and take the next step: the belief they're ready for sex. Unfortunately, it's not quite so emotionally fulfilling when you realize that perhaps you don't really love this other person.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8a (NIV) reads as follows:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

So, in my opinion, if you can honestly and truthfully say that you believe each and every one of these things about your relationship with your significant other, then it's love. If not, then you're more likely dealing with an infatuated love, in which obsession and lust (and perhaps sex) dominate open, honest communication, among these other things.

[Ana4Stapp]

Oftentimes, sex isn't a complement of love. As a Christian, I believe that God commanded for sex to take place between a man and his wife: there exists little doubt that they would love each other. However, today, people often confuse "true love" with more of an infatuated love. Do two high schoolers have a grasp on what love is, if they say they love each other? In my experience, no. To me, the mind of most 14-18 year olds doesn't quite grasp what exactly love is, and what it entails. They think it's just sort of a feeling you get when you're around someone, or missing someone when they're gone, etc. People, both in high school and college, take this false conception of what love is and take the next step: the belief they're ready for sex. Unfortunately, it's not quite so emotionally fulfilling when you realize that perhaps you don't really love this other person.

Im not even considering teenagers 14-18 who are certainly emotionally instables, and not aiming an one-night stand ...I was talking about TRUE LOVE (which is different from Passion) when you are sure you are so involved with that person that you need to express this feeling and yes SEX is a complement to it, a natural complement to love. Its one of forms of expressing your TRUE LOVE!

1 Corinthians 13:4-8a (NIV) reads as follows:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

Oh man...these are the most beautiful words in Bible.And even though Im not a very religious person I love them. Thanks for posting this. ;)

So, in my opinion, if you can honestly and truthfully say that you believe each and every one of these things about your relationship with your significant other, then it's love. If not, then you're more likely dealing with an infatuated love, in which obsession and lust (and perhaps sex) dominate open, honest communication, among these other things.

PAssion - Suddenly appears. Its almost a madness. Its momentaneous and quiclky disappears. Ephemeral.

LOVE - Its a strong and lasting feeling. Its more safe and serene, what grows little by little, Solid.


In passion - you idealize that person...when you love someone you accept that person the way he/she is.

[Ana4Stapp]

Insteresting and accurate definitions of LOVE:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/love.htm#H2

In English, the word 'love', which is derived from Germanic forms of the Sanskrit lubh (desire), is broadly defined and hence imprecise, which generates first order problems of definition and meaning, which are resolved to some extent by the reference to the Greek terms, eros, philia, and agape


In Portuguese we have the word 'amor' -that comes from the latim word 'amore' (in roman mithology Amore was the Venus son : Cupid god of passion and desire). And 'caridade' - charity (from caritas -maxima caritas - grande amor/ big love) is the word equivalent to the agape love (spiritual) .;)

[RalphyS]

a myth, you say? the Bible accounts for alot. plus, both Jews and Muslims hold Him to be a great prophet.

A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes.
James Feibleman

So for me and atheists/agnostics in general all religions are myths.

Whether Jesus was actually a historic person, a couple of persons joined into one by authors or an entirely fictitious character I'm still not sure off and probably will never be, since the evidence for all these assertions is too few.

Anyway that the bible is a fairy tale is something I am sure off.

[RalphyS]

there's always been people in history unafraid to go against a social norm

Yes and it often cost them their lives and because their death led to a change of that social norm for the better, they are often considered martyrs.

[RalphyS]

i can't speak for Chase, but I consider myself to be a religious man: I've attended church regularly from my youth, and my girlfriend has helped to reinvigorate my relationship with God. i also tend to possess conservative views when it comes to social issues such as these. for one, I do see a problem in the way they live their sexual lives (not only in homosexuals, but in millions of others who have premarital relations, etc.). also, to be a bit crude, the parts aren't exactly interlocking. in my belief, our sexual (reproductive) organs were created only for reproduction (not to please ourselves, or others, as many might believe), and that gay sex naturally breaks this "rule."

people may also point to homosexuality in other animals as evidence that it's perfectly natural to occur in people. unless i'm mistaken, animals aren't exactly capable of high forms of reasoning. so, that extrapolation would assume, then, that humans, likewise, are incapable of such reasoning. i'm pretty sure the opposite is true. God also created man to be lord over the beasts; similarly, sinful man has a beastial nature (that is, a desire to ignore certain qualities that make us distinctly human).

i'm not denying that homosexuals can be nice people. i've worked with more than just a few over the past few years, and i talk with and to them regularly, just as with any of my other co-workers. i know i've said this before in a previous debate on the same topic, but we should love the sinner, and not the sin.

And noone denies you your view in regard to sex, relationship or marriage, but in a society which separates church and state every other view towards these items should be held in as much regard as long as it is not harmful to those who consentingly hold it.

I don't (try to) forbid you to only have sex after marriage for the sole purpose of reproduction, so therefore I expect you not to (try to) forbid me sex before marriage or homosexuals (to try) to get married. Ofcourse your entitled to you opinion/religion, but you have no right to try to enforce your opinion/religion or its rules upon others.

Btw I really love sinners and I even love the sin itself sometimes, but I guess that's allright because imho there is no such thing as sin.

I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do.
D. Dale Gulledge

[RalphyS]

Oftentimes, sex isn't a complement of love. As a Christian, I believe that God commanded for sex to take place between a man and his wife: there exists little doubt that they would love each other. However, today, people often confuse "true love" with more of an infatuated love. Do two high schoolers have a grasp on what love is, if they say they love each other? In my experience, no. To me, the mind of most 14-18 year olds doesn't quite grasp what exactly love is, and what it entails. They think it's just sort of a feeling you get when you're around someone, or missing someone when they're gone, etc. People, both in high school and college, take this false conception of what love is and take the next step: the belief they're ready for sex. Unfortunately, it's not quite so emotionally fulfilling when you realize that perhaps you don't really love this other person.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8a (NIV) reads as follows:
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

So, in my opinion, if you can honestly and truthfully say that you believe each and every one of these things about your relationship with your significant other, then it's love. If not, then you're more likely dealing with an infatuated love, in which obsession and lust (and perhaps sex) dominate open, honest communication, among these other things.

Well what I said before applies to love too, I think. Maybe 14-18 year olds don't know what "true love" is, but I have seen enough divorces of people in their 30's, 40's or even older, so they quite haven't grasped the concept either, I guess. Love is a subjective feeling, what you may consider love could be blind devotion to me, and what I consider love might be lust for you. Neither one of us should therefore tell the other what to do with their 'love'!

And as you might expect I do not feel there is anything wrong with 2 consenting adults having sex just for the fun of it. Whether a life consisting of only this is a fullfilling life is an entirely different matter.

Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.
Butch Hancock

[RMadd]

Yes and it often cost them their lives and because their death led to a change of that social norm for the better, they are often considered martyrs.
I was thinking more along the lines of Hitler, but since he did change the social norm (at least for a short while), if you want to call him a martyr, that's your deal.

[RMadd]

but in a society which separates church and state every other view towards these items should be held in as much regard as long as it is not harmful to those who consentingly hold it. ditto. I realize my views are my own, and it's not the government's job enforce them.

[RalphyS]

I was thinking more along the lines of Hitler, but since he did change the social norm (at least for a short while), if you want to call him a martyr, that's your deal.

I suppose there are those who would call him a martyr, but which part of 'for the better' don't you understand, or do you always choose to ignore the parts that don't appeal to you, which would come in handy in regard to the bible btw.

[Chase]

The Hollywood norm ???
A movie like "Brokeback mountain" goes directly against the so-called norm of conservative America, last time I checked the majority that voted that idiot into office for a second term.
So I think it's braver to make a movie that goes against the way the majority feels and not one like Gibson's, who only reenforces the madness of the myth that JC was.

And btw Michael Moore received awards all over the world, just because you don't like the message, it doesn't make it a bad film, it doesn't make it absolute truth either, but it sure reflects in a good way the feelings that a whole lot of people in and outside the US have towards your current leader.

Alright, first of all... call Bush an "idiot," but at the end of the day we all know which country saved your Dutch ass in World War II and is currently leading the world economically, militarily, and culturally. I'm not trying to discredit the European Union, which is doing great economically, either. Hollywood is a primarily liberal community, a community that is trying to spread it's message through the medium of film. Mel Gibson is pretty much one of a kind. You can have the Sean Penns who sit there and spew all sorts of anti-American, liberal rhetoric. Then, when someone like Mel Gibson makes a movie about the last hours of Christ's life... there's this Hollywood outcry that he's gone too far. It's fine that Michael Moore can make a "mockumentary" of lies to slander his own country and fellow citizens. That's fine... in fact... because he does such a great job at bullshitting the world... he's entitled to left wing praise. I've seen Michael Moore speak live... and it was pretty obvious that he was making stuff up as he was going along.

Look, I understand your Dutch... and I understand the type of country you grew up in. For the record, I have nothing about the Netherlands... and as a matter of fact, I may be going to school in Maastricht this fall. Nevertheless, it shows a complete lack of ignorance on your part if you can't recognize the role that faith plays in America. This is still a faith based nation... with the majority of population being Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist. It's no coincidence that most states in this union reject the notion of gay marriage.

But I guess I should realize that you're from a country that parades prostitutes in windows, prides itself on legalizing marijuana, and has the Hague. Liberalism defines the Netherlands... just as conservatism still defines much of America's policies. Look at America's history and you'll come to understand why this nation is still so reliant on faith. Yet, this is also a nation that has intolerance. Many liberals in this country take offense to the holiday of Christmas and many homosexuals are intolerant to religious people and doctrines.

[RMadd]

Many liberals in this country take offense to the holiday of Christmas and many homosexuals are intolerant to religious people and doctrines.
I'm glad you brought this up. That's one thing I've noticed: liberals want conservatives and moderates to be accepting of any and all differences; they want us to be open-minded. They call us close-minded if we don't readily and blindly accept all their social "norms". And, yet, when it comes to religion, as you pointed out, they reject many religious beliefs as utterly false and illogical. So, pray tell, what happened to this open-mindedness? The truth is, everyone has their own set of beliefs and is usually not willing to stretch their own so much that they give in to requests made by those at the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Chase]

I'm glad you brought this up. That's one thing I've noticed: liberals want conservatives and moderates to be accepting of any and all differences; they want us to be open-minded. They call us close-minded if we don't readily and blindly accept all their social "norms". And, yet, when it comes to religion, as you pointed out, they reject many religious beliefs as utterly false and illogical. So, pray tell, what happened to this open-mindedness? The truth is, everyone has their own set of beliefs and is usually not willing to stretch their own so much that they give in to requests made by those at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Yes! It's totally contradictory what the liberal, atheist crowd asserts. They want everyone to be accepting of alternative lifestyles... but in reality, they do nothing but religion down. They don't accept the fact that some people chose to follow what's in the Bible. Isn't that the closed mindedness that they're accusing religious people of having? It's complete hypocrisy.

[RalphyS]

Alright, first of all... call Bush an "idiot," but at the end of the day we all know which country saved your Dutch ass in World War II and is currently leading the world economically, militarily, and culturally. I'm not trying to discredit the European Union, which is doing great economically, either. Hollywood is a primarily liberal community, a community that is trying to spread it's message through the medium of film. Mel Gibson is pretty much one of a kind. You can have the Sean Penns who sit there and spew all sorts of anti-American, liberal rhetoric. Then, when someone like Mel Gibson makes a movie about the last hours of Christ's life... there's this Hollywood outcry that he's gone too far. It's fine that Michael Moore can make a "mockumentary" of lies to slander his own country and fellow citizens. That's fine... in fact... because he does such a great job at bullshitting the world... he's entitled to left wing praise. I've seen Michael Moore speak live... and it was pretty obvious that he was making stuff up as he was going along.

So because the USA did us a major favor over 50 years ago under the rule of a democratic president, I know cannot criticize what this Republican fool is doing to your country and the rest of the world? And let's not forget that if Pearl Harbor wouldn't have happened, you might even now be standing by and looking at what the nazi's were doing in Europe, so please don't act as if the USA did it for us. They were attacked themselves, but nonetheless the Dutch and several other European nations owe a debt of gratitude to the USA.

And just because the USA is the world leader, the only superpower at least militarily, at this time, they will have to deal with criticism. There is a saying here in Holland, it states "Hoge bomen vangen veel wind", you said you understand Dutch, I don't know if you meant this literally, so I'll translate it "High trees catch a lot of wind". It means that if you want to stand out above the crowd in whichever way, be prepared to draw attention and it might not always be positive. I wouldn't care if, say, Bangla Desh elects a president, with whose ideas I totally disagree with, that would probably have no influence at all at world policy or my life, but Dubya does and therefore he has to be aware that the world watches his every move.

As to the general conservative state of America and the liberal one of Hollywood and let's be honest, the big border states like New York, California and others I have a clear opinion about that. Most rural based Americans have never been any further than their own backyard, they have never been exposed to other ideas, opinions and so on, people from the border states have been abroad and especially the people involved in the movie business, they know what's really going on in the world and look way past domestic American problems. I tend to think that the more ideas, different cultures, influences you're involved in the more open-minded and even liberal you thinking will become. Ofcourse that's only my 2 cents.

Btw I don't think Michael Moore slandered the USA, I love the USA, been there on vacation 3 times, it's your leadership he slanders, I even read one of his books, sure he is negative about republicans, but he isn't that positive about the democrats either. If you love your country, but you don't like the direction it is going politically, there is nothing wrong with criticizing that, it's called democracy, I believe. Not to say that democracy is that great all the time, the proof for that is being shown to us in Palestine only recently.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947


Look, I understand your Dutch... and I understand the type of country you grew up in. For the record, I have nothing about the Netherlands... and as a matter of fact, I may be going to school in Maastricht this fall. Nevertheless, it shows a complete lack of ignorance on your part if you can't recognize the role that faith plays in America. This is still a faith based nation... with the majority of population being Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist. It's no coincidence that most states in this union reject the notion of gay marriage.

What a coincidence, as I'm typing this I am sitting in Maastricht, I work there, I live about 15 miles from here. "A complete lack of ignorance" doesn't that mean that I know everything. :) I do recognize the role that faith plays in the USA, and I do think it is biggest problem that your country has, the influence that the religious right tries to gain in the States. As I've stated before, I don't tell anyone to not believe, but when you try to impose the rules of your religion upon others, this is when it goes to far in my mind. Besides isn't it a job of the state to look out that the rights of minorities aren't trempled (sp?) on. I believe that the separation of church and state is not only good for the state, but also for the church. Isn't there some sort of passage even in the bible that states, give unto the king what is the king's and give unto the lord, what is the lord's. And the homophobic nature of your country is just fear for the unknown, I think. As you know we have gay marriage here and we haven't descended into barbarism yet, there are only more happy people around, who have the rights of their partner fully protected when they die.

I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.
Wilson Mizner (1876 - 1933)


But I guess I should realize that you're from a country that parades prostitutes in windows, prides itself on legalizing marijuana, and has the Hague. Liberalism defines the Netherlands... just as conservatism still defines much of America's policies. Look at America's history and you'll come to understand why this nation is still so reliant on faith. Yet, this is also a nation that has intolerance. Many liberals in this country take offense to the holiday of Christmas and many homosexuals are intolerant to religious people and doctrines.

Well are we now going to compare crime figures between the US and The Netherlands? Is you country free of prostitution? Does no-one smoke marijuana over there? Were have your restrictions on both got you?
Our abortion rate is lower than most others nations including the US, also because we're more open about birth control. I thought conservatives were such big defenders of personal freedom and responsibility. So what's wrong with letting people decide for themselves if they need to pay for sex of want to smoke pot. Murder, rape and crime like that, let's compare these figures of our both countries, yet we are the nation that has gone totally over the edge, according to some, but come and take a look for yourself if it's as bad as reported over here.

Personally I have never seen a prostitute behind a window, well I did, but it was in Germany, I smoked a bit of pot like 2 weeks ago for the first time since I don't know how many years. Btw what is wrong with The Hague?

The history of the USA isn't that faith-based, as I've gathered. Founding fathers like Jefferson and Paine were all but devout Christians. Statements like the 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance were inserted in the 1950's, I think. Didn't the settlers on the Mayflower travel to America to get away from religious prosecution. Is there a mention of the Christian God in the constitution or the declaration of independence? It seems like the relogious right just wants it to be that way.

When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) (attributed)

Finally I don't think many liberals have a problem with Christmas, personally I think it is great to have a holiday at which we all hope/pray for world peace, to be with your loved ones and if there is a nice story about a birth, one of the most beautiful things a human can experience, involved so much the better for it. Ofcourse you know that the birth of Christ according to the bible stories could never have happened at the time that we celebrate Christmas. In fact the holiday of Winter Solstice was basically a pagan holiday and it was taken over by the Church to persuade pagans to become Christians. I also think the birth of the pre-christ god Mithra (from a virgin, sound familiar?) was also celebrated during that december period. So Christmas is great, I just don't take the religious undertone that seriously.

Oh and about homosexuals being intolerant to religious people, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? How would you feel if a group of people, in this case the religious, constantly called your lifestile perverse and did their utmost best to prevent you to get equal rights in regard to partnership?

The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

"Faith" means not wanting to know what is true.
Friedrich Nietzsche

[RalphyS]

I'm glad you brought this up. That's one thing I've noticed: liberals want conservatives and moderates to be accepting of any and all differences; they want us to be open-minded. They call us close-minded if we don't readily and blindly accept all their social "norms". And, yet, when it comes to religion, as you pointed out, they reject many religious beliefs as utterly false and illogical. So, pray tell, what happened to this open-mindedness? The truth is, everyone has their own set of beliefs and is usually not willing to stretch their own so much that they give in to requests made by those at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Well there is one difference between the social norms of liberals and conservatives? Those of liberals aren't edged into stone like commandments or in a book that says they are absolute and there is not any discussion possible about these rules.

What basically is the reason for not-allowing gay marriage, besides the obvious 'the bible said so'? And keep in mind, I already answered to the biological and STD-arguements.

And even these absolute rules aren't that absolute, because I can remember a passage that states, 'thou shalt not kill', yet if the state does the killing, there seems nothing wrong with it.

[RalphyS]

Yes! It's totally contradictory what the liberal, atheist crowd asserts. They want everyone to be accepting of alternative lifestyles... but in reality, they do nothing to put religion down. They don't accept the fact that some people chose to follow what's in the Bible. Isn't that the closed mindedness that they're accusing religious people of having? It's complete hypocrisy.

"they do nothing to put religion down"? So you want us to put religion down???

"If there is a God, atheism must strike Him as less of an insult than religion."
[Edmond and Jules de Goncourt]

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.
Woody Allen (1935 - )

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg (1933 - ), quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

[Chase]

Well there is one difference between the social norms of liberals and conservatives? Those of liberals aren't edged into stone like commandments or in a book that says they are absolute and there is not any discussion possible about these rules.

What basically is the reason for not-allowing gay marriage, besides the obvious 'the bible said so'? And keep in mind, I already answered to the biological and STD-arguements.

And even these absolute rules aren't that absolute, because I can remember a passage that states, 'thou shalt not kill', yet if the state does the killing, there seems nothing wrong with it.

If there was a population of homosexuals... they would go extinct after one generation. Explain that to me. Why would they not be able to reproduce? Biologically... there is no benefit to gay sex whatsoever.

In all honesty, I have no problem if the state kills an Al Qaeda member.

[RMadd]

Well there is one difference between the social norms of liberals and conservatives? Those of liberals aren't edged into stone like commandments or in a book that says they are absolute and there is not any discussion possible about these rules.
Isn't that sort of an inherent difference, though? I would think that conservatives, by rule, tend to prefer maintain the social, political, economic (etc etc etc) norms; liberals, on the other hand, by definition seek a variety of ways to alter those norms. Politically speaking, true conservatives in the US (I'm not referring to neo-conservatives, who tend to care little for the federalism debate, but focus, instead, on social issues) have supported a strict interpretation of the constitution, such that the constituent states of the republic should maintain control over a wide variety of issues. Liberals, meanwhile, tend to support the notion that the constitution is a living, breathing document, and that the implied powers of the federal government over the states are many. This, again, is the inherent debate: conservatives have a fast, firm way of looking at something; liberals see things as ever-changing. So to criticize conservatives for seeming to be so close-minded appears to me to be paradoxical: you're bashing conservatives for being just that!

[RMadd]

What basically is the reason for not-allowing gay marriage, besides the obvious 'the bible said so'? And keep in mind, I already answered to the biological and STD-arguements.
Reading below, I see Chase mentioned the fact that a homosexual population could not survive. Beyond that, I understand that, in the Scandinavian countries, gay marriage was legalized in sometime between 10 and 20 years ago. In the years since then, heterosexual marriage, as an institution, has become significantly less common. I'm not asserting that, with an option for homosexual marriage or union, a bunch of heteros went gay or anything. However, it seems to me that this move represents an overall social shift, one in which traditional and conservative social institutions and norms are overturned (such that the younger generation is getting married at an alarmingly lesser rate). And, for something like that to happen, I would imagine there would need to be an overwhelmingly liberal population. In the U.S., that is not so. There are liberal populations predominantly in the Northeast and Pacific West, but just about everywhere in between is conservative. The vast vast vast majority of the population likely falls between "moderately liberal" and "moderately conservative" on the political spectrum. Thus, we're not ready for a complete overhaul of traditional customs and practices.

[RMadd]

And even these absolute rules aren't that absolute, because I can remember a passage that states, 'thou shalt not kill', yet if the state does the killing, there seems nothing wrong with it.
As for myself, I'm not too fond of capital punishment or war, for this very reason.

[Ana4Stapp]

But I guess I should realize that you're from a country that parades prostitutes in windows, prides itself on legalizing marijuana, and has the Hague. Liberalism defines the Netherlands... just as conservatism still defines much of America's policies .

Ya know...its amazing the way you always get pissed off when someone here criticizes Bush ( what means US foreign policy and NOT your country) but in other hand you are constantly being disrespectful to the other countries ( paiting an image of imorality -corruption) with your erroneous and biased point of views...:rolleyes:

[RalphyS]

If there was a population of homosexuals... they would go extinct after one generation. Explain that to me. Why would they not be able to reproduce? Biologically... there is no benefit to gay sex whatsoever.

So basically you're saying, if we allow gay marriage, everybody will be going gay and the population will go extinct. :wtf:

I haven't seen any hetero's going over to 'the other side' over here, since it became legal to marry someone of your own gender.

Biologically, there is a lot to be said for f..king around, if you take the 'go hence and multiply'-advice/rule literally. I don't see you praising that.

As I've stated before, it isn't the sole reason of relations or even our existence to make sure there is offspring.

[Chase]

Ya know...its amazing the way you always get pissed off when someone here criticizes Bush ( what means US foreign policy and NOT your country) but in other hand you are constantly being disrespectful to the other countries ( paiting an image of imorality -corruption) with your erroneous and biased point of views...:rolleyes:

You think I'm lying? The Dutch have legalized marijuana and prostitution. That right there makes up a large part of Amsterdam's tourism.

And you're calling my views biased? You're the one who is even against the allies getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan... the government that directly funded 9/11.

I only respond to people that attack my country on these boards.

[Chase]

So basically you're saying, if we allow gay marriage, everybody will be going gay and the population will go extinct. :wtf:

I haven't seen any hetero's going over to 'the other side' over here, since it became legal to marry someone of your own gender.

Biologically, there is a lot to be said for f..king around, if you take the 'go hence and multiply'-advice/rule literally. I don't see you praising that.

As I've stated before, it isn't the sole reason of relations or even our existence to make sure there is offspring.

Biologically... reproduction is a fundamental part of our existence. Human beings haven't always viewed sex as a pleasureful experience, they did it out of instinct. I never said if gay marriage is allowed, everyone will go gay. I simply said that if there was an isolated population of homosexuals... they were go extinct after a generation. Explain to me why that is. If homosexual is this healthy lifestyle, explain to me the benefits of homosexuality. I don't find an increase of getting STDs to be appealing, nor do I find the impossibility of having children to be either.

[Ana4Stapp]

You think I'm lying? The Dutch have legalized marijuana and prostitution. That right there makes up a large part of Amsterdam's tourism.

And you're calling my views biased? You're the one who is even against the allies getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan... the government that directly funded 9/11.

I only respond to people that attack my country on these boards.

No one is attacking YOUR COUNTRY here!!!!! I cant understand why you cant see it!!!!!

[Ana4Stapp]

I simply said that if there was an isolated population of homosexuals... they were go extinct after a generation. Explain to me why that is. If homosexual is this healthy lifestyle, explain to me the benefits of homosexuality. I don't find an increase of getting STDs to be appealing, nor do I find the impossibility of having children to be either.

I have nothing against homosexuality-- I think people have the right to live their lives the same way I live mine-- and I alao think its getting boring and unfruitful to keep this discussion --homosexuality is an very OLD issue , present in many cultures thoughout the History.

[Chase]

I have nothing against homosexuality-- I think people have the right to live their lives the same way I live mine-- and I alao think its getting boring and unfruitful to keep this discussion --homosexuality is an very OLD issue , present in many cultures thoughout the History.

So, basically you can't explain the benefits to the lifestyle. I have yet to hear anyone expain why it's a good lifestyle. You agree with it, fine... but I haven't either of you explain the positives of it.

[Ana4Stapp]

So, basically you can't explain the benefits to the lifestyle. I have yet to hear anyone expain why it's a good lifestyle. You agree with it, fine... but I haven't either of you explain the positives of it.



Why you are always trying to change my words, Chase? I didnt say I was agreeing WITH it- (homosexuality) -- I said I have nothing AGAINST it! Its different. But to me character is much more important that sexuality.
Imagine THIS: you have a friend who you really really like but one day he reveals to you that hes gay...will you stop this friendship based in prejudices? just because you cant agree with his lifestyle??

[Chase]

Why you are always trying to change my words, Chase? I didnt say I was agreeing WITH it- (homosexuality) -- I said I have nothing AGAINST it! Its different. But to me character is much more important that sexuality.
Imagine THIS: you have a friend who you really really like but one day he reveals to you that hes gay...will you stop this friendship based in prejudices? just because you cant agree with his lifestyle??

No, not at all... but I would definately not agree with it. I have had friends who got into drugs and because I'm so against drugs... I had a major problem with it. I have friends and coworkers who are gay. Yet, with all due respect, can you find any biological benefits to homosexuality?

[Ana4Stapp]

No, not at all... but I would definately not agree with it. I have had friends who got into drugs and because I'm so against drugs... I had a major problem with it. I have friends and coworkers who are gay. Yet, with all due respect, can you find any biological benefits to homosexuality?


Well I was asking about homosexuality -- drugs are other situation...you cant compare gays to people who are addicted in drugs...

Can you find any biological benefits in hetero couples who are steriles?

[Chase]

Well I was asking about homosexuality -- drugs are other situation...you cant compare gays to people who are addicted in drugs...

Can you find any biological benefits in hetero couples who are steriles?

In terms of reproduction, no. I like how you won't answer my question. Can you find any biological benefits to homosexuality?

[Ana4Stapp]

In terms of reproduction, no. I like how you won't answer my question. Can you find any biological benefits to homosexuality?


LOL!!!! The same here cause I love when you ignore my questions...:rolleyes:

Biological benefits concerning to sex except reproduction?

...but I really doubt if you consider about biological benefits when you are going to have sex with someone ...:rolleyes:

[Ana4Stapp]

Well, after a lot of mischances a nd delays finallyI saw Munich this night and my opinion is that I saw best Spielberg's movie in many years. There's a word to summarize it is impressive. A strong and impressive film. We cant leave the theater without a a lump in the throat.Okay, it is none too pleasant...and never could be this way...since its subject is terrorism that result from hate and intolerance. Theres no hero or happy end in this.

Its also an extremely violent movie despite the possible 'romantization' that shows no " good or bad guys" or even right and "wrong sides"...and at this point I remember a review complaining about the impartial Spielberg who avoided in choose sides...or even painting a 'sympathetic portrait of the Palestinians'.

Eric Bana is a Mossad agent (Avner Kauffman) who leads a group of men that needs to eliminate the names they take on faith as the architects of the Munich massacre. Hes a man who fights all the time with his own conscience until the end...

Disturbing movie! Amazing movie! ;)