There’s a scene in Brokeback Mountain that revolves around the characters watching football on television on Thanksgiving. The NFL refused to allow its footage to be used in the scene, so it’s a CFL game on the family set. A producer of Brokeback Mountain has implied that the NFL wouldn’t allow its footage to be used because the movie is about a gay relationship. The NFL says that had nothing to do with it. From Outsports:
“We do not want to be associated with this scene for a variety of reasons which should be readily apparent,” the NFL said in its letter of rejection. “First, we do not want the viewing of our games to be portrayed negatively as it is in this scene. In essence, it is the focal point of a curse-ladened confrontation between a character and his father-in-law in which the character threatens to ‘knock [his] arrogant ass into next week.’
“Second, we do not appreciate the implication of the statement, ‘You want your son to grow up to be a man, don’t you daughter? … Boys should watch football.’ We believe that the view that a boy who does not watch football will somehow grow up to be less than a man is narrow-minded and derogatory; we presume it is in the script for that very reason. We choose not to license our footage to be used as a vehicle to illustrate such a point.”
Hat tip: Deadspin.com
posted
3-3-2006 at 7:03 AM by
Michael David Smith
||
Extra Points
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Your names and email address are required --- it's part of an effort to reduce comment spam -- but your email address won't be displayed.
If you create a comment, but it doesn't display, that's probably because it didn't pass through our spam filter (make any references to erectile dysfunction medication?), and is living in Comment Limbo Land. Please don't try to post it 14 more times -- try again once, and if it doesn't go through, then send an email to webmaster-at-footballoutsiders.com and let us know. Mentions of ED drugs, poker games, and anything you get email spam about will likely cause your comment to be held for moderation.
Please respect our discussion threads by refraining from the following:
- comments about politics
- ad hominem attacks on other commenters
- posts designed to promote another website
- thread-hijacking, particularly by turning threads that are not about Tom Brady or Peyton Manning into arguments about Brady vs. Manning
- discussing Spygate except in the Irrational Spygate Argument Thread.
Such comments may be deleted.
If you want to reference a link, put it in the URI field (go Rams!). Please don't put the 'less than' sign in the comment text -- it's seen as the beginning of an HTML tag, and that just messes everything up.
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I think the producers have a bit of a persecution complex. I think the two reasons the NFL gave are absolutely valid. Maybe I just don’t function at a high level this early but it sounds much less like the marketing CYA doublespeak that you normally hear and more like an explanation.
:: RowdyRoddyPiper — 3/3/2006 @ 7:39 am
I second that. Maybe I’m biased because I like the NFL more than I like Ang Lee movies*, but those seem like perfectly good reasons not to license your product, and to imply that it was due to homophobia is almost slanderous.
* = I like Ang Lee movies fine, but I like the NFL more than almost anything else.
:: VarlosZ — 3/3/2006 @ 7:46 am
I agree.
Also, I think the NFL has a history of not allowing their footage or trademarks to be used in movies (see stock footage in almost any football movie about pro football).
:: Kevo — 3/3/2006 @ 7:59 am
But they apparently have no issue about allowing their footage, and “classic” at that, to be computer-enhanced in order to allow the King to romp around the field. Perhaps the producers simply didn’t offer enough $$$ for the right.
:: Kurt — 3/3/2006 @ 8:03 am
Okay, I can buy the first concern as honest even if I don’t think it’s particularly valid.
However, this:
“We believe that the view that a boy who does not watch football will somehow grow up to be less than a man is narrow-minded and derogatory; we presume it is in the script for that very reason.”
doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Characters in films say narrow-minded and derogatory things all the time. Things which the film makers obviously don’t endorse. And then other characters disagree. And stuff happens. And um…that’s where you get, what’s that called? Oh, drama.
From the producers’ POV, given that NFL locker rooms are high-profile havens for homophobia in the workplace, I can forgive them for being a bit paranoid.
:: spatne — 3/3/2006 @ 8:28 am
Seems like a legit argument to me. Plus, as #3 mentions, the NFL is very protective of it’s product from a movie and TV perspective anyway. I have no problem with the explanation and it does seem like the producers, in an effort to try to prove something, have a persecution complex… Oh well, as usual, go NFL!
:: vr — 3/3/2006 @ 8:29 am
Also, #2: The Ice Storm rules.
:: spatne — 3/3/2006 @ 8:29 am
Re: #5
But in this instance, the way the conflict was set up basically broke down to the Evil, Intolorant Partner saying things like “Men watch football! All men who don’t are sissys!”
All the NFL is saying, is they don’t feel that all men who don’t watch football are sissys. I choosing to not insult people who don’t watch the NFL was a pretty good move.
:: Tony — 3/3/2006 @ 8:36 am
Couldn’t the producers have used NCAA footage?
:: mathesond — 3/3/2006 @ 9:08 am
I find the reasoning given in comment #4 to probably be the closest to the truth. But the reasons the NFL gave are certainly legitimate, especially about having its product portrayed in a negative way.
:: Shelley — 3/3/2006 @ 9:34 am
Important to note that Paul Tagliabue has an openly gay son and he has been honored by many gay organizations for his public support of gays.
Whoever is really mad over this ought to do a little more homework.
:: Bruce Dickinson — 3/3/2006 @ 9:37 am
While I think both points they make are valid, I think it’s good to remember that what people say after the fact is not necissarily the reasons they used in the first place.
To whit: Just because someone says something, especially a business, doesn’t mean that it’s necissarily true.
:: Fnor — 3/3/2006 @ 9:46 am
The producers of Brokeback Mountain are probably lying, if I had to guess. They like to make scenes and accuse people of dicriminating against homosexuals. It gets them publicity for their movie.
:: Sid — 3/3/2006 @ 9:52 am
Sid, people DO discriminate against homosexuals. Whether the NFL is or is not is up for debate. Now, they didn’t seem to mind their image being shown in Jerry Maguire, but that was years ago.
We shouldn’t be so dismissive about these things.
:: Sophandros — 3/3/2006 @ 10:00 am
Sid,
That is about the dumbest thing I have ever read here at FO.
:: Aaron N — 3/3/2006 @ 10:03 am
#8: Well, it’s the evil, intolerant father-in-law who says it. He’s *obviously* the villain in the scene, and the film *obviously* doesn’t validate his views.
Anyone who’s going to confuse those lines with the NFL’s official or unofficial stance on *anything* is:
(1) not bright;
(2) doesn’t know how fiction works; and/or
(3) is already so anti-sports/football that they were offended by the NFL before the movie even started.
I submit that the people who the NFL are allegedly concerned about offending are much more likely to be offended that the league withheld consent to use the footage in a gay-positive film.
Come on, if the NFL *really* finds the statement to be so narrow-minded and derogatory, why do they refuse to be associated with a film, the purpose of which is to debunk that very statement?
I think the NFL made a dumb decision and caused itself a needless headache. And given the culutre of homophobia that exists amongst NFL players, I can’t blame the producers for suspecting the worst.
:: spatne — 3/3/2006 @ 10:09 am
#13: They made a GAY COWBOY MOVIE. They aren’t hurting for publicity.
:: spatne — 3/3/2006 @ 10:12 am
Funny how any side to any issue has some way of justifying there point of view/actions.
What should we use as a guide to morality/living? Our own concsience? Religious Texts? Public Opinion? Fiscal Concerns? Natural Selection?
:: FlatLined — 3/3/2006 @ 10:22 am
Sheep herders aren’t cowboys.
:: Tex — 3/3/2006 @ 10:27 am
re #16
I didn’t realize it was a “gay positive film”, I thought it was a film about infidelity.
:: krugerindustrialsmoothing — 3/3/2006 @ 10:30 am
As a gay football fan myself, I may be biased in this issue, that said…
I really don’t think the movie needs significantly more publicity - particularly publicity at Outsports, where this article resides. I would make a reasoned guess that most of the readers at Outsports have probably heard of the movie already (and likely seen it).
I also don’t see any mention of specific gay organizations that are upset over this. It was the producers of the movie that mentioned it, not, say, HRC or Lambda.
Additionally, Outsports is usually pretty good when it comes to its sports writing (given its slant), and they did their due diligence here - after the producers of the movie complained, it was Outsports that contacted the league, got their response, and published it - and then tried to get commentary from the producers again (who, one notes, didn’t reply).
I think, however, that the NFL’s reply on “We dislike the fact that there were arguments being made in that scene…” blah blah blah is somewhat disingenuous - not because the NFL is an anti-gay organization, but rather because you can look around and see dozens of examples of movies where football is on TV in a completely innocuous scene where they are using non-NFL footage, because the league refused permission, and probably not because of the scene it was being used in. By making their statement one of “We don’t like the scene, therefore…” they are taking a position in an issue where they didn’t have to - they simply could have said “It is routine for us to disallow use of such footage in movies unless there is a direct need for it - look at all the other movies that don’t use NFL footage” and that would end the argument.
Because of that, I think Fnor’s position may be the one most likely based in reality - it could have easily been denied because that’s the NFL’s default stance for almost all motion pictures (especially if one isn’t coughing up big money, as post #4 indicates), but after the fact, there is plenty of time to come up with any statement that one wants to come up with that sounds “Appropriate.”
T.
:: Tarrant — 3/3/2006 @ 10:34 am
They need publicity. They are trying to push an unpopular and politically correct flick. Which isnt making money.
:: empty13 — 3/3/2006 @ 10:40 am
empty13, if you don’t like Brokeback Mountain, fine. But stick with that opinion instead of easily refuted statements like it isn’t making money. It cost $14 million and has so far made $76 million in North America and $51 million overseas. So far. Throw in the DVDs and TV rights and it’ll make a net profit somewhere in the $200 million neighborhood.
:: Michael David Smith — 3/3/2006 @ 10:55 am
It would be interesting to see the demographics of those who are spending the money to see it.
I wont bother.
:: empty13 — 3/3/2006 @ 11:01 am
#22:
That’s about as wrong as you can get. Brokeback mountain didn’t cost a whole lot, and has already made $75mil (see link in name). For a movie that opened in 300 theaters, that’s a bonafide huge hit.
It is not only very successful financially, it’s clearly a popular movie given the whole ‘I wish I could quit you’ meme that’s spreading. They don’t need the publicity. They’re doing just fine.
:: Kal — 3/3/2006 @ 11:09 am
24
Your dollar is as good as anyone elses.
:: Crushinator — 3/3/2006 @ 11:18 am
Empty13 and Sid are up on Brokeback Mountain…
:: Aaron N — 3/3/2006 @ 11:24 am
I find it very funny that they were so concerned about the profanity in the scene and didn’t want to be associated with that, yet their statement includes said profanity. The second reason they gave makes absolutely no sense, as #16 put it perfectly. If in fact the NFL usually does not allow their footage to be used in movies and such, that’s all they had to say in their statement. Had that been the case, I would’ve taken it as a normal outcome of their ordinary stance. Instead, they came up with completely weak excuse that sure seemed like they were stretching for a reason, so now I am forced to believe that this was not how they usually handle things. I understand Tagliabue has a gay son and has received awards, but he is also not the end all person who is free to do whatever he wants with NFL properties - he too has to mind the pressures of the environment he works in. I am not accusing them of having nefarious reasons not to allow the footage to be used, but I do think giving a lame ASS excuse makes it look like so.
#1, and #2, since the reasons given make no sense to me, I was hoping you’d elaborate a bit on how it makes perfect sense to you.
#13 and #22, this movie is up for every major award, the actors are all up for major awards, they were alternating magazine covers with King Kong for months, it cost $13M to make and it grossed $76M in the US and $50M outside of it according to the website below. That’s a gross return of almost 800% on investment. I simply cannot believe your argument is that the producers need publicity.
#22, did you really say this movie was unpopular? Is that “unpopular to the people who chose not to see it”, maybe? And in that case, you should also consider Titanic unpopular, because you now know of at least one person (me) who chose not to see it. Titanic is definitely an unpopular movie in DMP’s world.
:: DMP — 3/3/2006 @ 11:29 am
Re: #22…
Unpopular flick that isn’t making money?
Willful ignorance perhaps?
The film, originally an art-house offering on a few hundred screens, spread into mainstream theaters (>2000 screens) across the country. It cost $14 million to make, its marketing was practically free (given all the publicity it gained), and has made well over $125 million (worldwide) to date. Is that comparable to tentpole movies that cost $200 million to make, and $100 million to market (Star Wars, Harry Potter, Narnia)? No. But it’s certainly respectable.
Should it win an Oscar, one could easily chalk up another $25 million for it - that would make it one of the more profitable films of the year, particularly as a percentage of costs.
Whether or not you are interested in spending your money to see the movie does not alter this fact.
T.
:: Tarrant — 3/3/2006 @ 11:30 am
Um, great point, MDS and Tarrant. (Note to self: type up comments faster next time.)
:: DMP — 3/3/2006 @ 11:38 am
#18:
Ask yourself: What would Ryan Leaf do?
:: the K — 3/3/2006 @ 11:45 am
I wish I could quit Ryan Leaf.
:: Kal — 3/3/2006 @ 11:48 am
That said, as someone coming from a demographic that is targeted by the movie…
empty13’s sardonic comment regarding the movie’s audience demographic (and the movie itself) is precisely why the fact that this movie has done so well is actual news. BBM is making money in places that, not long ago, such movies never would have sold a single ticket - it would have remained a New England/West Coast art house film, and that’s it.
That is a sign, however small, of progress.
T.
:: Tarrant — 3/3/2006 @ 11:50 am
Empty13, yes, we should check the demographics, because if only gay people are watching it, then it doesn’t count. What???
$125M is a lot of money from a lot of people, no matter who those people are. It qualifies as “popular”, unless, somehow, we should rank movie receipts by gay-adjusted-gross.
I might just as well throw in anecdotal evidence: I saw this movie on a 8PM session on a Friday night. There was a large proportion of over-50 straight couples there, along with many younger straight and gay couples. Clearly this was date-night movie. It worked, too. My wife cried for the last 20 minutes of the movie, and on our drive home when she finally composed herself to say something, this was it: “That was the most romantic movie I have seen a long long time.”
This got me out of seeing anything involving Sarah Jessica Parker. I highly recommend it to all the husbands out there for this reason, in addition to it being an excellent movie.
:: DMP — 3/3/2006 @ 11:57 am
and what exactly does all of this have to do with football??
i guess it’s gonna be a long , long offseason.
:: jake — 3/3/2006 @ 12:17 pm
How is acknowledging the existence of a group of people “politically correct?”
I can buy the NFL’s logic on this, though I wonder what they’d have done if the football-watching scene had been more casual.
:: Drew D. — 3/3/2006 @ 12:38 pm
I for one was fooled. I thought it was a steelers game circa 1975.
:: Dman — 3/3/2006 @ 12:42 pm
Why did the discussion track this way? Shouldn’t this be a discussion about homophobio and football fans/players?
I’ll honestly admit that on the scale of homophobe-homophilic, as a human that is a football fan I probably trend in the middle. I don’t go out of my way to physically or mentally do anything negative to homosexuals and if I had a friend who was one, I wouldn’t break of all contact with him and I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable with a gay co-worker. On the other hand, I use terms like “that’s so gay”, that people might find offensive… and I can’t say I fully relate to homosexuals.
[Stop reading here because it’s an off-topic response]
FWIW my original response was a complaint that Mel Gibson’s movie last year is practically the ideological mirror of BBM, but it’s not getting nearly the attention from the Oscars. Independent movie, hard core target audience, polarizing, unexpectedly high grossing, emotional final 20 minutes. Why do all those football players kneel at mid-field after the games?
:: Matthew Furtek — 3/3/2006 @ 12:50 pm
I don’t get the NFL’s point. Do they not think there are Americans that hold the fathers point of view? Here they are assuming the movie viewers are to stupid to interrupt a legitimate real life adult conversation in a movie about adult relationships as a product endorsement that expresses the NFL’s view. I find the NFL’s argument insulting. Do they think I’m that stupid? Clearly they do.
:: johonny — 3/3/2006 @ 1:08 pm
MDS - someone reads boxofficemojo, don’t they? (Mmm…linkalicious.)
Yes, Brokeback Mountain has been a huge success and by the time everything is said and done will have made 15-20 times what it cost to make (it predicts at x16.3 after DVD and distribution and will look more like 20 if it enjoys a lot of success at the Oscars.) It’s already made 11 times it’s production budget in the theaters alone. Compare that to the top three earners of last year: Star Wars III made 7.5 times its production budget in the theaters (predicting, with DVD, etc. an eventual x12.9), Harry Potter made 5.9 times (predicting at x9.9), and The Chronicles of Narnia made 3.7 times its production budget (predicting overall at x6.4 despite really, really sucking). When you factor in advertising budgets (which are disproportianately higher for tentpole films like Star Wars and Harry Potter, Brokeback likely does even better).
So Brokeback Mountain is enjoying an awesome run of success. What was my point? Oh yes, I’ll believe the NFL in this case, but the last thing we need is misinformation about how Brokeback Mountain is some failure. It’s funny, because that is what they’re spouting on Fox News (where all the anchors have been routinely saying they won’t see it and that nobody else is either and yet somehow don’t offer it’s box office take the same as they do other films).
Interesting note: the most successful film last year may have been Saw II, predicting at eventually 60 times its production budget of $4 million. (Probably closer to 50, but the prediction model is simple and doesn’t factor in the horror gap in DVD sales and rentals.) It might also be March of the Penguins, but it’s nigh on impossible to get ahold of documentary film budgets. I’ll stop now, it’s just nice to use my film knowledge on Football Outsiders for once, especially to help in discounting ridiculous, made-up “information.”
:: Basilicus — 3/3/2006 @ 1:23 pm
the two reasons the nfl gave were great reasons. they probably didnt want to be associated with a movie about gay cowboys anyways. but whether they license their footage or not, football on television in america is associated with either the NCAA or the NFL - so no matter what they do, viewers will think of those associations when they watch the movie, in my opinion. for this reason, i think the NFL’s stance is more symbolic than anything, and this further strengthens their two reasons for not licensing the footage…and the media machine keeps on rolling.
:: karl — 3/3/2006 @ 1:25 pm
#19: Point taken. However, it’s been called “The Gay Cowboy Movie” so many times in so many places that I think you’re going to fight an uphill battle in terms of awareness. I hope the Gay Sheepherders of America don’t feel slighted.
:: spatne — 3/3/2006 @ 1:35 pm
“Do they think I’m that stupid? Clearly they do.”
You and all of us. And they’re probably right - we as people are a lot more suggestible than we think we are. An association doesn’t have to be conscious or reasonable to affect our attitudes.
:: Mr Shush — 3/3/2006 @ 1:37 pm
#20: This isn’t a gay-positive film? Let’s see:
-A relatively mainstram film about a gay relationship.
-Two mainstream, heart-throbby, straight male actors as on-screen lovers with actual physical intimacy. Ye Gods!
-The gay characters are a major departure from the typical limp-wrist that Hollywood loves so much. These guys are leading-man archetypes.
-The film explores the very real damage that can be caused when a society shames its gay men and women into leading “straight” lives. How many characters have their lives ruined in this story because of predudice and hatred? How many straight people end up in uhappy marriages because of it? It’s really devastating.
I’ve got a fair number of very close gay and lesbian friends. They aren’t equal to me according to US law and half the churches in this country teach children they they’re going to hell. That pisses me off. The fact that the NFL doesn’t seem to think that potentially violent homophobia amongst its players is a problem also pisses me off, and it doesn’t prompt me to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
:: spatne — 3/3/2006 @ 1:41 pm
karl: 60% of the time, your explanation of the NFL’s reasons works every time.
I think saying that they did not want to be associated with a “gay cowboy movie” is exactly what they were trying to avoid, and thus they gave us the Sex Panther reasons.
I do agree with you though that no matter what, most people watching saw football + Thanksgiving = NFL. It is just very upsetting that the NFL couldn’t just come out and say “we are not a charity or art patrons, we only license footage at a heavy price for what we believe enhances the visibility of our league.” What’s wrong with that? There were suggestions earlier that we are upset over this because we are products of an overly PC world. However, I think it was overly PC of the NFL to come up with their reasons instead of just laying it out plainly.
:: DMP — 3/3/2006 @ 2:00 pm
FWIW, I’d like to point out that #13 doesn’t sound like Sid at all. I count 3 errors.
But even if it is him, I read that comment as saying that movie producers like to stir up controversy, not gay people.
On another note, is BBM a good movie? My girlfriend liked it, but I don’t trust anyone who likes Dirty Dancing. That’s one thing that is odd about this movie. All the news is just about the controversy. I haven’t really read anything that tells me if people actually like it or not.
:: Björn — 3/3/2006 @ 2:29 pm
Re 46: I can’t tell…it’s highly unlike Sid to have a spelling error. That may sound silly, unless you’ve been reading his posts for a long time - the last thing we need is impersonators on this site. That’s a quick road to forum registration and sadness.
On if Brokeback Mountain is a good movie, the one word answer is ‘Yes.’ It’s a surprisingly cold movie that takes an observational tone instead of a very emotional one. It’s a beautiful film with some of the boldest and most unique cinematography I’ve ever seen. I think it goes far beyond the subject matter of homosexuality to contemplate many of the restrictions society, culture, and class impose upon us. It is about this relationship between the two cowboys and how it burns through many other people’s lives but at the same time so many of the characters are trying to scrape happiness out of the world and out of themselves in any form they can and their need for this is societal, already there, only accentuated by the situation of the two main characters. I love the movie. For reference, my favorite films released in the U.S. this year are The New World, Oldboy, The Constant Gardener, and Grizzly Man. I have never seen Dirty Dancing, and while I suspect while it would probably strike me as goofy 80s fun, it would also seem a bit silly to me. Hope this helps, Bjorn!
:: Basilicus — 3/3/2006 @ 2:46 pm
Thanks for the help! Given your strong endorsement, I’ll check it out.
:: Björn — 3/3/2006 @ 3:09 pm
Aaron, quit projecting your defects on other people.
:: empty13 — 3/3/2006 @ 3:37 pm
The logic is really what was the most baffling.
“I didn’t see Titantic. We all know which audience spent the most towards it (Teenage girls). Therefore, it didn’t make any money”
:: Crushinator — 3/3/2006 @ 3:58 pm
#44
I guess I misunderstood the premise of the movie, I figured it was… married guy (with kids btw) has an extra-marital affair. With whom should really be beyond the point after that first statement.
:: krugerindustrialsmoothing — 3/3/2006 @ 4:30 pm
Wow, Basillicus, you and I have very similar tastes in movies. I haven’t seen The New World or Oldboy, but Brokeback Mountain, Grizzly Man and The Constant Gardner would definitely make my very short list of my favorite movies of the year.
:: Michael David Smith — 3/3/2006 @ 4:56 pm
Re: 24. I am a caucasian, married, 30 year old attorney, with one child, living in Kansas City. My wife and I went and saw it at the independent film house near downtown because, initially, none of the suburban theatres were showing it. After we saw it there, it started appearing everywhere in the metro area.
I had read the short story in college in a creative writing class. As for the movie, I was skeptical about all the hype. Before seeing it, I thought it was getting so much publicity because of the subject matter, rather than the story, acting, etc.
I was wrong. I thought it was a great movie, great acting, and worthy of the Oscar buzz. To define this as simply “a gay cowboy movie” is akin to describing Casablanca as “a movie about World War II,” or Shawshank Redemption as “a movie about prison.” Those provide the context for the human drama, but the acting and writing move it beyond that.
I left the movie with conflicting emotions. Part of me felt sympathy toward Ennis Delmar, part of me felt sympathy for his young wife and children and anger about what he put his family through. I didn’t feel bludgeoned by an agenda.
As for the Thanksgiving scene, I didn’t come out of that scene thinking “the NFL on Thanksgiving day sucks” or that what happened to be on the tv in the background somehow promoted the views of the characters in the scene. Agree with those who say they should have just responded they do not allow footage in most cases, rather than coming up with these after the fact reasons that seem weak.
:: Falco — 3/3/2006 @ 4:58 pm
RE: 14
I don’t deny that people sometimes discriminate against gays. I’m merely referring to what the producers of Brokeback Mountain have been wont to do.
:: Sid — 3/3/2006 @ 5:43 pm
RE: 27
What are you talking about, exactly?
:: Sid — 3/3/2006 @ 5:44 pm
Just in case anyone cares:
My neighbor works at the movie theater and said that in the five years she worked there they have never (and she emphasized NEVER) had to refund so much money to people who saw that movie and walked out half way through.
I think the NFL was EXTREMELY smart to not allow them to use the footage. Granted there are gay football fans and apparently straight men who enjoyed the movie; However I dont think the majority of NFL hardcores have not (and will not)be watching Brokeback.
:: Ryan Harris — 3/3/2006 @ 6:37 pm
I just wanted to say that because of this thread I’ve had the guitar music from this movie stuck in my head all day. I hate you all.
:: Vince — 3/3/2006 @ 7:01 pm
Re NFL footage in movies: I’m almost 100% certain that When Harry Met Sally shows actual footage from a Giants-Lions game. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure (if I’m even correct), but at least it’s something.
MDS: I liked The Constant Gardener as well. Had no idea about it going in, really enjoyed it.
I sense a bit too much intolerance in this thread. It’s disappointing. Maybe I’m just reading too much into people’s comments.
:: zlionsfan — 3/3/2006 @ 7:04 pm
The Constant Gardener would have been the best movie of the year for me if two of the best movies ever made hadn’t come out this year (The New World and Oldboy.) The New World actually knocked Lawrence of Arabia off the post of my personal ‘best film of all time.’ It’s possibly the only movie I’ve seen that seems to have no awareness of itself as a movie, and yet so much meaning is veiled in every frame, sort of like how almost every line in Shakespeare can contain so much meaning in itself and in the framework of the whole piece. All right, I’m waxing poetic here…hehe, it’s sort of nice to have a film discussion on this website. We’re all talking football all the time.
:: Basilicus — 3/3/2006 @ 8:04 pm
MDS - I’m curious what other films you liked this year. Rounding out my top 10 would probably be Munich, King Kong, Serenity, Syriana, and Mirrormask. Definitely give away my taste for sci-fi there, don’t I? A History of Violence and Jarhead would probably barely miss.
:: Basilicus — 3/3/2006 @ 8:05 pm
Syriana and AHOV were both stellar. Miss Dirty Dancing didn’t like either.
:: Björn — 3/3/2006 @ 8:19 pm
56: “Apparently” straight men who enjoyed the movie, eh?
I think the reasons given by the NFL rep are fair enough; it’s a pity, because I think they would have ultimately come out ahead, publicity-wise. I can see how they might have feared that the movie would be taking a shot at football fans per se by treating the NFL as emblematic of a particular mindset.
However… I can’t help but think of “Buffalo 66″. Didn’t the league allow footage to be used in a horrifically negative (but with no man-on-man action!) context there? Or am I misremembering?
:: zerlesen — 3/3/2006 @ 8:37 pm
#62- Never saw buffalo 66 so I cant answer!
To whomever believes there is intolerance in this thread, go suck a lemon.
Look, I dont like the fact that a completely unnatural lifestyle gets displayed on the big screen. Unfortunately young minds are being subjected to this and believing its ok. No it may not seem like a problem today, but give it some time, what happens when 30 or 40 percent of the population(north america) is gay?
Please dont play the intollerant card, its ok to say you dont like something when you have logical reasons behind it.
Sorry I realize this is a football site and should be kept as such. I just cant stand morons who scream intolerance as soon as anyone doesnt like something!!
And yes zlionsfan I am talking to you,and yes you are a moron!!
:: Ryan Harris — 3/3/2006 @ 9:07 pm
Gee is James Bond still playing on Spike or AMC?
:: empty13 — 3/3/2006 @ 9:11 pm
Why is this even a story? Did anyone expect the NFL to tell the truth, something like: “We are in the business of making money and we have decided that to make the most money we should stick to football and not associate ourselves with a controversial social topic”?
The NFL takes its cues from society at large. The lack of black head coaches became an embarrassment only when it was an issue that garnered a critical mass of mainstream support.
When our society is at a point where it will be to the advantage of the NFL to embrace homosexuals, it will.
I for one would rather see the league get the interpretation of the pass interference rule right before it starts addressing social issues.
:: RCH — 3/3/2006 @ 9:30 pm
Aaron, or whoever edits this thread — Please leave post 63 and the other anti-gay posts up. I completely disagree with them, but as long as they’re not making racist slurs and they’re just expressing their opinion, I think it’s important to display that those who disagree with them won’t sink to their level of calling those who disagree with them morons. The greatest thing about liberal culture is that we DON’T shut people down for expressing their opinions and we let others express themselves regardless of our disagreement with them. Thanks.
:: Basilicus — 3/3/2006 @ 9:48 pm
Oh, hell, the NFL is in the business of selling warm and fuzzy feelings. This movie is not about selling warm and fuzzy feelings, but, rather, very sad and wistful feelings. Thus, the NFL chooses not to associate with the movie. It isn’t any more complicated than that.
If the NFL could associate with a movie which projected their image in the gay community in a positive manner, which they thought would help attract a significant number of gay eyeballs on Sundays, which had previously been otherwise engaged, they would do so in the proverbial New York minute.
As for my opinion of the movie, it seemed to me to be the gay version of “The Bridges of Madison County”, except with much better cinematography. In other words, entirely overrated, as 98% of all Oscar-nominated Hollywood productions are.
:: Will Allen — 3/3/2006 @ 9:51 pm
Ryan, if you think that thirty to forty percent of the population is going to turn gay, you really have too little appreciation for babes.
:: Will Allen — 3/3/2006 @ 9:55 pm
Thank you, RCH # 65, for what is, by far, the most intelligent and relevant posting on this thread.
:: DP — 3/3/2006 @ 9:57 pm
I am drunk right now so the populace of Football Outsiders can take this with a grain of salt, but I had to reply.
Re: #63:
I would say that thinking that 30 to 40% of the population will be gay is a bit overzealous. Homosexuality has been around since humanity has existed, and it’s never been more than a few percent - it’s also present in almost all mammals, in a similar percentage. Dogs, penguins, monkeys, they all exhibit it to varying degrees.
I recognize that it is in the best interests of the Powers That Be to believe that all of us freely choose to be gay, because then it’s easy to be intolerant by saying “You could change if you wanted to,” but trust me, if I had the choice, I’d be straight and end the constant stigmatization that I endear. You really have no idea - and that’s given I live in a fairly gay-tolerant city.
It’s simply not possible. I am what I am, and it was not because I checked a “gay” box years ago.
Whether you approve or disapprove is your choice, but thinking that it’s some “lifestyle choice” is simply ignorance.
The FootballOutsiders Powers That Be may delete this if they will, because were I not intoxicated, I’d probably not have posted this, but things like that post generally bother me.
T.
:: Tarrant — 3/3/2006 @ 10:42 pm
For those keeping score at home, the correct answer is either 12 hours or 60 posts before a thread like this goes to all heck. Pretty good for the Internet.
I think pro-gay people are just as good at intolerance as anti-gay people as well. See post 44.
US law treats gay people the same as everyone else. Now, if we are talking about US law with respect to the relationships they choose to enter into, that’s a different story. Nature also discriminates against gay people in regards to procreation.
At least 90% of churches say that all gay and straight people are going to hell, if they believe in a hell.
:: Matthew Furtek — 3/3/2006 @ 10:53 pm
I’d like to add… its my personal conviction that some people don’t have the ability to choose, and other people choose that lifestyle.
This theory isn’t really floated around much because we live in a grey world and people like to see it as black and white, but that’s what I firmly believe.
:: Matthew Furtek — 3/3/2006 @ 10:59 pm
Matthew Furtek - I don’t see where in 44 Spatne insults anyone. Sorry, you’ll have to point that out to me. Yes, there are intolerant liberals as well as intolerant conservatives, but mainstream liberalism is about acceptance and giving the benefit of the doubt, whereas it seems mainstream conservatism has become - at least socially - about not allowing people to make their own personal choices and shutting people down before they have a chance to voice their opinions. Neither Zlionsfan nor Spatne has insulted anyone for disagreeing with them. They both offered well reasoned responses without attacking any other poster.
:: Basilicus — 3/3/2006 @ 11:18 pm
Re: #72
I will admit that I believe there are some (although no where near the majority) that choose to be gay, rather than being wired that way by default.
I do not, however, understand why they would choose such a life. It is a difficult one. You have no idea.
T.
:: Tarrant — 3/3/2006 @ 11:24 pm
Basil,
Turn the statement around… what if he had said “Gay people piss me off.” How would you feel if you read that and you were gay? You would probably think he was a homophobe.
:: Matthew Furtek — 3/3/2006 @ 11:37 pm
#71/74: Hmm…I’m not sure I understand where you’re coming from in terms of my intolerance. Let me (try to) clarify
I didn’t say that straight people piss me off as a rule. I am one, so that would make things kind of tough on me.
Things that upset me are:
(1) Certain discriminatory laws in a country that is supposed to treat all citizens equally.
(2) Many, many churches in this country and elsewhere teach that some of the people I love are evil.
(3) The NFL doesn’t take steps to educate its players at least to the point where gay NFLers don’t have to be afraid for their careers and their personal safety if they’re ever found out.
Now, churches and the NFL are free to teach or not teach whatever they want. I’d love them to change, but I’d never want that change mandated.
The law is another story. I think that laws that exclude gays from marriage, adoption, and inheritance rights to be immoral and antithetical to the principles upon which this country was founded. Which, you know…pisses me off. :)
:: spatne — 3/4/2006 @ 1:25 am
“[Homosexuals] aren’t equal to me according to US law and half the churches in this country teach children they they’re going to hell. That pisses me off.”
That’s what Spatne said in 44. He didn’t say churches piss him off, he said the mistreatment of homosexuals pisses him off. For you, saying the mistreatment of homosexuals is terrible is saying that the conservative viewpoint on the subject is terrible. You see, you’re rephrasing his comments in such a way that he can’t be right. If he disagrees with you, you’re saying he disrespects you and all who hold that opinion. That’s not the case - he’s simply disagreeing with you.
You know, we went through a similar thing a few decades back: the lawful segregation of people who were different. Try to imagine it that way. I might get flamed for this comparison, but what if they wouldn’t let blacks, or hispanics, get married?
:: Basilicus — 3/4/2006 @ 2:09 am
This whole topic is way too sensitive and political and I shouldn’t have touched it with a 20 foot pole. That’s probably what the NFL thought about when they were asked to allow Brokeback Mountain to use their footage.
I was overly sensitive to comment 44… I didn’t agree with the generalization about church people. Homosexuals are mistreated in this country, but its not all done by people who go to church.
:: Matthew Furtek — 3/4/2006 @ 3:34 am
I may get into this thread a little more seriously later, after work today or something. But for now, I just want to make one observation.
Personally, I would love it if 40% of men were gay. Why? More women for me! It’s harem time, baby!
:: Trogdor — 3/4/2006 @ 5:59 am
Matthew, I admit to making some generalizations in 44. In the end, I meant to take issue with *some* (not all) religious doctrine rather than individual church-goers.
:: spatne — 3/4/2006 @ 10:17 am
Did any of you read the biography of Wyatt Earp by Allen Berra? In it he claims that back in the late 1800’s calling someone a cowboy was akin to calling them a cattle thief. Legitimate ranchers were called cowhands. Ike Clanton and his boys were thought by many to be rustlers and totally deserving of the moniker cowboy.
As to this being a sensitive issue, I just don’t get it.
If 30 percent of the population were gay, how would that affect my life. Not much.
Sports, economics, wars in other lands, there are so many more interesting things to think about.
:: thad — 3/4/2006 @ 10:35 am
If that much of the population was gay, sure wouldnt be good for yer (grand) kids.
:: empty13 — 3/4/2006 @ 11:23 am
Re #71 and #72:
“its my personal conviction that some people don’t have the ability to choose, and other people choose that lifestyle.”
Just wondering where you got that conviction.. Sociological literature about homosexuals? Some survey of homosexual people? Talking to a lot of gays and lesbians? Garrison Hearst?
I think that nature is discriminating against gays regarding procreation is like saying basketball is discriminating against short people — except that David Stern can make conscious decisions, and I do not know any proof that nature can. In the same logic, people using contraception is discriminated against by nature, but why would that justify making condoms illegal is beyond my comprehension.
Intolerance is not exclusive to anti-gays — they are just intolerant against one more set of human beings.
:: Tri Shanku — 3/4/2006 @ 12:24 pm
Re: 82
Why not?
:: Basilicus — 3/4/2006 @ 12:53 pm
RE: #82
If that much of the population was gay, sure wouldnt be good for yer (grand) kids.
I am sure I am not the only one who doesn’t assume that a 50/50 split between homo and hetero would be bad. You ever heard of artificial insemination? People don’t need any physical contact to make babies. The world will be fine.
:: Björn — 3/4/2006 @ 12:57 pm
83: I think that MF’s hunch in #72 has merit. It makes sense to me that human sexuality is a continuum rather than dichotomous.
Kinsey was no dummy…
:: spatne — 3/4/2006 @ 1:03 pm
Kinsey had an agenda.
///////////////
Looks like some folks here are too young to understand where I am coming from.
Just because one CAN do something doesnt mean that one SHOULD do something.
Just because the dominant media tells one something doesnt mean that one SHOULD believe it.
:: empty13 — 3/4/2006 @ 1:16 pm
” Just because the dominant media tells one something doesnt mean that one SHOULD believe it. ”
-empty13
” The ironing is delicious. ”
-Bart Simpson
:: Bjorn — 3/4/2006 @ 1:25 pm
Some people may choose to be gay, but I wouldn’t know why considering all the persecution. I also think those people in this thread that say they are offended probably would have been leading the charge 40 or so years ago to wack left-handed people and tie their hands behind the back. That’s also a behavior that some people forced to change, but left people unhappy.
As for the movie, I saw it with my fiancee and one of her friends. I wasn’t totally moved, as I thought the characters were underdeveloped, but it was more about the pressures placed on the men and the families afterward. As such, it was well done.
The NFL may not be lying, but I don’t understand point #2 at all. Clearly, the movie was not endorsing the viewpoint of that particular character. Anybody that saw the movie could tell you that (hopefully anybody that read the script as well).
:: James G — 3/4/2006 @ 1:32 pm
Would somebody like our friend at #87 have understood that?
:: Bjorn — 3/4/2006 @ 1:52 pm
I realize I also left part of my thoughts out - it may be a choice, but so what? What effect does it have on you if somebody else decides that they’re gay?
Of course, I’d really be surprised if it was a choice, considering I remember being attracted to girls when I was about 10, well before I understood what homosexuality was. I’m not sure when I made my choice to be heterosexual.
:: James G — 3/4/2006 @ 2:16 pm
Can I nominate this for thread of the year? Thanks for leaving BOTH sides of this discussion up Aaron, and thanks to the FO readers for being able to discuss things of this nature while being reasonably sane about it! You ALL rock!
:: masocc — 3/4/2006 @ 2:35 pm
91: Re: “choice” I see exactly what you’re saying, and I agree. I guess when I talk about “choice,” what I’m really talking about are cases of bisexuality. It’s not that they have a choice, it’s more like…I dunno…”options?” :)
And you’re spot on with the first part of your comment. The choice argument is really only relevant to people who think that the bedrooms of consenting adults should be subject to inspection and approval.
:: spatne — 3/4/2006 @ 3:58 pm
Re 79: Trogdor once again takes a break from burninating the countryside to make an excellent point.
:: spatne — 3/4/2006 @ 4:00 pm
There is tremendous irony in what the peecee types do. They can make libertines look responsible, but they never get called on it. Some of them on this thread arent big picture types.
I can see immature young folks acting the way they do. Lets see how they see things as they grow older…
I havent persecuted anyone. But the instant anyone knocks a modern shibboleth, boy howdy, the so-called tolerant show that they are anything but tolerant! That is because all these peecee notions are THEIR religion.
(BTW, I am not particularly religious, but I do remember a movie a few years ago making like $15M a day, only counting box office, for quite a while after it was released independently. At that time I believe only about 7 films had done as well, financially. The producer and his livelihood were certainly threatened, due to the subject matter of the film. I didnt hear of anyone asking for their money back after seeing it.)
Like Reagan told the protesters: I’ll sell my bonds!
////////////////////
RE left handedness, watch which hand you shake hands with if/when you go some places overseas. A certain hand is used for something and is not to be shook. Of course those folks also truly persecute those completely innocent gay folks…
///////////////////
OTOH my family is full of left handers. I think the animus over that over here disappeared more like 60-65 years ago.
Despite that, it is still a right-handed world.
/////////////////
Ir is interesting that some keep saying that a group of people, some of whom who do engage in predatory tactics, are persecuted.
Ever think some of them brought it upon themselves?
:: empty13 — 3/4/2006 @ 4:09 pm
Getting back to football…
Does anyone know if the NFL addresses the issue of gay players during its rookie induction? They make a big deal about how they try to prepare these kids for adulthood, teach them to deal with money and fame, etc. I wonder if they broach the subject at all.
I think that most people here would agree that there are gay men currently playing in the NFL. However you feel about that, I think it would be difficult to deny that an NFL locker room has got to be an awful work environment for a gay male.
Lies, slurs, constant fear of discovery. Ugh. Sterling Sharpe (in a piece on Esera Tuaolo) said in no uncertain terms that if an active player were to be outed, that he’d have to fear for his own safety in practice.
I’m just wondering if the league bigwigs have even thought about this, and if they’re making any attempt to protect their own players.
And none of this is meant to be preachy or snide. I’m seriously wondering…
:: spatne — 3/4/2006 @ 4:37 pm
I am sure they have some “COO-style” (consideration of others) training that is basically intended to keep the players from knowingly going out and offending anyone who might be remotely interested in suing them, the team or the league. Or providing material support to such lawsuits.
Their interest has to do with media image and the green stuff.
:: empty13 — 3/4/2006 @ 4:47 pm
So what if the NFL did’nt want footage in a homosexual movie.That is up to them.The world is full of choices.
:: jim maguire — 3/4/2006 @ 7:01 pm
They might not have approved the footage to go in the movie for another reason. Lowball offers often get rejected!
Michael Moore got rejected for at least one WHO song awhile back.
:: empty13 — 3/4/2006 @ 7:26 pm
It doesn’t bother me that the NFL didn’t allow footage. I read the whole article and “The Longest Yard” and “Any Given Sunday” were also denied. Reason #1 above doesn’t really bother me, either. But reason #2 makes no sense whatsoever.
:: James G — 3/4/2006 @ 8:07 pm
95: “Ir is interesting that some keep saying that a group of people, some of whom who do engage in predatory tactics, are persecuted.
Ever think some of them brought it upon themselves?”
This is itself a very interesting statement on a number of levels. As a straight man, though, I really don’t think it would be a great idea to adopt the “predatory tactics” guilt-by-association standard…
:: zerlesen — 3/4/2006 @ 8:41 pm
Then dont be predatory!
It’s food for thought, now, isnt it.
Live longer, and learn (?).
I personally see little sense in discounting the wisdom of the ages. People arent automatically smarter or better nowadays. I also am not ashamed of “where I came from”, so to speak.
But instead of aiming all their guns, maybe they should look in the mirror, ILO merely navelgazing.
:: empty13 — 3/4/2006 @ 9:01 pm
The wisdom of the ages? #102, did you actually make that argument?
Let’s go with that great ‘wisdom of the ages’, where we have spirits responsible for all natural occurrences, the color of a person’s skin being a good indicator of what they were capable of, the treatment of women as property and later (in such a forward-thinking way) as not allowed rights. Ooh, let’s go with slavery - that seems a good wisdom of the ages choice!
Fact is that ye olden tymes was full of really stupid crap. Two generations ago we had segregation based on racial boundaries. Do you believe that to be wise? One generation ago we believed that computers were way too expensive and complex for the everyday person, and would be only a hobbyist deal. We also didn’t care about things like petroleum running out, or even who we were buying said petroleum for.
empty13, are you really suggesting that prior beliefs are good because they’re older? The vast majority of history would like to disagree with you.
:: Kal — 3/5/2006 @ 12:04 am
This freeze on free agency is just killin’ you guys, ain’t it? Now let’s talk about Dr Phil.
:: MarkB — 3/5/2006 @ 12:51 am
I like how those who are pro-gay are basically being told by the anti-gays in no uncertain terms that when they disagree they’re shutting someone else’s opinion down. I’ve got my own opinion and I voice it - at least I’m not trying to undermine other posters’ credibility by personally insulting them.
“I can see immature young folks acting the way they do. Lets see how they see things as they grow older…”
And, empty13, I fully expect myself to remain a Democrat when I am older. I know many older Democrats, my parents are both old Democrats, I work for old Democrats - I like how you basically use the fact that you may be older than some here to automatically discount the opinion of anyone younger than you who disagrees with you. There’s a reason 22 year olds like myself are allowed to vote and it’s because we are capable of having fully formed political, social, cultural, and economic opinions. Furthermore, I work in politics, and in a day I probably learn more about the sides of many issues than most do in a week, looking at wildly varied constituent opinions, lobbying letters, consulting very knowledgeable experts in both parties, and doing research - so to say my opinion doesn’t matter because I am of a younger generation is a very assumptive and uninformed opinion. Thank you for offering it, though.
:: Basilicus — 3/5/2006 @ 4:03 am
Lets see how yall look at things when yall are older. i am old enough to be someone’s father…
The older I get I see less difference between the 2 parties, especially at the national level. I tend to think we functionally have 1 political party in this country, or 3. Not 2.
Name one great civilization with a high percentage of gays.
http://www.rense.com/general69/LIVE.HTM
Probably the largest modern killer was the Soviet Union. Among other protected classes, they enshrined gays. This is a timeworn tactic that is used to weaken families.
More have taken pot shots at me on this post, and snide ones, than I have taken. Whatever. But thank you for claiming you are a victim!
There is also a lot of good stuff from WBW that is returning. I am not much of an enviro type, but with (forced) free trade, and “GM crops” looming, it is nice to see organic gardening making a comeback. A healthy disdain for government is also a good thing. But young democrats, take care… The big D party likes the draft because it is egalitarian and they are convinced that too many minorities volunteer now…
What makes you think genetics and culture dont matter at all? What makes you think that a lot of cultures that are trumpeted as superior to the local one ARENT hell on women? What makes you think slavery went away? It still exists. It morphs.
History aint always what they teach in them brave new public schools!
:: empty13 — 3/5/2006 @ 8:15 am
Hey, I’m old enough to be someone’s father, too. Not old enough to be Basilicus’s father (although I am significantly older than he is) and I don’t any kids of my own, but many of my friends my age certainly do. My parents are much older than me and certainly hold similar positions to me. And the first thing I thought of was slavery, civil rights, suffrage, etc., when talking about the wisdom of the ages.
And I can’t believe you linked to that crackpot site rense.com, one of the leading Holocoaust denier sites on the web. That particular pice you linked to was awful as well. Most notably because the movie wasn’t about “fudgepacking cowboys.” It was about people who were forced to live a closeted life and the effect it had on them and the families they had. And virtually all agreed that “Passion of the Christ” was the best movie ever? Please.
I also have a problem with the way Sal Palontonio and others on ESPN radio were basically making fun of this movie without having seen it, or even really knowing what it’s about. It’s not about steamy scenes, it’s about people’s lives.
:: James G — 3/5/2006 @ 9:08 am
And what lesson did it teach? Was it all “good for the kids”?
/////////////////////////////
Au contraire, there is a lot of good stuff on Rense. Anytime the government comes out and says “dont trust that site”, what does that tell you? That “awful” piece showed the results of government in action.
There is an old joke to the effect that, (insert abnormality here), was punishable by death when great grandpa was alive, illegal when grandpa was in his heyday, merely tolerated under dad, encouraged nowadays, and will be compulsory for the next generation. Best of luck with that!
Before you call people crackpots, go learn some more history. Conventional wisdom, as also installed in public schools, isnt always so.
Every group has been enslaved at some point, but only some get dispensation for it.
:: empty13 — 3/5/2006 @ 10:54 am
empty13, I would think that you’d be more sympathetic to the plight of the persecuted seeing as how the entire universe is out to get you.
:: spatne — 3/5/2006 @ 11:32 am
Naw, spatne, just playin on the web in between weekend auto repairs and burnin off excess firewood.
My sympathy, like my generosity (obviously) knows bounds!
:: empty13 — 3/5/2006 @ 11:39 am
“Name one great civilization with a high percentage of gays.”
-ironically, the Aryan tribe of India
-Alexandrian Greeks
-the Romans, pretty much any era
-throughout the imperial English era
-Renaissance Italy
-Hapsburg Austria
-according to you, the United States right now has too high a percentage of homosexuals, and despite the massive debt of the current administration, we’re still the strongest nation in the world.
:: Basilicus — 3/5/2006 @ 11:45 am
In fact, the point of the movie showed it wasn’t “all good for the kids.” In fact by forcing gay people to pretend to be something they weren’t, it not only negatively affected their lives, but those of their wives and their kids.
And I find that discouraged, encouraged, compulsory a load of garbage. It’s just a way for old timers to argue against what they don’t like. Is miscegeny compulsory now? No, but it’s highly accepted. And I see it likely to stay that way.
:: James G — 3/5/2006 @ 12:44 pm
Sure it isnt official modern court historians imputing what they consider a desirable trait to them?
So many englishmen were at sea… are sailors and pirates civilized? And if “The Libertine” was civilized… Probly means they were the Mystery Babylon of their day.
I dunno that I would consider Renaissance Italy a civilization.
What did exist in Rome and Greece usually ended when the younger attained manhood. Thst surely isnt what happens here…
The US probly has like 3% gays, but that is amplified thru the media and in other ways. 3% appears to be fairly normal thru history, if not a little high. I didnt spit all over my puter screen about that. I did over the 30-40% which was liberally mentioned far above.
:: empty13 — 3/5/2006 @ 12:48 pm
30-40% seems way high to me too, but the only person that used that number is somebody else that agrees with you about this movie.
:: James G — 3/5/2006 @ 12:55 pm
The American Psychological Association has something to say about sexuality, particularly whether it’s a choice:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sbehaviorsub1.html
As for the bigotry I see here, it reminds me of just how much the world sucks.
:: Sophandros — 3/5/2006 @ 4:08 pm
empty13 95 and 102: It must be that I’m just young and dumb(29) and you’re old and wise (at least you make it sound like you’re old enough to have read The Republic in it’s first release), because with each passing post I understand less of what you are saying. Why not just say what you mean instead trying to speak in read-in-between-the-lines code? It’s doesn’t crate food for thought, it’s just you assuming that you are smarter than all the young whippersnappers in this liberal fancy-pants internets. You are also assuming there are no other interlocutors or viewers in this page who may match you in age and experience. All in all, just a pigeonholing tour de force.
:: DMP — 3/5/2006 @ 5:17 pm
James G, Yes I know about the 30/40. There is nothing like getting chewed for something nobody said (like there were 30-40% gay now). Someone said he wouldnt have a problem with that many at a later date, and I basically would consider that many as a negative trend.
If some consider me a bigot, I dont care. There is all kinds of bigotry out there, and just because someone doesnt agree with me doesnt me they arent bigoted.
In terms of the language I use, here is a hint: Do your own research and stop relying on all the popular canards of the day that have been drummed into your mind. Yes I am not as young as a lot of folks on this post, and yes, I have read an awful lot.
And, DMP, nice try at baiting me, but I am not starting any pogroms. If you didnt notice, there are a lot of people on this post who exhibited the behavior you complain about.
:: empty13 — 3/5/2006 @ 5:47 pm
You act like I haven’t done my own research. I have. I’ve been out of school (well in the classroom sense, since my only jobs since then have been at universities) for 11 years now. You don’t think in that time that I’ve done any of my own reading or my own research that wasn’t assigned? However, that doesn’t mean that I will necessarily come to the same conclusions as you. And who says I am just using popular canards?
:: James G — 3/5/2006 @ 6:50 pm
Maybe misconceptions is a better word.
But I call them the way I see them. And since I am not using them (popular canards)…
There is a reason old folks tell that story. They have perspective.
:: empty13 — 3/5/2006 @ 6:59 pm
It wasn’t a bait, it was a literal request. Why you are worried about being baited in a pretty anonymous webpost, I’m not sure. If you have the assumption of our belief in popular canards or that they are things that we should research or read, it should be pretty easy for you to list some suggestions or back up your assertions with some literature.
:: DMP — 3/5/2006 @ 7:57 pm
Age = wisdom. Anybody could tell you that. You don’t live a long time just by eating, breathing, and staying warm in the winter. No, you get to live a long time by doing your own research on homosexuality and drawing syllogistic conclusions like, “if some homosexuals are pedophiles, all homosexuals are pedophiles.” Thankfully, there are no heterosexual pedophiles.
:: Melish — 3/5/2006 @ 7:58 pm
I know the probabilities involved.
You raise your kids your way and I’ll raise mine my way.
Recently wasnt there a well known AIDS victim and counselor who got busted for molesting a kid? Blood test for evidence, anyone?
:: empty13 — 3/5/2006 @ 8:19 pm
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
There was a recent NFL player who was busted for transporting 200 pounds of pot. Does that make all NFL players drug dealers? Another NFL player was charged with murder. A couple others with rape. Does that make all NFL players rapists?
:: Kal — 3/5/2006 @ 10:48 pm
empty13,
I will need to dig it up from somewhere, but I recall reading that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual men, not homosexuals.
Now, if this is the case, then by your logic, all of us heterosexual dudes are pedophiles?
:: Sophandros — 3/6/2006 @ 9:52 am
Nothing personal, but I consider what you read is bunkum. Seriously. So there is absolutely no flaw in my logic. I am not playing word games.
As far as I am concerned, however, the instant a heterosexual would do that to someone, it renders the former into something else.
/////////////////
Either there is more publicity these days, or there certainly are more problem players in the NFL these days (betting both). I dont remember the cite, but a fellow did a study on NBA players awhile back, and they are a sorry lot. The brawl in Daytwa?
:: empty13 — 3/6/2006 @ 12:41 pm
Sophandros, Kai, in reading your attempts to converse with these folks, I am reminded of a Scripture passage from Isaiah:
“Thus saith the LORD: go from the presence of a man when thou preceivest wisdom is not within him.” (Those of you with long memories may have heard this referenced on television, at least once.)
Let us therefore leave these trolls to their idiocy.
:: Tom Kelso — 3/6/2006 @ 1:23 pm
Not really on-topic, but I’d just like to point out that “old enough to be someone’s father” isn’t really that impressive. I’m 30, making me old enough to be someone’s father. Anyone past the age of about 12 is old enough to be someone’s father.
Re 115, there is a fair amount of bigotry on here. But that does seem to be the minority position. I really only see one person championing that position. I suspect the roles would have been reversed 25 years ago. So the world may suck, but it shows some improvement, kind of like Kyle Boller this past season. Yay, I made a football-related comment!
I’m sorry I clicked on this thread. And thanks for spoiling the plot for me, guys.
:: Drew — 3/6/2006 @ 3:57 pm
3 days later and I’m still checking this thread. empty13, I wish I knew how to quit you.
:: DMP — 3/6/2006 @ 6:33 pm
Drew - sorry. I didn’t even consider that (ruining the plot) even though this is the only one of the 5 I have seen (Crash is on my Netflix list, but that’s not moving at any speed lately so, it’s unlikely get much further).
I should quit this thread as well, but I suggest everybody look up Edgar J. Steele, the guy that empty13 cited in the link above and see what else he wrote. Then you’ll see what you’re up against.
:: James G — 3/6/2006 @ 7:26 pm
And people wonder why home schooling is a growing trend…
:: empty13 — 3/6/2006 @ 8:11 pm
I was home schooled, and I turned out perfectly fine. Also, I have a perfect immune system.
:: Dwight K. Schrutte — 3/6/2006 @ 9:27 pm
So, you don’t have any antibodies…
:: Jim Halpert — 3/6/2006 @ 9:27 pm
That’s what she said.
:: Michael Scott — 3/7/2006 @ 10:54 am