# Homosexualidad y EE.UU.



## Viriato

Hola a todos. Recientemente he visto la película _Brokeback Mountain. C_uenta la historia de amor entre dos cowboys homosexuales, en definitiva, una historia de amor entre dos personas. Me pareció una película hermosa, muy cuidada en todos sus detalles, sin escenas de sexo explícito y muy cálida. Entonces, ¿por qué ha sido vetada en los cines de Utah y Virginia? ¿Por qué algunos grupos cristianos se han puesto en pie de guerra y acusan a Hollywood de promover films "gays" o "de izquierdas"? ¿Qué tiene que ver el amor entre dos personas con la izquierda o la derecha? ¿Por qué les molesta a esos grupos cristianos una película que narra una sencilla historia de amor entre dos personas?
Me pregunto todo esto porque me resulta chocante que en un país donde sigue existiendo la pena de muerte (recientemente hemos visto otro caso más en California, donde Terminator parece que está a sus anchas) y donde se venden armas en los supermercados, no guste una película de amor entre dos personas.
Me gustaría ver vuestras opiniones, sobre todo de foreros estadounidenses, porque estoy seguro que no es la moral que impera en ese país. ¿Qué se dice allí de la película? ¿Cómo se vive todo este asunto?
Gracias a todos.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Viriato,

"...donde se venden armas en los supermercados..."   Jamás lo he visto.  Haga el favor de indicarme dónde se encuentra este supermercado.   

"grupos cristianos"  Jajaja....autodenominados cristianos. Son los desechos del franquismo y nada más.

Sí, es la moral que impera en el país para cierta cantidad de personas muy ruidosas, pero que son una minoría.


----------



## Viriato

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Hola Viriato,
> 
> "...donde se venden armas en los supermercados..." Jamás lo he visto. Haga el favor de indicarme dónde se encuentra este supermercado.
> 
> "grupos cristianos" Jajaja....autodenominados cristianos. Son los desechos del franquismo y nada más.
> 
> Sí, es la moral que impera en el país para cierta cantidad de personas muy ruidosas, pero que son una minoría.


Tengo entendido que en EEUU puedes comprarte un arma como si te compras una camiseta o un kg de patatas, simplemente vas a la tienda y ya está. Confírmame si esto es así.
Cuando me refiero a grupos cristianos éstos son de EEUU, aunque me temo que sean también de extrema derecha ¿o no?


----------



## BasedowLives

> por qué ha sido vetada en los cines de Utah y Virginia?


porque cada estado puede hacer sus propios leyes, y si la mayoría de la gente de un estado quieren que sea así...pues bueno, así es la democracía...to each his own

*edit*:  acabo de leer de este, y me he enterado de que, no es prohibido en el estado sino hay unos propietarios que no quieren mostrarlo.  



			
				Viriato said:
			
		

> Tengo entendido que en EEUU puedes comprarte un arma como si te compras una camiseta o un kg de patatas, simplemente vas a la tienda y ya está. Confírmame si esto es así.
> Cuando me refiero a grupos cristianos éstos son de EEUU, aunque me temo que sean también de extrema derecha ¿o no?


se puede comprar rifles para cazar en Wal Mart (que tiene un sección dedicado al cazar) o en cualquier tienda de cazar y pescar.  pero no las pistolas (me refiero al Wal Mart).  No se puede comprar rifles para cazar en España?


----------



## blancalaw

Se nota que hay dos temas que está pasando en este foro, uno de armas y otro de homosexualidad.  En respeto a la homosexualidad, eso pasa en todos los paises, hay gente homosexuales y gente que los apoyan.  El hecho que hay una pelicula con dos hombres enamorados es una manifestacion que en los EEUU tenemos la libertad de hablar lo que queremos aunque no es el opinion de todos.  Favor de nunca creer que lo que muestra hollywood es como se creen todos nosotros estadounidenses.  
En respeto a las armas, nunca traté de comprarme uno, pero sé que hay un tiempo que hay que esperar para que puedan mirar a la historia de la persona.  Con armas de cazar es mas facil conseguir una.


----------



## ampurdan

I watched the movie last friday and I liked it very much... I think it's more than 2 hours of melodrama but I thought it lasted much less... I think is this ellipsis technique of Ang Lee's, I don't know...

Well, I had the impression that this film told a very believable story and that characters were treated with little idealization (or a very subtle one). I mean, it's a story of love between two men but it's not a pro-gay movie if such thing exists. I have a doubt, though... Why do they call it a western? I had an idea about westerns as epoch movies... If the time of the movie goes from 1963 to 1983, you cannot call it a western. This is not the Wild West any more.


----------



## Fernando

I have not heared that anyone is making a big deal about this movie. Maybe is just producers "wishful thinking". The more scandal the more tickets sold. It is a story about two modern gays cowboys. A pity for Almodóvar. Someone has stolen him the idea.

Weapons (absolutely off-topic): Viriato, though I think "US&guns" relationship is not the wiser one, you should not believe everything Mr. Moore says. As said before, every state has its own policy on gun control. Of course, hunt guns are sold in Spain. It is not usual that guns shops are located in malls or supermarkets.


----------



## Alundra

Well, I think the controversy is because always we all have connected the Far West  with tough man... never a homosexual...

And in Spain when the movie is announced on the TV, the question is... What is what the USA (or far west   ) citizens think about it? I think it is a real silliness... it hasn't nothing to do though..

And about weapons... in Spain you need a weapons permission (or license?  ). If you haven't permission, you can't buy weapons... in USA you only have to show your identity and to wait several days, I think... and it isn't enough in Spain. It is why I think is easier to buy weapons in USA than here, in Spain.. 

Alundra.


----------



## Mei

Viriato said:
			
		

> Tengo entendido que en EEUU puedes comprarte un arma como si te compras una camiseta o un kg de patatas, simplemente vas a la tienda y ya está. Confírmame si esto es así.


 
Lo que yo había oído es lo del banco en el que si te abrias una cuenta te regalaba un rifle... De todas maneras, creo que puedes conseguir un arma en cualquier país, aun sin licencia... sólo necesitas dinero, fijate tu qué tontería!  




> Favor de nunca creer que lo que muestra hollywood es como se creen todos nosotros estadounidenses.


 
Ui, no! No son todos iguales y el cine independiente es mucho más interesante que las películas de Hollywood.  


Mei


----------



## GenJen54

> A pity for Almodóvar. Someone has stolen him the idea.


Not quite sure what you're talking about here. Nowhere in Almodovar's film summaries on IMDB does it mention anything about a "gay cowboy" movie, nor a movie with any similar theme. "Brokeback Mountain" is actually based on a short story by American author Annie Proulx, and was included in a collection of short stories published in 2000. She may have actually written it earlier than that. 


			
				Viriato said:
			
		

> Me pregunto todo esto porque me resulta chocante que en un país donde sigue existiendo la pena de muerte (recientemente hemos visto otro caso más en California, donde Terminator parece que está a sus anchas) y donde se venden armas en los supermercados, no guste una película de amor entre dos personas.


 One of the great hypocricies of the US is that sex, nudity and/or hint of sex in our mass media, including movies, is considered amoral and sinful. (I'm making a gross generalization here.) 

Guns and violence, however, are considered acceptable and appropriate.
And we wonder why we have such a f*cked-up view of the world. 

To understand these ideas one must go back to the founding of our country, where our original founding citizens were of the "Puritan" (Protestant) faith. At that time, men worked to help support the colony grow by providing provisions to send back to England. A part of their duties was to protect their colonies. Firearms were a sufficient means of protection. 

Sex and nudity were considered abominations against God and were meant only for the procreation of children. Those who acted upon their natural hormonal tendencies outside of the marriage bed were punished severely.

As a largely Protestant country, these ideas have evolved over the 200+ years since our founding, and are a large part of the collective "faith" today. These ideas have also been largely reinforced through mainstream media advent of the motion picture, when "macho" cowboys shot and marauded their way through towns, and the lone hero on a white horse came in, guns a'blazin' to rescue the (fully clothed) damsel in distress. Our hero and the dame might share a chaste look, but any ideas of nookie were saved for off-camera. They weren't even eluded to on screen.

A great part of our population still believes in this ideal today (remember, we're still a "young" country comparatively.)

A large part of our population has always understood this hyporcisy. This part, however, still remains in the minority of the population, behind those who wield the power of persuasion in the US, standing behind their second amendment rights to bear arms, prefering that sex (and thoughts thereof) be kept in the dark and under the covers. 

The "moral majority" became especially vigilant after the Janet Jackson Superbowl scandal (of the infamous "wardrobe malfunction"), so continually push to censor and condemn anything they feel threatens their beliefs.
They have great political power right now and are pushing for further controls on what can be shown over television, even paid cable. 

What is interesting about "Brokeback Mountain" is that in terms of ticket sales, it is doing very well in even those states considered "conservative." A recent marketing study showed it was doing particularly well in traditional "Red" (conservative) states, especially among women. 

I saw it yesterday for the second time, and can say that at a 1:00 matinee, directly after church, the theatre was crowded with both men and women. Go figure.


----------



## belén

Alundra has wisely opened a new thread on Weapons, please make your comments on that subject here.

Thank you 
Belén


----------



## Fernando

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Not quite sure what you're talking about here. Nowhere in Almodovar's film summaries on IMDB does it mention anything about a "gay cowboy" movie, nor a movie with any similar theme. "Brokeback Mountain" is actually based on a short story by American author Annie Proulx, and was included in a collection of short stories published in 2000. She may have actually written it earlier than that.



Most of Almodóvar films (the closer in time, the more) are based or located in gay environment and in most weird circumstances. So, I assumed that he should have enjoyed a movie treating the gay cowboy environment.

What is IMDB?


----------



## belén

Fernando said:
			
		

> Most of Almodóvar films (the closer in time, the more) are based or located in gay environment and in most weird circumstances. So, I assumed that he should have enjoyed a movie treating the gay cowboy environment.
> 
> What is IMDB?



International Movie Data Base, the "google" of filmmaking.
www.imdb.com


----------



## ampurdan

Fernando said:
			
		

> Maybe is just producers "wishful thinking". The more scandal the more tickets sold.


 
Scandal???


----------



## Fernando

Thank you very much to Belen and GenJen. I had not noticed its existance, even when I have consulted it some times ("jumping" from Google Search).

Anyhow, in the "La mala educación" (last Almodóvar film, just as example) all the film is about the (homo)sexuality of the protagonists. I have read the summary in IMDB and it makes no reference to this. Most of its other films, even treating about other topics, involves one or other strange gays or transexual roles.

I have not seen the film, but I have information enough to say this. Maybe any other forero can confirm my words.

To Ampurdan: For sure, the film is not a scandal and (at least as I know) has not produced any scandal. 

The point is the thread beginner and the film producers seem to state that there has been a large number of scandalized people. I have not seen such a thing.


----------



## ampurdan

Well, homosexualty is so broad a subject to circumscribe it to one particular Spanish film director and it was only one of the background themes of "La Mala Educación" (incidentally, an awful movie if you don't mind me giving my opinion).


----------



## Fernando

It was totally off-topic, ampurdan. I simply wanted to tell a pathetic joke about Almodóvar has been stolen a script. Obviously, GenJen did not understand the local joke and I had to explain it. As I said before, I have not seen the film, so I can not give my opinion about the film.


----------



## Outsider

blancalaw said:
			
		

> En respeto a la homosexualidad, eso pasa en todos los paises, hay gente homosexuales y gente que los apoyan.


De acuerdo. No es sólo un problema americano. Además, los EEUU son un país muy grande y diverso, lleno de contrastes. De un lado, hay la gente que quiere prohibir estos filmes, pero del otro lado hay toda la gente que ha hecho o visto el mismo filme.


----------



## fenixpollo

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Why do they call it a western? I had an idea about westerns as epoch movies... If the time of the movie goes from 1963 to 1983, you cannot call it a western. This is not the Wild West any more.


 I think that the _Western_ genre is almost exclusively composed of *cowboy movies*, most of which are period films (_de época_). Because of this commonality, any movie with a cowboy theme is called "a western", whether or not it is a period piece. 





			
				Viriato said:
			
		

> Me pregunto todo esto porque me resulta chocante que en un país donde sigue existiendo la pena de muerte y donde se venden armas en los supermercados [sic], no guste una película de amor entre dos personas.


 From what I know of European movies, the value that Americans place on violence and sex are exactly the opposite of the value that Europeans place on them -- in the U.S., sex is immoral, while violence is acceptable. Homosexual sex (even the implication of it) is even more immoral than heterosexual sex.

Read GenJen54's brilliant post above for more info:





			
				Jen said:
			
		

> One of the great hypocricies of the US is that sex, nudity and/or hint of sex in our mass media, including movies, is considered amoral and sinful. (I'm making a gross generalization here.)
> 
> Guns and violence, however, are considered acceptable and appropriate.
> And we wonder why we have such a f*cked-up view of the world.


 Here's another American who understands that hypocrisy. See? We're not all bad!  Cheers.


----------



## Viriato

Mi intención no era abrir un debate sobre las armas en EE.UU. Iba porque me parecía algo hipócrita la "aceptación" de la "violencia" y la pena de muerte en algunos estados y mientras tanto la crítica destructiva hacia el sexo, y más en concreto hacia la homosexualidad. Estoy de acuerdo en que la exposición de GenJen54, y a la que más adelante se ha adherido Fenix, ha sido brillante y para mí muy clarificadora. De acuerdo con los dos. Hipocresía.
Por eso en mi alocución decía que estaba seguro de que no todos los estadounidenses son así, pero quería escuchar opiniones.
Saludos a todos.


----------



## Dandee

Viriato said:
			
		

> Hola a todos. Recientemente he visto la película _Brokeback Mountain. C_uenta la historia de amor entre dos cowboys homosexuales, en definitiva, una historia de amor entre dos personas. Me pareció una película hermosa, muy cuidada en todos sus detalles, sin escenas de sexo explícito y muy cálida. Entonces, ¿por qué ha sido vetada en los cines de Utah y Virginia? ¿Por qué algunos grupos cristianos se han puesto en pie de guerra y acusan a Hollywood de promover films &quot;gays&quot; o &quot;de izquierdas&quot;? ¿Qué tiene que ver el amor entre dos personas con la izquierda o la derecha? ¿Por qué les molesta a esos grupos cristianos una película que narra una sencilla historia de amor entre dos personas?
> Me pregunto todo esto porque me resulta chocante que en un país donde sigue existiendo la pena de muerte (recientemente hemos visto otro caso más en California, donde Terminator parece que está a sus anchas) y donde se venden armas en los supermercados, no guste una película de amor entre dos personas.
> Me gustaría ver vuestras opiniones, sobre todo de foreros estadounidenses, porque estoy seguro que no es la moral que impera en ese país. ¿Qué se dice allí de la película? ¿Cómo se vive todo este asunto?
> Gracias a todos.


Por lo que veo los foreros estadounidenses no han asumido la pregunta que haces respecto al rechazo de los grupos cristianos a los films cuyo tema es la "promoción" (entre comillas porque no he visto el film por lo que no se posiciona en favor, es neutral o contrario a la homosexualidad).Si bien no soy estadounidense pero si católico y por lo tanto cristiano. La iglesia católica sostiene que la práctica homosexual es pecado porque las relaciones sexuales están reservadas exclusivamente para parejas heterosexuales con la finalidad de la reproducción y como acto de amor.Tu hablas de "una sencilla historia de amor entre dos personas", pero si ese amor es atracción sexual entre dos personas del mismo sexo y más aún de prácticas sexuales consumadas entre ellos entonces el tema es, tal vez, según la visión del cristiano un caso de promoción o proselitismo homosexual, por lo tanto el film sería pecaminoso.No es la primera vez y no será la última que movimientos cristianos, de cualquier denominación se manifiesten en contra de ese tipo de films, o en contra de hechos de violencia, abusos de cualquier naturaleza, raciales o políticos no solo en Estados Unidos, en cualquier otro lugar del mundo.No entiendo por que te extraña esa oposición, ya que es bien sabida la postura de la iglesia respecto de las problemáticas que expusiste.Saludos Dandee.


----------



## cuchuflete

I have not seen the movie either.  I did read the short story on which it is supposedly based, and it was very well written.  It did not promote anything.  It told a story, which included a strong affection between two men.

If the move followed Ms. Proulx's story, I think any theater owner who refuses to show it is narrow minded, a hypocrite, or is just pandering to the close-minded people who profess to hold values including love and understanding, but who, in fact, practice discrimination against anything and everyone who doesn't think and act exactly as they do.  

As far as I know, close-minded behavior has nothing to do with Christian beliefs, any more than suicide bombing is part of the teachings of Islam.  There are people who use religion as an excuse to ostracize those who don't agree with them.
That's not an expression of faith, but of bigotry.  

Those same hypocrites recently tried to repeal a law in my rural, conservative state.  That law guaranteed equal rights for all citizens, including homosexuals.   I am very proud to report that the hypocrites were soundly defeated.  

If they don't want to practice some form of behavior, that is just fine.  It would be even better if they were to stop trying to shove their views down the throats of other people. If a movie including homosexual topics bothers you, don't go to see it.  And don't deny others the right to see it if they want to, just because you have decided that it's offensive without having seen it.


----------



## tvdxer

Viriato said:
			
		

> Hola a todos. Recientemente he visto la película _Brokeback Mountain. C_uenta la historia de amor entre dos cowboys homosexuales, en definitiva, una historia de amor entre dos personas. Me pareció una película hermosa, muy cuidada en todos sus detalles, sin escenas de sexo explícito y muy cálida. Entonces, ¿por qué ha sido vetada en los cines de Utah y Virginia?


Porque presente visto confundido de los cowboys, que son honorados por la cultura estadounidense.  Es un insulto, de asociarlos con sexo innatural.  En estas parte del pais (por lo menos Utah), todavia reconocen la moral.



> ¿Por qué algunos grupos cristianos se han puesto en pie de guerra y acusan a Hollywood de promover films "gays" o "de izquierdas"? ¿Qué tiene que ver el amor entre dos personas con la izquierda o la derecha? ¿Por qué les molesta a esos grupos cristianos una película que narra una sencilla historia de amor entre dos personas?



No es un asunto de "derecha" o "izquierda".  Es un asunto de la moral tradicional, que habla del amor romantico verdad como siendo entre dos personas de opuesto sexo, y una moral nueva (o mejor, antimoral) que trata de la homosexualidad como una cosa natural, porque no considera la realidad de ley natural.  Se puede llamar (en ingles) "Anything Goes".

Nos molesta porque Dios nos hizo como hombre y mujer, para amarse y reproducir.  El sexo, que se inicia como "amor", entre dos miembros del mismo sexo es una abominancion grande, y un distorcion grave de este orden recto.



> Me pregunto todo esto porque me resulta chocante que en un país donde sigue existiendo la pena de muerte (recientemente hemos visto otro caso más en California, donde Terminator parece que está a sus anchas) y donde se venden armas en los supermercados, no guste una película de amor entre dos personas.


Otra vez, este amor no es natural.



> Me gustaría ver vuestras opiniones, sobre todo de foreros estadounidenses, porque estoy seguro que no es la moral que impera en ese país. ¿Qué se dice allí de la película? ¿Cómo se vive todo este asunto?
> Gracias a todos.


La mayoria, o una parte grande de los estadosunidenses, no apoyan las relaciones homosexuales.  Violan la creacion perfecta de Dios. 

Existen estas inclinaciones homosexuales; y no creo que son elegidas.  Pero se que los acciones que siguen son immorales, y que las personas que poseen estas inclinaciones deben vivir una vida de pureza sexual, y por esa seran reglados por Dios en el fin.


----------



## jimreilly

I hear tell (good cowboy language) that in some "Christian" film reviews they have said that the film is all the more dangerous because it is quite well made, and therefore promotes error better.

I was in church New Year's Day at a different kind of Christian Church, however, and the priest told everyone (in the sermon) to go see the film because it was a real love story that they would be moved by.

So we can be glad that not all Christians are so negative about gay stuff.

I was originally from the East, but I came out in 1965 together with a man who had grown up on a prairie farm, by the way, and I can report that some of the cultural stuff in the film is historically pretty accurate. Some of it is still, unfortunately, accurate for some people.


----------



## ampurdan

That's what I suspected... Anyway, we could make a very similar movie about rural Spain and Italy also, and I'm afraid that many parts of France and Great Britain could provide an scenario for similar plots too... And Argentina, Bulgaria, Israel, Morroco... I don't know about Subsaharian and East Asian countries. The difference is that we all share the image of an American cowboy... Those two men in the movie where sheepherds in the mountain, they were not the cowboys protecting his family from Red Skins' pillages.

As for Christian bigotry, let them cry and feel brave guardians of their (perverted) moral. Greek myths have a bunch of male love stories and major Christian Churches haven't been opposed to their reading and representation, except for some iconoclastic and puritan periods. Some of the Christian movements are going through one of these periods, some of them are evolving...


----------



## BasedowLives

> Otra vez, este amor no es natural.





> Existen estas inclinaciones homosexuales; y no creo que son elegidas.


???  could you clarify?



> La mayoria, o una parte grande de los estadosunidenses, no apoyan las relaciones homosexuales. Violan la creacion perfecta de Dios.


por eso, como país seguimos atrazado socialmente


----------



## Dandee

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> ??? could you clarify?
> 
> 
> por eso, como país seguimos atrazado socialmente


 
Atrasados socialmente????
Por favor, clarifica eso ¿Cómo podría ser Estados Unidos una sociedad avanzada en realción a este tema??
¿Que es para ti una sociedad avanzada??. 

Saludos 
Dandee.


----------



## tigger_uhuhu

Y otra vez el cuento de nunca acabar... cuestiono, espero respuesta pero no habrá más réplica de mi parte porque esto se ha tratado mucho y sin ninguna conclusión en los foros. Y es que está bien que sea un foro de discuciones culturales pero no de redundancias interminables...



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> Porque presente visto confundido de los cowboys, que son honorados por la cultura estadounidense. Es un insulto, de asociarlos con sexo *innatural*. En estas parte del pais (por lo menos Utah), todavia reconocen la moral.
> 
> Sólo curiosidad... ¿Existe esa palabra?  Perdonen si existe, pero no la había oído ni la encontré en el diccionario de WR
> 
> 
> No es un asunto de "derecha" o "izquierda". Es un asunto de la moral tradicional, que habla del amor romantico verdad como siendo entre dos personas de opuesto sexo, y una moral nueva (o mejor, antimoral) que trata de la homosexualidad como una cosa natural, porque no considera la realidad de ley natural. Se puede llamar (en ingles) "Anything Goes".
> 
> La moral y la "ley natural" ¿dice que es correcto matar al que cometió un crimen, la ley del talión?, según sé, dice que perdonemos a los otros como Dios perdona al que lo ofende. Y eso (pena de muerte) también se hace en un país con "moral tradicional"
> 
> Nos molesta porque Dios nos hizo como hombre y mujer, para amarse y reproducir. El sexo, que se inicia como "amor", entre dos miembros del mismo sexo es una abominancion grande, y un distorcion grave de este orden recto.
> 
> ¿Quién hace a los homosexuales? ¿Otro Dios? Creo que la religión de la que hablamos aquí claramente dice que no hay otros dioses... ¿entonces de dónde salieron, quién los hizo? Sí, sí, ya se lo del libre albedrío pero, Dios también es capaz de evitarlo como lo hace en casi todas las especies animales...


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Tigger, you rock!  Beautifully expressed.

As a Friend (Quaker), I was proud to be a member of one of the few Christian churches that endorsed gay marriage in Canada.  It was interesting to see how many fundamental churches subsequently branded these churches as one step away from infidels.

 I assume that those people so busily denigrating homosexuals in the name of the Bible follow all the old testament teachings with equal devotion:  for example, hold public stonings of neighbourhood infidels and adulterers; buy sheep regularly to make burnt offerings; abstain from eating pork and shellfish; and never play bingo or buy lottery tickets.  Sure, many of these laws were repealed by Jesus - but nobody of that ilk seems to pay much attention to his testimony of peace and tolerance that came with his statement about bringing about a new law based on love.

The statement about Brokeback Mountain being banned in Utah and Virginia reminded me about the IMAX theatres in many American states refusing to show a documentary about volcanoes, because it mentioned a geological time scale and - gasp!  evolution.


----------



## Fernando

As far as I have googled, the films have been "banned" by SOME theaters in Utah and WEST Virginia, not by all cinema theaters and not by any public authority.

Of course, producers and actors are giving so much publicity as they can to these bans.

To tiger_uhuhu: AFAIK, "innatural" does not exist. It exists "antinatural" and the classic "contra natura". The best of all Spanish expressions regarding homosexualism is "pecado nefando".

It is "Talión" and not "Taleón".


----------



## BasedowLives

Dandee said:
			
		

> Atrasados socialmente????
> Por favor, clarifica eso ¿Cómo podría ser Estados Unidos una sociedad avanzada en realción a este tema??
> ¿Que es para ti una sociedad avanzada??.
> 
> Saludos
> Dandee.


socially behind, not economically.  Speaking economically, we're dominant.  But seeing as how we still have the death penalty, (with the majority of the people supporting it), and people are arguing about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry, people think creationism should be taught in place of evolution in  schools, among other regressive ideas.  maybe i didn't convey my thoughts properly in spanish.


----------



## fenixpollo

Creo que basedowlives quería decir "país desarrollado" en el sentido del "primer mundo."  Muchas personas dicen que los EU es el país dominante del mundo (hablando en términos económicos y militares) pero ignoran el aspeto cutural.  En sus comentarios (ya redactados), creo que BL estaba tratando de señalar la contradicción que existe en nombrar a EU un país "avanzado".  Si estoy mal, BL, me dices.


----------



## cuchuflete

Funny how majorities lay claim to the notion of what's natural.
And when they move to a different place, where they are often persecuted, they find themselves labeled odd, strange, and unnatural.  Power corrupts?

There is a majority religious group in a Western U.S. state.  It's members are the (unfair, in my view) victims of religious prejudices held by other "Christians".


----------



## Fernando

Last time I checked, US was (for good AND worse) the cultural superpower. 

- Hollywood films are the most-seen in all the planet
- As Ampurdan has said every human being knows what is a cowboy, just a few what a gaucho or a yurta (Mongol hut) is.
- Music is American music, or at least music in English.
- Food is basically burguers everywhere (or nachos and chili, conveyed by US restaurants).
- US has introduced tobacco and the anti-tobacco laws.
- US has introduced drug abuse.
- US has introduced democracy regardless what its government has done.
- And yes, homosexualism tolerance (or gay power) has been largely introduced by US people.
- Current education programs ("credits", as an example) has been imported (unluckily, to me) from US.

and so on.


----------



## Dandee

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> Tigger, you rock! Beautifully expressed.
> 
> As a Friend (Quaker), I was proud to be a member of one of the few Christian churches that endorsed gay marriage in Canada. It was interesting to see how many fundamental churches subsequently branded these churches as one step away from infidels.
> 
> I assume that those people so busily denigrating homosexuals in the name of the Bible follow all the old testament teachings with equal devotion: for example, hold public stonings of neighbourhood infidels and adulterers; buy sheep regularly to make burnt offerings; abstain from eating pork and shellfish; and never play bingo or buy lottery tickets. Sure, many of these laws were repealed by Jesus - but nobody of that ilk seems to pay much attention to his testimony of peace and tolerance that came with his statement about bringing about a new law based on love.
> 
> The statement about Brokeback Mountain being banned in Utah and Virginia reminded me about the IMAX theatres in many American states refusing to show a documentary about volcanoes, because it mentioned a geological time scale and - gasp! evolution.


 
Jesus proclamó el amor de Dios, puro, santo. Ese amor no es cualquier interpretación del amor. No es el "amor" del clan Manson, no es el amor inventado por sectas. Se trata de amar según Dios por medio de Jesús nos enseñó. Jesús decía que los que más necesitaban del amor de Dios eran los que más alejados estaban de Él, las prostitutas, los adúlteros; los más abandonados y por que no también, creo yo, los homosexuales.
¿Por qué siempre se pretende que cuando se habla de la homosexualidad como una desviación se ataca a los homosexuales?. Los homosexuales no se hiceron a si mismos, son hijos de Dios (y de nuestra naturaleza) iguál que todos nosotros, son tan iguáles ante Dios como cualquier ser humano en el mundo ¿Podría estar más feliz Dios al ser reconocido por todos nos
otros incluídos por supuesto los homosexuales como nuestro padre creador?.
Los homosexuales son la consecuencia del la homosexualidad y ésta es preexistente y de diferente orden que el individuo homosexual.
¿Como se podría pretende que es un ser antinatural si fué creado por la naturaleza misma?.
No se trata del reconocimiento del homosexual como ser respetable, que lo es en sumo grado porque Dios así lo manda: "Ama a tu prójimo como a ti mismo" y eso es con todos sus defectos y virtudes.
Pero se confunde la naturaleza de las cosas. El amor sexual 
según lo planteado por la institución de la iglesia es entre hombre y mujer. 
¿Donde está reconocido en la biblia o en cualquier otra referencia documental cristiana el amor de esa naturaleza entre individuos del mismo sexo?
Cuando alguna denominación cristiana reconoce ese tipo de relaciones ¿Qué mandato está obedeciendo?. No será que solo se sucumbió a esa aceptación simplemente por la falta de capacidad de discernir que es o no realmente voluntad de Dios?
¿Son un ejemplo de tolerancia, amor y comprensión? o Simplemente un ejemplo de mala interpretación de la verdadera palabra de Dios?

Platón le dijo a su maestro Sócrates: -Maestro, dudo de todo.
Sócrates le contestó: No sabes cuanto me alegra escuchar esas palabras.

Saludos.
Dandee.


----------



## cuchuflete

> capacidad de discernir que es o no realmente voluntad de Dios?





> interpretación de la verdadera palabra de Dios?


Obviously there is a consistent internal logic to what Dandee has written, for those who share the same basic assumptions.

Approximately two thirds of human kind do not share them.



> Christianity: 2.1 billion
> Islam: 1.3 billion
> Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
> Hinduism: 900 million
> Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
> Buddhism: 376 million
> primal-indigenous: 300 million
> African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
> Sikhism: 23 million
> Juche: 19 million
> Spiritism: 15 million
> Judaism: 14 million
> Baha'i: 7 million
> Jainism: 4.2 million
> Shinto: 4 million
> Cao Dai: 4 million
> Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
> Tenrikyo: 2 million
> Neo-Paganism: 1 million
> Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
> Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
> Scientology: 500 thousand


source: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

This doesn't make the viewpoints expressed incorrect, but  places them in a broader context.


----------



## Fernando

Though I do not endorse all Dundee's comments, homosexualism would certainly lose a poll:

Anti-homos. religions:

Let us say 90% Christians confessions: 1.8 + 100% Islam 1.3 = 3.1 > 50% mankind, even considering 1.1 secular (?), hinduists and Chinese as homosexual-fans.


----------



## cuchuflete

And as we all know, the degree of acceptance or tolerance or affection we should show for a fellow human being should be based on a poll...just ask any politician.


----------



## Fernando

I could not agree more with you.


----------



## jimreilly

Hey folks, like some religious people say, this is a question of values.

There is a thing called the tyranny of the majority. Once upon a time the majority of people in my country (the USA) would have endorsed slavery if a poll had been taken. That wouldn't have made slavery just. Of course the slaves wouldn't have been allowed to vote in the poll.....

Fortunately, what integrity my soul may or may not possess is not dependent on a poll. The "majority" may dislike or suspect me because I am gay, it may restrict my rights, and it may harm me psychologically and even physically. But I will do my damndest to try to keep it from destroying whatever positive qualities I might possess, and being gay is a part of my being that is organically united with the positives.

Gay issues are only one part of a difficult period in US and world history. My country is going through a terrible time, with the forces of repression, violence, and grotesque material selfishness in the ascendant. Much power is being used to harm, kill, and accumulate more riches at the expense of people who have greater needs, and even torture seems to be an acceptable tool.

More light! And, as far as religion, how about "Do unto others...."?


----------



## Fernando

jimreilly, we-just-have-said-that-polls-have-little-importance. But please, these reasoning works in both directions: If, in Spain, the majority have given homosexuals the same marriage and adoption rights, maybe is majority who is wrong, not his opponents.

The point is:

- Is homosexuality (a) like drug abuse or is like (b) being male/female?

If (a) is right, we (those who consider it is a fault) have the right to say a gay: 'you are wrong, avoid this compulsion for drugs' and, if I was a homosexual, I will expect you to say to me.

If (b) is right, we have no right to impose anything.

In no case, we have the right to punish the homosexuals (common practice every day, from Cuba to Sudan.


----------



## BasedowLives

Fernando said:
			
		

> jimreilly, we-just-have-said-that-polls-have-little-importance. But please, these reasoning works in both directions: If, in Spain, the majority have given homosexuals the same marriage and adoption rights, maybe is majority who is wrong, not his opponents.
> 
> The point is:
> 
> - Is homosexuality (a) like drug abuse or is like (b) being male/female?
> 
> If (a) is right, we (those who consider it is a fault) have the right to say a gay: 'you are wrong, avoid this compulsion for drugs' and, if I was a homosexual, I will expect you to say to me.
> 
> If (b) is right, we have no right to impose anything.
> 
> In no case, we have the right to punish the homosexuals (common practice every day, from Cuba to Sudan.



Could you clarify this for me?  I'm having trouble following.


----------



## jimreilly

Fernando said:
			
		

> jimreilly, we-just-have-said-that-polls-have-little-importance. But please, these reasoning works in both directions: If, in Spain, the majority have given homosexuals the same marriage and adoption rights, maybe is majority who is wrong, not his opponents.
> 
> The point is:
> 
> - Is homosexuality (a) like drug abuse or is like (b) being male/female?
> 
> If (a) is right, we (those who consider it is a fault) have the right to say a gay: 'you are wrong, avoid this compulsion for drugs' and, if I was a homosexual, I will expect you to say to me.
> 
> If (b) is right, we have no right to impose anything.
> 
> In no case, we have the right to punish the homosexuals (common practice every day, from Cuba to Sudan.



Of course it is possible for the majority to be wrong! Many majorities in many countries have been "wrong" throughout history, sometimes because of lack of knowledge, sometimes out of bigotry or intolerance for religious difference, sometimes just because mistakes are made, sometimess for any number of other  reasons. The tyranny of the majority is always a risk in a democracy; however good that form of government may be it is not perfect.

Being gay is not like a drug compulsion. It is more like being left-handed (in some places once considered a moral failing and subject to punishment by the majority); it is a part of the normal variety of the human species. In and of itself it is neither moral nor immoral.


----------



## ITA

Creo que ésto es una muestra mas de la doble moral de un país (qué nación no la tiene,verdad?) Pero bueno ésto no es de ahora,el genial C. Chaplin también fue censurado en los EE.UU.y terminó exiliado en Suiza ...................


----------



## cuchuflete

Si hablamos de la homosexualidad, las escopetas y la pena de muerte, sí hay una doble moral.  Pero, vaya, lo de Chaplin no tiene nada que ver ni con doble moral ni con nada.  Nació ciudadano británico, jamás intentó adoptar la ciudadanía de EEUU...así que decir que fue 'exiliado en Suiza' es una tontería completa.


----------



## ITA

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Si hablamos de la homosexualidad, las escopetas y la pena de muerte, sí hay una doble moral.  Pero, vaya, lo de Chaplin no tiene nada que ver ni con doble moral ni con nada.  Nació ciudadano británico, jamás intentó adoptar la ciudadanía de EEUU...así que decir que fue 'exiliado en Suiza' es una tontería completa.



Por mas ciudadano inglés que haya sido,el caso es que EE.UU.fue quien lo sensuró y de eso estamos hablando acá asi que yo creo que si tiene mucho que ver.


----------



## GenJen54

*MOD NOTE*:  Once again we have failed, as a group, to come to any general concensus regaring this most delicate topic. 

Those brave enough to stand up for their own position find themselves berated by others who do not share the same sympathetic view of the world. 

That said, case - and thread - closed.


----------

