Rolemodels

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu May 10, 2001 9:10 pm

@Fable...LMFAO..

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu May 10, 2001 9:31 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:
You're right, to a point. The question you must answer, however, is whether or not being homosexual is a lifestyle choice, or even a lifetime decision. I happen to think that it IS a conscious decision one makes, and a decision that may also be reversed. I know a few gay men who are now ex-gay, meaning they had numerous same-sexual relations, but are now commited heterosexuals who have married and started families of their own. How do you explain their motivations? ]

Eminen, do you believe that heterosexuality is also a conscious life style choice that may be reversed? And what do you think about homosexual relationsships among other species? Is this also a conscious decision? If not, what do you think if the difference here between humans and other species?

I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement, however, that actions are NOT a mirror to inner intent. If out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks, how much more do our conscious actions? Although your examples may be true, it is far too narrow and particular to apply as a general rule among human beings. Regarding bisexuality or homosexuality, you simply cannot know at what point in a person's life he or she "became" gay. I do believe, however, that what you do is what you are, and that if what you do is unacceptable to the majority, you can justify it by claiming that you have always been like this since you were born, like those who have claimed infidelity to be part of their genetic make-up.

I know this was to Fable, I hope you don't mind me answering. Btw, why is Fables examples of gay men living in heterosexual marriage (I also told you I have friends who do) more narrow and particular that your examples?

I have a different view than you on to what extent overt action reflects inner intent. To me, the idea that what we do is what we are, is an oversimplification. We are sometimes more than what we act, and sometimes we are not at all what we act.
Think of all the people living during much more restricted times or more restricted cultures than modern US/Europe. And think of the lack of economic resources that affect most of the people living on our planet.

Not everyone is as privilegied as you and I. Oscar Wilde was sent to prison for being homosexual just a bit more than 100 years ago. A friend of mine's husband got executed for spreading unsuitable information about their country's regime. Traveling around the world, I've met people who sold their children to prostitution because they could not support themselves in any other way. To what extent do you think peoples outer action reflect their inner intent and will when social and physical health is in danger because of factors in a society that the individual has not choosen? I think that unfortunately, peoples actions are limited by a lot of factors.

I believe that my actions reflects my inner intent and will to a very large extent. Obviously, you feel the same about yourself, which is good. That's what I view as optimal for the well being of the individual. But I think we should not forget we are in minority in this world.

Eminem, I hope you do not feel provoked that I do not share your views, and I hope my English is good enough to transmit that I don't want to disrespect you in any way, I just want to explain why I don't share some of your opinions. I hope you, like me, think discussion and debate is interesting

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

Kayless · Post by **Kayless** » Thu May 10, 2001 9:35 pm

Not to be pedantic EMINEM, but the quote you referenced is actually: Come, come, you answer with an idle tongue.

Or at least I think it is. Your reference method is…odd. It should be labeled PLAY, ACT, SCENE, PAGE (e.g. Macbeth II.iii. 92-94) But the actual line is quite funny and appropriate!

The real quote:
O, that this too too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d
His canon ’gainst self-slaughter! O God! God!
How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Is actually Hamlet I.ii.129-134

[ 05-10-2001: Message edited by: Kayless ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 10, 2001 11:00 pm

Posted by C Elegans:

I know this was to Fable, I hope you don't mind me answering.

No problem at all, and you did a good job of it, too.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 10, 2001 11:01 pm

Posted by C Elegans:

I know this was to Fable, I hope you don't mind me answering.

No problem at all, and you did a good job of it, too.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri May 11, 2001 6:35 am

Originally posted by EMINEM:
then every happily married family man could be suspected of being gay, and heterosexual singles who are unable to keep a steady boy/girl friend - even more so.
]

What do you mean by be "suspected" of being gay? The word "suspected" sounds like it's something wrong about it, which I really do hope you do not mean.

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Fri May 11, 2001 6:45 am

All I want to say, "I never touched the monkey."

Brink · Post by **Brink** » Fri May 11, 2001 7:32 am

A thread on role models gets turned into a discussion about homosexuals because of a (popular) actor

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri May 11, 2001 9:06 am

@Brink, and this surprises you?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri May 11, 2001 9:10 am

"All I want to say, "I never touched the monkey"

Dark Poet, was the monkey gay or straight?

Brink · Post by **Brink** » Fri May 11, 2001 9:12 am

fable-Not really (nothing much surprises me in here

)

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Fri May 11, 2001 9:13 am

Originally posted by dragon wench:
"All I want to say, "I never touched the monkey"

Dark Poet, was the monkey gay or straight?

I wasn't me.
*Hugs for the lady

*
I never saw that monkey before.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 11, 2001 10:28 am

Boy, I'd sure like to get involved in this 'discussion'! Unfortunately I'd probably be banned if I let loose though.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri May 11, 2001 10:38 am

Originally posted by Anatres:
Boy, I'd sure like to get involved in this 'discussion'! Unfortunately I'd probably be banned if I let loose though.

This can be a touche subject.

Anatres · Post by **Anatres** » Fri May 11, 2001 10:48 am

@Weasel, good riposte!

I think I'd get too far under EMINEMs skin as his 'position' is very 'right wing religeous dogma' and I prefer to think for myself.....

EDIT: <<<Out to lunch>>>

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri May 11, 2001 11:04 am

@Anatres ...I have a post on another board I would post here ...if I knew everyone wouldn't get mad.

About thinking

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri May 11, 2001 11:06 am

I won't get mad. Of course, I'm far from being everybody, but maybe you could consider me a satisfactory straw sampling, and post it.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri May 11, 2001 11:11 am

@Fable...The question that started this was ...Who was worst..Hitler or Stalin
and someone brought up China.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cheryl[han]:
Xiahou-dun, what you say is true. but think about it, which conquerer have not involve the killing of human then. to manifest a dream, sacrifices must be made. unlike hitler and stalin, chairman mao punished those who did not agree with him, for the benefits of the country. let me repeat this, he did it for the country, out of true patroitism, and not simply because of believes as shown by hitler.evidently, china is now united as one because of him, so how could he be in that particular category. i beg to differ, xiahou-dun
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the beginging it was true patroitism, but later it was to remain in control. Tell me this...what's better (1) A bunch of people who do everything without questioning it. (2) People who question your decisions. I'm not bashing the chinese people....look what my country has done....almost wiped out all the American Indians. The US inslaved a whole race because of their color.

chairman mao punished those who did not agree with him, for the benefits of the country.

What I'm saying is...Hitler and Stalin both started out with this same belief and look where it went from there. Did it benefit their countries at the time..., but look at the cost in human life and misery.

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: Weasel ]

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Fri May 11, 2001 11:15 am

If you look at it that way. Spain and Portigal(bad spelling) did the same in South America. With the natives there.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri May 11, 2001 11:16 am

@DP....Yes they did.