BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN SHOWN IN SCHOOL

The1exile · Post by **The1exile** » Mon May 14, 2007 6:27 am

falcon wrote:God is also a loose term. Does it refer to Allah, Yahwah, Zeus, Shiva . . .or perhaps all of the above?

Also Flying Spaghetti Monster. And the giant Orangutan in the sky (which notably, according to google, is only one being, so don't moan about polytheism being the devil

).

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Mon May 14, 2007 6:28 am

WOw. I didn't know that they were suing for that much at first. They'll never get it. They would have done better to try for a LOT lower.

The1exile · Post by **The1exile** » Mon May 14, 2007 6:30 am

strike wolf wrote:WOw. I didn't know that they were suing for that much at first. They'll never get it. They would have done better to try for a LOT lower.

They shouldn't sue. This idea that you have to sue for every small thing is just stupid. I think Neut put it better, and sarcastically, earlier. Complain? Sure, there's a bunch of people you can contact with regards to this sort of thing. Sue a school for thousands of pounds? Eff off.

Balsiefen · Post by **Balsiefen** » Mon May 14, 2007 6:44 am

The1exile wrote:
strike wolf wrote:WOw. I didn't know that they were suing for that much at first. They'll never get it. They would have done better to try for a LOT lower.

They shouldn't sue. This idea that you have to sue for every small thing is just stupid. I think Neut put it better, and sarcastically, earlier. Complain? Sure, there's a bunch of people you can contact with regards to this sort of thing. Sue a school for thousands of pounds? Eff off.

i agree, these people reallly need to get their morals sorted out

Guilty_Biscuit · Post by **Guilty_Biscuit** » Mon May 14, 2007 6:45 am

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:14 am

The amount of money is irrelevant. We live in a sue-happy society. Remember the other thread where the guy was suing his cleaners for losing his pants? He was seeking millions of dollars.

I was more focusing on the principle of showing R rated movies promoting homosexuality in public schools.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:32 am

So the basis of your opposition is that they're showing a film which shows something you do not agree with...

And the the opinion of your evil nemesis in the ACLU is that you should not be able to show a film that they don't agree with...

Yet you get cross at those who you think would not let a school show the Passion of Christ (arguably just as 'adult' if we look at the gore and violence) yet you want to stop schools showing Brokeback Mountain.

So what do you want Jay? Censorship? or schools to be able to show what they want (be it religious or homosexual)?

Pots and kettles...

sam_levi_11 · Post by **sam_levi_11** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:34 am

in holland they show all sorts in school. and anyway, if someone wants to see it they will watch it online or sumin, so it makes no difference

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:36 am

jay_a2j wrote:Oh give me a break! You know as well as I if the teacher played Passion of the Christ instead, the ACLU would have been called in and sued the school, the teacher and Mel Gibson!
If religion should not be forced on kids (and I agree that it shouldn't) neither should alternative lifestyles.

Some parents raise their kids with Christian values and this is a blatant disregard of the parents will that their child should not be exposed to this. Not only that, the movie is rated R and it was shown to 12 year olds?

This post should answer your post Guiscard.

Koesen · Post by **Koesen** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:52 am

Jay_a2j,

Leaving the alternative lifestyles vs religion aspect aside for the moment (showing either both or neither seems reasonable enough to me), don't you think that a $500,000 lawsuit is terribly excessive for this kind of thing?

I just read a story about how some teachers, in Tennessee I believe, put their 11 and 12-year old kids through a fake gun rampage 'as a learning experience'. THAT, I believe, deserves serious legal action, because those kids were genuinely made to believe they were going to die. But watching a movie about two cowboys who like each other?

Also, I don't think The Passion of the Christ is a good example of a movie that teaches kids about religion. The Passion is brutally violent. Sure;y, there would be far fewer protests if the christian faith was illustrated using one of the many less graphical bible movies.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:05 am

jay_a2j wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:Oh give me a break! You know as well as I if the teacher played Passion of the Christ instead, the ACLU would have been called in and sued the school, the teacher and Mel Gibson!
If religion should not be forced on kids (and I agree that it shouldn't) neither should alternative lifestyles.

Some parents raise their kids with Christian values and this is a blatant disregard of the parents will that their child should not be exposed to this. Not only that, the movie is rated R and it was shown to 12 year olds?

This post should answer your post Guiscard.

How was showing the film forcing it on kids?

Personally, I don't see a problem with the Passion of Christ being shown, and neither do I have a problem with Brokeback Mountain...

Neither your sexuality or your religious beliefs are something that is gonna be heavily influenced by a single film. What those filsm WILL do, however, is perhaps open kids eyes to things they hadn't thought about before, and perhaps things which their parents or peers have never really discussed with them in a reasonable light... Surely that's what education is about! Educating.

Brokeback Mountain says 'this is what homosexuality is for some people and this is the problems homosexual people face in some societies.

It isn't forcing anyone to do anything.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:33 am

Guiscard wrote:
It isn't forcing anyone to do anything.

It is presenting it as an acceptable lifestyle option. Now, where that may be ok for your kids, some parents have religious convictions and it is not ok for their kids. Thus should not be shown in a public school.

Tolerance: the virtue of a man without convictions.

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:36 am

jay_a2j wrote:The amount of money is irrelevant. We live in a sue-happy society. Remember the other thread where the guy was suing his cleaners for losing his pants? He was seeking millions of dollars.

I was more focusing on the principle of showing R rated movies promoting homosexuality (wtf?) in public schools.

oh, it isn't promoting homosexuality, you fucking homophobe, it's a story ABOUT homosexuality! :evil:

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:41 am

mr. incrediball wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:The amount of money is irrelevant. We live in a sue-happy society. Remember the other thread where the guy was suing his cleaners for losing his pants? He was seeking millions of dollars.

I was more focusing on the principle of showing R rated movies promoting homosexuality in public schools.

oh, it isn't promoting homosexuality, you fucking homophobe, it's a story ABOUT homosexuality!

I don't fear anything about homosexuality. It is, in my view against God's commandments. Thus it is not acceptable for teachers to tell my kids "Its ok" because its not. Try and comprehend this....its not hard. :roll:

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:41 am

jay_a2j wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:The amount of money is irrelevant. We live in a sue-happy society. Remember the other thread where the guy was suing his cleaners for losing his pants? He was seeking millions of dollars.

I was more focusing on the principle of showing R rated movies promoting homosexuality in public schools.

oh, it isn't promoting homosexuality, you fucking homophobe, it's a story ABOUT homosexuality!

I don't fear anything about homosexuality. It is, in my view against God's commandments. Thus it is not acceptable for teachers to tell my kids "Its ok" because its not. Try and comprehend this....its not hard.

i hate religions... all of 'em...

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:43 am

mr. incrediball wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:The amount of money is irrelevant. We live in a sue-happy society. Remember the other thread where the guy was suing his cleaners for losing his pants? He was seeking millions of dollars.

I was more focusing on the principle of showing R rated movies promoting homosexuality in public schools.

oh, it isn't promoting homosexuality, you fucking homophobe, it's a story ABOUT homosexuality!

I don't fear anything about homosexuality. It is, in my view against God's commandments. Thus it is not acceptable for teachers to tell my kids "Its ok" because its not. Try and comprehend this....its not hard.

i hate religions... all of 'em...

Then I can see why it wouldn't bother you. But not everyone is like you.

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:44 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
It isn't forcing anyone to do anything.

It is presenting it as an acceptable lifestyle option. Now, where that may be ok for your kids, some parents have religious convictions and it is not ok for their kids. Thus should not be shown in a public school.

Tolerance: the virtue of a man without convictions.

That's complete humbug!
Unless of course you're arguing that children ought to grow up believing precisely what their parents tell them, without being given the possibility of questioning it.
Your parents are christian; how does this make it wrong for people to show you the possibility of living in a different fashion. The lifestyle presented is not illegal, and it's a perfectly natural and acceptable lifestyle choice, open to any citizen to adopt. Just because parents of a child have rejected that lifestyle does not mean that it cannot be presented as a possibility to a child.
If the school was trying to educate children that homosexuality was the 'only' way to live, that'd be different. But that's not happening here, we'll chat about that another time...

The problem is that you're being hideously reactionary about this. If the children believe in anti-homosexual chrisitan codes, then they'll reject Brokeback. If however they have open minds then they'll simply digest it as an example of how some people choose to live. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it's not ok to show your child that is a legal and valid lifestyle option (obviously showing them heroin abuse as an acceptable option wouldn't be right).

If for example a child's parents didn't believe in drinking or smoking as acceptable lifestyle choices, would all material involving characters drinking or smoking suddenly be unacceptable classroom fodder? What if one parent was an anti-semite, are you going to ban Jews next? Let's go crazy, say a parent is a vegetarian; if we accept your viewpoint then we'd better get to banning any material portraying meat product consumption as an acceptable lifestyle choices.

The distinction you're missing is this: It's ok to show children as acceptable things that their parents disagree with (so long as those things are legal, and not anti-social). It's not ok to try to brainwash them into accepting those things as the only way to go about things.
I appreciate you're a Christian, and you take your beliefs very seriously. But you've got to understand that if your system of faith isn't hideously outdated, reactionary, and obsolete; then it will be able to keep its believers regardless of what they see in the media. Quit trying to ban everything that you don't agree with, it just makes you seem hideously uncertain about the validity of your own code of morals.

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:45 am

jay_a2j wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:The amount of money is irrelevant. We live in a sue-happy society. Remember the other thread where the guy was suing his cleaners for losing his pants? He was seeking millions of dollars.

I was more focusing on the principle of showing R rated movies promoting homosexuality in public schools.

oh, it isn't promoting homosexuality, you fucking homophobe, it's a story ABOUT homosexuality!

I don't fear anything about homosexuality. It is, in my view against God's commandments. Thus it is not acceptable for teachers to tell my kids "Its ok" because its not. Try and comprehend this....its not hard.

hey wait a minute, where in the ten commandments does it say anything about homosexuality?

run it through your freakin' head, jay, that maybe you're a big loser, who needs to open his mind to the outside world and stop coddling his STUPID narrow mind in the suburbs of midwest america...

*phew* o.k rant over

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:49 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:That's complete humbug!
Unless of course you're arguing that children ought to grow up believing precisely what their parents tell them, without being given the possibility of questioning it.
Your parents are christian; how does this make it wrong for people to show you the possibility of living in a different fashion. The lifestyle presented is not illegal, and it's a perfectly natural and acceptable lifestyle choice, open to any citizen to adopt. Just because parents of a child have rejected that lifestyle does not mean that it cannot be presented as a possibility to a child.
If the school was trying to educate children that homosexuality was the 'only' way to live, that'd be different. But that's not happening here, we'll chat about that another time...

The problem is that you're being hideously reactionary about this. If the children believe in anti-homosexual chrisitan codes, then they'll reject Brokeback. If however they have open minds then they'll simply digest it as an example of how some people choose to live. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it's not ok to show your child that is a legal and valid lifestyle option (obviously showing them heroin abuse as an acceptable option wouldn't be right).

If for example a child's parents didn't believe in drinking or smoking as acceptable lifestyle choices, would all material involving characters drinking or smoking suddenly be unacceptable classroom fodder? What if one parent was an anti-semite, are you going to ban Jews next? Let's go crazy, say a parent is a vegetarian; if we accept your viewpoint then we'd better get to banning any material portraying meat product consumption as an acceptable lifestyle choices.

The distinction you're missing is this: It's ok to show children as acceptable things that their parents disagree with (so long as those things are legal, and not anti-social). It's not ok to try to brainwash them into accepting those things as the only way to go about things.
I appreciate you're a Christian, and you take your beliefs very seriously. But you've got to understand that if your system of faith isn't hideously outdated, reactionary, and obsolete; then it will be able to keep its believers regardless of what they see in the media. Quit trying to ban everything that you don't agree with, it just makes you seem hideously uncertain about the validity of your own code of morals.

I wrote this post slightly less eloquently and then realised you'd said everything I wanted to say. Cheers

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:33 pm

Religious and Lifestyle opinions aside...school teachers should not be showing R-Rated movies to 12-years olds without parental consent regardless of content.

Than being said...have any of you actually SEEN Brokeback Mountain? This thread makes it sound like a gay-porn flick filled with butt-fucking cowboys. :lol:

It's not...but sadly the upbringings, fear & misconceptions many of you have will prevent you from ever seeing a fine movie.

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:34 pm

Backglass wrote:Religious and Lifestyle opinions aside...school teachers should not be showing R-Rated movies to 12-years olds without parental consent regardless of content.

Than being said...have any of you actually SEEN Brokeback Mountain? You make it sound like a gay-porn flick filled with butt-fucking cowboys.

It's not...but sadly the upbringings, fear & misconceptions many of you have will prevent you from ever seeing it.

i'd see it, it sounds O.K, summin to do...

by the way, what does an "R" rate mean?

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:38 pm

mr. incrediball wrote:by the way, what does an "R" rate mean?

In the US, films are generally given this rating due to nudity, sexual content or graphic violence...among other things.

s.xkitten · Post by **s.xkitten** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:40 pm

you forgot the part where it means that they have to use f*ck as every other word... :roll:

mr. incrediball · Post by **mr. incrediball** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:41 pm

Backglass wrote:
mr. incrediball wrote:by the way, what does an "R" rate mean?

In the US, films are generally given this rating due to nudity, sexual content or graphic violence...among other things.

ah, i think most movies rated "r" in america are rated "15" over here (no-one under 15 is allowed to view it in public)

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Mon May 14, 2007 1:00 pm

Backglass you're quite right about showing material to those too young to legally view it, if a teacher doesn't count as an 'adult guardian' then showing Brokeback was wrong, on that ground alone. But it certainly wasn't wrong on any sort of moral grounds, because there's nothing wrong with portraying homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle choice.
I think we all agree on that; but isn't it's a bit of a sideshow to the real issue at hand (not the legal issue, but the actual meat of this moral discussion)?

I think the bone of contention (teehee, 'bone') here really is about Jay's bizarre conviction that the beliefs of the parent ought to censor the mind of the child.

EDIT: Also, I just realised how ironic Jay's avatar is...