Homosexuality?
-
-
Knightmessenger — 15 years ago(July 06, 2010 07:31 PM)
But having 'and' after a ' , ' is also grammatically correct, it's known as the Oxford comma. Stephen Colbert mentioned it on one of his shows because the band he invited that night had a song with lyrics that went beep the Oxford Comma, I think. It's not usually needed but it's not really wrong either. I think it works best for connecting different clauses of a sentence rather than listing off somet- oh crap why do I actually know this. I haven't taken grammar this millenium, why can't I forget some of that and use it to remember more valuable stuff like sports trivia?
Anyways, that comma is annoying but not nearly as cringe inducing as the semicolon. Yeah this useless crap thing -> ; <-. Why does it even exist, it's like the appendix (which could also be called a semicolon in a way). Either use a period or use a comma or use and. Don't deface words with such an ugly piece of crap like the semicolon.
NEW petition for the unaltered Star Wars Trilogy
http://originaltrilogy.com/petition/ -
opticalchaosstudios — 15 years ago(November 06, 2010 11:51 PM)
Yeah, sure Impagliazzo. Everyone who doesn't think 2 men sucking each other off is a beautiful & perfectly natural thing is a homophobe. The difference between those who get labelled homophobes (a complete misnomer unless one actually has a pathological fear of homosexuality) & everyone else is that those who start throwing the word "homophobe" and "homophobia" at anyone who holds a different opinion to them seem to be more intolerant regarding dissension from their opinion than anyone they label an intolerant homophobe. It seems that everyone is entitled to their opinion just as long as it's the same as yours hey? The difference between the 2 groups is that we couldn't care less what you think or what people do in the privacy of their bedroom (we don't have to think it's normal or natural) but it seems you sure as hell enjoy insulting anyone you disagree with, a trait I do not share (and yes it is insulting to be called an intolerant bigot which is exactly what calling someone a homophobe is). Start practising the tolerance you preach. Being tolerant does not merely entail accepting only what you like or agree with but an acceptance that everyone is entitled to their opinion whether you like it or not.
-
shrugs — 15 years ago(December 31, 2010 01:19 PM)
"Homophobia" is a mess of a word, perhaps because its invention was in soundbite journalism rather than academia. Nonetheless, its meaning is pretty simple, so let's not pretend we don't know what people mean when they call someone homophobic. The word is quite fitting, and like you yourself said, tolerance means accepting that other people are entitled to their opinion whether you agree or not. You don't have to agree that you're homophobic, but you have to accept that it is my opinion that you are. Unless you're a hypocrite as well as a homophobe?
What if a squirrel wants a sausage? -
preciouslilywhite — 12 years ago(May 14, 2013 11:00 AM)
it's actually extremely homophobic to think that homosexuality is abnormal or unnatural. you don't have to have homosexual sex if you aren't inclined, nor do you have to watch gay porn (soooo weird to me when homophobes bring up how gay people have sex. oddly preoccupied, huh?), but you do have to accept that homosexuality is just as normal and natural as heterosexuality if you don't want people to point out your homophobia.
-
cormac_zoso — 12 years ago(May 16, 2013 08:36 PM)
regardless as to the "height" of homophobia here, no one has adressed the original question (tho i stopped reading answers after half a dozen since no one seems interested in the question or how it was presented but rather far more interested in blathering about what they want to
the original poster did not express any homophobia whatsoever in their original request rather, he said he loved the character in question he said it was only 'a surprise', much like the twists or what-have-you included in most any film frankly, every poster SINCE the original poster have been typing their little fingers off about what they think about all the homophobia on the board or how the ending was different or other aspects of the book were different than the movie or how something or other was an "outrage" when i don't see the word "outrage" in any post prior to its usage in the poster's post that asked how something could be an outrage (tho I suppose it could have been included in a prio post that was deleted by an admin before I happened upon this thread looking for informaion about the movie)
but god forbid anyone answer poor Firebender17's original question as to whether any other viewers of the movie thought that a chacater's wink toward another was a lean toward homosexuality or if it was simply a wink no one has seemed interested in that question since it was posted (or at least since i stopped reading in annoyance)
well, i haven't decided whether to watch the movie so I can only hope, Firebender17, that somehow, some way, you received some answer or opinions or a bit of discusson on your original question my level of tolerance with people ignoring whatever the thread has been created for so they can jibber and jabber about something other than the point, something they find lends tenor to their writing far better than the original question
best of luck, Firebender17 and if i ever watch the movie, i'll drop you a note and let you know what impression i was left with -
imdb-ary — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 08:57 AM)
I thought that was hilarious. Did u guys see Victoria's face? It was like, "Damn I could of married the king! Now I'm stuck with this loser. WTF!? Now he's gay too???"
I mean LOL talking about adding insult to injury. HAHAHA!! -
Lunchbox-3 — 15 years ago(October 11, 2010 10:34 AM)
I don't think objections have to come from a homophobic stance. First, Victoria's suffering enough just knowing that she could have been with a king and instead she's stuck with Humphrey. Second, it doesn't make sense with Humphrey trying so hard to win Victoria's hand when he's gay. I suppose you could argue it was just a marriage of convenience and power for him, but that's not really necessary to complete Victoria's humiliation.