I support gay rights & gay marriage. In fact, I DON'T CARE if your gay, I'm just sick of gay people telling me they are gay. I don't care and I don't need to be lectured to. So, is this movie just more gay propaganda or is it worth watching?
share
Is the Wolf Of Wall Street just another straight agenda movie? I mean he's f--king women left, right and center. I don't care that he's straight, stop shoving it down my throat!
That's how stupid your post is OP, congrats.
If 3% of the population were vocal about wanting to f--k and marry starfish would you care? Thats how most of the 97% of the heterosexual community feel about homosexuals.
PS - I would not watch Starfish movies either. Gross.
no, idiot-gays are not talking about sex-thats just in your closeted little mind.
shareYes, i would care.
If you love Jesus Lizard and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!
This movie tells a true story about HIV and AIDS victims. At the time of the film these diseases were viewed as a strictly gay men's epidemic. The federal government, including the president and the FDA, were doing very little to find a cure as thousands of gay men were dying. It wasn't until gays started shouting and protesting that they finally caught the general public's attention. You may be "sick of gay people telling you they are gay," but you have to realize that at the time of this film gay people were getting sick and dying en masse! And the movie wasn't propaganda, it was based on a true story.
shareAt the time of the film these diseases were viewed as a strictly gay men's epidemic."
Thats because it was. 99% anyways.
The federal government, including the president and the FDA, were doing very little to find a cure as thousands of gay men were dying"
Find a cure? They still have not 40 years later.
"It wasn't until gays started shouting and protesting that they finally caught the general public's attention"
I honestly wish that we would put the money that goes to AIDS research towards something like cancer or heart disease that effects everyone, not just people who are promiscuous and practice unsafe sex.
"And the movie wasn't propaganda, it was based on a true story."
That was my initial question.
"I honestly wish that we would put the money that goes to AIDS research towards something like cancer or heart disease that effects everyone, not just people who are promiscuous and practice unsafe sex." This made me facepalm quite severely. I don't remember heart disease ever effecting everyone. Anywaaaaay...
No it's not a gay agenda movie (whatever that is), I'd say the homosexuality is pretty incidental. If anything the movie pays more attention to transgenders through the character of Rayon, and it makes a lot out of the heterosexual romance between Ron and the doctor, who's name escapes me. So I'll think you'll be okay. It's an absolutely awesome movie.
wow-youre REALLY an idiot. HIV affects millions of straight people worldwide-and its not just sex transferrence, dumdum! Please dont breed
shareNot knocking your post and any of what you had to say concerning the early days of the plight and plague. However, even though this movie was marketed as "based on a true story" its anything but. It doesn't tell the true story of Ron Woodroof nor of the real DBC. It doesn't get much right about what was known about the virus at the time either. The documentary by David France, "How To Survive A Plague" does though. But then its a documentary and not a stylized drama and wasn't made to draw in large crowds of popcorn eating viewers.
shareWhat's a gay agenda movie? Is that like a straight agenda movie?
shareDo gay people often come up to you on the street and tell you their sexual preference?
Or do you mean that you are sick of movies portraying homosexual contact? If so I'm not sure you are going to be able to avoid it if you appreciate watching movies representing the general public. A fairly large percentage of the population is gay. It would be like trying to avoid movies portraying African Americans.
It also seems you misunderstood the point of the movie. It is about the HIV epidemic, which actually happened and is not gay propaganda. Sounds like you need to do some more homework.
A fairly large percentage of the population is gay."
You consider 3% a fairly large chuck of the population?
You seriously need to check your stats.
--
Non-sequiturs are delicious.
Actually, he's pretty close:
approximately 3.8 % of American adults identify themselves being in the LGBT community; wherein, (1.7%) identify as lesbian or gay, (1.8%) bisexual, and (0.3%) transgender
No. It's more of a story about access to experimental medical treatments that the US government drags its feet in making available to desperately ill people whose time is running out. It's a human rights issue.
And yeah, I know Big Pharma spends a lot of m
oney and loses a lot of money. But if I was dying I would sign anything to ward off the lawyers so I could at least try something.
Get me a bromide! And put some gin in it!
[deleted]
Grammar Nazi.
sharelook pretty irresponsible. I guess it was the culture back then, but the rampant unprotected sex does not make them look like the smartest group. I guess they didn't know any better, because to me it just screams of massive consequences.
This movie is not shoving anything down anyone's throats. I too am pro-gay rights, but I agree with you are saying. This movie doesn't deal much with politics at all, so don't worry about it.
For my latest movie reviews and news:http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/
"look pretty irresponsible. I guess it was the culture back then, but the rampant unprotected sex does not make them look like the smartest group."
Irresponsible? Yeah, some people hetero or homo are that way...irresponsible.
Unplanned pregnancies, abortions, unwanted children...any of that ring a bell?
Oppression and marginalization (which gay people come up against now and even more so then) often increase the possibility of engaging in irresponsible behavior. Doesn't necessarily have to do with how "smart" anyone is. There have been plenty of Einsteins with raging hormones who've gotten a little (unexpected) bundle of joy and/or a cankerous sore or worse.
For every act or inaction there's always a consequence, some massive in nature. I agree with you about that. But there was and still is plenty of irresponsibility to go around.
Unfortunately, it was/is a result of our culture of fear, ignorance, dis-and-misinformation on the subject of human sexual behavior.
HIV/AIDS is not "a gay disease", and I am not trying to say that it is/was, but there is no misinformation about the fact that most of the people who caught it back then were gay men. This was because of mass unprotected sex and things like the bath house culture.
These are facts.
Am I saying gay people were the only one who caught it or to behave responsibly? No, I'm not saying that at all. Were they the largest number of people who had HIV/AIDS back then due to their lifestyle? Yep. Their culture promoted meeting places for sex - and unprotected sex like that - and is gluttonous and irresponsible. And no, that's not an anti-gay rant. I'm very pro-gay rights, but that whole culture is just massively irresponsible.
For my latest movie reviews and news:http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/
My previous comment wasn't in direct argument to any of your points. It was offered more as an explanation as to why things (were)are the way they are.
Your correct, gay bath houses were places which promoted sex. Strip clubs, swingers clubs, and yes even some straight bath houses were too though. Our entire culture is at odds with sex. On the one hand it tends to oppress sexuality of any kind while on the other it continually celebrates and promotes it. These places and that sort of gluttonous and irresponsible behavior are the results of that and of our inalienable rights as U.S. citizens.
Back to gay bath houses in the '70's...yes, unprotected sex occurred there. However as the world learned more and more about a mysterious disease that was killing and making gay men sick, they were among the first places to promote condom usage and distribute invaluable educational information.
"Straight" culture had the first foot in the door so to speak on protected sex at the time, mostly as a way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy rather than an unwanted std.
I agree with you, HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease but the most effective mode of transmission for the disease hits the gay community harder than anyone. Absolutely protected sex could have mitigated that. If the virus had been as easily transmittable among the "straight" community, I bet you'd be overwhelmed at the statistics and death toll.
It's not clear to me what you mean by saying "that whole culture is just massively irresponsible" so I'll just add that I hope you don't mean "gay culture" because most gay men don't lead irresponsible "lifestyles".
It's not clear to me what you mean by saying "that whole culture is just massively irresponsible" so I'll just add that I hope you don't mean "gay culture" because most gay men don't lead irresponsible "lifestyles".
I more or less agree with you but as I said earlier, it's my belief that oppression and marginalization tends to lead people towards risky and irresponsible behavior. However believe it or not, not everyone that went to a bath house went there for sex. Granted more did than didn't and I agree most bath houses were set up for sex to happen if one was so inclined. But again, once the word spread that there was a "killer out there somewhere" they were quick to educate and promote safe sex.
I'd be the last to defend bathhouse sex, but you have to understand that they sprang up in the first place to fill a need. Yeah, there were gay bars, but gay sex itself was illegal in most places. And that included one's own bedroom.
Meeting someone you like is a feat in and of itself whether you're hetero or homo, but homos faced the added dilemma of finding a relatively safe place in order to be together.
No doubt, actions have consequences.
I know what you are saying and I half agree. I have no doubt homophobic views forced people into secrecy, but just going to a place to have sex - and doing it so often and unprotected - is just too much. I'm not speaking morally or anything, I just mean from a health/safety standpoint. Plus, we're all responsible for our own actions. So while I do agree the prejudice towards gays back then created the whole underground scene, we're all responsible for our actions. Plus, it really bothers me when people put others at risk for something as self-serving as their own personal pleasure.
For my latest movie reviews and news:http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/
Before AIDS become known, having unprotected sex, straight or gay, didn't have major consequences like death and was a lot more common. Aside from pregnancy, the risk was minimal. We are looking back knowing things that people didn't know back then.
"Love's turned to lust and blood's turned to dust in my heart"
Actually Having Unprotected Sex did have major consequences, you could easily die from an STD, before the discovery of Penicillin. Puning some random whore not too long ago was an extremely risky proposition.
Penicillin was discovered less then 100 years ago, and wasn't really produced until around 1950. Pretty recently when you think about it. In fact Marriage and the idea of not having Sex before marriage was significantly about protecting yourself from catching deadly STD's. Nowadays you can just Give Er, and there's really no reason to get Married.
come on-thats really idiotic. You do know that straight poeple have lots of sex too-that they have the bulk of all diseases outside of HIV, right?
share