california boy Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 So the logic is: because an actor is willing to portray one immoral act, he should be willing to portray any and all immoral acts. Is that it? The conlusion is that an actor has the right to define his or her morality as they choose. Or should we insist that every female actor, if she's willing to portray a sex scene, better be willing to strip down in front of the camera?The answer is yes. If as a Christian, you are willing to portray immorality, playing gay immorality is no difference than playing heterosexual immorality. Some actors don't want to do nude scenes. They write no nude scenes into their contract when they take a role.
california boy Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) This is a ridiculously narrow set of conclusions. Do you have any idea the number of scripts that a successful actor may turn down in his or her career? and the various reasons for doing so? Why aren't all actors taking jobs in porn films? "Either they are Not actors and should start looking for some other kind if work or hypicrital Christians." So just why do you think he bailed out on his contract? Because he can't act? Because he is such a superstar boxoffice draw that he can pick and choose the roles he wants to play? Because he is not a man of his word who is willing to break a contract if something better comes along? Because he sticks to his religious beliefs and is unwilling to play any role that portrays immorality? Or because he has a problem playing a gay character. We are running out of options here. What is clear is that this is not about refusal to portray immorality since he had a love interest in the last season that he was not married to, and is taking a role with 50 shades of gray, not exactly a movie about morals. There are some actors that may be unwilling to portray immoral scenes such as the Osmonds. So they write that into their contract. The producers then know what the actor will or will not do. There is no indication this guy did anything like that. And there is no indication that he has a problem portraying immorality. So we can cross off the "I am a Christian and I don't portray any immoral characters." LOL. I hate to tell you, but porn actors are not known for their acting ability. But to answer your question, yes, I would guess that any actor COULD do porn. The threshold is not that high. However, there is a BIG difference from acting like you are having sexual intercourse and actually being filmed having sexual intercourse. The first is acting, the second is not just portraying immorality, but is immoral. That is why those films are rated XXX. And he wasn't asked to do porn, he was asked to protray a bisexual character. Come on Senator, are you really being honest here? Do you really think this is about his acting ability? Or are you just trying to rationalize the fact that he has a problem playing a gay character. Edited July 25, 2014 by california boy
california boy Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 The government does discriminate against straight married couples that have no children. We are called DINKs Double Income No Kids and we pay way more in income taxes than a married couple with children. Choose to live on a boat? There go your interest deductions for having a home mortgage. I think the DINKs would be valid for gay couples and straight couples equally depending if they had children. We aren't really talking about the tax credit for children here. Actually you can write off the interest on the mortgage of your boat if it is your primary residence.
Bernard Gui Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Come on Senator, are you really being honest here? Do you really think this is about his acting ability? Or are you just trying to rationalize the fact that he has a problem playing a gay character. The problem is that he should be able to decide what he is and is not comfortable with. Period.
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted July 25, 2014 Author Popular Post Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) This is a ridiculously narrow set of conclusions.Do you have any idea the number of scripts that a successful actor may turn down in his or her career? and the various reasons for doing so?Why aren't all actors taking jobs in porn films? "Either they are Not actors and should start looking for some other kind if work or hypicrital Christians." It occurs to me that CB's post is a pretty good example of the "if you're not 100 percent on board with us you're the enemy" mentality that is the subject of this thread. Edited July 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 6
Senator Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 The answer is yes. If as a Christian, you are willing to portray immorality, playing gay immorality is no difference than playing heterosexual immorality. I don't subscribe to your world of all immorality being equal. 1
Senator Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Come on Senator, are you really being honest here? No. I'm lying out my teeth. How about you? You really being honest here? Do you really think this is about his acting ability? Never said it was. Or are you just trying to rationalize the fact that he has a problem playing a gay character. That's just it. There's no rationalizing need. He may have an actual problem portraying a gay character, especially if role involves actual physical intimacy with another male actor. I grant him the right to be uncomfortable with such a role. Apparently you don't. Apparently his heterosexuality cannot be tolerated. 1
USU78 Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 The problem is that he should be able to decide what he is and is not comfortable with. Period. I remember back in HS/college when I first started acting seriously. We would engage in discussions on whether on should/could do something as actor if required to do it by the script or the director's whim that was "against your religion." It was a hot topic back then (and I'm not telling you what decade), and it's a hot topic now. Of course, we mostly worried about smoking in character: we didn't even think about the implications for shedding clothes, engaging in faux sex, or miming homosexual acts. It's a difficult question with no one right answer: Kirby Heybourne did a beer commercial back when. Gordon Jump was quite vocal about what he would/wouldn't do when he landed the part of the cop on Soap. It's not particularly a noble profession, and the choices foisted on the weak by the corrupt can be soul-killing. My gag reflex wouldn't allow me to do certain things were I asked to do them for a part. I think that's a pretty good guide.
california boy Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 No. I'm lying out my teeth. How about you? You really being honest here?Never said it was.That's just it. There's no rationalizing need. He may have an actual problem portraying a gay character, especially if role involves actual physical intimacy with another male actor. I grant him the right to be uncomfortable with such a role. Apparently you don't. Apparently his heterosexuality cannot be tolerated.Actually I completely agree with you. Of course he can decide what roles he takes. And he clearly is uncomfortable playing a gay character. That was. It the point I was making. Your opening remark about this actor (you may want to reread what you posted) was NOT forced to play a gay character. He quit the showAnd second. He did not quit the show because of moral reasons since it appears he has done immoral roles in the past but just with the opposite sex. So this is NOT some Christain value stance. It is a guy that has no problem with straight immorality, just gay immorality
california boy Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 I don't subscribe to your world of all immorality being equal.Does the. Church have some kind of ranking between fornication adultery and gay sex? Could you point me to the official ranking of immorality between these three?
california boy Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 It occurs to me that CB's post is a pretty good example of the "if you're not 100 percent on board with us you're the enemy" mentality that is the subject of this thread.What are you talking about? 100% for what? Enemy of what? Sorry you lost me on this one.
california boy Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) The problem is that he should be able to decide what he is and is not comfortable with. Period.Who is saying he shouldn't be able to decide what roles he should do? I certainly have not taken thT position. The production company could have forced him to live up to his contract. They did not they let him reneged on his commitment Edited July 25, 2014 by california boy
Robert F. Smith Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) I saw this extremely politically incorrect blog post on a link from Daniel Peterson's blog. I smiled at the hyperbole. But then I reflected to myself: Is it really hyperbole? I'm afraid the trend has more than manifested itself among our own people in the movement on the part of some to call good evil and evil good .................................It isn't only hyperbole (which one expects from the extreme left and extreme right), but it is an example of anger and hate. And perhaps of mental instability. Such people do not like, and do not understand the U.S. Constitution. They have no tolerance for opposing points of view as part of the normal democratic process. They are "true believers" in the sense captured so well by Eric Hoffer in his The True Believer (1951). It doesn't really matter which ideology they identify with, because the truly important thing for them is to be part of a mass movement (any movement) toward some Shangri-La of correctness where those who oppose them will be subdued and brought to heel. They seek glory and excelsior. Any lie is justifiable in the pursuit of those objectives. Matt Walsh exhibits the same sort of intolerance one expects from the leaders of ISIS. One is reminded of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil," or of George Orwell's 1984 (1949). Let the nightmare begin, as it certainly has for those under the new Caliphate in Syria & Iraq. Edited July 25, 2014 by Robert F. Smith
Robert F. Smith Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Does the. Church have some kind of ranking between fornication adultery and gay sex? Could you point me to the official ranking of immorality between these three?I don't now about "official" stances, but it is very clear that bishops will take a far harsher view of adultery (sexual breach of marriage covenant) then they do of fornication -- an especially common problem among inexperienced youth, who have no idea where heavy petting might lead, and who find themselves dominated by hormones rather than rationality. Part of being human (or mammalian). In cases where repentance seems viable (whether gay or straight sex is involved), bishops tend to be very compassionate and understanding. There is no point to excommunicating youth who are embarrassed, ashamed, and willing to make the necessary changes in their lives. Breach of marriage (especially temple marriage) is a far different matter.
Senator Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Does the. Church have some kind of ranking between fornication adultery and gay sex? Could you point me to the official ranking of immorality between these three?What the church does is irrelevant. People can make their own rankings.
JLHPROF Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Does the. Church have some kind of ranking between fornication adultery and gay sex? Could you point me to the official ranking of immorality between these three? No idea about the Church, but God considers all 3 to be very serious sins, even punishable by death at certain points in the history of his people.Traditionally though fornication has referred to people not under convenant and adultery to people under covenant. Not sure where the idea came from, but I like categorizing things...
Recommended Posts