Keith 0 #176 February 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteI don't know why you bother trying to explain anything to these chuckle-heads. They don't get it because they don't want to. It makes them feel like men to sit on their pedestals and look down on us inferior fags. Maybe it's because they know the women adore you for reasons a little more elusive than sex. rl And all this time I thought it was my big dick . . . Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #177 February 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteMaybe it's because they know the women adore you for reasons a little more elusive than sex. Hey speak for yourself.. I think Keith is HOT I guess it is my big dick after all Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #178 February 15, 2006 QuoteNarc seems bitter since many of his posts have to do with his not being able to get married to his partner. I don't see Keith in that same mindset (maybe I'm wrong tho). Saying that is in no way a personal attack, just an observation. You are wrong. I am bitter. I find it offensive that others feel the need to deprive me of simple rights that most others share. QuoteI'm not sure what question I didn't answer either Narc unless you want a list of the cities and corporation in the NW that extend certain benefits to gays that don't to hetros. That list doesn't exist. QuoteOne thing I'm curious about is what is the biggest reason gays want to be married, tax breaks? As I've said previously in this post, I'm no longer interested in attempting to have a meaningful discussion on this topic in this forum. If you're truly interested in my opinion do a simple search and you'll find many of my posts on this subject.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #179 February 15, 2006 One last 'word' on this subject - Those who are so opposed to gays and lesbians having equal rights might as well get over it. We're not going back in the closet so get used to it. We're also not Ever going to stop fighting for our rights. Just because you don't hear us shouting in the streets doesn't mean we're backing down and it certainly doesn't mean we're not fighting the good fight. As I've said Get Over It. I will have equal rights one day whether any of you like it or not.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #180 February 15, 2006 I haven't lived in Vancouver, WA for a year and a half but at that time, the city of Vancouver extended benefits to gay couples. Hewett Packard, Microsoft etc.also. That may have been changed to "significant other" since then. The Vancouver city decision caused a small shitstorm since most people there didn't like their tax dollars subsidizing a lifestyle the majority didn't approve of. Of course, the city went ahead with it anyway since the majority of the larger cities on the Left coast know whats best for the citizens, in spite of what those citizens want. I thought that maybe this is an "old school' point of view (anti gay marraige) but in talking to my kids (four of them, 15 to 27) they also don't think gay marraige is a good idea. I live in Hawaii now and I think that they first explored the idea of letting gays marry in the 90's. They still can't marry here. I have no problem with the civil union idea with all the same benefits, but apparently, that's not good enough for the gay folks anymore. I know that gays have many valid reasons (in your own opinions) about why they should be allowed to marry, but the majority of people do not agree and most likely won't agree for several more generations. But no hard feelings (no pun intended) and happy valantines day. And RL, don't forget to stick up for me when I get "personally attacked" after this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #181 February 15, 2006 QuoteAnd all this time I thought it was my big dick . . . It's not nice to tease me with what I can't have, sweetheart. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #182 February 15, 2006 Here comes the personal attack... are you ready? HERE IT COMES...! QuoteI haven't lived in Vancouver, WA for a year and a half but at that time, the city of Vancouver extended benefits to gay couples. Hewett Packard, Microsoft etc.also. That may have been changed to "significant other" since then. Do you have a reference to this or shall we take your word for both the facts and your interpretation? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #183 February 15, 2006 QuoteI haven't lived in Vancouver, WA for a year and a half but at that time, the city of Vancouver extended benefits to gay couples. Hewett Packard, Microsoft etc.also. That may have been changed to "significant other" since then. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you have a reference to this or shall we take your word for both the facts and your interpretation? -- HMMMM so where is it that gays have SPECIAL RIGHTS.. I see those companies as having benefits for couples.. PERIOD.. that is called EQUAL riights.. the same as OTHER domestic partnership benifits that other have. Smart companies give these kinds of benefits to attract and maintain EXCELLENT TALENT... something our military could learn... instead of wasting time and money to assuage a bunch of poeple who are afraid of something they do not understand.... or WANT to understand. Dont Ask Dont tell... should be ....dont care.. and they would have a few more good men. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dolph 0 #184 February 15, 2006 Hey Nighingale I feel you're misrepresenting my question to Narcimund. QuoteThe debate over gay marriage isn't about "church recognition" or "marriage in Christ's name." It's about legal recognition. Perhaps you missed some of what I typed: Quote All people, regardless of gender can have a recognized union with anyone they wish, limited only by some arbitrary age decided on a state level. These union holds the exact same legal rights as marriage currently does. It'd be fair to call this union a "secular marriage" although I'd advise against it, given the religious connotations marriage has. Just to clarify. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
britboynz 0 #185 February 15, 2006 I'll ask again, in simpler, easier to understand words for you yanks: Whats wrong with having a civil union? IE like in NZ where a Civil Union has *EXACTLY* the same legal rights as a marriage? Why must you have gay marriage, at all costs? Trying to change the law to allow gay marriage in such a backwards religious place as the US aint gonna happen russ and to Micro, as a gay guy, I can most definitely assure you we are born that way. I didn't wake up and make a decision one morning that "from now on, I'm a homo". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #186 February 15, 2006 Nothing is wrong with civil unions. Then again, according to some, I'm a bigoted, biased, bloodthirsty homophobe that can get married Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #187 February 15, 2006 QuoteWhats wrong with having a civil union? IE like in NZ where a Civil Union has *EXACTLY* the same legal rights as a marriage? The problem is that they don't HAVE the same legal rights/protections that traditionally married couples have. I don't think it's about the name, but about the rights/protections. Unfortunately, there's not been a case that has been able to be pushed to Supreme Court yet - I think that will be the crux, especially if it's framed in equal rights language.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #188 February 15, 2006 QuoteI'll ask again, in simpler, easier to understand words for you yanks: Whats wrong with having a civil union? IE like in NZ where a Civil Union has *EXACTLY* the same legal rights as a marriage? Because, as we learned when we desegregated schools, separate but equal isn't equal. Having hetero "marriage" and gay "civil union" will enable companies to extend benefits only to one and not the other. For example, a hypothetical clause in a company's benefits paperwork could read "spousal benefits are extended only to married couples." Unless there is state or federal anti-discrimination legislation, because of the different classification, there's nothing to stop companies from doing this. If all unions were civil unions and fell under the same legal umbrella, it would be more difficult for a company to do something like that, because a civil union would have the same status under the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #189 February 15, 2006 Sorry. I was trying to answer your question about whether church recognition was necessary, along with someone else's question about what benefits homosexuals are denied. I apologize for a lack of clarity...I posted it before I'd acquired sufficient caffeine levels to type coherently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites windcatcher 0 #190 February 15, 2006 Andy- sorry I didn't take the time to write out a long thoughtful post like micro's. One, I was getting ready to meet the beau for a date and didn't have the time and Two, would it really matter if I stated my position? You'd still disagree and Third, I agree with micro, he said it all so I didn't have to. Please try and not take things personally if people don't answer your post or answer them in such a way that you so desire Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #191 February 15, 2006 Neither of my marriages were solemnized by clergy. I was married the first time by the mayor and the second time by a municipal court judge. If marriage is a religious sacrament, then I wasn't married; I was a partner in a civil union. But my marriage licenses both say "Certificate of Marriage" and my divorce judgments also say I was married. And even if marriage is a religious sacrament in addition to being a union recognized by the state... ...well, someone help me out here. Aren't there other sacraments as well? Does it mean that we can no longer die or be born without an okay from the Church? I'm confused. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #192 February 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm not sure what question I didn't answer either Narc unless you want a list of the cities and corporation in the NW that extend certain benefits to gays that don't to hetros. That list doesn't exist. Poor mc208b backed himself into a corner with an off-the-cuff claim that he figured wouldn't be challenged. Unfortunately for him several people called out "bullshit". Edited to add: This is exactly what I meant in the third post in this thread by "Category 4: Confusion". First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #193 February 15, 2006 Quotewould it really matter if I stated my position? Yes. QuoteYou'd still disagree Which, of course, is beside the point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #194 February 15, 2006 QuoteI have no problem with the civil union idea with all the same benefits, but apparently, that's not good enough for the gay folks anymore. I'm pretty sure that all of the "gay folks" that I know, and those who have been responding to you in this thread, would be perfectly happy with a civil union that had all the same benefits of marriage. But at this time, no such thing exists in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #195 February 15, 2006 QuoteI also believe that homosexuality is not healthy. Most psychologists would disagree with you. QuoteIn others, especially if they have been active in homosexual activity for a very long time and there is a degree of sexual addition involved, changing the orientation may be as difficult to change as it is for a pedophile to change his "orientation" to children. And it sort of sounds like you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia here, but I'm really hoping that's not how you meant it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #196 February 15, 2006 ...Those who are so opposed to gays and lesbians having equal rights might as well get over it... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ You already have equal rights. If anything, you have more rights than I do. See previous posts for details. You have the right to get married. You do not have the right to change the definition of the word to make it mean something it never used to mean. If marriage is such a priority, then get some effective counseling, straighten yourself out, and get married. Piece of cake. Of course, I'm being flippant here to illustrate a point. I do not suggest "straightening out" would be easy, nor do I presume you'd even want to. The point is that marriage is what it is, and has been so for thousands of years. Making a loud noise, gaining the support of news editorial writers, and imposing your beliefs on the rest of us with the help of activist liberal judges will not change this reality. The extreme political agenda of the homosexual community has become a stain on the undershorts of America. Perhaps the most offensive outcome of their constant activism is that they have shoved down our throats a world in which we cannot go two or three consecutive days without the issue of homosexuality somehow, in one way or another, being constantly brought to our attention. I have some neighbors who I believe are lesbians. If they are, I don't care. The reason I don't care is because it took me six years to figure it out. Sorry, but I long ago lost my patience with continually being insulted, called a bigot, etc. Especially when I realized the only way I could "prove" my innocence would be by voting for liberal Democrats and accepting (insert "gay rights" demand du jour here.) I do not hate homosexuals, and I'm tired of being told that I do. Cheers, Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #197 February 15, 2006 QuoteIf marriage is such a priority, then get some effective counseling, straighten yourself out, and get married. Piece of cake. Unfortunately this wonderful editorial starts out talking about Brokeback Mountain but eventually get to this subject. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the punchline: QuoteAnd if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/opinion/10savage.html February 10, 2006 Op-Ed Contributor Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys By DAN SAVAGE Seattle FIRST, a little of that full disclosure stuff: I have not actually seen "Brokeback Mountain" or "End of the Spear," both of which I'm going to discuss here. But since when did not seeing a film prevent anyone from sharing his or her strong opinions about it? Before the posters for "Brokeback Mountain" were even printed, everyone from the blogger Mickey Kaus to the Concerned Women for America to gay men all over the country had already said a lot about the film. (Their opinions were, respectively, con, con and pro.) So, let's get to it: Remember when straight actors who played gay were the ones taking a professional risk? Those days are over. Shortly after Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, both straight, received Oscar nominations for playing gay cowboys in "Brokeback Mountain," conservative Christians were upset when they learned that a gay actor, Chad Allen, was playing a straight missionary in "End of the Spear." "End of the Spear" tells what happened after five American missionaries were murdered in 1956 by a tribe in Ecuador. Instead of seeking retribution, the missionaries' families reached out to the tribe, forgave the killers and eventually converted them to Christianity. An evangelical film company, Every Tribe Entertainment, brought the story to the screen. In a glowing review, Marcus Yoars, a film critic for Focus on the Family, noted that the "martyrdom" of the slain missionaries has "inspired thousands if not millions of Christians." But after conservatives took a closer look at the cast list, the protests began. Many felt Chad Allen's presence in the film negated any positive message. The pastors claim they're worried about what will happen when their children rush home from the movies, Google Chad Allen's name, and discover that he's a "gay activist." ("Gay activist" is a term evangelicals apply to any homosexual who isn't a gay doormat.) They needn't be too concerned. Straight boys who have unsupervised access to the Internet aren't Googling the names of middle-aged male actors gay or straight — not when Paris Hilton's sex tapes are still out there. Frankly, I can't help but be perplexed by the criticisms of Mr. Allen from the Christian right. After all, isn't playing straight what evangelicals have been urging gay men to do? That's precisely what Jack and Ennis attempt to do in "Brokeback Mountain" — at least, according to people I know who have actually seen the film. These gay cowboys try, as best they can, to quit one another. They marry women, start families. But their wives are crushed when they realize their husbands don't, and can't, ever really love them. "Brokeback Mountain" makes clear that it would have been better for all concerned if Jack and Ennis had lived in a world where they could simply be together. That world didn't exist when Jack and Ennis were pitching tents together, but it does now — even in the American West. Today, the tiny and stable percentage of men who are gay are free to live openly, and those who want to settle down and start families can do so without having to deceive some poor, unsuspecting woman. Straight audiences are watching and loving "Brokeback Mountain" — that's troubling to evangelical Christians who have invested a decade and millions of dollars promoting the notion that gay men can be converted to heterosexuality, or become "ex-gay." It is, they insist, an ex-gay movement, although I've never met a gay man who was moved to join it. This "movement" demands more from gay men than simply playing straight. Once a man can really pass as ex-gay — once he's got some Dockers, an expired gym membership and a bad haircut — he's supposed to become, in effect, an ex-gay missionary, reaching out to the hostile gay tribes in such inhospitable places as Chelsea and West Hollywood. What should really trouble evangelicals, however, is this: even if every gay man became ex-gay tomorrow, there still wouldn't be an ex-lesbian tomboy out there for every ex-gay cowboy. Instead, millions of straight women would wake up one morning to discover that they had married a Jack or an Ennis. Restaurant hostesses and receptionists at hair salons would be especially vulnerable. Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one? Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that's their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce. If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we're safely married off — to each other, not to your daughters. Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies. Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Steel 0 #198 February 15, 2006 Perhaps the most offensive outcome of their constant activism is that they have shoved down our throats a world in which we cannot go two or three consecutive days without the issue of homosexuality somehow, in one way or another, being constantly brought to our attention. ---------------------------------------------------------. They're on TV every day whining, "We want our rights, we want our rights". They want rights well I'll give them rights, 10% off on vaseline, now get back in the closet. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #199 February 15, 2006 QuoteThey're on TV every day whining, "We want our rights, we want our rights". They want rights well I'll give them rights, 10% off on vaseline, now get back in the closet. I rest my case. And you know, even if I were anti-gay-rights, I'd be embarrassed to have this guy on my side. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites micro 0 #200 February 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteI also believe that homosexuality is not healthy. Most psychologists would disagree with you. Don't be too sure of yourself there. There is some very interesting research on this that I have posted about before. I was once a therapist and I knew MANY who in public "professed" the party line of their professional organizations that "homosexuality is NOT a disorder but in the muffled tones of break rooms and behind closed doors, they often voiced that they did still believe that, in fact, homosexuality simply wasn't right. This, I believe, has it's roots way back in the '70's w/ the homosexual jihad of the American Psychiatric Association where, through stormtrooper tactics, the diagnosis of "homosexuality" as a mental condition was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It was strong-arm political maneuvering that got it removed, not empirical research on homosexuality. QuoteQuoteIn others, especially if they have been active in homosexual activity for a very long time and there is a degree of sexual addition involved, changing the orientation may be as difficult to change as it is for a pedophile to change his "orientation" to children. And it sort of sounds like you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia here, but I'm really hoping that's not how you meant it... In some sense I am comparing to two, but probably not as you took it. The basis for my comparison is that in both cases object of sexual attraction is on something other than the adult member of the opposite sex and this attraction begins early on in sexual development, appears to be very hard to overcome (is very resistant to treatment, is intractable, whatever), and is felt to the individual usually as ego-syntonic or "not wrong" or as not something alien to themselves. remember that i am coming at this w/ the world view that adult heterosexual, consentual, monogamous sex is the norm. in that light, the arousal by an adult to anything else other than that would be seen as disordered. edit to add... we could just as easily substitute any other paraphilia instead of pedophile if it makes anyone feel better. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 8 of 19 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
windcatcher 0 #190 February 15, 2006 Andy- sorry I didn't take the time to write out a long thoughtful post like micro's. One, I was getting ready to meet the beau for a date and didn't have the time and Two, would it really matter if I stated my position? You'd still disagree and Third, I agree with micro, he said it all so I didn't have to. Please try and not take things personally if people don't answer your post or answer them in such a way that you so desire Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #191 February 15, 2006 Neither of my marriages were solemnized by clergy. I was married the first time by the mayor and the second time by a municipal court judge. If marriage is a religious sacrament, then I wasn't married; I was a partner in a civil union. But my marriage licenses both say "Certificate of Marriage" and my divorce judgments also say I was married. And even if marriage is a religious sacrament in addition to being a union recognized by the state... ...well, someone help me out here. Aren't there other sacraments as well? Does it mean that we can no longer die or be born without an okay from the Church? I'm confused. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #192 February 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm not sure what question I didn't answer either Narc unless you want a list of the cities and corporation in the NW that extend certain benefits to gays that don't to hetros. That list doesn't exist. Poor mc208b backed himself into a corner with an off-the-cuff claim that he figured wouldn't be challenged. Unfortunately for him several people called out "bullshit". Edited to add: This is exactly what I meant in the third post in this thread by "Category 4: Confusion". First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #193 February 15, 2006 Quotewould it really matter if I stated my position? Yes. QuoteYou'd still disagree Which, of course, is beside the point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #194 February 15, 2006 QuoteI have no problem with the civil union idea with all the same benefits, but apparently, that's not good enough for the gay folks anymore. I'm pretty sure that all of the "gay folks" that I know, and those who have been responding to you in this thread, would be perfectly happy with a civil union that had all the same benefits of marriage. But at this time, no such thing exists in the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #195 February 15, 2006 QuoteI also believe that homosexuality is not healthy. Most psychologists would disagree with you. QuoteIn others, especially if they have been active in homosexual activity for a very long time and there is a degree of sexual addition involved, changing the orientation may be as difficult to change as it is for a pedophile to change his "orientation" to children. And it sort of sounds like you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia here, but I'm really hoping that's not how you meant it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #196 February 15, 2006 ...Those who are so opposed to gays and lesbians having equal rights might as well get over it... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ You already have equal rights. If anything, you have more rights than I do. See previous posts for details. You have the right to get married. You do not have the right to change the definition of the word to make it mean something it never used to mean. If marriage is such a priority, then get some effective counseling, straighten yourself out, and get married. Piece of cake. Of course, I'm being flippant here to illustrate a point. I do not suggest "straightening out" would be easy, nor do I presume you'd even want to. The point is that marriage is what it is, and has been so for thousands of years. Making a loud noise, gaining the support of news editorial writers, and imposing your beliefs on the rest of us with the help of activist liberal judges will not change this reality. The extreme political agenda of the homosexual community has become a stain on the undershorts of America. Perhaps the most offensive outcome of their constant activism is that they have shoved down our throats a world in which we cannot go two or three consecutive days without the issue of homosexuality somehow, in one way or another, being constantly brought to our attention. I have some neighbors who I believe are lesbians. If they are, I don't care. The reason I don't care is because it took me six years to figure it out. Sorry, but I long ago lost my patience with continually being insulted, called a bigot, etc. Especially when I realized the only way I could "prove" my innocence would be by voting for liberal Democrats and accepting (insert "gay rights" demand du jour here.) I do not hate homosexuals, and I'm tired of being told that I do. Cheers, Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #197 February 15, 2006 QuoteIf marriage is such a priority, then get some effective counseling, straighten yourself out, and get married. Piece of cake. Unfortunately this wonderful editorial starts out talking about Brokeback Mountain but eventually get to this subject. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the punchline: QuoteAnd if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/opinion/10savage.html February 10, 2006 Op-Ed Contributor Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Ex-Gay Cowboys By DAN SAVAGE Seattle FIRST, a little of that full disclosure stuff: I have not actually seen "Brokeback Mountain" or "End of the Spear," both of which I'm going to discuss here. But since when did not seeing a film prevent anyone from sharing his or her strong opinions about it? Before the posters for "Brokeback Mountain" were even printed, everyone from the blogger Mickey Kaus to the Concerned Women for America to gay men all over the country had already said a lot about the film. (Their opinions were, respectively, con, con and pro.) So, let's get to it: Remember when straight actors who played gay were the ones taking a professional risk? Those days are over. Shortly after Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, both straight, received Oscar nominations for playing gay cowboys in "Brokeback Mountain," conservative Christians were upset when they learned that a gay actor, Chad Allen, was playing a straight missionary in "End of the Spear." "End of the Spear" tells what happened after five American missionaries were murdered in 1956 by a tribe in Ecuador. Instead of seeking retribution, the missionaries' families reached out to the tribe, forgave the killers and eventually converted them to Christianity. An evangelical film company, Every Tribe Entertainment, brought the story to the screen. In a glowing review, Marcus Yoars, a film critic for Focus on the Family, noted that the "martyrdom" of the slain missionaries has "inspired thousands if not millions of Christians." But after conservatives took a closer look at the cast list, the protests began. Many felt Chad Allen's presence in the film negated any positive message. The pastors claim they're worried about what will happen when their children rush home from the movies, Google Chad Allen's name, and discover that he's a "gay activist." ("Gay activist" is a term evangelicals apply to any homosexual who isn't a gay doormat.) They needn't be too concerned. Straight boys who have unsupervised access to the Internet aren't Googling the names of middle-aged male actors gay or straight — not when Paris Hilton's sex tapes are still out there. Frankly, I can't help but be perplexed by the criticisms of Mr. Allen from the Christian right. After all, isn't playing straight what evangelicals have been urging gay men to do? That's precisely what Jack and Ennis attempt to do in "Brokeback Mountain" — at least, according to people I know who have actually seen the film. These gay cowboys try, as best they can, to quit one another. They marry women, start families. But their wives are crushed when they realize their husbands don't, and can't, ever really love them. "Brokeback Mountain" makes clear that it would have been better for all concerned if Jack and Ennis had lived in a world where they could simply be together. That world didn't exist when Jack and Ennis were pitching tents together, but it does now — even in the American West. Today, the tiny and stable percentage of men who are gay are free to live openly, and those who want to settle down and start families can do so without having to deceive some poor, unsuspecting woman. Straight audiences are watching and loving "Brokeback Mountain" — that's troubling to evangelical Christians who have invested a decade and millions of dollars promoting the notion that gay men can be converted to heterosexuality, or become "ex-gay." It is, they insist, an ex-gay movement, although I've never met a gay man who was moved to join it. This "movement" demands more from gay men than simply playing straight. Once a man can really pass as ex-gay — once he's got some Dockers, an expired gym membership and a bad haircut — he's supposed to become, in effect, an ex-gay missionary, reaching out to the hostile gay tribes in such inhospitable places as Chelsea and West Hollywood. What should really trouble evangelicals, however, is this: even if every gay man became ex-gay tomorrow, there still wouldn't be an ex-lesbian tomboy out there for every ex-gay cowboy. Instead, millions of straight women would wake up one morning to discover that they had married a Jack or an Ennis. Restaurant hostesses and receptionists at hair salons would be especially vulnerable. Sometimes I wonder if evangelicals really believe that gay men can go straight. If they don't think Chad Allen can play straight convincingly for 108 minutes, do they honestly imagine that gay men who aren't actors can play straight for a lifetime? And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one? Evangelical Christians seem sincere in their desire to help build healthy, lasting marriages. Well, if that's their goal, encouraging gay men to enter into straight marriages is a peculiar strategy. Every straight marriage that includes a gay husband is one Web-browser-history check away from an ugly divorce. If anything, supporters of traditional marriage should want gay men out of the heterosexual marriage market entirely. And the best way to do that is to see that we're safely married off — to each other, not to your daughters. Let gay actors like Chad Allen only play it straight in the movies. Dan Savage is the editor of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #198 February 15, 2006 Perhaps the most offensive outcome of their constant activism is that they have shoved down our throats a world in which we cannot go two or three consecutive days without the issue of homosexuality somehow, in one way or another, being constantly brought to our attention. ---------------------------------------------------------. They're on TV every day whining, "We want our rights, we want our rights". They want rights well I'll give them rights, 10% off on vaseline, now get back in the closet. If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #199 February 15, 2006 QuoteThey're on TV every day whining, "We want our rights, we want our rights". They want rights well I'll give them rights, 10% off on vaseline, now get back in the closet. I rest my case. And you know, even if I were anti-gay-rights, I'd be embarrassed to have this guy on my side. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #200 February 15, 2006 QuoteQuoteI also believe that homosexuality is not healthy. Most psychologists would disagree with you. Don't be too sure of yourself there. There is some very interesting research on this that I have posted about before. I was once a therapist and I knew MANY who in public "professed" the party line of their professional organizations that "homosexuality is NOT a disorder but in the muffled tones of break rooms and behind closed doors, they often voiced that they did still believe that, in fact, homosexuality simply wasn't right. This, I believe, has it's roots way back in the '70's w/ the homosexual jihad of the American Psychiatric Association where, through stormtrooper tactics, the diagnosis of "homosexuality" as a mental condition was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It was strong-arm political maneuvering that got it removed, not empirical research on homosexuality. QuoteQuoteIn others, especially if they have been active in homosexual activity for a very long time and there is a degree of sexual addition involved, changing the orientation may be as difficult to change as it is for a pedophile to change his "orientation" to children. And it sort of sounds like you are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia here, but I'm really hoping that's not how you meant it... In some sense I am comparing to two, but probably not as you took it. The basis for my comparison is that in both cases object of sexual attraction is on something other than the adult member of the opposite sex and this attraction begins early on in sexual development, appears to be very hard to overcome (is very resistant to treatment, is intractable, whatever), and is felt to the individual usually as ego-syntonic or "not wrong" or as not something alien to themselves. remember that i am coming at this w/ the world view that adult heterosexual, consentual, monogamous sex is the norm. in that light, the arousal by an adult to anything else other than that would be seen as disordered. edit to add... we could just as easily substitute any other paraphilia instead of pedophile if it makes anyone feel better. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
