Big Hollywood A Blog Archive A Boo-Hoo: Gaysa Lachrymose Last Resort in the War Against Mormons

ThereA are moreA histrionicsA on display in the two-minute trailer for the pro-gay-marriageA "documentary," 8: The Mormon Proposition , than in all the episodes of Oprah I can remember seeing.

[Dave Nelson]

How refreshing to see some rational discourse on the subject.

[nina]

He seemed like an apologist self loathing gay guy to me.

or did you mean in some of the comments after the article?

[Rational]

to bigots and nutcases who have only one reason. They hate Gays and Lesbians.

The main point in this article is reproducing. Well, many, if not most, heteros are unable to reproduce. I say "most" because most heteros are marrying at an older age and most 30+ cannot reproduce on their own, thus the fertility doctors.

Should we also deny those heteros over 40 from marriage? Afterall, they can't reproduce either.

[Dave Nelson]

nina wrote:

He seemed like an apologist self loathing gay guy to me.
or did you mean in some of the comments after the article?

Both.

I don't see any self loathing, just a different and independent perspective.

[nina]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Both.
I don't see any self loathing, just a different and independent perspective.

I think his claim that there's gays who beleive that kids are best raised in opposite gender parent families is a baseless and self loathing claim

Sure there's plenty of gays/lesbians and straights who choose not to parent and are happier for other people to raise them

it's pretty much only a self loathing gay that's going to think straights are better at child raising by dubious virtue of being straight

after all, it's straight people who have the high divorce rate, abuse children, incest, spousal battery, rape and even murder.

[Dave Nelson]

I take it some of you don't agree with his perspective.

Does that mean gay people can't be free thinkers? Is he missing a key gay gene to go against the herd?

So all gays think alike, or they are obliged to? Like the activists think, I mean.

[Breitbart]

Dave Nelson wrote:

How refreshing to see some rational discourse on the subject.

is never a rational source.

[Dave Nelson]

Breitbart wrote:

<quoted text>
is never a rational source.

And your qualifications to make that determination?

[Pagan and Proud]

Asinine drivel unworthy of serious consideration.

[Dave Nelson]

Pagan and Proud wrote:

Asinine drivel unworthy of serious consideration.

No room for dissent within your ranks?

How about this guy?

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cwinecoff/2...

[Pagan and Proud]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
No room for dissent within your ranks?
How about this guy?

Save your drivel for the tabloids.

[Dave Nelson]

Pagan and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>Save your drivel for the tabloids.

Drivel is a relative thing.

The reactions to that article brings up some questions. I get the impression these aren't real gays? Or they are, but hate themselves for it? Yet they don't seem to be ashamed of it. They both seem comfortable with themselves.

They just have different opinions than those who have been pushing the political agenda of gay marriage.

Is there an official gay political party? Are they all supposed to speak with one voice?

Is there an official gay religion? Excommunication for the heretics?

Where is the rationality and reason? Why is there just a lot of emotion and screaming?

[Biggest]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>

troll is now the editor and posting incendiary BS from Breitbart.

[Pagan and Proud]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
Drivel is a relative thing.

Drivel is the inflammatory rhetoric you choose to post. Fortunately there is a recourse to deal with such as provided by TOPIX TOS.

[Dave Nelson]

Pagan and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>Drivel is the inflammatory rhetoric you choose to post. Fortunately there is a recourse to deal with such as provided by TOPIX TOS.

Inflammatory? Opinions that differ from you are inflammatory?

An earlier poster called that author a self loathing gay. Didn't see much in the way of emotionalism in that article. A slight tinge of derision, but absolutely nothing like the emotionalism displayed by you and those of a like mind. To react emotionally in a kneejerk fashion like that would seem to indicate a much deeper self loathing than that author has displayed.

Peculiar that this activism may be caused by a deep seated hate of what one is, turned into a cause. A cry for acceptance. The acceptance is there on an individual level, but the militancy and demands create a militancy on the other side. Closed minds, closed fists.

[Rick in Kansas]

Dave Nelson wrote:

How refreshing to see some rational discourse on the subject.

I'm not sure how you managed to confuse Mr Winecoff's piece with rational discourse, but that's a problem to work out for yourself.

He complains about the histrionics he saw in a two minute trailer for a movie he hasn't seen and then tries to rebut it by engaging in some pretty hyperbolic histrionics of his own. After watching the trailer myself, it's clear that he saw only what he wanted to see in it and missed the point of both the movie and our movement. We really don't give a flying f*ck about the traditional meaning of the word marriage, that's not the state's business and has nothing to do with the civil right that is being denied to us. What happened in California was that the Mormon Church in particular financed their theocratic interpretation of a word into a presumably secular document, the state Constitution and in turn subjected the Lesbians and Gays to an imposed second class citizenship.

I see myself as an independent minded Gay man, my life isn't wrapped up in Fire Island, Atlantis Cruises, zero percent body fat or mass approval, but unlike Mr Winecoff, I can see when my civil rights are being denied to me. I have no issue with the so-called "nuclear family", mom, dad and the kids and the whole "Leave it to Beaver" life, I came from one of those myself, but there is more than one kind of family out there and OUR families are screwed over by the denial of marriage recognition from the state. We don't give a damn what this church, that church or even the freaking Mormon church sees as marriage, they shouldn't have a say on the matter outside their church doors, because we don't have and don't want a say as to what goes on the inside.

If Mr Winecoff wants to kowtow to the supposedly sacrosanct at the expense of the families he claims to admire, that's his right, but when the only great adversity he could name that they faced was AIDS when there was a great big one staring him right in the face, he lost all respect I could have had for his badly informed opinion. He has a right to it, but why would he want to exercise it in that way is beyond me.

My suggestion is that Mr Winecoff pick up a copy of the classic "Uncle Tom's Cabin", he probably won't realize it, but he does bear a great similarity to the title character. As for the rest of his histrionic blitherings, just to let him know, we don't like Islamo-fascists any more than we do Christo-fascists, they're just not here trying to deny us our rights as Americans like our fellow countrymen...

[Dave Nelson]

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>I'm not sure how you managed to confuse Mr Winecoff's piece with rational discourse, but that's a problem to work out for yourself.
He complains about the histrionics he saw in a two minute trailer for a movie he hasn't seen and then tries to rebut it by engaging in some pretty hyperbolic histrionics of his own. After watching the trailer myself, it's clear that he saw only what he wanted to see in it and missed the point of both the movie and our movement. We really don't give a flying f*ck about the traditional meaning of the word marriage, that's not the state's business and has nothing to do with the civil right that is being denied to us. What happened in California was that the Mormon Church in particular financed their theocratic interpretation of a word into a presumably secular document, the state Constitution and in turn subjected the Lesbians and Gays to an imposed second class citizenship.
I see myself as an independent minded Gay man, my life isn't wrapped up in Fire Island, Atlantis Cruises, zero percent body fat or mass approval, but unlike Mr Winecoff, I can see when my civil rights are being denied to me. I have no issue with the so-called "nuclear family", mom, dad and the kids and the whole "Leave it to Beaver" life, I came from one of those myself, but there is more than one kind of family out there and OUR families are screwed over by the denial of marriage recognition from the state. We don't give a damn what this church, that church or even the freaking Mormon church sees as marriage, they shouldn't have a say on the matter outside their church doors, because we don't have and don't want a say as to what goes on the inside.
If Mr Winecoff wants to kowtow to the supposedly sacrosanct at the expense of the families he claims to admire, that's his right, but when the only great adversity he could name that they faced was AIDS when there was a great big one staring him right in the face, he lost all respect I could have had for his badly informed opinion. He has a right to it, but why would he want to exercise it in that way is beyond me.
My suggestion is that Mr Winecoff pick up a copy of the classic "Uncle Tom's Cabin", he probably won't realize it, but he does bear a great similarity to the title character. As for the rest of his histrionic blitherings, just to let him know, we don't like Islamo-fascists any more than we do Christo-fascists, they're just not here trying to deny us our rights as Americans like our fellow countrymen...

You use the word "imposing".
Impose
"transitive verb 1 a : to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax> <impose new restrictions> <impose penalties> b : to establish or bring about as if by force <those limits imposed by our own inadequacies — C. H. Plimpton>
2 a : place, set b : to arrange (as pages) in the proper order for printing
3 : pass off <impose fake antiques on the public>
4 : to force into the company or on the attention of another <impose oneself on others>intransitive verb : to take unwarranted advantage of something <imposed on his good nature>"

You have never had the "right" to marry each other throughout history, religion or no religion. This push for it seems like an imposition on society.

[Pagan and Proud]

Dave Nelson wrote:

<quoted text>
You have never had the "right" to marry each other throughout history, religion or no religion. This push for it seems like an imposition on society.

Lie.

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[34] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[35]

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[36] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriag...

[Dave Nelson]

Pagan and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>Lie.
Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[34] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[35]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[36] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[37]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriag...

Were they codified by law or just customs? The Ming Dynasty was some time ago. Due they still practice that? If not, why?

You just can't get around the fact that marriage has always been considered a union to produce children, not just a binding of individuals because they love each other. There is acceptance of civil unions, but the "marriage" rubs most people the wrong way.

The vast majority of those heterosexuals who are claimed to support gay marriage do so out of sympathy. They feel pity for gays, not necessarily agree with their philosophies. That can change very quickly. They have sympathetic hearts by nature, but when they observe certain behavior they can be very hostile.

That article displayed a disgust with the militancy and rhetoric of the gay movement by a gay. The more of it there is the more it comes off as a power grab by ambitious individuals. The American people have become quite experienced and cognizant and wary of these "causes" of the last few decades.

What is your reaction to a bratty demanding bawling child out in public, disturbing your peace? That child's feelings may be important to it, but its behavior kind of upsets others. Your feelings on this subject are also important to you, but there is a way to get what you want that alienates people less than what is being currently done. As I posted before, militancy breeds militancy, and minds and hearts become closed. You just don't have the numbers to go to war with society.

[Please]

just admit it is pure bigotry. Don't lie.