LGBTQ related news and issues

[lowcountrygirl]

Coming soon ... the direct quote from the GQ article, where Jake played a little sleight-of-hand with the children question...

Edited to add: turns out he did use the word "definitely"...

"Inevitably, thinking about his sister and her recent baby, I ask if Jake, too, plans to have children. 'I'm definitely thinking about that,' he says. 'Look--the most important job for a man is to find the right woman. It's the best we can do. ... I've noticed in life that the mother, first, has a primary job--and as a father, our job is to pick a caring, smart, mindful woman'"

[shelber]

Coming soon ... the direct quote from the GQ article, where Jake played sleight of hand with the children question...

ahhh babe! you are such a tasty morsel, cant wait to see it

[lowcountrygirl]

Coming soon ... the direct quote from the GQ article, where Jake played sleight of hand with the children question...

ahhh babe! you are such a tasty morsel, cant wait to see it

Thank you, babe!

[graylockV]

Wow shelber - you have really done a terrific job of waking people up - with your new thread!  Look at all the postings already.

Not too many years ago I would get all worked up when someone in the news would either come out of the closet or be outed.  Maybe it's just the passage of time - but now I really don't give a shit one way or the other.  If Jake is or isn't gay - well, I say - unless you are his family or friend - it is superfluous.  I would hate to see his career set back - but I don't think that - if were actually closeted - he would have gone near a project like Brokeback Mountain.  Heath either, for that matter.  And lets not forget that some people are very sexually intrepid and will try a lot of things - more than once - and still not consider themselves, in this instance, to be gay.  I say - what are your fantasies?  That's really how you can tell, IMO. 

But as to the basic question - no, society is not accepting or honest when it comes to gay and lesbian people.  Things have improved over the last twenty years because a lot of homosexual people just couldn't take the BS anymore.  But it's better if you have already made your millions before you come out, if you know what i mean. 

Because it is too easy to attribute negative events as being because you are openly gay it can become a crutch to explain everything, and avoid looking at your real shortcomings.  However, we know too many instances where a person comes out of the closet and they are struck off the Christmas card list, so to speak.  So sadly, it does make a difference to others in our culture at large, even if it does not to me.

Around ten years ago there was a play - I have forgotten its name - that had as its premise the idea that some form of genetic testing had become available that would be capable of determining whether a fetus would eventually develop into a homosexual person after birth.   A "liberal" family has its supposed acceptance of gay people called into question when a daughter finds herself pregnant and the "test" shows that the baby will be gay.  To abort or not to abort?  After all, everyone in the play - even other gay people - acknowledges that growing up gay or lesbian can be very difficult, so wouldn't it be better to abort the fetus and try again?

The play was a flop - but I thought the premise was really interesting.  Many people who are pro gay rights are also pro-choice.  Of course one could say that it would be better if prospective parents accepted their child's sexuality from the get-go.  And the kid would not have to endure the anxiety of coming out, since everyone would expect him/her to be gay.  Still, perhaps other justifications would be given - but if for no other reason than a fear that your child will be treated badly by a hostile culture - I suspect there would be a lot of terminated pregnancies of prospective gay children if a genetic test of some sort really did become a reality.

Just some thoughts on your provacative question, shelbar.

Thanks again.

[shelber]

Wow shelber - you have really done a terrific job of waking people up - with your new thread!  Look at all the postings already.

Not too many years ago I would get all worked up when someone in the news would either come out of the closet or be outed.  Maybe it's just the passage of time - but now I really don't give a shit one way or the other.  If Jake is or isn't gay - well, I say - unless you are his family or friend - it is superfluous.  I would hate to see his career set back - but I don't think that - if were actually closeted - he would have gone near a project like Brokeback Mountain.  Heath either, for that matter.  And lets not forget that some people are very sexually intrepid and will try a lot of things - more than once - and still not consider themselves, in this instance, to be gay.  I say - what are your fantasies?  That's really how you can tell, IMO. 

But as to the basic question - no, society is not accepting or honest when it comes to gay and lesbian people.  Things have improved over the last twenty years because a lot of homosexual people just couldn't take the BS anymore.  But it's better if you have already made your millions before you come out, if you know what i mean. 

Because it is too easy to attribute negative events as being because you are openly gay it can become a crutch to explain everything, and avoid looking at your real shortcomings.  However, we know too many instances where a person comes out of the closet and they are struck off the Christmas card list, so to speak.  So sadly, it does make a difference to others in our culture at large, even if it does not to me.

Around ten years ago there was a play - I have forgotten its name - that had as its premise the idea that some form of genetic testing had become available that would be capable of determining whether a fetus would eventually develop into a homosexual person after birth.   A "liberal" family has its supposed acceptance of gay people called into question when a daughter finds herself pregnant and the "test" shows that the baby will be gay.  To abort or not to abort?  After all, everyone in the play - even other gay people - acknowledges that growing up gay or lesbian can be very difficult, so wouldn't it be better to abort the fetus and try again?

The play was a flop - but I thought the premise was really interesting.  Many people who are pro gay rights are also pro-choice.  Of course one could say that it would be better if prospective parents accepted their child's sexuality from the get-go.  And the kid would not have to endure the anxiety of coming out, since everyone would expect him/her to be gay.  Still, perhaps other justifications would be given - but if for no other reason than a fear that your child will be treated badly by a hostile culture - I suspect there would be a lot of terminated pregnancies of prospective gay children if a genetic test of some sort really did become a reality.

Just some thoughts on your provacative question, shelbar.

Thanks again.

thank you!

and thank you for all your thoughts, i will get to bolding the ones i happen to like the most in a bit!!

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Around ten years ago there was a play - I have forgotten its name - that had as its premise the idea that some form of genetic testing had become available that would be capable of determining whether a fetus would eventually develop into a homosexual person after birth.   A "liberal" family has its supposed acceptance of gay people called into question when a daughter finds herself pregnant and the "test" shows that the baby will be gay.  To abort or not to abort?  After all, everyone in the play - even other gay people - acknowledges that growing up gay or lesbian can be very difficult, so wouldn't it be better to abort the fetus and try again?

The play was also made into a film--I believe with the same name.  It's called The Twilight of the Golds and stars, among others, Faye Dunaway, Jennifer Beals, Garry Marshall,   Brendan Fraser, John Schlesinger,   Jon Tenney, Rosie O'Donnell

[merrobot]

It was a fairly classic Jake dodge!

And he dodges a lot more than most people realise - the man is a master at it!  I read the GQ article and thought "he's 26, why is he talking about kids and finding the right mother and stuff".  And then I realised that just because you think about something doesn't mean you are actually going to do it (I think about the Minogue sisters on a regular basis but it ain't never gonna happen  ) and that just because you "find the right mother" for your child doesn't mean that you have to have sex with her or marry her.  After all, didn't Jodie Foster reportedly have her child with a man who has an IQ in the 'genius' range and Melissa Etheridge & Julie Cypher have kids with a family friend.

Our concept of what constitutes family and parenting is fundamentally changing so when Jake says he's "thinking about it" (because when you see cute new babies, that can happen) he probably is - but that doesn't mean he's off looking for some "caring, smart, mindful woman" to reproduce with. 

[merrobot]

The play was a flop - but I thought the premise was really interesting.  Many people who are pro gay rights are also pro-choice.  Of course one could say that it would be better if prospective parents accepted their child's sexuality from the get-go.  And the kid would not have to endure the anxiety of coming out, since everyone would expect him/her to be gay.  Still, perhaps other justifications would be given - but if for no other reason than a fear that your child will be treated badly by a hostile culture - I suspect there would be a lot of terminated pregnancies of prospective gay children if a genetic test of some sort really did become a reality.

I hadn't heard of that play, the premise is indeed interesting.  Although I agree that many people who are pro gay rights are probably also pro-choice I don't know that it means they would necessarily opt to terminate a pregnancy on the basis of sexual orientation.  Because that has been around in a different form, under the Nazi regime, and it was called euthanasia.  I don't know many people who are pro-gay and support eugenics, the two seem poles apart.  To say that you wouldn't want to bring a child into the world for fear of them being treated badly is a cop out.  People are treated badly for all sorts of reasons - your job as a parent is to support and prepare your child as best you can to deal with whatever life throws at them and that is all you can do.  On a similar note, the onus should be on society changing to support that child not the other way around.

I'm going to get off my soapbox now - I'm getting vertigo 

[zth]

OK…. I will try to give my answer to what I understand as the main question.

First of all, I think that society is NOT really accepting as it claims.

I have talked to people who say “Noooo, I have no problem with gays, everything is fine, they are humans just like us, they must have the same rights…”.
But of course when child adoption comes up, ooooh, that’s different! Those same people change their open-minded-version. They say “OK, we are fine with gays, but we don’t accept gays adopting a child!”

HOW CRAZY IS THAT?         

And when I ask “why”, the answer is : “Because the child will get the WRONG examples”. “The child will become gay!” !!!
As if being gay is wrong, or a disease!
As if people BECOME gay, because of what their parents show them!

As for Jake… I personally don’t like it when people see a person on TV, or on the street, and point at him and say: “He is gay”.
I never saw anybody doing this with someone straight.
”Hey! Did you see that singer on stage? He is straight!”
So for me, commenting on only a gay’s sexuality in this way, is discriminative.

People who do that in front of me, do it for some specific reason.
For example, if one has a “girly voice”, they will say he is gay.
But this is labeling, and categorizing. Not only gays have “girly voices”.
Not all gays have “girly voices”. It is not bad for a MAN (gay or straight) to have a “girly voice”.

If someone sees a man with a girly voice, and wants to comment on that, then he should say “Look, this man has a girly voice”, and NOT “Look, that man is gay”.

So calling someone gay because of his voice, his clothes, the way he moves his hands, the way he speaks, the way he laughs, the way he stands, is like saying that all gays do those same things, no straights (should)do those things, and for a man to do those things is bad, therefore we use the word “gay” as a bad word.

I hope I make any sense.   

I have no problem discussing someone’s sexuality just because of curiosity. This is fine. Exaple: “Do you know if Jake is straight or gay?”. “I think he is gay”. ”Oh no! Any chances that he might be a bi? I was planning to make a move…”   

[Lola]

Coming soon ... the direct quote from the GQ article, where Jake played a little sleight-of-hand with the children question...

Edited to add: turns out he did use the word "definitely"...


"Inevitably, thinking about his sister and her recent baby, I ask if Jake, too, plans to have children. 'I'm definitely thinking about that,' he says. 'Look--the most important job for a man is to find the right woman. It's the best we can do. ... I've noticed in life that the mother, first, has a primary job--and as a father, our job is to pick a caring, smart, mindful woman'"

Thanks for correcting yourself!!

And I was thinking last night...............Is society really as accepting as it seems?

I really do believe 100% it depends on where you live.

I have been following the Daily Sheet quite closely lately, and there have been many profiles on members who have never had a problem with being gay.  Not one, nada, zilch, nothing.

We also have many members in long term happy relationships, 20 to 30 years.  They live in harmony with their partners, and society is not bothering them in the least.

So I really do think it is depends on where you live.  I am Canadian, we are very liberal in our views, gay people get married here and adopt.   We have alot of posters from Europe, things are very different there.  It even seems to vary greatly from one American state to the next.

Oh and there are millions of gay couples where one or the other partner is divorced and has custody of their children, so I don't think gay couples with kids is anything new.   

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Today's TDS article about gay actors in Hollywood has an answer to your posed question of "Is society really as accepting as it claims":

Some gay actors say that while the American public’s comfort level has improved considerably, the entertainment industry hasn't caught up. It may be 2007, they say, but the vibe inside studio casting offices can feel surprisingly like 1957.

[Kelpersmek]

As for Jake… I personally don’t like it when people see a person on TV, or on the street, and point at him and say: “He is gay”.
I never saw anybody doing this with someone straight.
”Hey! Did you see that singer on stage? He is straight!”
So for me, commenting on only a gay’s sexuality in this way, is discriminative.

Actually, although I agree with you, I have had this happen to me.

I was dancing in a club when a couple of gay friends pointed at my frenzied graceless flapping and remarked loudly "Spot the straight guy."

Now, it was done in good humour, but it is exactly the same sentiment that is underlying.  Many gay guys have very stereotypical characteristics, just as many straight guys do, and if one sexuality is in prevelance in a given area it seems to lead to people remarking on these obvious differences.* 


*This is not to say a guy can't be gay without displaying any of the charactatristics ascribed, nor that guys with high voices and relaxed movements can't be straight (although where I live the inherent homophobia makes it uncommon for straight guys not to 'address' anything in their behaviour which could identify them as possibly homosexual, and replace it with over-the-top 'macho' compensation).

[shelber]

Coming soon ... the direct quote from the GQ article, where Jake played a little sleight-of-hand with the children question...

Edited to add: turns out he did use the word "definitely"...


"Inevitably, thinking about his sister and her recent baby, I ask if Jake, too, plans to have children. 'I'm definitely thinking about that,' he says. 'Look--the most important job for a man is to find the right woman. It's the best we can do. ... I've noticed in life that the mother, first, has a primary job--and as a father, our job is to pick a caring, smart, mindful woman'"

Thanks for correcting yourself!!

And I was thinking last night...............Is society really as accepting as it seems?

I really do believe 100% it depends on where you live.

I have been following the Daily Sheet quite closely lately, and there have been many profiles on members who have never had a problem with being gay.  Not one, nada, zilch, nothing.

We also have many members in long term happy relationships, 20 to 30 years.  They live in harmony with their partners, and society is not bothering them in the least.

So I really do think it is depends on where you live.  I am Canadian, we are very liberal in our views, gay people get married here and adopt.    We have alot of posters from Europe, things are very different there.  It even seems to vary greatly from one American state to the next.

Oh and there are millions of gay couples where one or the other partner is divorced and has custody of their children, so I don't think gay couples with kids is anything new.   

i am canadian too, lol i just unfortunately  am gay and live in alberta, conservative province with small minded people, who can not seem to live outside the box. it does have a little to do with where you live, but then again where you live also has access to where everyone else lives.

i am not sure how many folks here are familiar with scripture passages, and please lets not turn this into a argument about religion, thats not what i am trying to do, but so far, all the "accepting" folks i have met have turned out to be "wolves in sheep clothing" lol, thats all i got for now, but i did want to say thanks for getting the thread back on track everyone 

[Lola]

Well I live in Ontario.  And sometimes my husband and I will go downtown Toronto and we think we may be the ONLY straight people! lol   And even out in the burbs, we have a ton of gay friends, they live quite nicely in amongst everyone else, as they should.

Well we know religous people can be some of the biggest hypocrites around.  I read a article the other day saying Brokeback Mountain was banned from being shown in Utah and had been rated O, which apparently meant Morally Offensive.  Now aren't Mormon's religious?

So yea there is no doubt, some people still have a problem with it.  But not everyone!


I wish some of the people who have never had a bad experience, people in their 40's and 50's (from this board) would drop in, maybe they will. 

[Tia]

zth,  I agree with you on the adoption or raising kids issue. No family is perfect but what a child really needs is loving parents. Besides it's not gay people who have brought all these kids in foster care into the world.