MEL GIBSON'S ANTI-GAY HISTORY
Rex Wockner
Copyright (c) 1992 Rex Wockner and affiliated publications.
===========================================================
MEL GIBSON DENOUNCES GAYS IN SPANISH INTERVIEW
by Rex Wockner
Outlines News Service
(Article filed January 1992)
Heartthrob actor Mel Gibson, asked by one of Spain's leading
magazines what he thinks of homosexuals, launched into a tirade
against gay men.
"They take it up the ass," Gibson told El Pais as he got out
of his chair, bent over and pointed to his butt. "This is only
for taking a shit," he said.
Reminded by the interviewer, Koro Castellano, that he worked
with gays while studying at the School of Dramatic Arts, Gibson
added: "They were good people, kind, I like them. But their thing
is not my thing."
Castellano said, "But you were obsessed with the thought
that if you were an actor, people would confuse you with one of
them."
"Yes," Gibson admitted, "but I did it. I became an actor
despite that. But with this look, who's going to think I'm gay?
It would be hard to take me for someone like that.
"Do I sound like a homosexual?" he asked. "Do I talk like
them? Do I move like them?
"What happens is when you're an actor, they stick that label
on you," Gibson said. "I go from playing rugby one week to taking
dance classes in black leotards the next. Many of the girls that
I met in school took it for granted that I was gay."
Gibson's holds extreme conservative views on other issues.
He has quit the Catholic Church because he believes the
reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s went too far.
"For 1,950 years [the church] does one thing and then in the
60s, all of a sudden they turn everything inside out and begin to
do strange things that go against the rules," he explained to El
Pais.
"Everything that had been heresy is no longer heresy,
according to the [new] rules. We [Catholics] are being cheated.
... The church has stopped being critical. It has relaxed. I
don't believe them, and I have no intention of following their
trends.
"It's the church that has abandoned me, not me who has
abandoned it," he said.
Like the Catholic Church, Gibson opposes birth control,
saying, "God is the only one who knows how many children we
should have, and we should be ready to accept them."
The interview appeared in the magazine's Dec. 1 issue.
-- END --
===========================================================
Copyright (c) 1992 Rex Wockner and affiliated publications.
===========================================================
MEL GIBSON REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE TO GAYS
by Rex Wockner
Outlines News Service
(Article filed February 1992)
Actor Mel Gibson, speaking Jan. 21 on ABC-TV's "Good Morning
America," refused to apologize to gay men, who he ridiculed late
last year in an interview with the Sunday magazine of Spain's
largest newspaper, El Pais.
"I don't think there's an apology necessary, and I'm
certainly not giving one," Gibson said. "[Those remarks were a
response] to a direct question. If someone wants my opinion, I'll
give it. What, am I supposed to lie to them?
"The other thing is, it was translated from English to
Spanish, back from Spanish to English, then used by [columnist]
Liz Smith [who received the story from this reporter] out of
context in her article," Gibson said. "It's old news, really old
news."
The Spanish-to-English translation was done by this
reporter, who speaks Spanish, and by a professional translator
who emigrated from Cuba.
The "Good Morning America" interviewer pressed Gibson, "Are
you saying to me that you did not make any anti-gay statements at
all?"
Gibson responded: "I didn't lie. Put it that way.... Liz
Smith seems to be violating my right to have an opinion. I have a
right to an opinion."
Robert Bray, spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force, was livid at Gibson's new statements.
"And I have a right to respond to Mel Gibson's anti-gay
defamation," Bray said. "He can kiss my queer ass. He can't
defame gays and then try to wiggle out of it by blaming the
translation. And he's not even denying he made the statements.
He's saying he has a right to his opinion.
"Gay fans of Mel Gibson need to throw away their 'Mad Max'
tapes and stop going to his movies until he stops defaming gay
people," Bray said.
In the original interview, in the Dec. 1 issue of the El
Pais Sunday magazine, Gibson was directly asked his opinion of
homosexuals. He responded, "They take it up the ass."
According to El Pais, he laughed, got up, bent over, pointed
to his butt, and continued, "This is only for taking a shit."
("Que les den por el culo." Gibson se rie, se levanta, pone
el trasero en pompa y se lo senala. "Esto es solo para hacer
caca.")
The interviewer recalled that Gibson previously had
expressed fear people would think he is gay because he's an
actor. He responded: "With this look, who's going to think I'm
gay.
"I don't lend myself to that type of confusion. Do I sound
like a homosexual? Do I talk like them? Do I move like them?"
("?Quien va a pensar que con esta pinta soy gay? Yo no me
presto a ese tipo de confusiones. ?Sueno como un homosexual?
?Hablo como ellos? ?Me muevo como ellos?")
Gibson also told El Pais that he quit the Catholic Church
because it has become too liberal and that, "God is the only one
who knows how many children we should have, and we should be
ready to accept that."
("Dios es el unico que sabe cuantos hijos debemos tener y
debemos estar dispuestos a que vengan.")
--END--
Translation assistance: Eduardo Aparicio.
(THE UPSIDE-DOWN QUESTIONS MARKS APPEAR IN SPANISH AT THE BEGINNING
OF A QUESTION. IN THIS COMPUTERIZED FILE, THEY APPEAR AS ORDINARY
QUESTIONS MARKS. CHANGE THEM.)
*****************************************************************
Accent marks: i in Pais, i in rie, o in solo, ~ over n in senala,
e in quien, u in unicos, a in cuantos.
*****************************************************************
I CHANGED ONE SENTENCE SINCE THE FIRST ARTICLE. THE EARLIER
TRANSLATION OF THE SENTENCE WAS A PROFESSIONAL TRANSLATOR'S RENDERING
WHEREAS THIS TIME I OPTED TO GO WITH A LITERAL TRANSLATION OF THE SPANISH:
"I DON'T LEND MYSELF TO THAT TYPE OF CONFUSION" INSTEAD OF "IT WOULD BE
HARD TO TAKE ME FOR SOMEONE LIKE THAT."
-end-
--
\/\/\/\/\/\
Rex Wockner
/\/\/\/\/\/
BMirk
homophobia or the homophobia in "Braveheart" in this year in which
Hollywood is discovering gay-themed pictures (at least ones filled with
cheerful drag queens) can make money?
BM...@aol.com
Tom Hall
I'm glad that Rex Wockner has posted some information in response to my initial query
regarding what I vaguely recalled of this from the past. It only confirms for me the
fact that I will *NEVER AGAIN* support Mel Gibson by going to any of his movies, or
by watching them on television.
Fortunately, this won't be a tremendous sacrifice for me, since I've never been that
impressed by his acting to begin with.... :)
Tom
KEVXU
>Has any mainstream press coverage addressed either Gibson's past
>homophobia or the homophobia in "Braveheart" in this year in which
>Hollywood is discovering gay-themed pictures (at least ones filled with
>cheerful drag queens) can make money?
Is there any reason to believe that the people who are laughing *at* the
homos in "Braveheart" aren't doing exactly the same thing to
the gay characters aka homos in "Birdcage?" Gay people may see humor in
"Birdcage" but plenty of straight people probably see the characters as
objects of ridicule. We see "cheerful drag queens", plenty of other
people may see silly queers. Some of the most loathesome films make big
bucks because people enjoy loathesome things.
Jack Carroll
TriConsult
>homos in "Braveheart" aren't doing exactly the same thing to
>the gay characters aka homos in "Birdcage?"
Psst! "The Birdcage" is a mainsteam comedy, a broad farce in the French
tradition. It is no more a documentary on gay life than the Beverly
Hillbillies is a travelogue.
"Braveheart" also is a comedy, although that was not the intention. But
how else can you describe such a pretentious misrepresentation of history
when the film purports to portray an historical figure. This guy does no
more than clench his teeth while being castrated and disemboweled, save to
utter one word, "Freedom". It would have made a good Monty Python sketch.
Lor
Bob Russell
>
> I'm glad that Rex Wockner has posted some information in response to my initial query
> regarding what I vaguely recalled of this from the past. It only confirms for me the
> fact that I will *NEVER AGAIN* support Mel Gibson by going to any of his movies, or
> by watching them on television.
Actually, he would get no support from your watching him on TV, unless
you live in an AC Nielsen ratings household (or some other TV ratings
service).
Bob Russell rs...@pge.com
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
San Francisco, California
I speak not for PG&E, PG&E speaketh not for me.
KEVXU
>>Is there any reason to believe that the people who are laughing *at* the
>>homos in "Braveheart" aren't doing exactly the same thing to
>>the gay characters aka homos in "Birdcage?"
>
>Psst! "The Birdcage" is a mainsteam comedy, a broad farce in the French
>tradition. It is no more a documentary on gay life than the Beverly
>Hillbillies is a travelogue.
I don't know that anyone assumed it was "a documentary on gay life." I
certainly didn't. However, if you think the mainstream American
movie-going public is appreciating this flick as "a broad farce in the
French tradition" then I think you're nuts, or you live in a very
sophisticated enclave.
No, Beverly Hillbillies wasn't a travelogue. It was a real all-American
thigh-slapper whose hillbilly, white trash antics were funny in large
measure because they were identifiable as hillbilly, white trash antics.
How about Amos 'n Andy? Funny as all hell -- but especially so since
everyone knew *they* really were like that. The mainstream of America
comes out of an asshole.
>
>"Braveheart" also is a comedy, although that was not the intention. But
>how else can you describe such a pretentious misrepresentation of history [material deleted]
Agreed. As history it was a travesty -- to such a degree that it was a
comedy. And Mad Mel put in his usual multi-faceted performace, which
consists of shooting his one stare from as many different angles as
possible.
Jack Carroll
dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com
: "Braveheart" also is a comedy, although that was not the intention. But
: how else can you describe such a pretentious misrepresentation of history
There were things I liked about Braveheart and things I didn't.
Things I liked:
That sword. I wanted that sword.
The protrayal of heroism, even though it is dramatized.
The humor: "It's a nice scottish day, the rains coming straight
down..."
The portrayal of Longshanks.
The Irishman.
The revenge aspect of the movie.
The battles.
"No one has ever stood against Heavy..." Uh, huh.
The picking of the fight: "I'm gonta pick a fight."
The scenery.
The utter outrageousness of Longshanks tossing the
young man out the window. It *almost* caught me by
surprise.
The young man that got tossed out the window. Unlike
the prince, he seemed to have a spine, though it was
his undoing.
Did I say the sword?
Things I didn't like:
That Mel Gibson had to be the one do this movie.
The not so subtle sub-plot about the faggy prince.
The portrayal of Longshanks.
The torture scene at the end. Yes, they attempted
to show a brave man doing his best to hold back
screaming, but it was hard to believe, even with
Mel gasping and struggling.
: This guy does no
: more than clench his teeth while being castrated and disemboweled, save to
: utter one word, "Freedom". It would have made a good Monty Python sketch.
I didn't find it funny in the slightest. Not one damn bit. Not one
grin, smile, snicker escaped my lips as he was gutted. Maybe I have
no sense of humor.
--
Donn Pedro ....................................dfp...@uswnvg.com
There are no ordinary moments.
NetNorth
>appreciating this flick as "a broad farce in the French tradition" then I
>think you're nuts,
reason for "dumbing down".
>or you live in a very sophisticated enclave.
artists' enclave.
NetNorth
: more than clench his teeth while being castrated and disemboweled, save
to
: utter one word, "Freedom". It would have made a good Monty Python
sketch.
>I didn't find it funny in the slightest. Not one damn bit. Not one
>grin, smile, snicker escaped my lips as he was gutted. Maybe I have
>no sense of humor.
Well, darlin', there is certainly nothing humorous in torture; however, I
cannot say the same for Melly's staging. The portrayal here was SO
preposterous as to be laughable. Glad you liked the sword. ;)
Todd Andrews
agenda. You don't just want equal rights, you want us to accept your behavior. You want complete
societal acceptance for your behaviour.
Guess what? I won't accept your behaviour as normal. I have a right to my beliefs. You are
welcome to disagree with them. But don't paint me into a corner as being "anti-gay" or
even advocating violence against homosexuals, because I am completely against violence against
people for whatever reason. And I firmly believe that you have the right to do what you want in
the privacy of your own home. That's not anti-gay.
Following are some additional comments on the rest of your article.
>
> ===========================================================
> Copyright (c) 1992 Rex Wockner and affiliated publications.
> ===========================================================
>
> MEL GIBSON DENOUNCES GAYS IN SPANISH INTERVIEW
> by Rex Wockner
> Outlines News Service
> (Article filed January 1992)
>
> Heartthrob actor Mel Gibson, asked by one of Spain's leading
> magazines what he thinks of homosexuals, launched into a tirade
> against gay men.
This doesn't sound like a tirade against gay men. It sounds like an honest disagreement with the
behaviour of gay men. If he said that "Gays should be shot" or "gays are sub-human" then that
would be a tirade against gay men. He mentions behaviour, not a desire AGAINST gay men per se.
>
> "They take it up the ass," Gibson told El Pais as he got out
> of his chair, bent over and pointed to his butt. "This is only
> for taking a shit," he said.
This is his view. What do you care what he thinks? The first comment is a little rough, but
true.
>
> Reminded by the interviewer, Koro Castellano, that he worked
> with gays while studying at the School of Dramatic Arts, Gibson
> added: "They were good people, kind, I like them. But their thing
> is not my thing."
Boy, this sure sounds anti-gay! I'm surprised you even put it in.
>
> Castellano said, "But you were obsessed with the thought
> that if you were an actor, people would confuse you with one of
> them."
>
> "Yes," Gibson admitted, "but I did it. I became an actor
> despite that. But with this look, who's going to think I'm gay?
> It would be hard to take me for someone like that.
Mel was afraid of being viewed as gay, a behaviour that he believes is wrong. So what's
anti-homosexual about that? I'll be you're afraid to play a straight man because people might
think that you're straight.
>
> "Do I sound like a homosexual?" he asked. "Do I talk like
> them? Do I move like them?
>
> "What happens is when you're an actor, they stick that label
> on you," Gibson said. "I go from playing rugby one week to taking
> dance classes in black leotards the next. Many of the girls that
> I met in school took it for granted that I was gay."
Sorry, guys, but the fact is that a high percentage of men in dance classes and the "artsy" type
professions ARE gay. So you can't condemn Gibson because he was afraid of being typecast .
>
> Gibson's holds extreme conservative views on other issues.
Oh, my god! A conservative! He must want to kill all homosexuals!
>
> He has quit the Catholic Church because he believes the
> reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s went too far.
>
> "For 1,950 years [the church] does one thing and then in the
> 60s, all of a sudden they turn everything inside out and begin to
> do strange things that go against the rules," he explained to El
> Pais.
>
> "Everything that had been heresy is no longer heresy,
> according to the [new] rules. We [Catholics] are being cheated.
> ... The church has stopped being critical. It has relaxed. I
> don't believe them, and I have no intention of following their
> trends.
>
> "It's the church that has abandoned me, not me who has
> abandoned it," he said.
What do you care what his religious views are? Sounds to me like you're anti-Christian.
>
> Like the Catholic Church, Gibson opposes birth control,
> saying, "God is the only one who knows how many children we
> should have, and we should be ready to accept them."
>
Hey, I think that the Catholic Church and Gibson are wrong here, too. But what does that have to
do with homosexuals? Sounds like just another attempt to paint all conservatives as wackos.
Correction. Anybody who doesn't fall to the prevailing politically correct notion that
homosexual behaviour is just another lifestyle choice is wacko.
>
> ===========================================================
> Copyright (c) 1992 Rex Wockner and affiliated publications.
> ===========================================================
>
> MEL GIBSON REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE TO GAYS
> by Rex Wockner
> Outlines News Service
> (Article filed February 1992)
>
> Actor Mel Gibson, speaking Jan. 21 on ABC-TV's "Good Morning
> America," refused to apologize to gay men, who he ridiculed late
> last year in an interview with the Sunday magazine of Spain's
> largest newspaper, El Pais.
Again, he ridiculed the behaviour, not the men. If condeming a behaviour were condemning the
man, then you are guilty of condemning Mel Gibson too. Because you disagree with his views.
>
> "I don't think there's an apology necessary, and I'm
> certainly not giving one," Gibson said. "[Those remarks were a
> response] to a direct question. If someone wants my opinion, I'll
> give it. What, am I supposed to lie to them?
Yep. Nothing more need be said about this.
>
> "The other thing is, it was translated from English to
> Spanish, back from Spanish to English, then used by [columnist]
> Liz Smith [who received the story from this reporter] out of
> context in her article," Gibson said. "It's old news, really old
> news."
I'd like to see the whole article. I'll bet it was taken out of context, in that the purpose of
the interview wasn't to determine Mel Gibson's views on homosexuality - he answered direct
questions. He's not trying to win people over to his views, unlike ActUp and other militant
homosexual organizations.
Maybe he was off base on the English-to-Spanish comment. But so what.
>
> The Spanish-to-English translation was done by this
> reporter, who speaks Spanish, and by a professional translator
> who emigrated from Cuba.
>
> The "Good Morning America" interviewer pressed Gibson, "Are
> you saying to me that you did not make any anti-gay statements at
> all?"
>
> Gibson responded: "I didn't lie. Put it that way.... Liz
> Smith seems to be violating my right to have an opinion. I have a
> right to an opinion."
Yep again. He has an opinion about homosexual behaviour, and has a right to that. He wasn't
advocating anti-gayness. He was anti-gay behaviour and views.
I think he was pretty smart - he didn't want to get into semantic arguments. Again, maybe he was
off base on the english-to-spanish translation=out of context comment, but so what. That also
doesn't make him advocate violence against homosexuals.
>
> Robert Bray, spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task
> Force, was livid at Gibson's new statements.
>
> "And I have a right to respond to Mel Gibson's anti-gay
> defamation," Bray said. "He can kiss my queer ass. He can't
> defame gays and then try to wiggle out of it by blaming the
> translation. And he's not even denying he made the statements.
> He's saying he has a right to his opinion.
Boy, Bray! That's a pretty civilized response! Two wrongs make a right (Gibson's comment that
gays "take it in the ***" and your "kiss my queer ***" comment)
Why is disagreeing with homosexual behaviour "defamation"? If you disagree with the Roman
Catholic Church's methods of worship, are you "defaming" the catholic church? No. Of course
not.
Of course he's not denying the statements. Because he has the character to stand up for what he
believes in. He's not a waffler like Clinton.
>
> "Gay fans of Mel Gibson need to throw away their 'Mad Max'
> tapes and stop going to his movies until he stops defaming gay
> people," Bray said.
Please do! You have the right. But you're not going to change Mel's views. Like you're not
going to change mine.
Final concluding thought here. What do you care what Mel Gibson thinks about your behaviour? If
it's so right, then what do you care if society doesn't accept it? Nobody is saying you can't do
what you want. You have every right to do what you want. But I'm not going to accept it.
And what happened to "live and let live." I think homosexuality is wrong but you can do what you
please; you think homosexuality is right and think I'm an intolerant idiot. I don't think that
you are anti-me; why in the world am I anti-you because of my views?
Long live American political discourse!
Jeffrey Epperly
>Has any mainstream press coverage addressed either Gibson's past
>homophobia or the homophobia in "Braveheart" in this year in which
>Hollywood is discovering gay-themed pictures (at least ones filled with
>cheerful drag queens) can make money?
>BM...@aol.com
I seem to recall that our biggest daily here, the Boston Globe, did give
scant coverage to the Gibson flap when his anti-gay comments were first
reported by in the gay press via Rex Wockner. I can't find the article in
our files, however. At any rate, in this year's post-Oscars coverage, the
Globe's article did mention the perceived homophobic element in
"Braveheart." I have not seen that angle mentioned in any other
publication, but I don't read any of the entertainment glossies -- the
most likely source of other coverage on the matter.
TriConsult
>>appreciating this flick as "a broad farce in the French tradition" then
I
>>think you're nuts,
>Thank you kindly. Even if the mainstream doesn't appreciate, that's no
>reason for "dumbing down".
denominator in the theatre: "Like to be, er what, Dude?" Let us not expose
folks to anything with which they are not already acquainted and which
they cannot already appreciate. That would constitute education, which is
far too dangerous, too subversive a thing. ;)
Tom Hall
(trico...@aol.com) says...
>Perhaps we should remake "Hamlet" according to the lowest common
>denominator in the theatre: "Like to be, er what, Dude?"
Hasn't Keanu Reeves already done that...... ??? :-)
Tom
Bdfoto
Vincent Manis
> This tirade against Mel Gibson's so-called "Anti-Gay" comments is just
> another example of the gay
> agenda. You don't just want equal rights, you want us to accept your
> behavior. You want complete
Yes, that is indeed the point. Gay people want to be treated with the
same respect that everyone else expects to be treated. Glad you
understand this point, Todd!
> Long live American political discourse!Actually, modern political discourse generally ranges from the puerile
to the stupid. Todd's article was on the puerile side. In any case, if
the article was a sample of American discourse, I'm glad I'm a Canadian.
Cyber Cowboy
>bm...@aol.com (BMirk) wrote:
>>Has any mainstream press coverage addressed either Gibson's past
>>homophobia or the homophobia in "Braveheart" in this year in which
>>Hollywood is discovering gay-themed pictures (at least ones filled with
>>cheerful drag queens) can make money?
>>BM...@aol.com
>Is there any reason to believe that the people who are laughing *at* the
>homos in "Braveheart" aren't doing exactly the same thing to
>the gay characters aka homos in "Birdcage?" Gay people may see humor in
>"Birdcage" but plenty of straight people probably see the characters as
>objects of ridicule. We see "cheerful drag queens", plenty of other
>people may see silly queers. Some of the most loathesome films make big
>bucks because people enjoy loathesome things.
>Jack Carroll
I would beg to differ with you on this. I find it incredibly hard to
believe that the people in the audience at "The Birdcage" were
laughing AT Williams and Lane because they were loathsome. If that
were the case, they would not have been laughing in all the
"appropriate" places.
Tacoma, Washington, is a blue collar town if there ever was one. I
sat next to a very big man whom anyone would have taken for a redneck
type based on his appearance, manners, and talk prior to the start of
the movie. He laughed as much as anyone, and when Armand told his son
Val, "Screw the senator. I don't care what he thinks," this man
uttered a very forceful "Good!" in support of Armand.
I heard a similar story from a friend who saw the movie in Port
Orchard, a town even more redneck than Tacoma. He described a whole
row of people sitting behind him who displayed frustration with Val's
requests of his parents, and muttered "Oh, come on!"s when Albert was
continually rejected from participating in the dinner.
I might also add another bit. I saw the movie twice with lots of
suburban-rural straight people. Both groups howled through the
show--and you KNEW they were sympathizing with the gay couple. The
audience in Tacoma's loudest laughter was the abortion-related joke
about "goign down with the ship." By contrast, I heard from another
person that at a theater in the highly gay neighborhoods of Seattle,
laughter was sporadic and hardly enthusiastic during the whole film.
So much for only gay people getting the humor. I've heard more gays
bitching and being offended about the premise of Val getting his
parents to go through with the charade, conveniently forgetting
without the premise, there wouldn't be any movie. It's a farce!
Lighten up!
I don't think you're giving straight, middle America enough credit in
the ability to empathize. To say that only gays will appreicate this
film is wrong-headed if not outright false. Indeed, I've seen
indications that many of them AREN'T appreciating it. Their loss.
Cyber Cowboy
-----------------------------------------
all...@wolfenet.com
Apuleius
alt.journalism.gay-press:
== On 29 Mar 1996, Tom Hall wrote:
== >
== > I'm glad that Rex Wockner has posted some information in response to my initial query
== > regarding what I vaguely recalled of this from the past. It only confirms for me the
== > fact that I will *NEVER AGAIN* support Mel Gibson by going to any of his movies, or
== > by watching them on television.
== Actually, he would get no support from your watching him on TV, unless
== you live in an AC Nielsen ratings household (or some other TV ratings
== service).
The only decent thing Mel Gibson ever did was Mad Max, or whatever.
And his acting was shit even in that; the only thing worth watching
was his body, which has since appatently headed for "jenerwelt".
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Romans referred to Jesus using "ECCE HOMO", not "ECCE HETERO"
Jesus Christ: first victim of homophobia
Jesus was crucified at the insistence of the world's worst homophobes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Greg Rothenberger
>Yes, that is indeed the point. Gay people want to be treated with the
>same respect that everyone else expects to be treated. Glad you
>understand this point, Todd!
It's nice to see some people are starting to get a clue! But then, he
probably doesn't really undestand it at all.
>Actually, modern political discourse generally ranges from the puerile
>to the stupid. Todd's article was on the puerile side. In any case, if
>the article was a sample of American discourse, I'm glad I'm a Canadian.
It's a pretty good example of US "discourse" (to use the term *very*
loosely), and an excellent example of why I wish *I* were Canadian.
Greg
New Albany, IN (USA)
Todd Andrews
>
> Todd Andrews wrote:
> > This tirade against Mel Gibson's so-called "Anti-Gay" comments is just
> > another example of the gay
> > agenda. You don't just want equal rights, you want us to accept your
> > behavior. You want complete
>
> Yes, that is indeed the point. Gay people want to be treated with the
> same respect that everyone else expects to be treated. Glad you
> understand this point, Todd!
Any my point is that you are not going to force me to accept your
behaviour. You're not going to legislate your morality on me.
>
> > Long live American political discourse!Actually, modern political discourse generally ranges from the puerile
> to the stupid. Todd's article was on the puerile side. In any case, if
> the article was a sample of American discourse, I'm glad I'm a Canadian.
Very nice argumentation method. Why don't you call me a poopy-face too
while you're at it.
Bdfoto
>> This tirade against Mel Gibson's so-called "Anti-Gay" comments is just
>> another example of the gay
>>agenda. You don't just want equal rights, you want us to accept your
>>behavior. You want complete
>>societal acceptance for your behaviour.(Remaining comments deleted.)
>Yes, that is indeed the point. Gay people want to be treated with the
>same respect that everyone else expects to be treated. Glad you
>understand this point, Todd!
No, I don't "want" to be. I DEMAND to be as is my right as a human being.
Greg Rothenberger
>Any my point is that you are not going to force me to accept your
>behaviour. You're not going to legislate your morality on me.
Excuse me!? The only legislation of morality I see (from a USA vantage
point) is that of panicked heterosexuals wanting to legislate *their*
morality onto *me*. And yes, I have a problem with that. If you're
*seriously* concerned about the legislation of morality, then work for a
*strict* separation of church and state. Including all laws defining
personal relationships of any kind according to christian standards.
Conrad Sabatier
>> > another example of the gay
>> > agenda. You don't just want equal rights, you want us to accept your
>> > behavior. You want complete
>>
>> Yes, that is indeed the point. Gay people want to be treated with the
>> same respect that everyone else expects to be treated. Glad you
>> understand this point, Todd!
>
>behaviour. You're not going to legislate your morality on me.
Then why don't you get the fuck off these newsgroups?
>> > Long live American political discourse!Actually, modern political
discourse generally ranges from the puerile
>> to the stupid. Todd's article was on the puerile side. In any case, if
>> the article was a sample of American discourse, I'm glad I'm a Canadian.
>
>Very nice argumentation method. Why don't you call me a poopy-face too
>while you're at it.
Poopy-face.
--
___________________________________________________
/|______________________/|_________________________ /|
/ / / / / /
/ / Conrad Sabatier / / i'm stuck in this dream / /
/ / / / it's changing me / /
/ / con...@neosoft.com / / i am becoming -- NIN / /
/_/_____________________/_/_________________________/ /
|___________________________________________________|/
Ron Ingelevics
>It's a pretty good example of US "discourse" (to use the term *very*
>loosely), and an excellent example of why I wish *I* were Canadian.
>Greg
>New Albany, IN (USA)
Well, then, come on down! Or "up"? We'll say north. (And, yes, it
*is* snowing today :( )
--
Ron Ingelevics What's more important than love?
Toronto, Ontario
love...@io.org
Ron Ingelevics
>Any my point is that you are not going to force me to accept your
>behaviour. You're not going to legislate your morality on me.
Hu-LLO! Who is trying to legislate morality?? In the U.S. I see many
attempts to deny gay people rights that straight people take for
granted (i.e. the right *not* to be fired from their jobs, evicted
from their homes, denied access to their loved ones in hospitals
*solely* because of their sexual orientation). Not to mention the
recent attempts by many states to declare marriage as solely between a
man and a woman just in case Hawaii legalizes marriages between those
of the same sex.
Peter Hartikka
<tand...@deltanet.com> wrote:
> Any my point is that you are not going to force me to accept your
> behaviour. You're not going to legislate your morality on me.
Fine. Stop insisting that everyone accept heterosexual behavior as the
norm, and I promise never, ever to force acceptance of homosexuality on
you. Deal?
Kalev Hunt
>gre...@iglou.iglou.com (Greg Rothenberger) wrote:
>
>>It's a pretty good example of US "discourse" (to use the term *very*
>>loosely), and an excellent example of why I wish *I* were Canadian.
>
>>Greg
>>New Albany, IN (USA)
>
>Well, then, come on down! Or "up"? We'll say north. (And, yes, it
>*is* snowing today :( )
As a self-proclaimed Vancouver activist, I have to put in a plug
here--it's not snowing in Vancouver. We're holding steady at about 12
degrees Celcius.
Kalev
**********************************************************************
* Kalev Hunt ka...@pobox.com *
* Vancouver, BC, Canada-Why would anyone want to live anywhere else? *
* "A life lived in fear is a life half-lived" - Strictly Ballroom __ *
* Melanie Rawn, Mercedes Lackey, Katharine Kerr - My Holy Trinity \/ *
* http://pobox.com/~kalev *
**********************************************************************
Greg Rothenberger
>gre...@iglou.iglou.com (Greg Rothenberger) wrote:
>Well, then, come on down! Or "up"? We'll say north. (And, yes, it
>*is* snowing today :( )
Thanks for the invitation. It's something I've been thinking about off
and on for a while now. I've started looking more seriously into the
immigration process, and it looks like it might be doable. So, we'll
see...
>--
>Ron Ingelevics What's more important than love?
>Toronto, Ontario
>love...@io.org
Nothing, as far as I'm concerned.
carlos
>Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
>
>>Any my point is that you are not going to force me to accept your
>>behaviour. You're not going to legislate your morality on me.
>
>point) is that of panicked heterosexuals wanting to legislate *their*
>morality onto *me*. And yes, I have a problem with that. If you're
>*seriously* concerned about the legislation of morality, then work for a
>*strict* separation of church and state. Including all laws defining
>personal relationships of any kind according to christian standards.
>
>New Albany, IN (USA)
>
erica under its Constitution try continually to work for all of us. Despite the efforts by so many of you to remove some of those f=
reedoms you don't want many of us to have.
carlos
Brent Johnston
screen! It seems to me that over the past few years any actor
etc. that has spoken out against gays has had many hidden ghosts
in the closet, and out of fear or anger have responded in a
stupid way against gays. REMEMBER THAT OJ LADY Anita Bryant?
She had some real ripe fruit right in her own family! Maybe Mel
needs love and understanding, he is the father of an enormous
family! I'm sure his colleges in Hollywood have given him some
not so pleasant times over his statements! We will survive
without the likes of Mel Gibson, BELIEVE ME!
BRENTHOVEN
--
Brent Johsnton 10040...@CompuSserve.com.
PAUL MURRAY
Rothenberger) wrote:
>Todd Andrews <tand...@deltanet.com> writes:
>
>>Any my point is that you are not going to force me to accept your
>>behaviour. You're not going to legislate your morality on me.
>
>Excuse me!? The only legislation of morality I see (from a USA vantage
>point) is that of panicked heterosexuals wanting to legislate *their*
>morality onto *me*. And yes, I have a problem with that. If you're
>*seriously* concerned about the legislation of morality, then work for a
>*strict* separation of church and state. Including all laws defining
>personal relationships of any kind according to christian standards.
>
>Greg
>New Albany, IN (USA)
It really urks me when the Christrian "Mora Majority" tries to inflict
their standards on others. Gay America is not alone. What about the
Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Native American Religions? It's a good thing
prayer isn't in most classrooms, because all the above faiths are trampled
on if it is.
--
\._ _,--._
`--._.-" "\_
__,- ` ""-. .-""-.
/' _ `. __.._ /' `\
| |`- `--"" ""| .. |
| / , `.. _.' | `' |
| o / / \_ ``' _,-\ /
\________/ /' ""-__-._.-____,-' `-,,,,-'
/
- - - ' |
_.__, /
/'
--' /'
_, |
`\
star...@creative.com
little creep, sure, but to the best of my knowledge, he only states
his venemous views when asked. It's not as if he's on any crusade.
Roz Russell also voiced homophobic views when asked. That never
slowed down any queens cooing over "Mame". And Roz was a great
actress!
I don't like Mel Gibson and I am reluctant to see any of his films,
but the man is entitled to his opinions. Were he to get actively
involved in a homophobic crusade -- like Anita Bryant -- an active
boycott and denunciations would be in line.
Carla Kay Barlow
: Very nice argumentation method. Why don't you call me a poopy-face too
: while you're at it.
Todd, it seems like you're pretty
clear on your opinion of homosexuality, so ... why bother? are you hoping
someone will offer that ultimate, mind- and life-changing argument to the
contrary? or is it that you rather enjoy the outlet?
Seems kind of a waste of time and energy. I also couldn't give a rat's
ass what Mel Gibson has to say.
Much more my concern is that I not lose my job or my home because I
happen to fall in love with someone of the same sex.
Ron Ingelevics
>Todd, it seems like you're pretty
>clear on your opinion of homosexuality, so ... why bother? are you hoping
>someone will offer that ultimate, mind- and life-changing argument to the
>contrary? or is it that you rather enjoy the outlet?
This is something that I've been wondering about, as well. He comes
into our newsgroups claiming he wants "rational" discussion but his
real point is that we deserve a peaceful existence but he reserves the
right to continue condemning the way we live our lives and the right
to have his view of morality reflected in the laws of our society. He
can't see that his view will only continue the oppression that gay
people face. He only sees his extreme "tolerance".
>Seems kind of a waste of time and energy. I also couldn't give a rat's
>ass what Mel Gibson has to say.
I've never understood why people really care so much about what
entertainers have to say about political and social issues. Just
because through the performance of their jobs they are known by
millions of people, are their opinions any more important than yours
or mine? (And don't get me started on super-models! ;-)
>Much more my concern is that I not lose my job or my home because I
>happen to fall in love with someone of the same sex.
In Canada (among other places), we're a bit of head of the U.S. on
these counts but we still can't legally marry or adopt children as a
couple.
Matthew Marks
: I've never understood why people really care so much about what
: entertainers have to say about political and social issues. Just
: because through the performance of their jobs they are known by
: millions of people, are their opinions any more important than yours
: or mine?
Yes, unfortunately, because they are role models to the more easily lead in
society.
Matthew mat...@rd.bbc.co.uk My opinions, not Auntie's.