This image and quote recently went viral on Twitter, after Chicago Sun-Times film critic Richard Roeper tweeted it with the remark: "'I'm Clint F------ Eastwood, and this is what I have to say about gay marriage.' BRAVO."
This quotation from the legendary actor, director and Hollywood tough man came from a recent interview with GQ magazine.
The Money Quote:
These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of. They go on and on with all this bullshit about "sanctity" -- don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.
There is something truly beautiful about some straight guys' brazen approach to the topic of LGBT equality. See, they aren't trying to cope with a lifetime's baggage of feeling shameful and unworthy. And they aren't fetishizing the tactic of presenting their views in nice, inoffensive ways that won't scare the straight people. I imagine it never even crosses their mind that they shouldn't scare the straight people. They haven't sent their talking points through the advocacy organization car wash for a nice polish and buff, to ensure that they better appeal to America's soccer moms and NASCAR dads and are respectful of their deeply felt religious convictions.
Sure, carefully focus-grouped messages have their place, most especially when big dollars are spent by groups that still need the people in power to return their calls sometime in the future. This is a legitimate concern, as is the idea that calling opponent "assholes" may not win us many votes.
Bombastic messaging is actually most effective coming from folks who are safe from being dismissed as just another scary "radical homosexual activist!" That label just can't hang very authentically around Clint Eastwood's neck when he's the one calling conservative religious objections "bullshit."
And it got me thinking, so I compiled a top-10 list of some of the fiercest things our straight male allies have said on the topic of LGBT equality. (Warning: some of the content is totally NSFW.)
This is a expanded version of a post that first appeared on the Daily Kos blog.
Follow Scott Wooledge on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Clarknt67
Alexandra Billings: The Straight Closet
wow! imagine how much could be accomplished as a nation if everyone in congress could be as brave as Sen. McDonald.
Please listen to the statement from Zach Wahls (#9), 19-years-old and speaking before the Iowa legislature. It is riveting.
Phillip Spooner (#8), is 86-years-old and addressing the Maine Senate Committee. His personal comments have incredible gravity.
You're A) talking out of your ar(se); and B) being incredibly condescending in the process.
I don't think anyoe has claimed to unraveled the mysteries of such a complex behavioral phenotype has human s3xual orientation--and yes, that goes for straight/hetero identities as well--but that doesn't mean biology can be ruled out from the equation.
That some cannot be pinpointed to a single locus does not mean it is not under the influence of genetics. Human s3xuality could very easily be the result of polygenic traits, epigentics, or some other change in maternal endorine system during pregnancy. Of course, in all likelihood, it could very well be a combination of both nature *and* nurture.
Whatever the proximate/ultimate causes, you're being intentionally disingenuous, and it shows.
The snarky, obnoxious tone of your post suggests you're a first/second year Ph.D. student, who feels that simply reading a research paper in a scholarly journal makes one classified to wax philosophical on the nature of human desire.
Gross.
Get over yourself, little one.
So a Hollywood star that does not care about marriage really does not help the same-sex marriage movement.
Misogyny sucks. Women rock!
- Nitrokitty, proud male feminist
Do you spend your time helping those who are less fortunate? Or do you want to please yourself via sex? There are more important things in life than logging in sensual pleasures.
All life is, it's a bunch of habits. You are either building up a new good one, or a bad one, for your family. If you haven't a family, that's your #1 misconception. You belong to the human race, here on planet (John Denver called this "spaceship earth.") You belong.
If you ask me, the time for recreational anything is when there is no more turmoil for women and children. If not.... what kind of a race are we?
Sexuality is a sensory experience that we have the right to enjoy. Placing it in the "animalistic" category of existing merely for the purpose of breeding demeans all humans. Unfortunately, it is the false doctrime of Catholicism that has demeaned humans into believing they should be ashamed of their sexuality. Sexuality, like all things, has a place and requires balance. There is still room to help the less fortunate, to give to others, to be generous and also benefit from healthy sexual experiences. We cannot live healthy lives without valuing ourselves as unique and amazing creatures. It is the unhealthiness of religion that promotes the idea that humans are flawed and "worth - less."
As Jesus is claimed to have said, "The poor will always be with us." We are not intended to be sacrificial lambs, always and only living for others.
Get over yourself, oh pious one.
If you, as a putatively str8 person, are some how superior and/or more focused on the needs of others, allow your altruism to take control and get off the gay-themed message board and go volunteer at your local homeless shelter, poseur.
It is simply CRAZY that it is still discussed in this manner!!!!! Who freaking cares what two adults as long as nobody is being harmed??????
I remember being in college and being asked if gay guys bothered me, my answer was always the same, it meant one less guy trying to pick up the cool good looking girls, more left for us straight guys.
What about a bi-sexual? Shouldn't they be allowed to marry BOTH the man and woman they love?
Then why limit it to two? How about three or four or five?
As long as we ate redefining marriage then why put any limits on it all?
Marriages between multiple people has not been allowed in a state or region that allows same-sex marriage so your point is moot. Besides the slippery slope argument is a stupid scare tactic. Don't try to bring up Canada because their supreme court legalized same-sex marriage but shot down polygamous marriage.
Also, the law of the land in the USA doesn't allow the lives of all to be ruled by archaic terms set forth in outdated religious texts.
Love,
A 16 year-old
There should be no limits on number either. You are correct.
They are not recognized at the federal level.
They are not recognized from state to state.
They confer no tax equality.
They confer no Social Security or Medicare equality.
They confer no inheritance rights equality.
They do not provide the same hospital visitation rights.
They do not provide the right to provide for a partner's medical care.
The list goes on and on.
The better answer is to allow civil marriage for both straight and gay couples.
If someone wants or needs a church ceremony, let them find a church willing to perform it. Increasingly, more and more churches are willing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.
And while the churches get concerned about the sanctity of marriage, why don't they refuse to remarry those who get divorced, which is direct contravention of most church teachings, rather than happily marry and remarry serial divorcers?
I love your explanation but a simpler way to explain it would be to say, "Separate but equal, or any attempt at that is unconstitutional based on the Brown v Board of Education decision."
Just some friendly advice your typing hands might like. :)