Maybe Newsweek's Ramin Setoodeh meant to stir up the controversy he did about gays being unbelievable in straight entertainment roles, and maybe he didn't. But the topic has been busted open, and he and others should use this as a learning moment.
While the real world is not Broadway and filming Sex in the City sequels, the fact is that there are tens of thousands of gay men and women who perform in "straight roles" every day in the US military. If they out themselves, they have a high chance of losing their jobs and being discharged by a military court of justice.
Setoodeh may not have meant to convey insensitivity and ignorance -- ignorance in that there are numerous gay actors performing in straight roles in the entertainment industry and insensitivity in the sense that throughout American society, there are men and women who adequately "perform" each day in the straight roles ascribed to them while shifting to their real gay identities when they can afford to.
When I watched a number of good "gay" friends unable to salute in uniform their Commander in Chief at last year's Human Rights Campaign dinner in fear of being expelled from employment, I saw the opposite of what Ramin Setoodeh describes.
I don't want to pile on much. I am a pundit as well and get things wrong on occasion -- and sometimes have to step back. This is one of those times when I think Newsweek's columnist should reconsider the empirical realities about gays in the entertainment industry vs. his own homosexual issues filter.
He would be wise to acknowledge that everyone is performing, and with his casual disregard for gays who constantly perform straight roles in life, he took a whack at a group far more numerous and significant than the talented Sean Hayes.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note. Clemons can be followed on Twitter @SCClemons
Follow Steve Clemons on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCClemons
Nature designed the "Sexual" act primarily for the purpose of "procreation". It must be clearly understood. But the human beings are using it, with my all respects, as a tool for "physical pleasure". That is not its prime aim looking at it even "physiologically". So we are smartly trying to manipulate it to an undesirable secondary purpose. This exposes the practitioners to various moral and physical derangements too.
I know that there is a very "hot pro and anti lobbies" on this most contentious issue. But the original natures
physiological setting can not be denied, if not altered. As a physician, I have contemplated frequently on this issue. In my opinion, the addition of "physical pleasure factor" with sexual gratification was to induce the copulation, so essential for a continued reproduction. Without this "individual factor", it may not have been so much "assured" as the nature would have otherwise liked to "ensure". A very important psycho-social reason.
God bless
Dr. O. P. Sudrania
Stick to what you know about medicine, doc. Your ruminations on biology and natural law, it must be understood, are uninformed and biased.
Homosexuality is not up for referendum. It does not require analysis and justification and an up-or-down vote. Our Constitution does not say that certain demographic groups shall be equal under the law if after sufficient scrutiny and debate they're deemed worthy. People who think homosexuality is some sort of unsolvable societal problem need to find something else to obsess over. Homosexuality does not require everyone's understanding or approval, and it does not need to be fixed.
As goes for gay men and women in other "roles." So people, str8 and gay, are just more this or that or expressive or 'effeminate' or whatever.
Wake up.
And by the way, the word "homosexual" was coined in Germany (in 1869) as a neutral, non-judgmental, legal, and scientific term. It was not meant to distinguish between type, as you do, here, and, as later appropriated by "doctors", to be suggestive of perversion, sickness, and deficiency. On the contrary, the term was meant to counter cruel, ignorant, and prejudicial attitudes.
That proud men and women later rejected the term homosexual in favour of their own terms, whether Gay, Lesbian, Queer ... or whatever, seems only natural, considering the negative connotation which the term acquired, a characterization which you appear to promote, apparently as a bludgeon.
Rood
I served in the US Navy. I never noticed any difference. Nor did the matter ever appear as a significant issue.
We were all too busy doing our jobs. How well we could count on our shipmates was all that mattered.
The one thing that could become an issue was whether or not someone indulged himself with the prostitutes in port. Those who didn't could be labeled homosexuals. That depended on how popular and well-known such men were, as there was respect for someone married, who had a girlfriend, who simply wanted to avoid any nasty disease and unpleasant explanations.
Are you daft?
Has your life style led you to delusion?
Do you really think anyone besides yourself, family, and friends is interested in your "sexual orientation"?
Daft indeed.
So I realize I'm trying to converse with someone who has already dismissed my very being. But on the off chance there is a heart there somewhere, let me explain.
I do wish this were an non-issue. As it is for increasing numbers of young people. But in the present, it does matter. I am transgendered and gay. Neither are a choice. They are intrinsic to my physiology, psyche, and soul. And these aspects affect employment and residence.
If what you say is true, that no one cares, then all of us LGBTQs will be celebrating!
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/05/nyc-eight-activists-arrested-at-massive.html
http://www.housingworks.org/blogs/detail/activists-arrested-outside-obama-fundraiser-demand-u.s.-keep-promises-/
“While they are inside sipping champagne and caviar, Obama’s broken promises for global AIDS funding mean people will die because they cannot afford a ‘cocktail’ of HIV/AIDS medication,” said ACT UP Philadelphia member Henry Bennett. “Obama gave them hope, then he took it away.” On the campaign trail, candidate Obama pledged to provide at least $50 billion by 2013 for the global fight against HIV/AIDS and to “at least double the number of HIV-positive people on treatment.” But, as the New York Times reported, Obama’s commitments to fighting AIDS have not even kept pace with inflation, let alone increased to the level he promised.
"Why is it always so hard for us to fight back? This man does not like us. When someone does not like you, you fight back. This Obama who is not my president and not your president obviously does not like us. It's not a secret. Day after day week after week and month after month he tells us he does not like us. He tells us! He does not keep it a secret. His Attorney General does not like us. His Department of Justice does not like us. His Generals do not like us. His Department of Health and Human Services does not like us. This is not a new situation for us."
You can read Kramer's complete statement (in which he REALLY GOES OFF) by clicking the link below:
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/aidsprotest.html
I call it bigotry. America has a deep strain of bigotry in its cultural heritage.
America also has a growing incivility in its present culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Stewart
I'll replace your one straight with three gays: David Odgen Stiers, Dan Butler, David Hyde Pierce. This time a three-of-a-kind beats a straight ;-)
Although Niles' prim-and-proper nature always made many people see him as gay, nobody except those in the know ever "suspected" the people who played Bulldog or Marty Crane to be gay too.
I love when people think they can always tell who is gay and who isn't. It's really laughable.
Remember this is merely a response to the original column. People just don't know. Nor should they/we care.
The same holds true for those in the military, and indeed all other segments of society, where many people can be found who'll proclaim they don't know/serve with/work with any gay men, even though they do without realizing it, and often hold those very men - about whom they know less then they think - in high regard.
In this sense, Clemons is right on the money.
I'm an entertainment reporter in Canada and remember this case in point from the Milk movie junket. I asked Emile Hirsch why all the great gay roles go to straight actors (Milk, Brokeback, etc)... he was like "Yeah, that you KNOW of." Yep. That about sums it up.
I think Ramin's thoughts are more revealing about him as opposed to his subject matter. For him, once you play not gay but FLAMING (for 8 years no less), you can never convincingly go back lol... but really dude, it's f**king BROADWAY. Are you serious?
At least, until blaming blacks, Hispanics, athiests, Jews, single mothers, foreigners, poor people, immigrants, or Martians comes back into style.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service