Friday, December 08, 2006

The Golden Globe Awards

I'm re-submitting this post because I've recently been blogging at a site that I suspect many gays frequent. I would be interested in hearing their comments. They may not accept my invitation and follow me here to comment, but it's worth a try.

Hollywood isn't just about making money. They have several liberal causes that they promote through their products and these promotions are more a kind of subtle societal indoctrination than entertainment. One of these causes is to change the way America perceives homosexuality, and those who are most susceptible to their influences are the young.

While I'm sure for many in Hollywood their motivation is compassion, there is nothing compassionate about facilitating the development of appetites and habits that lead to disease and an early death.

Walter E Williams writes:
According to a study titled, "The Longevity of Homosexuals," in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994, the median age of death from AIDS is 37 and death from other causes 42. In another study, "Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?" in Psychological Reports in 1998, the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2003/12/31/160650.html

Today, confused young men who are looking for identity, love, and acceptance are lured into a destructive life-style... the same young men that would perhaps have grown past this vulnerability 50 years ago.

What I have heard from sources I trust is that human sexuality is not black and white, or positive and negative. It lies on an arc. There is a gray area and that gray area is more expansive and accessible in the young.

I know every human being is different, but I figure there are many men and women walking around out there who are leading healthy heterosexual lives only because of the positive and moral influences that accompanied their adolescence and young adulthood.

So here enters Hollywood. Last evening "Brokeback Mountain," the movie about two Gay cowboys, won four Golden Globe Awards and will probably do as well at the Oscars. While Hollywood supports their friends who have already made a perhaps deadly choice, they influence many who are teetering in an insecure world and struggling with their needs, conscience, and self control.
Posted by at

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not worth the dissection. You're completely stupid, Malott.

12/08/2006 7:02 PM
Anonymous said...

Well, at least Jacob had the courtesy to put some thought into his response.

What a joke.

12/08/2006 7:05 PM
Malott said...

Jacob,

You're a blogger friend and I do not mean to insult you. Do you rationally reject the suggestion that there are those who are led into homosexuality that might have escaped a dangerous lifestyle?

12/08/2006 7:13 PM
Anonymous said...

No-one in rich countries dies from AIDS anymore - the drug cocktail gives them perfectly normal lifes. There goes your main argument. Which, by the way, you illustrate with a tale (Brokeback Mountain) plucked from a time *before* AIDS, so their healths are in no danger from that quarter.

Your second argument is that "the article suggests gayness is more an acquired response to sexuality than a pre-determined biological certainty". This is not supported by your article, though. There were homosexuals long before Hollywood, there are homosexuals from conservative families, and in general evidence points to genetical origin of sexuality. But then, I know you are not big on evidence that contradicts your pre-assumed conclussions.

Furthermore, you mention several sources that "you trust". However, you have already demonstrated in fstdt that your "sources" are not to be trusted, so unless you give us those sources, it's an argument from false authority. (In short: you've spent all your reputation credit. Put up or shut up).

Finally, you suggest that homosexuals, in general, die earlier due to STDs and the "gay lifestyle". Have you considered that your absurd oposition to gay marriage may contribute to the higher incidence of multiple partners in homosexuals? Since they are not allwoed to form permanent bonds, they have no real anchor when things go a bit wrong and thus separation is far easier.

Hope that heps,

Grey Wolf

12/08/2006 7:29 PM
Anonymous said...

You are so ignorant. A typical Christian Nazi. YOU HATE what you do not understand. You know nothing about us so you use your hateful religion to demean and debase us. I pity you. You are nothing but a pathetic hatemonger

12/08/2006 7:34 PM
SkyePuppy said...

Anonymous (the most recent),

I've gotta love the hate that spews, "YOU HATE."

I remember hearing about a study of gay men's life expectancy (It's been years, so I don't have the source). Before AIDS came along (pre-mid-1970s), the life expectancy was age 42. After AIDS but before the drugs, the life expectancy dropped to 38.

With all the drug-resistant STDs out there, especially syphilis, running rampant through the gay community, I don't expect the life expectancy to have climbed up to where hetersexual men are.

It's not hate when I say I wouldn't want my son to get involved in the gay lifestyle. I just don't want him to be at a higher risk of dying before I do.

Have a nice day, from another (according to your apparent standards) ignorant, typical Christian Nazi, pathetic hatemonger. :o)

12/08/2006 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...

Well, at least Jacob had the courtesy to put some thought into his response.

I commented with as much thought and originality as Malott put put into that post. Sometimes it's just not worth the extra minute spent arguing over the net.

Do you rationally reject the suggestion that there are those who are led into homosexuality that might have escaped a dangerous lifestyle?

Well, I reject the idea that being homosexual is dangerous on its own. Having unsafe sex is dangerous. Being promiscuous is dangerous. But these concerns are common to ALL people and not in any way limited to homosexuals.

I also (emphatically) disagree that people are "led" to become homosexual. There is a distinct difference between being gay and having gay sex. While every intelligent person (and some stupid people) choose who they get involved with, they cannot change their innate sexual orientation.

Speaking from experience, I can say with certainty that I was never coerced to become gay. I was, however, coerced into believing that it was a sick and perverse crime against nature for much of my early life. So no, I was not "led into homosexuality." That's stupid, and someone as intelligent as you should recognise it as such.

Finally, you suggest that homosexuals, in general, die earlier due to STDs and the "gay lifestyle". Have you considered that your absurd oposition to gay marriage may contribute to the higher incidence of multiple partners in homosexuals? Since they are not allwoed to form permanent bonds, they have no real anchor when things go a bit wrong and thus separation is far easier.

You're my personal hero, GW. This is so true.

And Malott, about Hollywood being a tool for societal indoctrination? Yeah, what a lame scapegoat. Seriously.

12/08/2006 9:17 PM
Anonymous said...

Oops... that extra "put" shouldn't be there.

12/08/2006 9:18 PM
All_I_Can_Stands said...

Jacob,

As a friend I am going to help you out:

You're my personal hero, GW. This is so true.

I am sure you meant Grey Wolf and not George W.

You do have a good point about the distinction between being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity. I do wonder if anybody has any statistics on how many homosexuals remain celibate. As far as studies go, it would be very interesting to compare the celibacy rate of homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Anonymous II stated that christians hate homosexuals because they do not understand them. First, I don't hate homosexuals personally. However, most of my exposure to homosexuals is through the media. My exposure is therefore nearly exclusive to things like the gay parade fraught with feathers, leather, multi-colored hair, piercings everywhere and other "in your face activity". Does the homosexual community resent that this is the only picture that comes through the media?

While we are on the subject of understanding homosexuals, there is something I cannot figure out. Can someone explain to me the phenomenon that homosexual men so often talk differently than heterosexual men. Is this a conscious choice or does it just happen? If it just happens, why are there some homosexuals that do not talk this way?

I hope my comments are not misconstrued as being hateful. I don't hate gays. I do have questions. As for my christian perspective, I think God views homosexuality the same as heterosexuals who engage in sexual axtivity outside of marriage or with someone married to someone else.

12/09/2006 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...

You're my personal hero, GW. This is so true.

I am sure you meant Grey Wolf and not George W.

Hehe, you smartass AICS. No, I don't find the President very heroic most of the time. Or at all.

I do wonder if anybody has any statistics on how many homosexuals remain celibate.

Might be difficult to collect accurate information on the topic, but I'd wager that gay men probably have more sex than their straight counterparts. I don't want to be vulgar here, but it follows that the combined libido of two men would facilitate more 'activity' than an opposite sex couple.

However, most of my exposure to homosexuals is through the media. My exposure is therefore nearly exclusive to things like the gay parade fraught with feathers, leather, multi-colored hair, piercings everywhere and other "in your face activity". Does the homosexual community resent that this is the only picture that comes through the media?

The media exaggerates and is generally full of crap most of the time, so it's not surprising that most people have a weird perception of gay people. I've never really seen a very 'real' representation of homosexuals in the media at all. I can't stand shows like Queer as Folk and Will & Grace, just because it's such an idealised version of reality that I (and many others) just can't relate to. Trusting shows like that for an accurate portrayal of homosexuals is like assuming that all women in America are promiscuous spinsters like on Sex & The City.

Gay pride parades especially irritate me. You have to remember that when the media reports on the parades, they don't focus their attention on the majority of people who just stand around in normal clothes talking to one another, they go directly for the scantily clad drag queens. That's what elicits the most attention from viewers.

I've been to gay pride parades before, and in my experience most people aren't dressed flamboyantly or with heaps of piercings and the like. Lots of people aren't even gay.

But yes, a few like to seize the opportunity to act silly, which is fine I guess, but it's really not an accurate portrayal of most people who go out and enjoy themselves.

For the record: I personally have never felt a compulsion to dress in leather/feathers/etc. Seems silly to dress like a woman if you want to be attractive to gay men, if that makes sense. And I'm not overly fond of the idea of having gay pride parades in the first place. I can understand why they had certain significance in the 70s and 80s, but to me there's nothing 'special' about being gay. I think the whole point of 'gay pride' isn't about being proud as such, but more about not being ashamed. I'm no more proud of being gay than the average straight person is of being straight.

Can someone explain to me the phenomenon that homosexual men so often talk differently than heterosexual men.

I've wondered this so many times, and had so many conversations about this with friends than I care to think of. I think it's something that some gay men do as a means of identifying themselves as gay, and possibly to meet other gay people.

When I was at school I used to hang around with the 'fag clique' and I know that a few of us would act a bit differently. I was never a limp-wristed, soft talking homo, but sometimes I just did it to fit in or when I've had too much to drink. I certainly don't act overtly gay when I'm just doing my day-to-day stuff.

Is this a conscious choice or does it just happen?

I'd say it's a bit of both. There's no denying that lots of gay men just are born effeminate and adopt certain mannerisms. But like I said, I think it's just one those social things that occurs when some gay men feel free to act how they choose without having somebody judging them.

I hope my comments are not misconstrued as being hateful. I don't hate gays. I do have questions.

Not hateful at all. Open minded questions are good.

As for being Christian: I don't really see why homosexuality is constantly picked apart as a separate issue. Lots of Christians focus heaps of their attention on homosexuals, pointing to small parts of the Bible (OT mostly), when Jesus himself never said anything about it. From an atheistic point of view, it's odd that a god who so virulently opposes homosexuality would fail to mention this in his earthly lifetime at all. Going off track a bit here as well, it seems weird to me that god doesn't just stop making people gay if he's just going to ship them off to hell in the end. But, I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe that people are born gay or become gay.

12/09/2006 10:07 PM
All_I_Can_Stands said...

Jacob,

Thanks for your answers and your candor. Your answers were helpful.

AICS

12/09/2006 10:55 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)