Billy Crystal is Right: Stop Shoving Gay Scenes in My Face (like "Glee") #BillyCrystal #Glee

Somebody had to say it, and Billy Crystal, actor and comedian, finally did:  There are way too many gay scenes on television.  Some gay characters, now and again, are okay, because homosexuality is a part of humanity and a part of life.  However, due to pressure from radical gay advocacy groups, every television show, every new movie, every Broadway play has to have at least one prominent gay character.  Some have way more than that.  The television series "Glee," is a case in point.

"Glee" is about a high school glee club, giving it a credible basis for lots of singing and music.  the series is in its last season, having survived five previous years on the air.  "Glee" is appealing in that it features some excellent singing talent and some interesting plots and characters, e.g. the evil and crazy cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester (played by Jane Lynch), who has now taken over as principal of the school (and who hates the glee club).  Various student club members, like the talented Lea Michele as Rachel Berry, provide excellent singing entertainment.

However, the fly in the soup is the gay component.  It is overdone to the point of suffocation.  Watching "Glee" one might get the impression that homosexuality is the natural and the norm, and heterosexuality the rare exception.  There are two gay male students, and two gay female students, and the first two  six-season episodes are exclusively devoted to the romantic intrigues and relationship storms of these four characters.  To make matters even more odd, the high school football coach is a masculine-looking woman who announces that she will be getting sexual reassignment surgery to gain a penis and become a man.  Except that she will then be a gay man, because she is still attracted to men.  If one wishes to enjoy the positive aspects of "Glee," he or she must be prepared to wallow in gayness as a condition thereof.

The fact is, "Glee" is a gay love story and always has been.  No doubt gay people love it, but as a non-gay man, I find its negatives now outweigh its positives.  I find the over-emphasis on the gay lifestyle vaguely disturbing and distasteful.  I'm glad that this is the last season for "Glee."  I am all gayed-out.

Cartoon: Gays In Islam

From Dixon Diaz:

Actually, they are well hanged, not necessarily well hung. It's a common grammatical error.

The Duck Dynasty Controversy and What It Means for Conservatives

My last post was a bit long and rambling. Allow me to summarize my position, and what I recommend for conservatives concerning gays.

1. Being virulently anti-gay is unlikely to help us regain control of the federal government, and therefore such expressions should be avoided. They hinder more than help. If I would be free to live my life as I choose, within the law, I must be willing to allow others the same privilege.

2. The purpose of government is not, or should not be, to enforce anyone's religious imperatives on the public at large.

3. The intense social and economic ostracism of the left on anyone who expresses contrary opinions is unfortunate and to be resisted; therefore, I support the boycott against A&E.

4. As conservatives, we need to pick and choose our fights carefully, with a long view, and avoid unnecessary controversies. We have a tendency to shoot ourselves in the foot and to fight battles we cannot win, and do not need to win, in order to restore the Constitution, limited government, and economic prosperity.

That's basically what I was trying to say in my last post. What do you think? What am I missing here?

Phil Robertson and Gay Stuff: Stogie's Deep Philosophical Discussion About Same

Phil Robertson of "Duck Dynasty"

Phil Robertson, patriarch of the family featured in the TV series "Duck Dynasty" is under considerable fire this week.  Seems he was interviewed by GQ magazine, and asked his opinion about homosexuality.  Since Roberston is a devoted Christian, his opinion was bound to enrage many gays and gay organizations.

What is the Christian opinion?  It is that homosexuality is a sin, a violation of the laws of God, and practitioners thereof are going to Hell.  Roberson also questioned whether a man's anus is a preferable choice to a woman's vagina when making whoopee.  How dare he!

The religious abhorrence to homosexuality is based on a long tradition, dating back to the legend of Sodom and Gomorrah, where God is said to have destroyed these cities and killed everyone therein, for their widespread practice of gay sex.

Polygamy, on the other hand, was practiced by many Biblical patriarchs with nary a word of disapproval by God. However, very few Christians would defend that practice in today's world.  The point is this:  time passes and things change.

Here's my take on the whole thing, and I doubt anyone will like what I believe.

1.  Gay people are not going to go to Hell, because Hell does not exist (in my opinion).  Even if it did, I doubt God would give two hoots in Hell who someone sleeps with.  I know at least one gay couple (one of whom is an in-law) who recently married in California, and I have no doubt that they sincerely love each other.  Their 19 year relationship is based on a lot more than lust and sex.  They make each other happy and are harming no one.

2.  Still, I view this gay couple's sexual orientation to be something of a tragedy, or at the very least, a disadvantage  They will never know the joy of children.  I am not totally repulsed by their relationship, but I do view it with a vague aversion.  It's like a bad smell, however faint, that is always there.  It won't kill me, but I don't find it pleasant either.  However, neither of these gays is obligated to live his life to please me or anyone other than himself.  Personally, I like both of them and enjoy their company.  I do not socially ostracize them; however, I have a very leftwing, pro-Obama sister, and I do not associate with her -- because her political orientation thoroughly disgusts and offends me.

3.  I am not a Christian fundamentalist, and I don't really care who said what in the Bible.  So please don't quote scripture at me.  The problem with established religion is that it is an ideology that is frozen in time, it offers absolutes and is never updated for new paradigms, values or standards. Strict adherence to religious texts is like putting your brain in a small cage:  it is never allowed to stray beyond fixed boundaries.  However, I recognize that many Christians don't see it my way, Phil Robertson being one of them.  My advice to him would be:  don't pronounce religious judgment on gays, because you do not speak for God and do not know what path the Almighty has assigned them, or for what purpose.

4.  Phil Robertson has a right to his opinions and his religion.  Leave him alone.  I absolutely support Robertson's right to freely and truthfully express his opinions, as long as they are not hateful (and they were not). If you don't want to know his opinions, don't ask him to express them.  Severe social ostracism and loss of employment for holding non-leftwing views is not acceptable and we should not tolerate it.

5.  Homosexuality is the orientation of a decided minority of citizens, and heterosexuals naturally find it unnatural and even disgusting.  Therefore, gays should respect the sensibilities of the vast majority, by not practicing affectionate or romantic displays in public.  Likewise, Hollyweird should stop rubbing our faces in the glories of gayness, by over-representing gays and over-emphasizing gayness in movies and TV series (like "Glee").

I smoke cigars, and many people find the smell offensive -- so I do not smoke them in public places or near other people who might object.  If I can be sensitive to the sensibilities of others who may not enjoy cigars (the rotten bigots), so can gays about their sexual orientation.  It is simple manners, folks.

6.  Homosexuality exists and has existed for millenia.  It isn't going away.  Gays will not become straight, no matter how mean we are to them.  So the obvious solution is "Live and Let Live."  Gays should not be discriminated against in employment, bullied, denounced or punished.  Leave them alone.  Anything else is self-defeating and self-destructive, particularly to the goals of conservatism.

That's the way I see it, anyway.  If you disagree, I really don't care -- none of us has the power to see the whole truth.  Feel free to disagree, and we will still be friends.

Gay Rights Boycott Has Profound Effect on Chick-Fil-A Restaurant Chain

The owners of the restaurant chain with the strange name, Chick-Fil-A, openly support traditional marriage and oppose legalization of gay marriage.  For this reason, liberal mayors of towns like Chicago are promising to block Chick-Fil-A from doing business in their liberal cesspool cities.  Gays and Radicals Outraged About Nearly Everything (GROANE) are boycotting the restaurant chain to support their contempt for the First Amendment.

Their efforts and their message are clear:  Agree with radical ideas or we will destroy you; or at the very least, do not publicly oppose those ideas.

Sarah and Todd Palin Buying Chick-Fil-A Food

The boycott has had a profound effect.  Chick-Fil-A's business is booming, with large lines winding around the block by customers who want to buy food there.

Thanks "progressives"!  It's always satisfying to see your treachery and tyranny backfire on you.

Unfortunately, the nearest Chick-Fil-A to me is 80 miles away, in Fresno, California.  Otherwise I'd be there now, chowing down on a chicken sandwich.

Revulsion for Homosexuality: Learned or Inherent Behavior?

I used to think that tolerating homosexuality made me pretty broad-minded.  By tolerance I mean not being hateful to gays, or unkind, or trying to get them fired from their jobs, or making them social outcasts.  My position was this:  I am in favor of tolerance of gays, as long as I don't have to watch gay behavior or think about it.  To each his own, live and let live.

However, militant gays find my position unacceptable.  Tolerance is no longer good enough.  They want homosexuality to be viewed as normal and as natural as heterosexuality; they want full social and cultural acceptance.  They want a guy marrying another guy to be as unremarkable as a guy marrying a blonde or a redhead.  Is this even possible?

I suppose the real question is this:  is heterosexual revulsion to homosexuality learned or inherent behavior?  Is it even possible for militant gays to achieve their goal of complete and unreserved acceptance of their lifestyle?

I googled this question on the web and found little to support either position.  If anyone knows of any studies along these lines, please so inform me.  Whatever the truth is, let it be revealed.

Too Much Discussion Regarding Gays

The super Christians who frequent "View From the Right" have continued to discuss my tolerance for gays.  Good lord, funny how the word "tolerance" can cause such controversy.   The discussion did help me to clarify my real position on this and other matters.

I often self-censor to avoid offending Christian conservatives, especially family members who are really into religion.  I won't do that any more.  I do not filter my judgment, logic and thought through anyone's "holy scriptures."  I am a member of no religion, including Christianity.  I judge religions by the amount of joy they impart to their followers.  Religions that replace joy, wonder and optimism with fear, loathing and prejudice are to be devoutly ignored.

I admire Carl Jung, a great thinker and psychiatrist who tried to understand religious concepts (like an afterlife) through his own direct experience.  He was wonderfully open-minded about it.  A couple of Jungian quotes:

Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism.
Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.

My stand on gays is easy to understand:  leave them alone.  Do not insult them, taunt them, fire them (on that basis alone), and most certainly, do not beat them up.  Teenage gays have a very high suicide rate, mainly due to bullying from their peers. Don't add to that by your own behavior.  Live and let live.

My personal standard goes even further:  do not ostracize gays, nor deny them kindness, inclusion and friendship, assuming that the only area of difference is their sexual orientation.  I thought the actions of some social conservatives to boycott CPAC over the participation of a gay conservative group were mean and narrow-minded.

As far as religion and gays is concerned, I will say this:  any religion that requires you to hate people you don't know, for things they can't help and who are doing you no harm, is a false religion.

Hollyweird: Celebrating the Gay Lifestyle (the World is Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay, Gay!)

I have made it clear that I am tolerant of gays.  I neither attack gays nor support them in their lifestyle.  However, I am sick to death of Hollywood's massive campaign to normalize homosexuality.  Tolerance is one thing, celebration is something else entirely.

Last night I saw an episode of "Gray's Anatomy" playing on our television set, that my wife had left on.  In it the two major characters of the serial were getting married and exchanging vows.  No problem there.  Simultaneously, however, two lesbian characters were getting married and exchanging vows.  Previously in this serial, both of these women were heterosexual (one was portrayed as being married to a man).  However, the local GLAAD representative must have called, because both women became lovers (of each other).

I stopped watching "Gray's Anatomy" when that happened.  I no longer felt comfortable being a target of leftist propaganda, i.e. that the whole world is gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, and that we should present it, portray it and celebrate it as if it were as normal, as widespread and as beautiful as wildflowers in Spring.

I stopped watching "Glee" for the same reason.  I could tolerate, even sympathize with one gay character and his problems, but then other members of the cast started being portrayed as gay, too.  My tolerance was breached when one scene depicted two gay guys enjoying a romantic kiss on the lips.  Barf.  I decided that "Glee" should be renamed "Gleefully Gay."  It was no longer for me.

Hollyweird should use gay characters when and if they are relevant to the plot.  However, putting whole squads of gays into a medieval catapult and firing them straight at my face -- well, that's just too much.  No can stomach, Hollyweird.  The reason is simple:  the world is not gay, gay, gay, gay, gay.  It is mostly straight, and too much gayness makes us nauseous.

Thoughts on Gays

Yesterday I received a note from my younger brother about my post on Jim Carrey's Gay Gross-Out.  He was disappointed to learn that I am accepting of gays, whom the bible says are an abomination unto the Lord.

I replied that I believe gays are born that way, that it is something genetic and that they can't help it.  He disagreed, saying that many gays have been rendered straight through the power of the gospel.

I also pointed out that if being cruel and hateful to gays will make them straight, then let's go for it.  However, being cruel and hateful to gays only makes a lot of them commit suicide.  It doesn't make them straight.

So what then are we to do with gays?  Simple:  leave them alone.  If you have a gay member of your family, do not ostracize them, but treat them like anyone else.  If God has a problem with his own creation, then let God figure it out.  You don't have to.