Rosie To Come Out April 23

[supermus]

Well yes the homophobic laws seem silly and nonsensical because the people who wrote them are stupid and ignorant.

About the Rosie quote, she probably does feel that way because she doesn't want her kids to go through the pain, hate, and discrimination that she's going through right now. I'd feel the same way.

[Banshee]

quote:

---

Originally posted by supermus:
Well yes the homophobic laws seem silly and nonsensical because the people who wrote them are stupid and ignorant.

About the Rosie quote, she probably does feel that way because she doesn't want her kids to go through the pain, hate, and discrimination that she's going through right now. I'd feel the same way.

---

Yeah, but you also have to remember that she is in a position that many of us are not--wealthy, famous..etc. She's worth, according to US magazine around 115million(and that's with supporting her kids and various family members.. if she didn't, then she'd be worth around 165million). I mean, not once during that interview did she mention her sexuality EVER working against her. It's from this exaulted standing that she is able to shed light on a subject like this and, for that, I applaud her. I mean, if she didn't do that interview Dateline wouldn't have, at this time, run that story on those men and their children and the public wouldn't have woken up this morning a little bit angrier and a hell of a lot more educated. I mean, the Advocate ran a story about them months ago..where was the mainstream media then?

-S

------------------
"Believe me I don't want to go,
And it'll grieve me 'cause I love you so
But we both know..."quote:

[dusty]

quote:

---

Originally posted by supermus:
Well yes the homophobic laws seem silly and nonsensical because the people who wrote them are stupid and ignorant.

About the Rosie quote, she probably does feel that way because she doesn't want her kids to go through the pain, hate, and discrimination that she's going through right now. I'd feel the same way.

---

Actually she said in the interview that she had never ever been discriminated against for being gay, which seemed to contradict her remark about how being straight is so much easier. I actually found that very hard to believe, although it could just mean she has avoided discrimination by not coming out up until now (ie, she never would have got her tv show if she had been out). Anyway, I just think saying that she wants her kids to be straight and that no one would ever choose to be gay (I know people who feel that, on some level, feel they have chosen queerness, and although that is quite differnt from my personal experience I can't say that I wouldn't choose it if I felt I had a choice) do not really help the queer community. Overall, of course, I think her coming out and the things she have said have been helpful, there's just a few that I disagree with.

quote:

[Hugin]

Actually, she said if she had the choice to go back and change anything, she'd still choose to be gay, that she loves her life.

-len

[dusty]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hugin:
Actually, she said if she had the choice to go back and change anything, she'd still choose to be gay, that she loves her life.

---

She said she wouldn't choose not to be gay now at this point in her life, because she's happy, but she also said, "Who would choose it? It's a very difficult life...I don't think anyone would choose it."

quote:

[xita]

Honestly, it's a shame she's so public but for me as a gay person, Rosie lost her relevance long time. And anything that makes people think is good I think, but personally, I am bored by the whole thing. I didn't watch it and I don't plan on it. I was busy listening to Amber ... sigh.

[Hugin]

Yes, I went back and checked, your wording is right. I apologize.

My basic feeling is the focus of the show and the nature of all of her statements on the topic is about presenting a case for gay adoption to middle america, and that focus drove the questions and answers (which of course were worked out at least in general beforehand). Not academic america, liberal america, urban america, or queer america. To them (us), her statements can look apologetic or self loathing or puffball, but she's not trying to engage us here.

Middle america always has certain tired old questions about gay parenting, and gay folks fighting for thier rights. One of them is "do gay parents raise gay kids?" or more agressively/ignorantly "We're afraid to have vulnerable,impressionable children raised in "the gay lifestyle", for fear they will become gay themselves." , thus a whole bit about the kids of gay parents and thier eventual self-identification to defuse, debunk that idea. Yes, a higher level argument could be made asserting that since being gay isn't bad, gay parents raising gay kids isn't any more a problem than catholic parents raising catholic kids or vegetarian parents raising vegetarian kids.

But I think they made a strategic decision not to argue in those terms, and frankly, I think it's a smart choice considering the target audience, i.e "This isn't a problem because the specific thing you're (ignorantly) worrying about doesn't actually happen, and we have simple numbers to prove it." works better than "This isn't a problem because the entire sociologoical underpinnings of your prejudice are invalid and we have...erm...really complex philosophical arguments to...sort of prove it..if you're open minded enough or a really rigorous thinker."

Same thing on her comment about no one choosing to be gay. The ignorant question/rebuttal that comes up all the time is "Why should I be expected to change my feelings about gay folks/vote in thier favor, etc, when they choose to live thier deviant lifestyle? They made thier bed, I'm not sympathetic to thier whining about having to lie in it."

At this point, things get really messy. Rosie and Diane craft one standard answer: "You can't punish someone for something that's out of thier control. No one chooses to be gay, look at it logically: it's a hard life, you're discriminated against, the law doesn't serve you in so many ways, who would choose that, I wouldn't, no one would, I'm just doing the best I can with what I've been dealt, so please be reasonable and start sympathizing with my needs."

She could have said "It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not, since there's nothing wrong with being gay, it's like discriminating against someone because of thier religion, which they can choose and change if they like. If that's illegal, so should this."

But again, given the target audience, I'm not sure how persuasive that would be. When polls are conducted on most divisive issues, people are much more willing to agree with (evin if only grudgingly) arguments that allow for a sort of "seperate but equal" or contextual philosophical rationalization, rather than agreeing to global refutations of thier beliefs. Asking people to agree that "if A is true", then okay..gr..fine, if A is true, then B could be true I guess..", or "Well, if A isn't true..then..yeah, okay, I guess I can't fairly complain about B", is much more effective than saying. "Oh B is simply untrue, period? I'm just wrong? Screw you."

So, as annoying or homophobic as it is, I can see why Rosie and Diane went with "You can think it's wrong to be gay, but in this case that doesn't matter.", rather than "It's not wrong to be gay." Her statement is in a sense a slap to the queer community, but that's not who she's fighting with, and that's not who she has to convince to get what she wants. Of course, all political/social movements fight about radicals vs. moderates and thier strategies, the value and the danger of appeasement and such. I can understand if some folks find Rosie's strategies too soft, but I do believe that that's what it is: A strategy, carefully constructed to appeal to the audience she's has the most leverage with already.

-len

[Hemiola]

I think that Hugin makes sense here, especially in light of the interview with the Florida State Senator (at least, I think that's how he was identified).
Here you had this individual perfectly exemplifying all of the attitudes against which she is fighting: an obtusely smug self-righteousness coupled with misguided religious zeal .

[Cicca]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dusty:
I was a little annoyed that Rosie said she hopes her kids turn out to be straight. I mean, of course I'm sure she'll accept them no matter who they are, but I was less than pleased with the way she stated it. She said it was because being straight is easier in our society, but I felt like she was saying that the straight lifestyle is a lot more desirable.

---

After she said all this, she also said that she wanted her kids to be true themselves and be who they are. I think THAT was a truer statement from her... There are a lot of parents out there who don't want their children to be true to themselves. Shame on them.quote:

[dusty]

I guess I can understand why she would use that strategy, as it is the one that is most friendly to middle america and will possibly change more minds, it just seems like her views on the subject are somehow supposed to represent gay america and there are a lot of us who don't feel accurately represented by them at all. I don't want people to think it's ok that I'm queer because I couldn't help it. No, it's ok because there's nothing wrong with it, and it doesn't hurt anyone. And I don't want people to say it's ok for queer parents to have kids because they aren't any more likely to have queer kids. That is irrelevant because there's nothing wrong with being queer. But for now I concede that maybe it's better just for people to accept these things even if it is, IMO, for the wrong reason. I would never say the things Rosie is saying, and I have a lot of issues with them, but I suppose the possibility of her changing people's minds is a good thing. It's just that I really hope this is part of a transition to an acceptance that is broader than "oh, they can't help it" rather than concepts that are set in stone.

[Cipher]

I was a little surprised that Rosie said she hoped her kids turn out straight, but I don't think it's right to condemn her for it, especially with the rest of her answer on that question explaining that she wants her kids to be true to themselves and would obviously accept and love them for who they are no matter what.

It's really most like a mother saying she hopes her kids grow up to be doctors (or lawyers, or perhaps "successful" in general). There's nothing particularly wrong with them not turning out that way, and she's not going to be disappointed in them if they don't (as opposed to some parents who want (not just hope) their kids to be something specific, and are upset when the kids don't care for it). She's not going to in any way try to steer them away from their true feelings. That seems like a pretty good attitude.

It's also a little like asking expecting parents whether they hope their baby is a boy or a girl. Some people have a preference and they either get that preference or they don't and they either are happy (either way) or they are less-than-great parents. Other people have no preference and recognize that it doesn't really matter one way or the other and are happy for their child either way. That's a somewhat nicer attitude to have, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be so enlightened.

[supermus]

My Netscape home page has a message board about gay adoptions, and these annoying bible thumpers keep quoting Leviticus 18:22, so some wrote this HILARIOUS response:
Okay, almost every post references an arcane piece of scripture to explain why it is okay for them to do everything from simply opposing gay adoptions to advocating the killing of all homosexuals and lebians. You may recall, however, that we do not live in a theocracy and, due to the separation of church and state, most of our laws are intended to simply protect our rights from being violated. I have not heard one sensible argument with any legal merit. It always leads back to the Bible, convenitnely skipping the entire New Testament, which primarily is a message of peace, love, and tolerance in the teachings of Jesus. The scriptures (like the Constitution) can be twisted to almost any purpose and have often been cited as reasons for everything from segregation to genocide.

So, for those who feel we must follow the Bible word for word rather than in spirit, I present a letter written to Dr. Laura by Michael Moore.

"Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. "

[Sela]

That was great, supermus!!! I've always abhorred the way people try to hide their prejudices behind the guise of Christianity and the Bible. It's irresponsible and absolutely ignorant. But I am glad to see that someone was able to counteract that with wit and intelligence. I think I might just use some of Michael Moore's stuff when I'm talking to closed-minded people.

--Sela

[shellybean]

I wasn't surprised when Rosie said that she'd prefer her kids to be strait. Its obvious that being gay is much harder than being strait. She said that she'd prefer they were strait only because they'd have a much easier life if they were. And its understandable because every parent would want their kids to have an easier life. Its also obvious that Rosie would love her children either way. I wish I had a mother like her when I was younger. It would have made life so much easier.

------------------
Willow: "Besides, spells going awry, friends in danger...I'm really nothing special."
Tara: "No, you are"
Willow and Tara's first real conversation - "Hush"

"Hear that baby? You're my always"
Willow to Tara - "Tough Love"

"HEY! You're gonna back off! She said no and thats it, you're not going to make her do something that she doesn't want to. And if you try, you're going to have to go through me. Understood?"
Tara standing up for Willlow and being the protective ex and bad ass - "Older and Far Away"

"Hi Tara, How are you? I was wondering if maybe you want to go out sometime? For coffee? food? kissing and gay love?"
Willow practicing asking Tara out - "Normal Again"

[La]

Here's a link to another article about how Rosie's "announcement" has or hasn't affected people.

Mar 20, 2002 10:26am
ROSIE O'DONNELL'S CANDOR ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION RESONATES WELL WITH AMERICANS
by WITECK-COMBS COMMUNICATIONS
Online version: http://www.gaywire.net/newswire/index.c ... 320-102613

------------------
~La

"No good sittin' worryin' abou' it. What's comin' will
come, an' we'll meet it when it does."
~Hagrid, from "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire".

[Cipher]

supermus, some of those same examples were used in a scene of The West Wing (last season, or maybe even first season) in which President Bartlet confronts a Dr.Laura-type at some sort of party(?) (held at the White House) for people in radio(?). It was a pretty cool scene and I think I managed to tape his monologue when it aired again. I can't remember if there were other examples he used that aren't in the letter you quoted, but I don't remember any.

I wonder if the scene was inspired by the letter, because a lot of the wording is very similar.

[alexis_18]

ok, i really want to comment about the religious stuff.

i am catholic and in this country where i live, the state is kind'a dictated by the state, which, frankly, sucks.

my faith (not religion) is a very big part of me... but being a homosexual doesn't really make me worry about going to hell. i am more worried of going to hell for reasons such as blasphemy, bigotry and being judgmental of my fellow men and women.

God loves us no matter what, and the message of the Bible also conforms with time. right now, nobody gets stoned to death or being blasphemized for eating meat on Fridays, right? so maybe the same thing will happen for homosexuality, maybe we just have to wait... but it'll happen.

And God loves us no matter what... He takes the whole enchilada...

"tell me what kind of God you don't believe in... I probably don't believe in that God either. " a former Harvard chaplain once said.

[La]

Here's a nice book review of Rosie's book from The Advocate. There are very light spoilers (normal review-y type mentions) so here's a little
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
spoiler space
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

quote:

---

Really Rosie
Ms. O’Donnell’s autobiography, Find Me, is a lot more revealing than the Queen of Nice would have you believe. In her plain-spoken way, she just can’t help but reveal her humanity.
By Anne Stockwell
An Advocate.com exclusive posted March 22, 2002

Rosie O’Donnell’s slim memoir, Find Me, is more substantial than it looks. Maybe you were expecting a self-serving tour of career highlights from the Queen of Nice—or, more to the point, a coy, read-between-the-lines treatment of O’Donnell’s life as a lesbian. Nope. None of that. Her prose packs an Irish wallop, and though she doesn’t ladle out a lot of words, she doesn’t need to. She has the knack of packing all the facts you need into minimal space—which keeps you, the reader, on your toes and saves her startlingly frank revelations from dissolving into sentimentality.

Rosie has often said she doesn’t want to make a big deal of being gay, and as her landmark Primetime Thursday interview proved, she’s expert at putting her lesbian life into a larger frame of reference. The same holds true for Find Me.

Here’s how O’Donnell contextualizes her one account of dating a woman: “Once, I dated someone with an eating disorder, a dedicated carrot chomper, and for the short time we were together, I arrived in my own body. She forced me there. She insisted I go to the gym with her twice a day. Pounds started dropping off me as I increased the StairMaster’s speed, upped the incline on the treadmill. Afterward we’d share some tofu as a reward. It was, I see now, a little obsessive, but love or its close facsimile can make you crazy. So I went a little crazy while at the same time, flesh just melted and my muscles emerged. The funny thing is, I barely noticed. I was too busy trying to convince my anorexic love of her talent and self-worth. I had no time to see me. Perfect.”

O’Donnell gets into darker territory too, although she declines to provide the details. “I was an abused kid,” she writes. “This is something I have chosen not to dwell on in my public life. It sounds trite, like an ET sound bite. But sometimes you can’t escape a cliché, and when you can’t, you have to go straight to the heart of it and hope there’s something not stale at its center. So, yes, I had been abused, although the details are not important. What is important is that I had, supposedly, dealt with the fallout in therapy. How naive I was.”

O’Donnell elaborates on this point as she tells of her long-distance friendship with Stacie, a 14-year-old girl who’s pregnant thanks to a brutal rape by her youth minister, no less. Even amid her near-frenzied charitable giving, O’Donnell can’t get her mind wrapped around this particular hard-luck story. As she and Stacie commence an intensifying string of cathartic telephone conversations, O’Donnell reexamines tender memories of her own mother’s death from breast cancer—and reevaluates other areas of her life, from her decision to adopt her children to her decision to leave her gigantically successful talk show.

Consistent with Rosie’s no-big-deal approach, partner Kelli Carpenter is mentioned, just in passing, a couple of times. Actually, that’s plenty. This book conveys the warmth of their family—and a wealth of other stories worth hearing—very nicely, thank you. Even if you’re among the “gay nazis” who wanted Rosie to come out sooner, this book may just win you over. Find Me is proof positive that there’s a hell of a lot more than sexual identity to Rosie O’Donnell.

---

------------------
~La

"No good sittin' worryin' abou' it. What's comin' will
come, an' we'll meet it when it does."
~Hagrid, from "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire".quote: