Back in July, the David family had breakfast during Shore Leave convention with George Takei and Brad Altman, and naturally we discussed the upcoming wedding. They were talking about how they’d had to whittle the invite list from several thousand to two hundred. And I had to ask the question that I”m sure you would have asked: “Are you inviting Shatner?”
“Yes,” said Brad, nodding firmly, and George agreed, adding, “I think it’s time to let the past go.” They could not have been more definitive: the olive branch was being extended, bygones allowed to be bygones, hatchets being buried and every other cliche you’d care to roll out.
The result? The invite, which was sent to Shatner’s manager, was never forwarded to Shatner for whatever reason, and now a video Shatner released in which he excoriates George is getting all kinds of media play.
“George came out. Who cares?” asks Shatner in the video. The answer to that, of course, is the opponents of gay marriage who are circulating e-mails and fliers filled with baseless scare tactics in order to try and push through Proposition 8. A Proposition that would make sure joyous days such as the one Kath and I shared with George, Brad and a couple hundred guests–which could have included William Shatner–will never occur again for anyone who’s gay in California. Those bigots, those jerks, those killjoys…they’re the ones who care, Mr. Shatner.
So that answers your questions: The questions of why George Takei didn’t invite you (he did) and who cares that George is gay (those who want to push through Prop 8). So here’s my question to you:
What are you going to do about it?
PAD
• 
Susan O said:
“By the time my grandmother hit 70, she didn’t hold back an opinion, ever, as if making up for all the years she did. Perhaps that’s a more universal trait.”
I’m not near 70, but it sure is easy to express yourself when you are in no danger on losing anything. No income (present or future) can be lost, no raise or promotion can be lost, etc. This is what makes it so much more admirable when done by a young person with something to lose.
Friend worked janitorial for Greyhound. Found out that some were being hired at higher pay rate than others. Complained about it. Got fired. Is now unemployed. But former co-workers now say they all are at the higher rate. His actions brought results to others, even though he suffered in the end. Good man.
Susan O said:
“By the time my grandmother hit 70, she didn’t hold back an opinion, ever, as if making up for all the years she did. Perhaps that’s a more universal trait.”
I’m not near 70, but it sure is easy to express yourself when you are in no danger on losing anything. No income (present or future) can be lost, no raise or promotion can be lost, etc. This is what makes it so much more admirable when done by a young person with something to lose.
Friend worked janitorial for Greyhound. Found out that some were being hired at higher pay rate than others. Complained about it. Got fired. Is now unemployed. But former co-workers now say they all are at the higher rate. His actions brought results to others, even though he suffered in the end. Good man.
Posted by Brian Woods
Susan, that’s a bit harsh given that Shatner’s last wife committed suicide.
Touche. I stand corrected on that one. I was thinking along the lines of the fact George and Brad have been together 20+ years, and Shatner’s been through at least 4 wives.
Posted by Brian Woods
Susan, that’s a bit harsh given that Shatner’s last wife committed suicide.
Touche. I stand corrected on that one. I was thinking along the lines of the fact George and Brad have been together 20+ years, and Shatner’s been through at least 4 wives.
Another thing that I notice about Shatner’s videos (both his one about J.J. Abrams, and the one about Takei) is that he has his daughter Liz ask him questions, as if she’s an interested interviewer asking him questions, when it’s really just him giving his view of things, unsolicited. Most people just talk into the camera or make a blog entry that makes it unambiguously clear that they freely chose to express themselves. The interviewer motif makes it seem as if Shatner is being reactive, as if he’s responding to queries, when no one really asked him anything.
“But, you know, if he believes that something is bad for you, and he’s not offensive about saying so, that’s his prerogative. Periodically, when i hear my wife coughing her lungs out in the morning, i mention that i think smoking is bad for her… Granted, that’s something with a tad more objective evidence behind it, but she doesn’t get mad.”
If it’s just a matter of Iowa Jim believing something is bad for me and saying so, then yes. He is free to say it, I’m free to think he’s wrong and ignore it. It is all cool.
But it doesn’t stop here. Iowa Jim and people like him, motivated by their belief that homosexuality is harmful, actually DO things. They pressure, influence, boycott. And soon, a big corporation that was going to come on the side of gay rights (McDonalds) is cowed by guys like Iowa Jim, and that has a major effect in the real world.
Iowa Jim’s ideas aren’t just ideas. They’re weapons in a cultural war. Everytime I’m cowed and forced into a second-class citizen position or into a life that isn’t my life, due to my sexual orientation being “unacceptable” in everyday life, it’s Iowa Jim’s ideas that I’m fighting against.
So no, it’s not just an oppinion to me. And yes, I’m going to get pìššëd. He should imagine how would he feel if Christians were a minority and lots of people had the oppinion that Christianity is harmful, and he had to hide his cross and bible and never say Jesus’s name when other people might hear it.
“But, you know, if he believes that something is bad for you, and he’s not offensive about saying so, that’s his prerogative. Periodically, when i hear my wife coughing her lungs out in the morning, i mention that i think smoking is bad for her… Granted, that’s something with a tad more objective evidence behind it, but she doesn’t get mad.”
If it’s just a matter of Iowa Jim believing something is bad for me and saying so, then yes. He is free to say it, I’m free to think he’s wrong and ignore it. It is all cool.
But it doesn’t stop here. Iowa Jim and people like him, motivated by their belief that homosexuality is harmful, actually DO things. They pressure, influence, boycott. And soon, a big corporation that was going to come on the side of gay rights (McDonalds) is cowed by guys like Iowa Jim, and that has a major effect in the real world.
Iowa Jim’s ideas aren’t just ideas. They’re weapons in a cultural war. Everytime I’m cowed and forced into a second-class citizen position or into a life that isn’t my life, due to my sexual orientation being “unacceptable” in everyday life, it’s Iowa Jim’s ideas that I’m fighting against.
So no, it’s not just an oppinion to me. And yes, I’m going to get pìššëd. He should imagine how would he feel if Christians were a minority and lots of people had the oppinion that Christianity is harmful, and he had to hide his cross and bible and never say Jesus’s name when other people might hear it.
Rene – in my opinion, you made a very good point, and Iowa Jim has said enough on the issue to earn what was really a rather mild rebuke. (In fact, I was considering complimenting you on that post even before I saw that someone had criticized it.)
Shatner should have just congratulated the happy couple and been done with it. But I actually agreed with him on the J.J Abrams movie thing.
Shatner should have just congratulated the happy couple and been done with it. But I actually agreed with him on the J.J Abrams movie thing.
“to say that George should have stayed in the closet is also ridiculous. While I may disagree strongly with his lifestyle choice (because of my certainty that it is harmful to him, not just society), it does nothing good to keep it hidden.”
Interesting. I thought social conservatives preferred that gays remain in the closet; that while accepting that homosexuality exists they preferred that it remain hidden and away from the public eye. I thought that was the objection for gay marriages — the public legitimacy.
“I may disagree strongly with his lifestyle choice (because of my certainty that it is harmful to him, not just society)”
Is homosexuality harmful to homosexuals in any other way beyond religion, namely the belief that God opposes homosexuality?
“to say that George should have stayed in the closet is also ridiculous. While I may disagree strongly with his lifestyle choice (because of my certainty that it is harmful to him, not just society), it does nothing good to keep it hidden.”
Interesting. I thought social conservatives preferred that gays remain in the closet; that while accepting that homosexuality exists they preferred that it remain hidden and away from the public eye. I thought that was the objection for gay marriages — the public legitimacy.
“I may disagree strongly with his lifestyle choice (because of my certainty that it is harmful to him, not just society)”
Is homosexuality harmful to homosexuals in any other way beyond religion, namely the belief that God opposes homosexuality?
Interesting. The news reports of the time were ambiguous – and seemed to indicate that Takei WOULDN’T be inviting him. While never denied outright, I remember a quote about it being a short guest list. The implication was that Shatner wasn’t welcome.
As a fan who has never met either one, I find the whole feud between them very distasteful – on both sides.
Thanks for the support, Luke!
Thanks for the support, Luke!
Interesting. I thought social conservatives preferred that gays remain in the closet; that while accepting that homosexuality exists they preferred that it remain hidden and away from the public eye. I thought that was the objection for gay marriages — the public legitimacy.
Well it’s not like we all think alike. Sarah Palin’s first veto, after all, was of a bill blocking benefits to same-sex couples, and you might ask the Log Cabin Republicans what they think. Like any social movement, conservatism encompasses a spectrum of adherents who generally agree with each other, but there’s no entrance exam to join.
Since Shatner made a very public display of displeasure that was based on a misunderstanding, the classy thing for him to do would be to make an equally public display apologizing to George and Brad for overreacting.
Since Shatner made a very public display of displeasure that was based on a misunderstanding, the classy thing for him to do would be to make an equally public display apologizing to George and Brad for overreacting.
Which was why I said social conservatives and not conservatives or Republicans.
In any case, the point of my question pertains more to what people who oppose homosexuality think rather than what the Republican party thinks.
Which was why I said social conservatives and not conservatives or Republicans.
In any case, the point of my question pertains more to what people who oppose homosexuality think rather than what the Republican party thinks.
Which was why I said social conservatives and not conservatives or Republicans.
Mmmm, same argument, actually. Unless you live in a world where Sarah Palin isn’t considered a social conservative.
Wow. I just scared myself.
Seriously, though, I don’t think you get where you want to be unless you define social conservatism to encompass only homophobes. Different people in a group emphasize different things, and that’s as true for social conservatives as it is for liberals. There’s an apocryphal comment attributed to St. Ronald: Someone who agrees with me 80% isn’t 20% my enemy. There isn’t a litmus test for who can consider himself a social conservative and who can’t, and if there were one it would probably be abortion, rather than homosexuality. It’s perfectly conceivable to envision someone who takes “family values” seriously, and is in favor of stable gay couples but seriously opposed to abortion. That person could go to church twice a week, frown on premarital sex (homosexual or heterosexual) and call himself a social conservative with a straight face (no pun intended).
Which was why I said social conservatives and not conservatives or Republicans.
Mmmm, same argument, actually. Unless you live in a world where Sarah Palin isn’t considered a social conservative.
Wow. I just scared myself.
Seriously, though, I don’t think you get where you want to be unless you define social conservatism to encompass only homophobes. Different people in a group emphasize different things, and that’s as true for social conservatives as it is for liberals. There’s an apocryphal comment attributed to St. Ronald: Someone who agrees with me 80% isn’t 20% my enemy. There isn’t a litmus test for who can consider himself a social conservative and who can’t, and if there were one it would probably be abortion, rather than homosexuality. It’s perfectly conceivable to envision someone who takes “family values” seriously, and is in favor of stable gay couples but seriously opposed to abortion. That person could go to church twice a week, frown on premarital sex (homosexual or heterosexual) and call himself a social conservative with a straight face (no pun intended).
In any case, the point of my question pertains more to what people who oppose homosexuality think rather than what the Republican party thinks.
I have no doubt that you can find people who think exactly what you described. Hëll, I live in the Bible Belt; I could probably throw a rock and hit one from here. But the way you phrased it was “social conservatives,” not “people who oppose homosexuality,” and the point of my comment was that those groups aren’t coextensive, nor is one a subset of the other.
In any case, the point of my question pertains more to what people who oppose homosexuality think rather than what the Republican party thinks.
I have no doubt that you can find people who think exactly what you described. Hëll, I live in the Bible Belt; I could probably throw a rock and hit one from here. But the way you phrased it was “social conservatives,” not “people who oppose homosexuality,” and the point of my comment was that those groups aren’t coextensive, nor is one a subset of the other.
I didn’t say homophobes either.
Although we can imagine a lot of different variants on any ideological group, it is reasonable to say that in general social conservatives tend to have a certain opposition to homosexuality, even if not always to the same degree, which is one of the reasons why I asked the question to begin with. It is a generalization, but without some generalization speech would be impossible. I assume that people here are intelligent enough to realize that when I say social conservaives I am not excluding the possiblity that there are somewhere on the planet social conservatives who have no problem with homosexuality, only that a certain level of opposition to homosexuality has been a common characteristic of social conservatives in recent years.
And again, playing semantic games or discussing the various real and hypothetical subsections in the conservative movements are quite delightful I’m certain, but at present I’m more interested in the attitudes of people who oppose homosexuality. And again, don’t waste your time pointing out that not all people who oppose homosexuality do so to exactly the same degree. I know that while Palin opposes homosexuality to some degree it is nowhere near that of say Phelps. I am interested in examining the degree presented by Iowa Jim.
I didn’t say homophobes either.
Although we can imagine a lot of different variants on any ideological group, it is reasonable to say that in general social conservatives tend to have a certain opposition to homosexuality, even if not always to the same degree, which is one of the reasons why I asked the question to begin with. It is a generalization, but without some generalization speech would be impossible. I assume that people here are intelligent enough to realize that when I say social conservaives I am not excluding the possiblity that there are somewhere on the planet social conservatives who have no problem with homosexuality, only that a certain level of opposition to homosexuality has been a common characteristic of social conservatives in recent years.
And again, playing semantic games or discussing the various real and hypothetical subsections in the conservative movements are quite delightful I’m certain, but at present I’m more interested in the attitudes of people who oppose homosexuality. And again, don’t waste your time pointing out that not all people who oppose homosexuality do so to exactly the same degree. I know that while Palin opposes homosexuality to some degree it is nowhere near that of say Phelps. I am interested in examining the degree presented by Iowa Jim.
“I have no doubt that you can find people who think exactly what you described. Hëll, I live in the Bible Belt; I could probably throw a rock and hit one from here. But the way you phrased it was “social conservatives,” not “people who oppose homosexuality,” and the point of my comment was that those groups aren’t coextensive, nor is one a subset of the other.”
I assume you are not stupid, so you knew what I meant from the beginning, and that opposition to homosexality is characteristic pervasive in what is called in your country social conservatives.
Now, if you do not have anything to add yourself to the issue itself, please take a rock, throw it on one of your neighbors and drag him to the computer so he can shed some light on the point of view that has no problem with homosexuality being public but opposes gay marriage.
I see it as a gradual conquest. Opponents to minorities rights are ready to concede a point once it becomes more socially acceptable to do so than to oppose it.
The most radical opposition is to wish that gays wouldn’t exist. And so you have places like Iran where the official policy seems to be that they don’t have any gays.
But there comes a point where you have to concede that they exist. So the next step is homosexuality as a crime or a form of insanity. Send gays to jail or rehabilitation.
But then that is not acceptable either. Next step, don’t send them to jail, but socially ostracize gays that aren’t discreet about their sexual conduct. Force them into the closet or the ghetto.
But then people don’t stand for that anymore. Okay, accept that it’s okay for gays to be out, but don’t give gay relationships the same status as straight ones.
It’s more or less on this fourth stage that things stand in the US, I suppose.
I see it as a gradual conquest. Opponents to minorities rights are ready to concede a point once it becomes more socially acceptable to do so than to oppose it.
The most radical opposition is to wish that gays wouldn’t exist. And so you have places like Iran where the official policy seems to be that they don’t have any gays.
But there comes a point where you have to concede that they exist. So the next step is homosexuality as a crime or a form of insanity. Send gays to jail or rehabilitation.
But then that is not acceptable either. Next step, don’t send them to jail, but socially ostracize gays that aren’t discreet about their sexual conduct. Force them into the closet or the ghetto.
But then people don’t stand for that anymore. Okay, accept that it’s okay for gays to be out, but don’t give gay relationships the same status as straight ones.
It’s more or less on this fourth stage that things stand in the US, I suppose.
“(because of my certainty that it is harmful to him, not just society)”
It’s so good that you know what is best for us better than we do, Iowa Jim.
You’re in luck, though. Despite my certainty that your brand of religion is harmful to you and to society, I don’t believe in forbidding you from doing whatever you want to yourself in your chosen Christian lifestyle.
I believe that is what Iowa Jim is saying.
But, you’re in luck. Despite my certainty that you knee jerk reaction idiotic, I don’t believe in forbidding you from from saying whatever you want.
“(because of my certainty that it is harmful to him, not just society)”
It’s so good that you know what is best for us better than we do, Iowa Jim.
You’re in luck, though. Despite my certainty that your brand of religion is harmful to you and to society, I don’t believe in forbidding you from doing whatever you want to yourself in your chosen Christian lifestyle.
I believe that is what Iowa Jim is saying.
But, you’re in luck. Despite my certainty that you knee jerk reaction idiotic, I don’t believe in forbidding you from from saying whatever you want.
Well, if it’s any consolation, writer Kit Whitfield posted a passionate rant against Proposition 8 and I mentioned that you and Kath had been able to attend the wedding of a “friend of [yours] who was finally allowed to marry the man he’d been with for years”. She expressed congratulations to the happy couple.
I didn’t feel the need to mention who the happy couple in question was. Because, famous or obscure, love is love and should be celebrated in any case.
Well, if it’s any consolation, writer Kit Whitfield posted a passionate rant against Proposition 8 and I mentioned that you and Kath had been able to attend the wedding of a “friend of [yours] who was finally allowed to marry the man he’d been with for years”. She expressed congratulations to the happy couple.
I didn’t feel the need to mention who the happy couple in question was. Because, famous or obscure, love is love and should be celebrated in any case.
Since Prop 8 is a side issue to this topic and I’m a Californian, I’ll put in my two cents worth. The polls are close, but I know several Republicans who are voting against this piece of @!#$#. I can only hope that there are enough people voting against the party position to defeat it. If it does pass, I hope that the Federal courts can find a way to strike it down. This kind of politics does not represent the values of the California that I or my parents were raised in.
Since Prop 8 is a side issue to this topic and I’m a Californian, I’ll put in my two cents worth. The polls are close, but I know several Republicans who are voting against this piece of @!#$#. I can only hope that there are enough people voting against the party position to defeat it. If it does pass, I hope that the Federal courts can find a way to strike it down. This kind of politics does not represent the values of the California that I or my parents were raised in.
“I believe that is what Iowa Jim is saying.”
Nope. Iowa Jim is saying he doesn’t believe gays should stay in the closet, but he still believes gays should not marry.
So no, Iowa Jim doesn’t believe adults should be allowed to live their lives in any way they want to.
But I do. I do believe Iowa Jim (and you) should live your lives any way you think best and just leave me the hëll alone to live mine.
Best wishes.
….namely the belief that God opposes homosexuality?
I thought I learned that God created man in his own image?
Proposition 8 my be up in CA, but here in CT we have a Question 1 on the ballot this year, the goal of which is to ban abortion and end our newly-won right to gay marriage through a state constitutional amendment. Here it is, scarcely 10 days before the election, and there has been almost NO coverage of this. I have seen one small yard sign, haven’t heard a media word about it. This is silent and sneaky – people are going to be hit by it when they walk into the polls, and not know what’s going on. I can only hope we have enough literate, intelligent voters (gay marriage caused hardly a ripple, compared to CA) that they can interpret the question and vote NO to the amendments and loss of rights.
….namely the belief that God opposes homosexuality?
I thought I learned that God created man in his own image?
Proposition 8 my be up in CA, but here in CT we have a Question 1 on the ballot this year, the goal of which is to ban abortion and end our newly-won right to gay marriage through a state constitutional amendment. Here it is, scarcely 10 days before the election, and there has been almost NO coverage of this. I have seen one small yard sign, haven’t heard a media word about it. This is silent and sneaky – people are going to be hit by it when they walk into the polls, and not know what’s going on. I can only hope we have enough literate, intelligent voters (gay marriage caused hardly a ripple, compared to CA) that they can interpret the question and vote NO to the amendments and loss of rights.
Just to put it in perspective: Sixty years ago, Iowa Jim’s ilk would have wholly supported then-existing state laws forbidding the marriage of Barack Obama’s parents.
The voices of those supporting Proposition 8 are the screeches of dinosaurs sinking into the tarpits of their own prejudice and ignorance. It may take another half century, but the extinction of their point of view is inevitable.
PAD
Just to put it in perspective: Sixty years ago, Iowa Jim’s ilk would have wholly supported then-existing state laws forbidding the marriage of Barack Obama’s parents.
The voices of those supporting Proposition 8 are the screeches of dinosaurs sinking into the tarpits of their own prejudice and ignorance. It may take another half century, but the extinction of their point of view is inevitable.
PAD
From friends in CA I’m being told that a lot of the anti Prop 8 ads don’t even mention gays–they are trying to make it about freedom or some other greater point but deliberately not mentioning gay marriage.
I don’t know. I can sympathize with the point and maybe their focus groups told them this was the best way to go but I think it’s a bad strategy. It’s not like they’re fooling anyone and it makes it look like you’re embarrassed by your own position. Find some nice attractive churchgoing married soccer moms or two married guys who are firefighters or who spend their weekends digging wells for Peruvian villages…I don’t know, find somebody!…and have them make their case. What makes people reevaluate their positions isn’t misdirection or intimidation or telling them they’re bigots (even if it’s the truth…especially if it’s the truth) it’s seeing likable people just like them and not wanting to be the sort of person that would harm them.
That’s my 2 cents anyway.
From friends in CA I’m being told that a lot of the anti Prop 8 ads don’t even mention gays–they are trying to make it about freedom or some other greater point but deliberately not mentioning gay marriage.
I don’t know. I can sympathize with the point and maybe their focus groups told them this was the best way to go but I think it’s a bad strategy. It’s not like they’re fooling anyone and it makes it look like you’re embarrassed by your own position. Find some nice attractive churchgoing married soccer moms or two married guys who are firefighters or who spend their weekends digging wells for Peruvian villages…I don’t know, find somebody!…and have them make their case. What makes people reevaluate their positions isn’t misdirection or intimidation or telling them they’re bigots (even if it’s the truth…especially if it’s the truth) it’s seeing likable people just like them and not wanting to be the sort of person that would harm them.
That’s my 2 cents anyway.
Actually, Bill, one of the most prominent ant-Prop 8 ads is very explicitly about gay marriage, featuring an elderly couple lamenting the fact that their daughter can’t marry her girlfriend, or something. As for the others, the ones about “freedom,” I never thought about them in the terms you described (although I suppose it’s a fair interpretation). I just take them as an “Everybody already knows what the proposition is about, so let’s hit home the concept of freedom because we only have 30 seconds” kind of thing.
And Peter, I love the dinosaur analogy. I think I’ll quote you on that.
Posted by Rene at October 24, 2008 10:28 AM
“I hope there will come a day when someone’s sexual orientation will be a “who cares” thing. Unfortunately we’re not there yet. Society still cares, parents still freak out when they discover their kids are gay, in most places gay couples still aren’t able to make the same public gestures of affection straight couples take for granted.
I don’t perceive an insult in neutrality, but neither do I see it as a great favor.”
In a certain slow and steady kind of way it is.
The greater the percentage of people saying “Who cares?” the smaller the percentage of people that are left saying “Oh my God, it’s the end of the world!”, and the more foolish and out of tune they appear…
I won’t deny that some – even many – individuals have agonised and even suffered with other peoples attitudes towards their sexuality, but if we’re talking society and social attitudes, we have to play the long term numbers game.
In this particular instance, I honestly don’t think you’ve got enough people so precariously balanced on the pros and cons that Bill Shatner’s utterances alone are going to tip them one way or the other.
Even if there are, the number saying “Oooh, he’s so right!” and the number saying “Whoa, mad cow rides again!” probably even out to a zero sum.
Cheers.
Posted by Rene at October 24, 2008 10:28 AM
“I hope there will come a day when someone’s sexual orientation will be a “who cares” thing. Unfortunately we’re not there yet. Society still cares, parents still freak out when they discover their kids are gay, in most places gay couples still aren’t able to make the same public gestures of affection straight couples take for granted.
I don’t perceive an insult in neutrality, but neither do I see it as a great favor.”
In a certain slow and steady kind of way it is.
The greater the percentage of people saying “Who cares?” the smaller the percentage of people that are left saying “Oh my God, it’s the end of the world!”, and the more foolish and out of tune they appear…
I won’t deny that some – even many – individuals have agonised and even suffered with other peoples attitudes towards their sexuality, but if we’re talking society and social attitudes, we have to play the long term numbers game.
In this particular instance, I honestly don’t think you’ve got enough people so precariously balanced on the pros and cons that Bill Shatner’s utterances alone are going to tip them one way or the other.
Even if there are, the number saying “Oooh, he’s so right!” and the number saying “Whoa, mad cow rides again!” probably even out to a zero sum.
Cheers.
Well, thanks to Howard’s intervention George now gets sex from Brad two times a week, so that should help ease whatever pain he may be feeling over his being snubbed yet again by Denny Crane.
Well, thanks to Howard’s intervention George now gets sex from Brad two times a week, so that should help ease whatever pain he may be feeling over his being snubbed yet again by Denny Crane.
Generalizations (or at least abstractions) are necessary to speech, but overgeneralizations (particularly insulting ones) don’t advance discussions at all. Saying “I thought social conservatives preferred that gays remain in the closet” invites the response, “no, not really, some do but that’s not a fair assessment,” which is basically what I said.
And I did know that you “meant from the beginning… that opposition to homosexality is characteristic pervasive in what is called in your country social conservatives.” And my answer is still that I disagree with your premise; I think opposition to gay marriage is quite common among social conservatives (and the US population in general, frankly), but the idea that they should stay closeted much less so. If you want to ask Iowa Jim what he thinks, then by all means ask him, but please don’t impute beliefs (particularly ones that are more extreme than I’ve seen him demonstrate here) to his entire group. I’m concerned that your assumption that social conservatives want to roll back Stonewall plays into negative, and unfair, stereotypes about that group.
I’m a Republican who’s pro choice, thinks gay marriage should eventually be adopted, and kind of likes Obama. I’m all about breaking down stereotypes.
Still, thank you for assuming I’m not stupid, though. This is supposed to be a civil discussion. There’s no need to get snippy.
Mark L. Said:
“As a fan who has never met either one, I find the whole feud between them very distasteful – on both sides.”
It’s always a strange thing when 2 people you admire are at odds with each other. But Shatner has always been an arrogant prìçk. Things like that make people want to stand up to you. And when they do, Shatner gets on his high horse. Arguing ensues, feelings get hurt.
George sent him an invitation in an attempt to make peace. There’s not too much more he could do.
Face it, Shatner is a dìçk.
Mark L. Said:
“As a fan who has never met either one, I find the whole feud between them very distasteful – on both sides.”
It’s always a strange thing when 2 people you admire are at odds with each other. But Shatner has always been an arrogant prìçk. Things like that make people want to stand up to you. And when they do, Shatner gets on his high horse. Arguing ensues, feelings get hurt.
George sent him an invitation in an attempt to make peace. There’s not too much more he could do.
Face it, Shatner is a dìçk.