Why should that be so uncomfortable to read? Why is it so difficult to write? Why are we still so jittery even about raising the issue in purportedly liberal-minded Hollywood in 2007? We can refer to it casually in conversation, but the mainstream media somehow remains trapped in the Dark Ages when it comes to labeling a person as gay.
If mainstream media remains trapped in the Dark Ages, it’d be the first time they’re in the same room with the fringe right. I’ve claimed many people as friends, both gay and straight. And I’ve dealt with many of Earth’s scum, both gay and straight. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with a person’s ability to contribute to society, lead a productive life and contribute greatly to those around them.
It’s 2007. Why does the Hollywood Reporter treat this story as though it’s 1007? Is this really still an issue? And why does the Hollywood Reporter feel it necessary to “label” anyone? Here’s a label for you: human. As a 40ish male stuck in the Bible Belt, I can safely say that I have no issue with gay/straight/whatever. And here’s another news flash: I don’t know anyone who does. I love my friends. Sexual orientation means nothing to me. Now or ever.
Let’s end with an out-take from Bill Hicks. It’s not exactly on point, but it perfectly sums up the attitude needed to move past this issue.
People ask me what I think about that woman priest thing, you know? What, a woman priest? Women priests. Great, great. Now there’s priests of both sexes I don’t listen to. Ha, fuck, I don’t care. Have a hermaphrodite one. I don’t fucking care. Have one with three dicks and eight titties … You know, have one with gills and a trunk. That would be cool. I might go see that … I appreciate your quaint traditions and superstitions. I, on the other hand, am an evolved being who deals solely with the source of life, which exists in all of our hearts.
Wow. I really miss Bill.
- Related Posts
- This Talk Show Host Was One Of Americas Richest Men