Third Party & Independents Archives

The Hypocritical Right

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all onboard with conservatives when it comes calling people who are offended by public displays of religion retarded, but those same sentiments extend to the people who break a sweat whenever they see two plastic dolls of the male persuasion holding hands.

The Associated Press's got the dish:

BOSTON - Macy's department store has removed a window display marking Boston's gay pride week after a group that opposes gay marriage complained it was offensive.

The display at the downtown Boston store featured two male mannequins, with one wearing a gay pride rainbow flag around his waist, next to a list of several planned Boston Pride Week events.

MassResistance, formerly the Article 8 Alliance, which has campaigned against gay marriage and gay-themed textbooks in public schools, objected to the display and said the mannequin wearing the flag had a "skirt" on, the Boston Herald reported.

ACLU of Massachusetts spokeswoman Sarah Wunsch criticized Macy's for "succumbing to the bigotry" of what she said was a fringe anti-gay group.

It doesn't matter who you are. No one is above society or has the right to not be "offended" by whatever it is that day they don't like. If you're not comfortable with what Macy's is advertising in their storefront window, don't shop there! Stop trying to ruin everything for us normal people.

As for the ACLU, I really don't pay any attention them. They'll tolerate any public display of homosexuality or desecration of religion - no matter how extreme in the name of the First Amendment, but a plaque of the Ten Commandments will have them running for the courts to defend the misunderstood Establishment Clause .

But today my quarrel is with the homophobes who believe they can walk into any public square and demand strict adherence to their values, and their values alone. If plastic dummies offend these people then how do they react to seeing an actual gay couple embracing?

Let's learn to relax and worry about the bigger issues. I mean, sure, I gag whenever I see a fellow Florida State brethren in courtship with a slimy Gator, but I don't circulate petitions as a result of my displeasure. In the words of The All-American Rejects, "just move along."

Posted by Scottie at June 8, 2006 10:26 PM
Comments
Comment #155883

Scottie
Gators? I knew y’all down there were weird. Makes me kinda scared living just a few miles from y’all. ha! Anyway I’ll just make sure my BULLDOGS are handy. They sure love eating Gators. he he he.
While I’m against homosexuality I don’t see any reason to get all in a tether about it. Folks are going to be how they want to regardless of how I fell about it.
The only thing I don’t like is them flaunting in my face. But then I don’t care for heterosexuals flaunting it in my face either.
The two things folks should keep to themselves are their sex life and their bathroom habits.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 9, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #155929

The only thing I don’t like is them flaunting in my face.

========

Yeah, i can’t stand it when people break into showtunes in public either.

Honestly, on one hand i can agree with that statement, watching two people make out in public isn’t something i enjoy watching, but if a couple is holding hands or hugging, sharing a glace— gay or straight I enjoy seeing that.

If i know two people are in love and they aren’t all bubble gum about it, it is always refreshing to see.

Posted by: tree hugger at June 9, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #155948

Why are people “against” homosexuality? To me, gay man sex is gross but that’s just me. Who is anyone to be “against” two adults doing what makes them happy when it doesn’t hurt anyone else? As I said before, and with this I actually agree with Ron to some extent, just don’t make me watch (unless they’re female playboy bunnies, then we can talk)

Posted by: Dave at June 9, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #156032

Scottie:

I’m okay with the people who are offended contacting Macy’s to try to get them to change their position. That’s called freedom of speech.

Some people are offended by a public display of a homosexual nature, others are offended by The Ten Commandments being publicly placed, while yet others are offended by seeing a Christmas tree or a creche in public.

I am willing to accept each person’s viewpoint, though I might disagree with them. I’d have no problem going to Macy’s and telling them my viewpoint on their window, and what impact it might have on my shopping habits, and potentially on other people’s shopping habits. Its the same thing as when people objected to the Florida Orange Juice Association used Anita Bryant as their spokesperson. Enough people were against her to cause the Association to dump her. The Macy’s thing is no different, other than that the shoe is on the other foot.

tree hugger:

I actually like show tunes, and don’t mind if you break them out any time. Just do them right. And don’t prance or dance while you do them.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at June 9, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #156040

“Alligators, Bulldogs, Bunnies, and Showtunes”

Hmmm…I’m not certain any therapist would be able to tackle all of this. It sounds more like a “Dr. Ruth” MTV special.

It’s always interesting to listen to people criticize those who find being gay offensive, yet in the same breath say “Just don’t put it in my face”.

How many even moderately progressive adults are offended by the flamboyantly straight James Bond. Would the Bond movies be less interesting without the sexual tensions between Bond and the female villains, or Bond and the Bond Girls, or Bond and Moneypenny, or Bond and….I can keep going forever……

Would the James Bond movies ever have even been made if he were gay?

What if the villian that dies is gay?

Of the tens of thousands of television shows, bestselling books, and movies, that depict any type of emotional or sexual relation, what percentage show a healthy, sexually charged, successful relationship between people of the same gender? The Wachowski brothers wrote and directed the award winning film “Bound” in 1996, where two women outsmart the Mafia. You might ask how it can be award winning and not popular. It was panned and effectively banned in the U.S. because the female characters were lesbians.

It is nice however, to know that there are a few tolerant people who will no longer boo at the theater if a supporting gay character is not a clown, does not shoot him/herself in the head, or doesn’t get crushed by a piece of falling building.

Straight sex is in my face, everywhere, everyday. It’s in the news, it’s on prime time. It’s in the newspaper. It’s in People magazine, It’s on the street. Everywhere. Yet I don’t find it offensive, unless of course there is some other offending criteria. Do I jump up and leave the theater when female breasts start to fly on screen? Not usually, and only if need to use the restroom really really bad. Do I scream, “Oh yuck! That’s disgusting!” in the supermarket when there are two straight people on the cover of a magazine kissing? No. Am I even partially “put out” that my local convenience store carries every currently published straight porn magazine, but not even one gay porn magazine? Maybe just a little, but not so much that I’ll make a scene.

So. “*Who* is putting *what* in *whose* face”? And who is complaining?

It seems like an awefully comfortable position to claim oneself progressive and tolerant in a society where nearly all visual content represents their particular bedroom habits, and claim that it’s “Okay with me”, just so long as “My” perfecty straight visual world remains uncontaminated.

Unless, of course, I misunderstood and they actually mean, “Kidnapping straight people and forcing them to watch *live* gay sex”, in which case they should be comfortable in the reassurance that, that almost never happens. Anymore.

Posted by: DOC at June 9, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #156050

DOC:

Allow me to respond.

I liked the Ellen DeGeneres show until it derailed into cheap and unfunny jokes about homosexuality, for the purpose of talking about homosexuality. The show stopped being funny.

I liked watching “Will & Grace”, though it too had times where it created homosexual jokes almost as if they had a quota on the number of jokes that needed to be on topic. They were sometimes gratuitous. But the show in general was pretty funny. I found it interesting that they portrayed Jack as a flaming homosexual, full of almost every cliched image of a homosexual. But I thought he was funny a lot of the time.

They are recreating a Batwoman movie, with Batwoman being a lesbian. I most likely won’t go see it, because it seems like a gratuitous publicity ploy to garner attention. In other words, there’s no reason to make the movie about a lesbian—she never was a lesbian in the comics—unless the goal is to make a movie about a lesbian character.

I recognize that homosexuals are part of our society. So too are the promiscuous folks among us. So too are many other kinds of people, some of whom I like and others whom I don’t like, based on their actions. I might just find the movie “Bound” because its about the Mafia, not because it has lesbian characters. If its a good movie, so be it. I’ll watch it for that.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 9, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #156111

Joe,

In the case of “Ellen” and “Will and Grace”, the homosexual jokes supported the characters, and the characters circumstances. When the jokes were no longer funny but boring and routine, the show was over. With “Ellen” it was a pretty clear political statement, that cost her a great deal. With “Will and Grace”, well. There’s only so much fun you can have with a gay man and a straight woman who can’t come to terms with their feelings for each other. If they never do, the show becomes stale. If they do, the show is over. It is nice to know that people understand that Jacks character was a collection of clichés and stereotypes, and that although there are a few, people “like” Jack are
rare. My question is, how normal would Will have appeared, had Jack not been so “out-there”?

Good or Bad, pandering is what publicity is about.

Batwoman? I didn’t even know Batwoman existed as a comic strip character. Whether or not she is portrayed as a lesbian, it doesn’t sound like anything I’d be interested in. I can’t imagine it adding much to the story. In “Bound” the relationship between the female characters, played by Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly, is important to the story. I had no previous inclination as to what it was about, and was amazed. The cinematography is excellent, and most of the adult content is far from gratuitous.

Promiscuity as it relates to depictions of stereotypes in film is also unhealthy. A classic slasher film is “Dressed to Kill”. An adultress is hacked to death by a crossdressing madman. It seems the collective conscience of the american patriarchy feels a certain
retribution in the hacking up of an adultress as a reward for betrayal. It seems less horrific than hacking up a devoted wife. It’s also explainable, that a person that hacks up other people, may do so due to gender identity issues. All of the betrayors and temptors of, and those who deviate from the straight male patriarchy are usually dealt with in the most extreme manner, while in contrast James Bond would be far less charming a character if he were less promiscuous, or gay. Dr. Zhivago, a tortured male hero, whose polygamy did nothing but enhance, not diminish his character suffered little retribution.

I maintain my position that the majority of the media continues to portray gays as comedic, mentally ill, or evil. At which the natural responses are laughter, pity, or fear, and ultimately hatred.

The mannequins I’ve come to know rarely say or do anything offensive. It was the fear and hatred of what the mannequins represented that caused the offense. They represented normality. It’s in that representation of normality that people freak. They can go to the watch television and laugh at the funny gay people. They can go to the movies, and have pity for the poor gay cowboys that are tortured by the conflict of what they feel versus what society tells them. They can go to church and hear others preach on how homosexuals are promiscuous demons ready to shred the fabric of society. The mannequins represented normality, and that scares them.


Posted by: DOC at June 9, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #156133

Watch Blog Editors:
Why won’t you allow me editorial comment?

Posted by: jblym at June 9, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #156166
I’d have no problem going to Macy’s and telling them my viewpoint on their window, and what impact it might have on my shopping habits, and potentially on other people’s shopping habits. Its the same thing as when people objected to the Florida Orange Juice Association used Anita Bryant as their spokesperson. Enough people were against her to cause the Association to dump her. The Macy’s thing is no different, other than that the shoe is on the other foot.

Two plastic manequins are comparable to the vile, black hatred spewed from the mouth of the daughter of Lucifer? Gimme a break. Two inanimate objects, in a store window that most will never see, representing something that some might find uncomfortable cannot even begin to compare to a walking, fire-breathing minion of Hell who’s life obsession became spreading hatred and fear of others because they didn’t conform to her perception of normalcy.

I only hope that Anita gets to return to her dark lord Satan where she belongs soon.

Posted by: Taylor at June 9, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #156234

Taylor:

Don’t beat around the bush. Say what you feel in your heart.

If you go back, take a deep breath, and read what I wrote, you’ll find that I did NOT compare the mannequins to Anita Bryant. I compared the actions of the people involved. In the first, some people were offended by something and contacted Macy’s. In the second, some people were offended by something and contacted the Florida Orange Juice companies.

Both groups used their freedom of speech to enact change. While we may disagree on what specific things should change, we most definitely should agree on the right of the people to express themselves freely, on either topic.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 10, 2006 6:42 AM
Comment #156260

Hypocrisy is ambidextrous, right and left handed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #156271


The Monkeys? I used to watch The Monkeys all the time when I was a kid.

Seriosly though, I think you mean 2001. 2010 was the remake with Roy Scheider.

Posted by: Movie Buff at June 10, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #156602

I think the people who are comparing the Macy’s storefront to the 10 Commandments displays are missing something:

The 10 commandment displays which have been protested by the ACLU were not just IN public, they were ON public property. Property held in trust by the government for We the People as a whole. The government has a responsibility not to use this property in a way which favors any religion over another.

Last I checked, Macy’s does not hold its storefront windows in a similar public trust.

Posted by: Jarandhel at June 11, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #157060

I’m with Ron Brown. I don’t hate homosexuals, I just don’t get it. I work with Gay people and get along fine. We joke with each other about the presumed stereotypes of our sexuality, and I feel no rancor torwards them at all.

However, I deeply resent the Homo Nazi Lobby that says I should tolerate homosexuality, and then wants to cram it down my throat whenever possible. They do not want “tolerance”. I tolerate flies in the summer. The Homo Nazi’s want to force me to embrace homosexuality, and persecute those who don’t. I resent anyone who does that, whatever their cause. By treating all heterosexuals as bigots, they are creating enemies where none existed. The Gay people I know personally generally don’t do that, and seem to get along with everyone just fine.

Posted by: David C. at June 13, 2006 1:35 AM
Post a comment