It's ridiculous to cut such a scene.
But it's just as ridiculous to use words like "homophobic" (like disgust has anything to do with fear - do you fear dog turds or lousy food? You may fear stepping on them, but not because you are a 'turdphobic', but because of the smell and hassle you'd have to endure), or to say that there's an "anti-gay movement".
From where I sit, I only see 'gay agenda' being forcefully pushed upon people, and only the people, who use words like 'homophobic' and 'anti-gay movement' think this is normal and acceptable.
I don't want to know people's sexuality, if I am not in a sexual situation. But pro-gay-people and agenda keep pushing it to your face, constantly. They are not content with hetero people accepting them for who they are. They need the heterosexual people to a) KNOW that they are gay and b) PRAISE their gayness and preferably c) BECOME gay themselves!
Anything other than that, is immediately labeled "homophobic"!
It's ludicrous.. just another agenda in this agenda-ridden world. Can't there be any private area where there's not an agenda pushing things to people's faces?
Can't we just talk as human beings, instead of 'sexuality/title/nationality/etc."?
If it's not feminazis, atheists or freemasons, it's the 'celebrate gayness or be labeled homophobic'-crowd.
Be as gay as you want, but don't expect me to praise your gayness. I have nothing against anyone based on their sexuality, but I don't want to celebrate sexualities alien to me, either, and I don't want them pushed to my face.
Be gay if you want, but don't push the gay agenda to people's faces and don't label people 'homophobic'.
Let everyone be whatever they are, without constantly pushing and shoving agendas or using shaming language, labes and insults, ok? Yes, this means, that
IT IS OK TO BE HETEROSEXUAL as well. (I know this is hard for many to grasp, but it's true)
Now that I think about it, maybe cutting the scene wasn't so ridiculous after all.. I mean, if the end result is just more shaming towards white heterosexual men. As if they haven't had enough already from feminazis and the like.
I can honestly say I did not enjoy that scene at all, and for me, it would not have been any kind of loss to never have seen it. Nor did I consider it in any way necessary - it was there just for the shock effect, and to support the rather ridiculous plot that had two gay playwrights in it.
It is a disgusting scene to a heterosexual. It's like being forced to watch someone vomit or defacate. Sure, they are natural functions, but some natural functions are disgusting. Being gay may be natural to gay people (though it can be argued that it's not the natural sexuality for humans, because you can't reproduce through it), but it doesn't mean that it's not disgusting to watch such displays, and if they really are open-minded and liberal, they should respect other people enough to not force them to celebrate things that are automatically disgusting to them.
Bill Burr had a good comment about this in one of his sets.. he accidentally saw two men kiss while he was eating, and went "eewww" as an automatic reaction. Some idiot hag, like people on this forum, immediately uttered the word "homophobic" and started accusing him of some kind of hatred. He explained things very clearly - there is no hate involved.
There is no phobia involved here, either. Just an 'eewww'-type automatic reaction, like gays would probably openly show if they were suddenly forced to watch heterosexual porn or something. We are what we are, we can't change that - even if it means we are heterosexuals.
Or are you heterophobic?
reply
share
balthazar_bee
9 years ago
Now that I think about it, maybe cutting the scene wasn't so ridiculous after all.. I mean, if the end result is just more shaming towards white heterosexual men. As if they haven't had enough already from feminazis and the like.
Yeah, we hetero white guys can't seem to catch a break.
Look, in this context, the removal of the kiss is indefensible. I understand your beef with the term "homophobia" from an etymological perspective, but the irony is that this particular example indeed
does seem to be an example of homophobia -- the "phobia" in this case related to the fear of some sort of viewer corruption if such a kiss were broadcast, or a fear of militant backlash from a...shall we say "certain type of viewer".
In other words, the gay kiss was cut for reasons related to fear, even if the man who made the decision happens to be openly gay himself.
It's a gutless move, and it neuters the second half of the play.
I'm no fan of egregious displays of affection in public -- of any orientation -- but to vocally respond with a childish exclamation of "eeewwww" is just another example of poor social conduct. People who indulge in that sort of thing need to make friends with the notion of "self regulation", as do the couple making out in the corner of a Starbucks who prompted the reaction.
reply
share