An Extremely Politically Incorrect Blog Post

[Scott Lloyd]

I have been called worse things.

Be that as it may, it's beside the point.

 

Wade made a pithy comment about our living today in an inverted world.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mormonnewb]

And, for another, it isn't sexual proclivity that is given preferential treatment, but the formal and long-term committed and legitimized context in which the sexual proclivity is exercised. Promiscuous heterosexual teens are not incentivized by tax breaks to fornicate

 

In short, marital laws were intended, among several things, to minimize out-of-wedlock births. The benefits to society resulting from such minimizing far outweighs the costs (as attested to by the mounting and very costly social ills most manifest in this regard within the black community). Since the exercise of homosexual proclivities can't result in pregnancy, in or out of wedlock, the state has no rational interest in promoting homosexual behavior in this respect. The cost of promoting formally committed homosexual relationships isn't outweighed by the benefits (there are none), and is thus irrational and even contrary to state interest in other respects.

 

But, some may label me a bigot and a homophobe for stating this salient point. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

As usual, you've gotten the issue HALF right.  Yes, the issue is not sex but rather long-term committed relationships.  Should a gay LTCR be given the same preferential status as a straight LTCR?

 

However, you can't seem to separate gay sex out of the calculus.  For one, you point out that "the exercise of homosexual proclivities can't result in pregnancy."  While that is true, the same can be said for many heterosexual proclivities.  And the ability to procreate is not, nor has it ever been, a condition for straight marriage.

 

Furthermore, you use the "gay sex doesn't make babies" fact to conclude that "the state has no rationale interest in promoting homosexual activity in this respect."  Once again, it's not the sex, Silly.  In promoting MARRIAGE, the state is promoting FAMILIES that can (but need not) raise children in a loving and stable environment.  This is the issue that the last dozen or so federal courts have ruled on when they have ALL decided that there is no "rational basis" to conclude that gay spouses are just as able as straight spouses to fulfill this role (i.e., being stable heads of households).

 

The issue of who does what to whom in the bedroom seems to be endlessly fascinating to you "traditional marriage" folks, but it is of NO legal consequence in deciding whether one form of marriage should be given preferential status.

[Senator]

Inasmuch as I am put off by the broad brush invective rhetoric employed by Mr. Walsh, here is a story of requiring someone literally to embrace homosexuality.

 

I'm totally baffled by the comments of Stacey Lambe in the article below.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/07/24/true-blood-actor-nelsan-ellis-former-star-quit-because-didnt-want-to-play-gay/?intcmp=features

[mormonnewb]

Inasmuch as I am put off by the broad brush invective rhetoric employed by Mr. Walsh, here is a story of requiring someone literally to embrace homosexuality.

 

I'm totally baffled by the comments of Stacey Lambe in the article below.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/07/24/true-blood-actor-nelsan-ellis-former-star-quit-because-didnt-want-to-play-gay/?intcmp=features

 

Are these the baffling comments?

 

“It’s unfortunate that an actor today would feel uncomfortable playing gay, especially on a program that has always put LGBT characters front and center,” Stacy Lambe, Associate Editor for the gay and lesbian-focused OUT Magazine said. “But Nelsan Ellis and Nathan Parsons are proof that Luke Grimes is not the norm. Grimes is the exception.”

[Senator]

Are these the baffling comments?

 

“It’s unfortunate that an actor today would feel uncomfortable playing gay, especially on a program that has always put LGBT characters front and center,” Stacy Lambe, Associate Editor for the gay and lesbian-focused OUT Magazine said. “But Nelsan Ellis and Nathan Parsons are proof that Luke Grimes is not the norm. Grimes is the exception.”

 

Yes.

 

I'm aware that he should have been cognizant of just where he was making his bed.  If he accepted a position that had the likelihood of having to play a gay role, and he was uncomfortable in such a role, then he probably shouldn't have accepted the job.

 

Nevertheless, that it is considered,  "unfortunate that an actor today would feel uncomfortable playing gay", and by article this means acting out gay sex scenes, is indeed baffling.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Senator

[mormonnewb]

Yes.

 

I'm aware that he should have been cognizant of just where he was making his bed.  If he accepted a position that had the likelihood of having to play a gay role, and he was uncomfortable in such a role, then he probably shouldn't have accepted the job.

 

Nevertheless, that it is considered,  "unfortunate that an actor today would feel uncomfortable playing gay", and by article this means acting out gay sex scenes, is indeed baffling.

 

Why would he have a problem acting out a gay sex scene?  He's an ACTOR.

 

Just about every leading actor in Hollywood has acted out a straight sex scene.  Given that almost none of these actors were married to their onscreen partner, it should have been an uncomfortable experience for each of them.  Yet, part of the job of being an actor is to ACT in ways that you wouldn't act in real life.  Good Christian actors have played killers, thieves, rapists, arsonists, you name it.  So yes, to find that an actor would draw the line here is somewhat strange, particularly since this actor had no problem acting out unmarried straight sex and violence on screen.

Edited July 24, 2014 by mormonnewb

[jwhitlock]

Moroni blogged that?

 

 

Sure did. And went viral a couple of thousand years later, with over 100 million hits.

[california boy]

Yes.

I'm aware that he should have been cognizant of just where he was making his bed. If he accepted a position that had the likelihood of having to play a gay role, and he was uncomfortable in such a role, then he probably shouldn't have accepted the job.

Nevertheless, that it is considered, "unfortunate that an actor today would feel uncomfortable playing gay", and by article this means acting out gay sex scenes, is indeed baffling.

I absolutely love these examples of "standing for Christian values" that are being posted. Did this actor also refuse to play a role where he was asked to play a straight character that had sex outside of marriage? Is there going to be no immoral straight sex in his role I "50 shades of gray". Is that in his contract as well? Do we regularly see these "Christian" actors walk out of contracts when their characters commit adultery? Why is the only kind of immoral sex gay sex? Did he have an affair last season with his female love interest without walking off the set? count me baffled as well.

Lol what a wonderful example for a member of the Church to post as an example of someone with moral courage. Just what conclusion are we suppose to draw from this example?

[Senator]

Just about every leading actor in Hollywood has acted out a straight sex scene.  Given that almost none of these actors were married to their onscreen partner, it should have been an uncomfortable experience for each of them.

 

You're quite right. Then again Hollywood is not renown for its high moral standards.

  

Good Christian actors have played killers, thieves, rapists, arsonists, you name it.  

So yes, to find that an actor would draw the line here is somewhat strange, particularly since this actor had no problem acting out unmarried straight sex and violence on screen.

Surely you see the difference.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Senator

[Calm]

"Lol what a wonderful example for a member of the Church to post as an example of someone with moral courage. Just what conclusion are we suppose to draw from this example?"

Was that Senator's intent?

That there are still guys out there who are not able to completely separate themselves from their part to be able to kiss anyone they are pointed at with convincing passion should hardly be surprising in our culture that still embraces the extremely macho totally heterosexual male. It is hardly baffling to me especially given it is an ongoing part and one that would require chemistry. The guy recognizes his limits, isn't that better than turning in a pisspoor performance because he can't lose himself in the part? Given what I've seen from actors who obviously hadn't connected with their alleged love interest even in the case of it matching their offscreen orientation, the show is better off.

Edited July 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Senator]

I absolutely love these examples of "standing for Christian values" that are being posted. Did this actor also refuse to play a role where he was asked to play a straight character that had sex outside of marriage? Is there going to be no immoral straight sex in his role I "50 shades of gray". Is that in his contract as well? Do we regularly see these "Christian" actors walk out of contracts when their characters commit adultery? Why is the only kind of immoral sex gay sex? Did he have an affair last season with his female love interest without walking off the set? count me baffled as well.

Lol what a wonderful example for a member of the Church to post as an example of someone with moral courage. Just what conclusion are we suppose to draw from this example?

 

So the logic is: because an actor is willing to portray one immoral act, he should be willing to portray any and all immoral acts. Is that it?

 

The conlusion is that an actor has the right to define his or her morality as they choose. Or should we insist that every female actor, if she's willing to portray a sex scene, better be willing to strip down in front of the camera?

Edited July 25, 2014 by Senator

[slamarwi]

About a month ago, I read a statement that said "As soon as you hear the words "Politically Correct"  you know it is going to be followed by some derogative statement about gays or blacks.  Every since then, I have been watching.  And every time, this statement has been true.  It is as if people have decided that it is ok to make derogatory statements against gays and backs if they preface their remarks with the statement "I know this is not PC. but".  Why not just make derogative remarks and don't bother with the justification.  Wouldn't it be more honest to start this tread with simply "Another great derogatory blog against gays?

Race doesn't bother me as it is ones lineage.

 

And it's not about gays, it's about perverted sexual behavior. I'm tired of people wanting me to condone, support and encourage their flaunted, unnatural sexuality in the name of supposed equality.

Edited July 25, 2014 by slamarwi

[mormonnewb]

 

So the logic is: because an actor is willing to portray one immoral act, he should be willing to portray any and all immoral acts. Is that it?

 

The conlusion is that an actor has the right to define his or her morality as they choose. Or should we insist that every female actor, if she's willing to portray a sex scene, better be willing to strip down in front of the camera?

 

I agree that even actors should have the right to set their own lines in the sand.  I just find it interesting that someone would find it less repugnant to act out killing another person than they would find it repugnant to act out kissing that same person.  Perhaps, sexual transgression isn't the sin next to murder but actually the sin GREATER than murder

Edited July 25, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Calm]

Grimes has not stated himself he wanted out of the role because it was immoral in his view. He hasn't said anything yet as far as I can tell, just another actor who as far as I've read is just reacting and is not repeating anything they actually discussed.

If he hasn't specified why (creative differences was the term the show used iirc, the only thing i can find from the actor is the original claim of scheduling conflict), I think it is a bit unfair to start blasting him for being inconsistent in being willing to play certain immoral characters and not others until he has actually stated that is how he feels. If it is the character being bisexual that is the issue (and it seems it likely is) he doesn't sound like a guy who is real committed to the faith of his youth so why assume he thinks homosexuality is immoral instead of just he is uncomfortable kissing a guy and portraying sexual attraction because he is not attracted to men.

Is it really that bad that an actor isn't able to pretend to be passionate about something that is unnatural to him? If a gay actor couldn't act well enough to convince us he's attracted to women, does that mean there's something fundamentally wrong with him given that it is not in his nature to be so? There are male actors who have convinced me with one female actor that they are madly in love while with another I don't even buy they are friends. Is there any actor who is going have chemistry with all her partners in all her lifetime?

That it will limit the roles the guy is given makes sense, but I don't see why it is a huge deal at this point save for people jumping to assumptions.

I have never watched the show...is the character actually portrayed as immoral in his relationships or are you guys just claiming the actor feels it is too immoral to be bisexual...because I do think it is different if one plays an character one feels is immoral to be condemned as a villain as opposed to playing a character who others don't see as immoral even if the actor does....for example, portraying an adulterer as someone responsible for causing unnecessary and cruel pain for their spouse would be very different than playing an adulterer who was applauded and glorified for getting away with it. I don't think I would want to be part of a production that glorified something that I believed harmed others but can see someone being willing to play the villain in order for good to triumph, etc. There were gay characters on the show, right? If he thought that was past the acceptable immorality line, why would he even be in the show?

Edited July 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

Grimes has not stated himself he wanted out of the role because it was immoral in his view. He hasn't said anything yet as far as I can tell, just another actor who as far as I've read is just reacting and is not repeating anything they actually discussed.

If he hasn't specified why (creative differences was the term the show used iirc, the only thing i can find from the actor is the original claim of scheduling conflict), I think it is a bit unfair to start blasting him for being inconsistent in being willing to play certain immoral characters and not others until he has actually stated that is how he feels. If it is the character being bisexual that is the issue (and it seems it likely is) he doesn't sound like a guy who is real committed to the faith of his youth so why assume he thinks homosexuality is immoral instead of just he is uncomfortable kissing a guy and portraying sexual attraction because he is not attracted to men.

Is it really that bad that an actor isn't able to pretend to be passionate about something that is unnatural to him? If a gay actor couldn't act well enough to convince us he's attracted to women, does that mean there's something fundamentally wrong with him given that it is not in his nature to be so? There are male actors who have convinced me with one female actor that they are madly in love while with another I don't even buy they are friends. Is there any actor who is going have chemistry with all her partners in all her lifetime?

That it will limit the roles the guy is given makes sense, but I don't see why it is a huge deal at this point save for people jumping to assumptions.

I have never watched the show...is the character actually portrayed as immoral in his relationships or are you guys just claiming the actor feels it is too immoral to be bisexual...because I do think it is different if one plays an character one feels is immoral to be condemned as a villain as opposed to playing a character who others don't see as immoral even if the actor does....for example, portraying an adulterer as someone responsible for causing unnecessary and cruel pain for their spouse would be very different than playing an adulterer who was applauded and glorified for getting away with it. I don't think I would want to be part of a production that glorified something that I believed harmed others but can see someone being willing to play the villain in order for good to triumph, etc. There were gay characters on the show, right? If he thought that was past the acceptable immorality line, why would he even be in the show?

As a good Mormon boy, I won't publicly admit to watching the show (I'm not THAT much of a newb). But it is my "understanding" that NONE of the vampires have good morals (at least, in the way that we would define them).

They feed on the humans around them (with or without their consent). They are highly sexual beings and have nothing even resembling marriage to bind them in committed relationships. Plus, most (if not all) of the vampires are bisexual and seem to be rather indiscriminate with regards to whom they will "hook up with" at any given time.

In short, there are no good vampires on the show. Of course, we know that Hollywood has its biases, so I'm not saying that this is an accurate portrayal of ALL vampires. I'm just saying that this plot change didn't make a fundamental difference in this character's morality ... at least, that is my "understanding."

Like you, I did note that it isn't completely clear why the actor left the show. He might have just gotten a better offer. And even if he did leave because he didn't feel comfortable playing a gay part, I agree that it doesn't make the guy into some kind of bigot. He could just be a really untalented actor. Either way, I hope he isn't spending all of his money

[california boy]

"Lol what a wonderful example for a member of the Church to post as an example of someone with moral courage. Just what conclusion are we suppose to draw from this example?"

Was that Senator's intent?

That there are still guys out there who are not able to completely separate themselves from their part to be able to kiss anyone they are pointed at with convincing passion should hardly be surprising in our culture that still embraces the extremely macho totally heterosexual male. It is hardly baffling to me especially given it is an ongoing part and one that would require chemistry. The guy recognizes his limits, isn't that better than turning in a pisspoor performance because he can't lose himself in the part? Given what I've seen from actors who obviously hadn't connected with their alleged love interest even in the case of it matching their offscreen orientation, the show is better off.

He is either Not an actor and should start looking for some other kind if work or a hypicrital Christian. You decide

[california boy]

Race doesn't bother me as it is ones lineage.

And it's not about gays, it's about perverted sexual behavior. I'm tired of people wanting me to condone, support and encourage their flaunted, unnatural sexuality in the name of supposed equality.

Maybe you could point out where someone is wanting you to condone support and encourage their unnatural sexuality. I assume your TV comes with a channel changer

Out of curiosity are you also tired of someone wanting you to condone support and encourage their adulter and, forenication , etc as well? Because those sexual sins are way more prevelant in movies, TV, advertising, literature. Etc.

[Calm]

He is either Not an actor and should start looking for some other kind if work or a hypicrital Christian. You decide

Some actors are better at playing certain characters than others. Harrison Ford pretty much plays the same kind of guy in almost all his films...the one he pushed the limit on bombed iirc...so as long as the one role one can act is popular enough, one can get very, very rich even without a lot of range.

Why is he a hypocritical Christian in your view if he doesn't believe homosexuality is immoral but still is uncomfortable playing the role himself?

Has he come out and personally condemned gays or Hollywood or are people just assuming hat given his upbringing, forgetting all those other actors with conservative upbringings that have managed to live them behind.

[3DOP]

I agree that even actors should have the right to set their own lines in the sand.  I just find it interesting that someone would find it less repugnant to act out killing another person than they would find it repugnant to act out kissing that same person.  Perhaps, sexual transgression isn't the sin next to murder but actually the sin GREATER than murder

 

Maybe it isn't a question about what is the objectively graver act, but what is the more subjectively repulsive act? Assuredly, it is more sinful to steal a dollar from someone's desk, than to conclude a trip to the bathroom by sticking one's head in the toilet. Obviously almost everybody would be more inclined in the direction of the dollar than the toilet. It is impossible for us to do certain things that are repulsive to our natures. Cauliflower makes me wretch; others like it. Clearly, homosex is not repulsive to everyone. Perhaps the actor thinks it is a worse sin than murder, I wouldn't know, but it is altogether possible that it is only repulsive to him and not sinful at all. It seems unwarranted to make moral judgments about why someone won't eat cauliflower, put their head in a toilet, or act out a gay sex scene. There are reasons to refuse that might have nothing to to do with moral values.

Edited July 25, 2014 by 3DOP

[Senator]

  I just find it interesting that someone would find it less repugnant to act out killing another person than they would find it repugnant to act out kissing that same person.

 

The last I heard people aren't actually killed in killing scenes, aren't actually raped in rape scences, aren't actually robbed in robery scences.........(at least I hope this is the case!)

 

However, how do you actually not kiss someone during a kissing scene?

[Senator]

He is either Not an actor and should start looking for some other kind if work or a hypicrital Christian. You decide

This is a ridiculously narrow set of conclusions.

 

Do you have any idea the number of scripts that a successful actor may turn down in his or her career? and the various reasons for doing so?

 

Why aren't all actors taking jobs in porn films? "Either they are Not actors and should start looking for some other kind if work or hypicrital Christians."

[rodheadlee]

As usual, you've gotten the issue HALF right.  Yes, the issue is not sex but rather long-term committed relationships.  Should a gay LTCR be given the same preferential status as a straight LTCR?

 

However, you can't seem to separate gay sex out of the calculus.  For one, you point out that "the exercise of homosexual proclivities can't result in pregnancy."  While that is true, the same can be said for many heterosexual proclivities.  And the ability to procreate is not, nor has it ever been, a condition for straight marriage.

 

Furthermore, you use the "gay sex doesn't make babies" fact to conclude that "the state has no rationale interest in promoting homosexual activity in this respect."  Once again, it's not the sex, Silly.  In promoting MARRIAGE, the state is promoting FAMILIES that can (but need not) raise children in a loving and stable environment.  This is the issue that the last dozen or so federal courts have ruled on when they have ALL decided that there is no "rational basis" to conclude that gay spouses are just as able as straight spouses to fulfill this role (i.e., being stable heads of households).

 

The issue of who does what to whom in the bedroom seems to be endlessly fascinating to you "traditional marriage" folks, but it is of NO legal consequence in deciding whether one form of marriage should be given preferential status.

The government does discriminate against straight married couples that have no children. We are called DINKs Double Income No Kids and we pay way more in income taxes than a married couple with children. Choose to live on a boat? There go your interest deductions for having a home mortgage.

[rodheadlee]

He is either Not an actor and should start looking for some other kind if work or a hypicrital Christian. You decide

And you just proved the point of the blogger in the OP.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

So the logic is: because an actor is willing to portray one immoral act, he should be willing to portray any and all immoral acts. Is that it?

 

The conlusion is that an actor has the right to define his or her morality as they choose. Or should we insist that every female actor, if she's willing to portray a sex scene, better be willing to strip down in front of the camera?

OR make a cake?

[Senator]

OR make a cake?

?