Would you think Shallit was being “heterophobic” or offensive to straights or even ‘muddying the water’ if he claimed, even incorrectly, that a straight character in a movie was a sexual predator?

Of course you wouldn’t…the idea is ludicrous. His opinion of one straight character says nothing about his opinons of straights in general.*

Now, I understand why you (and GLAAD) are quick to jump to the conclusion of “anti-gay bigotry”. Gays, as a group, have frequently been accused of being predators, an innaccurate, hurtful and, at times, dangerous claim. But while I sympathize, it does not excuse accusing non-bigots of bigotry.

And, frankly, false accusations of this nature do nothing to help bring people together.

*That sentence is true no matter what group you use to replace “straight/straights”. To ignore it is to commit the Converse Accident/Hasty Generalization Fallacy.

Not unless “homophobia” has now expanded to criticizing anyone who is gay or perceived to be gay for anything.

Clearly you hate everything GLAAD, and that’s your right. But having an openly gay son does not automatically make Gene Shalit gay-friendly.

This kind of thing does, though.

I’ll even throw out something. Perhaps the fact that Gene Shalit does hold such views and that he does have a gay son means he is comfortable enough with gay people that he can judge them by the same standards he does everyone else.

That’s anathema to GLAAD and their ilk, who more than homophobia fear loss of their “special victim” status, and as a result, must blast even people who have shown themselves to be ALLIES of the gay community as horrible and antigay.

See, now that’s homophobia. If the above is true, then the critic cannot put aside his personal biases to review the movie.

Clearly you hate everything GLAAD, and that’s your right. But having an openly gay son does not automatically make Gene Shalit gay-friendly.

And let’s not forget, millions of people hear Shalit’s opinion. You can’t say the same for GLAAD — who speaks for many people who were offended by the review.

Bernie

The message of the movie is that a sham marriage IS immoral.

That’s an amoral statement. He chose to get married. His only moral option is to remain faithful to his vows and his family. All this narcissistic “But I was born a woman and I want a sex change!” or “But I’m gay!” is irrelevant.

You get married, you keep your vows — or you’re immoral.

Calling a gay man a “sexual predator” muddies the waters.

-I find it insulting that the “gay community” endorses the message of this film, that gay men are exonerated from, or incapable of, morality. -

I haven’t heard anyone claim that gay men are exonerated from morality. The message of the movie is that a sham marriage IS immoral.

The gay community does not speak in unison. Clearly some gay men hated the movie. I disagree with them, but that doesn’t mean I’m insulted by them.

Anyway, I can’t possibly believe that voters are that ignorant and look at the moral flaws of two characters from a movie, and deciding that’s true for all those wanting gay marriage.

It has nothing to do with drawing generalizations from the characters, but from the praise the gay press has heaped on the film. The reactions of the so-called “gay community” are the issue, not the film characters.

And yes, there are movies where straight characters are not in some way penalized for adultery — because that is exactly what we are talking about, adultery — though you have to in some way overcome that issue. Just falling in love with “the other woman” isn’t enough.

I find it insulting that the “gay community” endorses the message of this film, that gay men are exonerated from, or incapable of, morality.

Jack offered a full-committed relationship a couple of times, and it seemed to me, he would have forsaked all others, including his wife, had Ennis been willing. So Jack started to see the writing on the wall, and figured if he was going to live an honest and open life, it may not be with Ennis.

Similarly, it happens with straight couples who are in a long term relationship. One wants to get married but the other person doesn’t. So they break it off and start dating other people. Maybe they get back to a committed relationship and get married, maybe they don’t. In the movie, Jack dies before they are supposed to meet in November. We don’t know if they would have met, but my guess Jack would have gone with one more chance with Ennis, and would have said his goodbyes then, if it didn’t work out. Putting aside the fact that Jack was married and he cheated on his wife (which was bad), I thought that Jack’s treatment with Ennis was more than fair.

NDT, as for the fundies, I’m afraid they’d get their panties in a twist, so to speak, even if Jack and Ennis had no moral flaws. I think the average American, even those opposed to gay marriage, who sees this movie, would be a little more seasoned than the simplistic arguments given by the fundies. First, they would understand, without condoning, the circumstances which lead to Ennis and Jack cheating on their wives. And also, they’ve seen that even straight couples, without the obstacles Jack and Ennis had, are sometimes depicted in movies cheating on their spouses. Yet, we don’t hear fundies arguing that straight couples should also be banned from marriage based on those examples. Anyway, I’d really like to think that American voters can see through the fundies argument, as I think they’re more intelligent than that. As for the movie being touted as an idealized gay romance, I don’t know who is saying so, but anyone who sees the movie will see the romance is far from ideal, and the movie portrays very well why the romance isn’t ideal.

Stephen, everyone, including Shalit is entitled to their opinion about the film. Not everyone liked the movie, and thought too many parts were dull. But did you agree with Shalit’s characterization of Jack as a predator? Again, I thought it was offensive, but also surprising given that Shalit apparently is not anti-gay.

I think the movie is being held up as a starcrossed love story where we see the way these men slowly self-destruct because they can’t be together. I don’t read all the reviews or articles, so I don’t know all that has been said about the plot, but I think people see these men warts and all. Some can say, “the movie shows that homosexuality destroys a marriage” sure, but that’s a self-defeating argument, because the logical response is, “then why do you say that gays dating/fornicating with/marrying someone of the opposite sex cures their problems”?

-He had an interesting way of showing it, from what I hear. -

I think he only slept with other men after Ennis told him they could never be together permanently as a couple.

Yes and no, Carl. You’re right in the sense that it does show that, but not quite as right in the sense that there’s a bigger picture here — that gays fortook hearth and family and wives to run off to the woods and f*ck each other. They put sexual gratification over their marriage vows and family. We can’t even argue that their marriages were sexless, inasmuch as both of them produced children.

In several ways, that strengthens the fundies’ arguments that gays can’t commit, that they put sexual gratification ahead of families and children, yada yada yada. I completely agree with what you say, Carl, but unfortunately, this movie is being held up as the reflection of some idealized gay romance — and it should be anything but.

You say that Jack can’t even be faithful to Ennis, but Jack wanted a permanent relationship with Ennis.

He had an interesting way of showing it, from what I hear.

Doesn’t this just show what happens when gay men enter relationships with women they don’t love, and don’t want to be around? The anti-gay activists always say “gays can marry just like the rest of us — they can marry someone of the opposite sex”. Doesn’t this film show just how hollow that premise is?

-This is also what’s making it difficult for audiences to connect with this. -

Considering that a lot of people will not see a film with any romance between gays, the movie seems to be doing well.

You say that Jack can’t even be faithful to Ennis, but Jack wanted a permanent relationship with Ennis. Ennis couldn’t accept the idea of living his life with another man. Ennis also had other relationships on the side, with that waitress.

I think what some people are missing about this film is how complicated human relationships can be. If the times and situation were different, then these 2 would have gone off together and made a life for themselves, not possible in the world in which these 2 characters existed. As far as abandoning people, I don’t get that either. Ennis clearly loves his daughters and Jack is shown as being a clearly loving father to his son. Ennis didn’t abandon his daughters and in fact its his love for his daughter that gives the partial catharsis at the end of the movie (he used the work excuse for not seeing Jack – tried the same thing with his daughter’s wedding, but recanted almost immediately – giving her and himself a little bit of happiness)

It made me recall a friend from years ago who was to be married and the invitations had already gone out when he broke it off. The most he could express to her at the time was that she would end up very unhappy if they married. A little bit of hurt then, but it saved them both lives of misery and I’m glad he was able to do it.

As far as Shalit: He’s a hack critic who’s done his job for 30 years because he looks funny on TV and someone seems to like his cute little act of alliteration when speaks his reviews. From what I heard (I didn’t see it) when they cut back to Katie Couric, she looked a bit shocked and mumbled something about “well I liked it” I don’t know if it was worthy of a GLAAD comment, but I’m sure as hell looking forward to Horatio Sanz giving him skewering on Saturday Night Live. (Sanz often satirizes Shalit by doing a dead on charicature of him.)

#15 Good points, VinceTN. Although I sympathize greatly with Ennis and Jack, I do not regard them as heroes. I would also add that the two older men who were murdered could also be regarded as heroes. Because it is gay men and lesbians like them who tried to buck the trend, and make it more possible for the rest of us to not have to deal with the crap that Jack and Ennis did. I’d like to think that under similar circumstances that I wouldn’t have entered a marriage doomed from the start, but I’ll never know.

Now, the difference here is that the heterosexual community, if you will, while acknowledging the pressures that these people were subjected to and perhaps even questioning why said people put these pressures on them, will still not condone their adultery, or worse, say that theirs is an example of typical love.

NDT, I didn’t mean to imply that I condoned Jack and Ennis’s adulteries. In your example, I wouldn’t condone it either, and I would feel some sympathy. But since the examples of the obstacles don’t come close to what Ennis and Jack had, I have less sympathy.

I’ll try an analogy. Suppose your couple had obstacles on the level of what Jack and Ennis had, but instead, for whatever reason, were each compelled to marry a person of the same sex. They then go on business trips as well to not play parcheesi. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that most straight people would not only sympathize with the couple, and some may even condone such behavior.

Pat, look at that sentence. You’re saying the only people who can understand gay people are adulterers. To straight people who ARE faithful, it looks like what it is, and they oppose that.

That’s not what I meant to say, but I see that’s how it came out. Put it this way. People see that adultery occurs despite there not being obstacles. I would think that when you throw in the obstacles that Jack and Ennis have, they might understand how adultery would be more likely to occur.

Here’s the hard part, Pat. They could have had it…..but they would have had to stay up on Brokeback Mountain or somewhere else remote.

Yes, they could have. Again, no one I know was arguing that Jack and Ennis weren’t perfect. But they obviously felt it was extremely difficult to simply have a full-time relationship. Yes, some of those feelings were of their own making. But Ennis saw the dead bodies of the murdered gay men. So, right or wrong, he did what he could so that NO ONE would get the impression he was gay, even if it meant getting married. Unfortunately, other people do end up getting hurt by this.

Then, after a few years, they rekindle the relationship, and start taking long “business trips” away from their families for the express purpose of being together, and not just to play Parcheesi.

I love it, NDT! Now if we can just get Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore we’ll have a deal.

I’m trying to think of a movie, because I know this premise has been tried before, but here we go: A boy and a girl meet while working summer jobs in a remote location, probably a camp somewhere, and begin a short, but torrid romance. When summer comes, they go their separate ways (perhaps they’re heading to different colleges, they’re to young to get married, their parents don’t approve, yada yada yada), go off, and find spouses and start having kids.

Then, after a few years, they rekindle the relationship, and start taking long “business trips” away from their families for the express purpose of being together, and not just to play Parcheesi.

Now, the difference here is that the heterosexual community, if you will, while acknowledging the pressures that these people were subjected to and perhaps even questioning why said people put these pressures on them, will still not condone their adultery, or worse, say that theirs is an example of typical love.

But the fact that their are many straight couples who sleep around today, despite not having the obstacles Jack and Ennis have, should be able to understand (while not condoning) the moral flaws of Jack and Ennis.

Pat, look at that sentence. You’re saying the only people who can understand gay people are adulterers. To straight people who ARE faithful, it looks like what it is, and they oppose that.

I sympathize with Jack and Ennis, because they found something special, and they couldn’t have it.

Here’s the hard part, Pat. They could have had it…..but they would have had to stay up on Brokeback Mountain or somewhere else remote.

This is also what’s making it difficult for audiences to connect with this. These guys didn’t need marriage to have a relationship. They had a starker choice than most — be straight, be remote, or be dead — but that’s not true in 2006 America.