Openly gay

Comment by photo2010 on January 25, 2009 at 5:46pm

Good question! George Carlin moment indeed! lol

Comment by spacemonkey1310 on January 25, 2009 at 5:50pm

Lou Reed is gay?!

Good question you raise here though.

Comment by NatureJunkie on January 25, 2009 at 6:06pm

OMG! Does Laurie Anderson know Lou Reed is openly gay!?

You were having more than a Carlin moment, my friend. I think you were possessed and channeling him. Still giggling.

Comment by Pypermarru1 on January 25, 2009 at 6:21pm

Excellent. I am openly humored by this video.

Comment by flophousepoodle on January 25, 2009 at 8:22pm

Pondering aloud along side community snap shots FTW.
Good to see you!
And I don't know. - More TV labeling I suppose.

Comment by SydTheSkeptic on January 25, 2009 at 9:42pm

We mean "openly-gay" to be synonymous with "proudly" and "without fear" in defiance of possible harassment, intolerance, and even violence against us.

There's no probable repercussion for being a cynic, or a heterosexual, or creative...There's the context of the past and even the present that communicates to us, continuously, that we have a long way to go before we can feel completely safe simply loving someone of the same gender and expressing that love openly.

Comment by OneSmallVoice on January 25, 2009 at 10:29pm

@syd
I am totally with you on we have a long way to go – not so much on no likely repercussion as a result of other labels. Historical and contemporary context haunt many of us.

But when you suggest that the term is useful in that it honors those who take a risk and publicly declare – I can only respect and support that notion.

Openly respectful – Fred

Comment by OneSmallVoice on January 25, 2009 at 10:35pm

@FHP
Did you say FTW? :)
Yes, community snaps commentary can be great fun.
It’s always great to see you.

Comment by OneSmallVoice on January 25, 2009 at 10:48pm

@Deborah
I guess I was suggesting that in a public forum (such as MSNBC) the word “openly” was unnecessary. –that it did not help provide any further meaning. The word gay would have been enough. But after thinking about what Syd said, I feel the extra word does, indeed, have purpose.

But it sure would be nice to not need any labels.

Comment by OneSmallVoice on January 25, 2009 at 10:52pm

@Pypermarru1
I am pleased to have humored you.
(Oh, the things we do to the English language!)

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page