Sexy Beast
More Sexy BeastMilk Screenwriter Battles a Gay-Bashing College
Dustin Lance Black is the Oscar-winning writer of Milk, the 2008 film about gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk.
Focus Features / Everett Collection
Almost a year ago, I won an Oscar for writing Milk, a film about a famous gay-rights pioneer. My acceptance speech was a call for gay rights that got me lots of attention and plenty of hate mail. Then last summer, my film was banned by the college in the small Midwestern town where I was scouting my next project. It would have stayed that way, if not for an unlikely coalition of conservative local leaders, students, and a gay kid in short-shorts who fought to get the film its due—and gave the town some hope.
While scouting in West Michigan last spring, I was led to the small city of Holland, a picturesque hamlet with strong Dutch roots, and the place where I would start pre-production on my directorial debut—my first project since Milk. I packed up and moved there last August.
The sun was warm and the reception from the town even warmer. I hadn’t run across such courteous people since I left Texas when I was 13 years old. As I drove down College Avenue, I passed a school. The sign out front read: Hope College. I smiled. I was supposed to be moving on from Milk, the 2008 film in which Sean Penn portrayed early gay-rights pioneer Harvey Milk. But here was Harvey’s favorite word, “Hope,” finding me once again.
They had simply never discussed gay rights openly before, and here I was, an interloper, threatening to thrust this hot-button issue into their community.
Early on, a couple of locals told me the city was one of the most conservative voting districts in the country, and that Hope College, a Christian institution, was the heart of the city. It was built four years after Dutch immigrants seeking religious freedom settled along Lake Macatawa in 1846. Since then, the school has remained strongly tied to the Reformed Church in America. Like most places in town, the campus was crisp, clean, and filled with a Holy Spirit and devotion I hadn’t felt since my childhood in the Mormon Church. Perhaps surprising to some, I felt quite at home.
Just beyond campus, I spotted the town’s sole late-night coffee shop. It was packed with neatly combed, mostly blond, well-spoken Hope College students. I settled in with my laptop, but soon felt a pair of eyes on me. They belonged to a student who, shattering the city’s 1950s mirage, was dressed in short shorts and a “Legalize Gay” T-shirt. Within minutes he was at my table, asking if I would screen Milk and speak on his campus. I thought, “I’m about to call Holland home for six months. I should probably pitch in.”
Production began, and though I was busy I occasionally wondered, “Why haven’t they confirmed that screening date yet?” The answer came soon enough. Four weeks into shooting, I walked into my now-favorite coffee shop and saw the local paper’s front-page headline: “Filmmaker Receives Mixed Welcome from Hope.” The story said I had been banned from screening Milk and was officially not welcome on Hope College’s campus. The dean of students wasn’t shy about it. He called my brand of “advocacy” hurtful to the student body. Without ever meeting me in person, without so much as a phone call, he had publicly declared me and Milk unholy and unwelcome.
What had started as a wide-eyed adventure to bring Harvey Milk back to life had taken a darker turn since my Oscar acceptance speech appeared and re-appeared on Oprah, The View, and The O’Reilly Factor. Anti-gay letters, emails, and attacks had begun, and now, here in West Michigan, I had met the same fate as many of my favorite writers: I was banned. Naïveté was gone. My education had begun. Between the apologetic handshakes were glares from unknown locals. The politeness I’d come to admire was lifted up, revealing hidden enmity.
But let me be clear: I don’t think the town was homophobic. I think they had simply never discussed gay rights openly before, and here I was, an interloper, threatening to thrust this hot-button issue into their community. As the dean kept talking and students began protesting, calls came from journalists in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. I did my best to stay focused, wrap up production, and in the end, decided to move my editing room out of West Michigan.
YOUR FRIENDS
The 10 Rules of Kissing Hello
Claire Howorth is the Arts editor at the Daily Beast.
Classic American Summer
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Best Celebrity Twit Pics
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
balanced-being
A very well balanced comment. It is pleasing to see the community opening to be tolerant. Historically, moving somewhere new to have religious freedom most often means the ability to practice one's religious preferences without opposing view points, the opportunity to be left alone and biased in peace.
jdblue82
While that may have been the case for some religious groups, it has not been the case for a great many others. At any rate, intolerance has prompted a great many religiously-movtivated migrations, be it the intolerance of the immigrants or the intolerance of their former countrymen.
While Puritans and Reformeds may have moved so they could escape opposing views, France's Huguenots definitely did not.
This user is no longer registered.
Colonel-Burton
That is perhaps the most measured, intelligent, well thought out, and admirable posts I have read in a long time.
Thank you.
Trunk-Monkey
I second that opinion -
Chicago48
As long as you weren't actively trying to campaign for gay rights, I don't see anything wrong with it. However, you found a very "Christian" right town....why did you choose THAT town? Why not another one like it, more liberal....I know Michigan and it is not the most "California" of states, and in many towns, very far from it.
hithere3
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? He writes quite clearly that he chose Hope for a location.
Michelle-Louise
And what is wrong with actively campaigning for gay civil rights? A small conservative town is the best place for it, since the gay/lesbian kids growing up there would have to live in a closet & live a lie, or face being ostracized or worse.
iamone3
Or grow up & support themselves, maybe move .
iamone3
It sounds more like the gays doing the bashing to me. Another anti-christian movement.
JohnnyBeagle
Exactly. The bigotry of the homochauvic movement is quite loud and proud...
Jaygim
On a side note: how on earth did "Milk" when an Oscar? Let's face the facts: if you would've replaced Harvey Milk with a "martyr"-figure espousing any other cause or movement or belief (dare I say, even religion) you'd have gotten nothing more than a midnight screening on Lifetime and Cinemax. Read Armond White's scathing analysis of the cult-fraud of Van Sant. Well done.
hithere3
lol armond white
urbancowgirl
Did you see the movie Jay? It was great. It absolutely deserved the Oscar for screenplay; beautifully written.
And Johnny - I see absolutely no bigotry in this article whatsoever. Please point it out to me. I fully understand that even gays or minorities or women can be bigots but I really don't see that here. It's a great, balanced piece about a town that is trying to learn about gay rights - so what? There was no agenda to the article - it doesn't mention legalizing gay marriage once. Just talks about a town that had never really talked about gay rights - it's a great conversation to have.
iamone3
urbancowgirl, We all know Texas has one of the worst education systems in America, (you are proof of that). I bet you have lots of friends with fringe benefits . I can`t wait to hear your 22 year old wisdom about the first state to accept bestiality marriage.
Colonel-Burton
iamone3, you have such hostility toward urbancowgirl, but I do not understand why. While here opinion may differ from your own, that is no need to lauch into such an irrelevant personal attack. What you are doing is called an "Ad Hominem Argument." You are not debating the issue at stake, but simply launching a distatesful attack on someone who you know only through online article comments. The thing about Ad Hominem Arguments is that they ususally indicate you don't have any good arguments yourself.
iamone3
Actually Colonel I Love the cowgirl, may have gotten a little rough there but I suspect her parents never told her no for fear of being called a child abuser.
DevilsLawyer
And imone3 neatly and perfectly illustrates Colonel-Burton's point...
iamone3
Devilslayer; I think cowgirl understands what I said to her , what you think matters not to me.
urbancowgirl
Thanks for sticking up for me guys, but I really don't take anything personally on here. Iamone can think whatever he wants about me that makes him happy. Apparently I'm an uneducated, spoiled, young person who doesn't know anything. That's ok. I have opinions that I try to clearly lay out and am always welcome to debate when it's presented in a calm, rational manner. Not a fan of name-calling. I outgrew that when I was about 11.
Further, Iamone, insult me all you like, but please keep my parents out of it. They are wonderful, loving folks who raised me really damn well. And they spanked me a good bit, fyi. I was a huge brat as a kid and you better be sure I got punished when I deserved it. I think if you met me in real life, you would find me to be a polite, well-mannered, well-spoken, intelligent person. But alas. It's the internet. So please, fire away.
iamone3
Nothing but LOve cowgirl
Jaygim
Who would you suggest Lisa Schwarzbaum? Peter Travers? lol.
senorpastry
White also things the Wayans Brothers, the minds behind such greats as Scary Movie and Dance Flick, are geniuses of film and satire. He's a contrarian who gets fame and fortune from angry people who disagree with him and crazy people who, for whatever reason (homophobia for example) agree with him.
jdblue82
To their credit, no one on either side really seems to have engaged in any "bashing."
But if you're going to keep score, which side was it that banned the other?
elyeasbane
I didn't find any Christian bashing in the entire article. I guess you become very thin-skinned being a pushy majority that likes to pretend it's a persecuted minority though.
Do you feel attacked when someone wishes you Happy Holidays instead of Merry CHRISTmas too?
urbancowgirl
I'll throw the question to you as well, iamone - where do you see anti-christian sentiment in this article? I'd like to know. I already know your views on gay marriage but this article doesn't bring that up at all so please, where is this "bashing" that you see?
iamone3
urbancowgirl; I know your views on the gay agenda, do you also support "multiple wives"? How about bestiality? Are you ok with that too? Just wait till they come out of the "closet". And man/boy Love , good with that one too?
jdblue82
iamone3: way to put up a straw man. why don't you stick to you're original claim and defend it before throwing out distractions and irrelevancies.
as the female urban wrangler asked: Where is the anti-Christian sentiment in this article?
Jaygim
A contrarian, no doubt. And by crazy people who agree with him, do you mean to refer to minorities and people of color?
jdblue82
Since when do "minorities and people of color" compose the group of people that agree with Armond White.
Per Roger Ebert, "White is, as charged, a troll; A smart and knowing one, but a troll." 'Nuff said.
abbyelizabeth
I went to Hope College and as a student, found the campus much more welcoming to the homosexual population. Perhaps the upper-level administration wasn't so welcoming, but I had many friends who didn't fit into the West Michigan mold. These were people I lived with and loved like brothers and sisters. I even took Hope's most popular religion course called "Christian Love" in which we talked about the issue of homosexuality - an open debate as to what the Bible truly says. The professor let us come to our own conclusions, not toting the company line. Perhaps it was because I was a music student and spent a lot of my time with theater students, as well, that I had this particular experience, but there are even homosexual professors at Hope.
I'm glad to know that eventually this kind of thing happened, but, like any other place, it's really up to the students to make movement forward in the realm of acceptance.
urbancowgirl
I definitely think this article implies that the students really were open to the discussion and that perhaps it was just a couple folks higher up who didn't want to create a controversy or something. I'm glad it happened - nothing truly bad can come from exposing yourself to this type of open discussion with others.
nickvisscher
Yep, as you'll read a lot of the screening audience was Hope faculty. I think you'll find a majority of Hope faculty are quite liberal in their thinking, at least on allowing an open debate and dialogue as any good educator should do. The prejudice comes from the establishment, administration... probably more concerned about answering to boards of trustees (peppered with Van Andels and Princes no doubt) who are older, traditional, afraid of "other people", and that their quaint holland town might somehow be taken from them. Things will change, they always do!
Jaygim
JDblue,
Respectfully disagree. It's easy for us all to take "tame parts" of Jesus and fit it into Western-feel good therapy. And certainly there is that aspect about his mission. But it was never about faith "in people" per se. In fact, perhaps best summarized, his news to the searching was this, which is far more radical and nuanced than is articulated today: You are more flawed and sinful than you ever dared believe, but more loved and accepted than you ever dared hope." A radical re-rendering of dark/light, legalism/grace.
goingtograceland
I grew up in the conservative Christian tradition, and it was a religion professor at Hope who called out my views on homosexuality, encouraging me to question why I believed everything I did. I am so thankful for that Hope professor who challenged me to open my mind and show true Christian love and acceptance. Thanks for refusing to give up on Hope.
jdblue82
Mr. Black strikes me as hewing closely to the real message of Christ. Closer by far than a person who would ban him from campus without first having met him or heard him out.
Insecure Christians hasten to judge others. (And aren't we all insecure sometimes...)
Confident Christians hasten to assume the best about others, and are brave enough to give a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth, ad infinitum) chance when proven wrong.
Jaygim
I agree with you on an insecure Christian's kneejerk reaction of judgment. But I'd qualify: confident Christians don't hasten to assume the best about others -- that's naive and shallow -- but confident in the who redeems.
jdblue82
I disagree Jay. It is neither naive nor shallow to assume or expect the best from others. It's what Jesus did. If you're going to follow the example, you really shouldn't ignore the part about having faith in people.
JohnnyBeagle
So let me see if I understand this young man correctly. Unless one agrees with him and his opinion of homosexual conduct and rights, one "hates" him and "hates" all homosexuals - and is someone to be attacked as "closed minded"...
jdblue82
No, he's not asking for agreement. He's asking for dialogue so that the stereotypes often applied to gays can be examined honestly and in context with the lives and stories of this town's gays and lesbians. It is his belief that fear motivates the dean's desire to ban/ignore/cover up anything LGBT at Hope College.
But, to keep score, remind me again which party to this disagreement was the one that banned a civil discussion? Oh yeah, that's right, it was the dean.
senorpastry
where are you quoting "hate" from. I think he says very clearly he doesn't believe the town to be homophobic, simply set in old paradigms and values that hadn't yet been challenged. It can be scary to change the way you feel about people you are told are wrong, people you are told are sinners. Black and the reasonable people within the gay rights movement understand this is a struggle that takes time. You can continue to fight it by calling people names and distorting facts, but reasonable people will see the logical conclusion, and you'll be left in the past. We're not worried about people like you, because logic, reason, and good nature will defeat you.
iamone3
senorpastry ; Will your "logic" also allow other forms of "Love", like man/boy, multiple wives, animal love(bestiality). These groups are "in the closet", shall we tell them it`s ok , come on out?
tallpaul
iamone3: You seem awfully fixated on having the most up-to-date knowledge of the various threats to traditional marriage. Be careful that your research on deviant behavior doesn't turn into a hobby. You seem to be drawing from the same well for most of your responses.
jdblue82
iamone3: Your argument, "Oh noes! Recognizing the legal ability of two consenting adults to enter into a civil marriage will somehow lead directly to illegal marriages involving lack of consent and/or multiple partners!" is pretty much just a distraction. Unless you have trouble understanding why bestiality, polygamy, and child rape are illegal, you should find a more solid argument for your claim.
Gay sex, much as it is distasteful to you, is legal. Marriage and sex are not the same thing. You're letting your distaste for one color your feelings about the other. Get over it.
iamone3
jdblue;You may personally find these other forms of "Love" distasteful, but others may disagree with you . Using the "Its legal"(homosexual sex) makes a poor argument, especially coming from a group that not so long ago engaged in sexual activity that was "Illegal".
Polygamy has been legal and practiced in other countries , but was outlawed in this country, as was homosexuality. If we are going to have a truly "open" discussion of sexual practices, you can not exclude those practices you find distasteful or "illegal". I think I ask a relevant question .Will your "logic"also allow these other forms of Love, like man/boy, multiple wives (polygamy),animal love (bestiality)?
DevilsLawyer
imone3: It all comes down to consent and the ability to give consent.
Two consenting adults = okay
Children and animals, who in the eyes of the law have no ability to consent = not okay
Multiple consenting adult partners = okay, but due to administration (joint tax returns etc.) and the way relationships work (monogamously) in the vast majority of cases, we're restricting marriage to 2 people for the time being. If it's workable and there's a great enough demand society could explore more open forms of marriage (in the science fiction series Rama, for instance, you see men with multiple wives or--rare, but just as legal--women with multiple husbands), but from what I've read even people in polyamorous relationships seem content with the one-on-one nature of marriage. But who knows? As long as everyone is in it of their free will and things are workable administratively, I'm fine with marriage containing more than two people.
As for gays engaging in formerly illegal acts: Those laws were UNCONSTITUTIONAL, see Lawrence v. Texas. That's like saying multiracial couples are in formerly illegal marriages, while disregarding the unconstitutional laws that made such a union illegal, see Loving v. Virginia.
Oh, and an aside. Mildred Loving, the lady in Loving v. Virginia? The black woman who was arrested for loving (heh) and marrying a white man? She endorsed same-sex marriage. http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf
iamone3
Devilslawyer; Perhaps I missed it ,where in the Constitution does it say Bestiality is wrong? How about man/boy? Polygamy? We also have to remember the Constitution is merely a mans law & mans laws change . Are they not intended to control the masses? 18 is an age of consent decided by man to once again control a segment of the population. Where is that written in the Constitution? There has been a lot of Christian bashing on the forums dealing with homosexuality . What are the Muslims views? Do they accept homosexual acts as Natural?
DevilsLawyer
There are various levels of social negotiation and emerging consensus that draw these lines (age of consent, attitude toward bestiality etc.) to make things workable. So if you don't like it, give us your own opinion. You don't think consent between adults is the best standard? Fine, give us your own standard and I'll hear you out.
And I don't think I said anything about Christians or Muslims, so I'm not sure what to say about that and am not sure why you're bringing up religion.
iamone3
You didn`t say anything about religion,though others have and age of consent has changed .
HopeClassof80
No, you don't understand him. Nowhere in his article does he say any of those things. Did you read it?
JTS1021
It's amazing how many "Christians" never ask themselves this, but I'll try to enlighten them. They say that trying desperately to restrict gay rights doesn't mean they hate people, it's just a difference in opinion.
Well I have to ask: what if someone treated Christians like they treat gays? What if I said there was a person that was putting forth legislation that barred people from getting married if they admitted they were Christians? Also, this legislation banned those who admitted believing in Jesus from serving in the military and reduced sentencing for those found guilty of assaulting or murdering Christians? Now not only that, but this legislation was actually being pushed through and all around the country states were banning Christians from getting married. Now someone else was actually trying to push legislation that actually outlawed Christianity and this legislation was being used in countries like Uganda to legalize genocide against Christians.
Now I ask you, do you think that people who pushed and supported that legislation hated Christians? Or do you think all those things would just be a matter of you personally disagreeing with them on their opinions about Christian conduct and rights? Would you respect those people that fought for outlawing Christianity, even if you personally disagreed with them?
I realize that for people who hate gay people, it's nearly impossible to break through that hatred in their heart. I've tried. I've tried to point out how much hating gay people contradicts with the Bible, how many on the Christian Right have disgusting, ulterior motives for hating gays (and keeping their mouths shut on Bible doctrine when it involves giving a portion of your money to the poor or treating illegal immigrants with love and respect), but I just can't break through.
So I just say, ask yourselves those questions I just asked next time you want to say something hateful against gays. You don't have to admit doing it, but do it anyways. Just ask yourself, would I think this was hateful if it was directed at me, my friends, my family? Please, that's all I ask.
andygirl
BRAVO!
jdblue82
Bravo indeed. Well put sir.
We would all be well advised to pause before we speak and consider how we might receive the words we are about to give. I know I've been quilty of a quick tongue and a slow heart before.
iamone3
JTS; we already have listened to the "Christin" bashing on this & other forums. I`m just saying...
jdblue82
iamone3: Whether or not people are taking potshots at Christians in forums or comment threads is not really relevant to claim that the article itself is or is not anti-Christian.
Jaygim
Those are some grand, blanket, ad hominem statements Firstly, maybe you can define what you mean by "Christian." That's such a loose term these days; do you mean to lump all Christians as "conservative right?" Do you have an image in your head of "G.W. Bush gun-toting fundamentalist?" That's very reductionist, considering: Jim Wallis of SoJo identifies himself as a believer (hardly a right-winger). Secondly, if you think there isn't religious persecution of believers around the world -- and of a much more violent stripe than dare I say even the treatment of the gay community here -- you're sadly mistaken.
You should travel to pockets where Sharia law rules and see the physical slaughter of believers in Indonesia, Darfur, Pakistan, the Middle East. When's the last time you've read up on this? Have you seen media stories on it (likely not; who'd want to cover "that?") The stereotyping of the religious here actually speaks to the beauty of America and the excesses of American-centrism. The public here has no idea outside of the "west" how religion, faith and fervor is perceived in the Global South, in the East, in China, where, dare I say, 'christians" meet underground for fear of imprisonment and accusations of rebellion against the regime. No, our Sino-view if of culture, Beijing and the olympics, or of Africa, the Kenyan safari and Anderson Cooper videos. Pity us.
JTS1021
@Jaygim. I have easy answers to all those questions. First, you ask what type of Christian I'm talking about. That's easy. Whatever type of Christian YOU are. See, that's the whole point. Using Christians is just an example. If you are Jewish just insert the word "Jews" there. If you're black, African-Americans. If you're a woman, women. The point is simply this: The things you say about gay people, what if someone said them about you? The rights you try to take away or keep away from gay people, what if someone tried to take those same rights away from you? How'd you feel, then? Would you still consider it simply "a difference in beliefs"?
About people bashing Christians for hating gays, well can you blame them? Look at my example again. If someone was trying to disavow your marriage because you are a Christian, wouldn't you be mad at them? Wouldn't you probably say a few things about them that weren't all that nice? I mean, I've grown up Christian and, trust me, gay people have acted with the uttermost patience when it comes to being denied marriage
compared to what would happen if the government decided Christians couldn't be married tomorrow. There would be massive rioting in the streets. There would be shots fired at every courthouse in the country. There would be screams about Armageddon and the Antichrist. It would be chaos.
About the persecution of Christians. Again, exactly my point. Don't you think that persecution is terrible? Of course it is, so knowing that, wouldn't you want to do everything in your power to make sure that you don't persecute others in the same way?
I vaguely remember something in the Bible about "do to others what you would have them do to you". Isn't saying "where it's fine for us Christians to treat gay people like shit because elsewhere people treat us like shit" a direct contradiction to that? Doesn't it seem like that bible verse was specifically written to stop that sort of rationale?
Hell, if you don't take my word for it, open a Bible. Biblical verses can articulate my argument a hell of a lot better than I can.
Jaygim
@JTS101,
Wow, some ad hominem streams all the way.
First off -- read my posts. Everything that you say about "intolerance .. . [insert]" I never said. Is it all just sounding the same to you? That's too bad you can't (or at least, aren't willing to) differentiate.
Pity me that I commented about not liking the film. For some reason, you extracted a whole set of politics, religious views, theological spectrums, etc. and imposed them on --- not sure who, exactly! But if you found this an outlet to vent, more power ...
iamone3
JTS; You can not use the Bible to tell people they are to Love gay people if you ignore the Bible where is condemns men lying with men. Is not that being hypocritical? (Use it to support your opinions but ignore it when it does not). The article itself points to the "Christians" . First thats no different than saying "you people". To try to group all Christians in the same category is wrong ,some churches have openly gay ministers, some do not , in fact condemn homosexuality along with adultery etc. For you to say that those who disapprove of the sexual practices of someone is the same thing as hating that person is wrong . Disapproval & hating are not synonymous. Peace
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
JTS1021
@ iamone. I can absolutely say that the Bible teaches us to love gay people because that's absolutely what the Bible says. Regardless of what you think the Bible teaches about homosexuality, the Bible undoubtably says that we are all sinners and we are to love our neighbors. Saying "we shouldn't love our neighbor if they are gay" is saying "we shouldn't love our neighbors if they are sinners", which is completely ridiculous to any person familiar with Christianity.
Secondly, I have to say this a lot, but if you think the Bible is clear cut about homosexuality, stop listening to other people and read the Bible for yourself because there's a lot of stuff they conveniently don't tell you in Sunday school about it. Namely, that homosexuality isn't the only thing Leviticus calls an abomination. Some of the other things? Well, eating seafood (more specially shellfish). Another? Touching dead pigskin.
Yeah, that's right. If you want to cling to Leviticus, that means that fans of lobster and high school football players are going to face the same fate as homosexuals. Of course, most Christians don't believe that. They say that all those claims of abominations in Leviticus are simply old Jewish laws that stopped needing to be followed after Jesus died and rose again. And then they say, "Oops, nevermind, all of them BUT that gay one". Anyone with an even vague notion of history can figure out why that is.
Sodom and Gomorrah is another one. It's clear to Biblical scholars that those events in the Bible have nothing to do with homosexuality. It's actually a tale of inhospitality. The people of S&G didn't rape and murder people because they were gay, they raped because they were outsiders, they looked differently then them. It goes back to the "love they neighbor" and "do not mistreat or judge an alien" verses that are the back bone of the Old Testament. It became about homosexuality only after ancient rulers realized that preaching against the "us vs. them" mentality wasn't good for expanding their empires.
Now its become the #1 sin in modern Christianity because of televangelists, the Pat Robertsons of the world who scream about it to keep people focused away from the evil deeds they do for greed (such as Robertsons support of genocide in Liberia because he was getting a sweet deal from its evil dictator regarding his personal gold mining business). Just look at the "prayers against universal healthcare". That makes no sense from a Biblical perspective, considering giving the poor money and helping them when they are sick is mentioned at least 60 times in the Bible. But corrupt people have realized for hundreds of years that if you are against something, a good way to gain support is to claim God is against it to, regardless of what it actually says. It's the issue of corrupt, evil men, not God.
As far as indicting all Christians. Either you are purposely twisting my words or I just worded it badly, but that's not what I was doing. Most Christians don't hate gay people. But most who hate gay people claim to be Christians (they aren't) in order to justify that hatred. I would never indict all Christians for a simple reason: I, myself, am a Christian. And I'm tired of hatemongers (I'm not claiming any of you are hatemongers, more the leaders of Prop 8 and others like them) giving true Christians a bad name.
iamone3
JTS: I do not hate homosexuals. I also do not hate adulterers. Let`s put all sexual practices on the table for discussion .Some would say bestiality is not wrong , would you also agree with them? Would you say they were born that way or would you say they chose that sexual behavior? What about a man that has many (say 5) wives, is that acceptable? How about man/boy love? Where do you draw the line? Or do we say whatever anyone does sexually is their business? Have all standards been dismissed now ?
How do you reason that those that hate homosexuals are Christians? You use the term hate when in fact many if not most do not hate but rather they do not accept homosexuality as natural .What about Muslims? Do you believe they accept homosexuality as natural & approve of Gay Marriage? I have only heard about Christian beliefs here. Just so you do not misunderstand me , I do not belong to any religious or atheist organization. But I do have questions for you and homosexuals & their supporters but so far they have been either ignored or poopaad . I would like to see some open honest discussion about this subject here.
JTS1021
Where do I draw the line? Easy. Two consenting adults. That's where I draw that line. It isn't complicated. Two. Consenting. Adults. It's a thousand times more logical then what we have now.
Comparing homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia is both disgusting and heartbreaking. Saying that a man raping a child and two men in a loving, committed relationship is the same thing is morally reprehensible. I guess I can't say this without causing offense, so you will just have to forgive me: It's a rationale I find disgusting and the fact that actual people believe it in this country and are still allowed to call themselves Christians, or even Americans, makes me want to vomit in my mouth.
If you think they are the same, I'd challenge you to do something you've never done in your life: talk to a real life gay couple. Some of the healthiest, most loving, and yes, most holy relationships I've seen has been between gay couples and gay families.
I mean, we will live in a country where, if you are a heterosexual, you can marry whoever you want, as long as they are over 18. You can marry someone off the street, never spend so much as a meal with them their entire life, and no one can tell you you have to get a divorce. You can beat your wife mercilessly every night, go to jail, come out, beat her again, and still be considered a married couple. In America, if you're a man and you want to marry a woman, nothing else matters. You can be a murderer. A rapist. A terrorist who cheered the 9/11 attacks. You can be a child molester who wants to marry quickly in order to be around children. It doesn't matter. In America, no one would ever think to take away your marriage rights.
Yet for gay couples, it doesn't matter who you are. Let's make an example. Say one guy is an Iraq War veteran whose paralyzed from the neck down after rescuing the rest of his battalion in a shootout. His boyfriend is a doctor who works in Africa helping sick children. They've never cheated on each other. They've never even looked at another person in a sexual way. Yet, people like you say what they are doing is vile and if we let them get married, because of who they are, that that would ruin the sanctity of marriage. Can't you see how sick that is?
tkondaks
Having Dustin Lance Black speak and advocate for gay issues is like having Senator Robert Byrd, the former KKKer, stand up and speak for Civil Rights.
Sorry, Mr. Black but you lost all credibility and goodwill to be a spokesperson for your cause when you demonstrated your hypocrisy on the issue of protected sex and the prevention of AIDS. What you did was unforgivable and should prevent you from ever attempting to advocate for gays again.
If anyone doesn't know or understand what I am talking about, please google "dustin lance black photographs perez hilton". It is an unpleasant topic but there it is.
Please go away, Mr. Bass, because by doing so you will do your own cause a favor.
petitecinephile
Why the hell do you come up with this tabloid shit? This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue DLB is writing about! Are you guys gonna bash him for it until the rest of his life or what...?
Personally, I love this article. I wish I could meet Dustin Lance Black in person. This acrticle shows great devotion and passion and it really moves me.
It is so nice to hear that this banning thing actually worked out well and "Hope" was given hope!
tkondaks
It goes directly to DLB's credibility. He has none and shouldn't be accorded such prominent space to advocate for anything.
He's a phony and a liar.
jdblue82
tkondaks: It absolutely does not have anything to do with his credibility. DLB is not, nor has he ever been, an advocate for safe sex or HIV/AIDS prevention. He is a screenwriter who is interested in pursuing and attaining career goals, and also in giving his voice to champion LGBT rights.
Neither of those two areas has anything to do with what he does in the bedroom with his boyfriend.
tkondaks
Sorry, typo, last line is supposed to be "Mr. Black", not "Mr. Bass".
senorpastry
The mistakes he's made in his life do not invalidate his arguments. Protected sex and AIDS prevention is not a factor in the gay rights movement. The only thing that matters is that LGBT people are human, so they deserve the same rights as you or me, no matter what. That is the only factor. Any other argument is invalid.
jdblue82
So, mistakes we make take away a our right to speak and advocate?
If we went by your rule, the world would be pretty quiet. Unless you're willing to say you've never ever-not even once-screwed up, you probably shouldn't cast stones.
tkondaks
No one is advocating that his right to speak be taken away (certainly not me!).
But one's freedom of speech does not extend to having the right to have people LISTEN to your speech. And my position is that DLB through his hypocrisy on an issue that deals with life and death is no better than a liar and does not deserve to be listened to.
Let him speak all he wants to.
jdblue82
Having "unsafe" sex, while not the smartest choice in the world, is his to make. And how does that make him a liar? He's never made the claim that he doesn't, so far as I know.
Besides, do you know for a fact that it was with a one-night stand? Do you know that it wasn't a decision he and his partner made responsibly after getting tested and deciding to be monogamous? Were you there in the room?
elyeasbane
I am happy to have Dustin Lance Black speak and advocate for gay issues and would much rather have Perez Hilton go away. Dustin's bedroom is his own business.
andygirl
Bravo, Dustin! Thank you for your bravery and attempting to bridge the gap between not only the LGBT and straight communities, but also between what has become warring factions. Why must gay and straight be on different sides? We are all people.
And you are right. It isn't about hate; it's about fear. Fear of an "other" fuels all racism and bigotry. And one fear fuels the fear on the other side only furthering the divide. One side must reach out, extend a hand, and start to bridge the gap. Then the homophobes and the (what did someone call it?) homochauves can stop warring.
finderj
I find that many advocates for minority groups have one thing incommon: disagree with them on any point and you 'hate' them.
Really?
I do not support in any shape, form or fashion the so-called 'gay lifestyle'. Multiple partners, unprotected sex, and casual 'hook-ups' lead to terrible consequences.
I do not support multipe partners, unprotected sex, and casual 'hook-ups' for heterosexual people either.
I think that one can be open minded and still refuse to support stupidity, regardless of the form that stupidity takes.
Doesn't make me homohobic. Makes me smarter than the average bear.
scott1607
I think your response illustrates one of the points the author was trying to make -- all gay people are not the same just as all straight people are not the same. Gay lifestyle? So if you're gay, you're automatically having a lifestyle of multiple partners, casual hookups and unprotected sex? That's like me saying all straight men are rapists beating their wives and porking their daughters. Isn't that the straight lifestyle? Wait, just because some straight men do those sort of things doesn't mean ALL of them do?
JohnnyBeagle
All homosexual people are not the same but it is clear that male homosexuals are quite a bit more promiscuous then other groups and their understanding of a commited relationship is not the same as heterosexual couples.
senorpastry
@JohnnyBeagle
It's funny that you're vocal about banning gay marriage because they lead an unhealthy or immoral lifestyle (which is absolutely ridiculous and bigoted and you should be ashamed) but I've never heard of people banning marriage for sex offenders or domestic abusers. Should these people be banned from marriage, because it's simply fact that they are more likely to have unhealthy and immoral sexual/romantic relationships. Perhaps you should call up your Senator or Congressman.
urbancowgirl
Johnny - I'm not sure what generation you're a part of, but it's utterly ridiculous to assume that straight people aren't also hooking up with everything that moves. That's more a consequence of being young and being liberal with your sexuality. And in this day, where it's acceptable to really truly explore any avenue of sexuality that compels you (not just the ones that society dictates), even more young people are living this "gay lifestyle" be they straight or gay. Eventually we mature (though some of us - both hetero and homo - never do) and we settle down with one mate.
Also - why do you say "it's clear" that male gays are promiscuous? Do you have facts? Do you stalk the gay scene? Have you ever talked to a monogamous gay couple?
This user is no longer registered.
jdblue82
"I do not support in any shape, form or fashion the so-called 'gay lifestyle'. Multiple partners, unprotected sex, and casual 'hook-ups' lead to terrible consequences."
Actually, disagreement is not what makes you homophobic. But your insistence that the "gay lifestyle" (a stereotype in and of itself) comprises orgies, unsafe sex, casual hook-ups, and (by implication) excludes commitment, love, trust, and fidelity does make you prejudiced.
Much like the average bear, it seems you'll unquestioningly eat any trash you're fed.
This user is no longer registered.
jdblue82
Ah, well clearly that's your personal belief, and not particularly based on any research data. As such, I'll consider it prejudice.
Here's some real data for you:
a) 40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
J Harry-1983 in Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
L Peplau-1981, in Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
J Spada-1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ
b) Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon
D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, "The Older Lesbian"
C Silverstein-1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.
c) In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following "break up" statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%, married heterosexuals=4%
Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) American Couples: Money, Work, Sex; Morrow Publ.
d) Homosexual and heterosexual couples matched on age, etc, tend not to differ in levels of love and satisfaction, nor in their scores on other standardized scales
M Cardell-1981, Psychology of Women Quarterly 5:488-94
D Dailey-1979, Journal of Sex Research 15:143-57
S Duffy-1986, Journal of Homosexuality 12(2):1-24
L Kurdek-1986, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:711-720
L Peplau-1982, Journal of Homosexuality 8(2):23-35 (see L Peplau-1991, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed by J Gonsiorek).
scott1607
It's interesting that you list "opportunity" as one reason why gay men are more promiscuous. Doesn't it logically follow that if you allow gay marriage that would deprive them of having more opportunities to be promiscuous?
iamone3
scott; The answer to your question is NO. You are welcome.
SocialSecretion
So you'd support the homosexuality of two people in a committed relationship then?
JohnnyBeagle
I support any committed relationship - but I also know there is a difference between a committed relationship and a marriage. While the two may overlap in certain areas, they are not the same thing.
jdblue82
@JohnnyBeagle
Explain your view of what the differences are, then...
JTS1021
I already know the answer to this question, JohnnyBeagle, but since you seem so convinced to wrap your frightening bigotry in a nice little package, I just have to ask. Since you say that marriage is different from a committed relationship, you are saying you support married gay couples in states where that is legal?
andygirl
Look, that is just plain naive. Anyone of any sexuality can be pomiscuous or unsafe. Or perhaps it's not straight men who seem to dominate the news with their sexual scandals and proclivities. The gay lifestyle? Seems to me like the human lifestyle. And anyone of any sexuality can live a life of monogamy or practice safe sex.
This idea of the gay man (and do we leave out lesbians?) as a confused, sex crazed whore is so 1991.
hopealum
First off. I appreciate your story. I think its fairly balanced and presents an accurate depiction of Holland and Hope College.
However, I don't want you to think you were the first to step foot and Holland and plant your flag for equality. This conversation has been taking place for over two decades on this campus and this community. And as a graduate of Hope College, I really don't appreciate you talking in absolutes. Stating this was the first time the community discussed equality for the LGBT community.
You are one of many to roam into Holland and try your best. You just happen to have some press coverage because of your movie. So with that, thanks for your help. But please do not minimize what previous Hope Students and previous Holland residents have done to push equality further.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
jdblue82
Right, because we're the one's insisting that everyone in America follow religious dogma when it comes to determining who is eligible to engage in a civil marriage contract.
You're either blind to your hypocrisy or purposefully trolling.
hithere3
Wrong. It is you who are "not that important."
asparagus
Good point mahalapril. And while we're at it let's round up menopausal women. How about men with low or no sperm count? Testicular cancer? Unterine fibroids? Fallopian tube damage? Really anyone who can't reproduce. I'd like to see them survive in isolation! Talk about parasites.
andygirl
Oh yeah! Anyone who cannot reproduce (including my parents, thank god for adoption) is a burden on society.
urbancowgirl
Wow. Just, wow. I mean, at least you're not even trying that whole "I swear I'm not a hateful bigot but..." line; you just go right for it. Gotta admire that I guess.
This user is no longer registered.
myrevenge
well said, mah
the perverts are just going to wipe themselves out. and they say there is no god
hithere3
most of the "perverts" are believers, idiot.
KoverStar
It's true that fear and understanding can't coexist, although I have to say that my failure to understand homosexuality is not rooted in fear.
Separately, what rubs me the wrong way is that *some* gays would have their cake and eat it, too: Insisting that what goes on in their bedrooms is their business whilst simultaneously going out of their way to ensure that everyone who can see and/or hear them knows they're gay.
That seems more akin to a social statement (a gratuitous one at that) than merely a sexual preference.
It'd have been interesting to read Blacks thoughts about that.
jdblue82
So what you're saying is you'd prefer that we don't let you know we're gay so that you don't have to know exactly who it is you're discriminating against?
KoverStar
Curious that you would push the discrimination angle. Who mentioned discrimination? Do you discriminate against everyone who rubs you the wrong way?
jdblue82
So gays rub you the wrong way then? That's why you'd prefer not to know who's gay?
elyeasbane
Should I judge all straight people, because some of them "rub me the wrong way"? You can watch guidos on the Jersey Shore brag about their conquests on national television. Does their gratuitous social statement give me cause to judge all heterosexuals harshly? No. You have the good with the bad in any group.
KoverStar
Re-read my comment. I said that *some* gays go out of their way to make sure that everyone who sees/hears them knows they're gay. That's hardly a blanket statement about all gays.
People --gay, straight or bi-- who go out of their way to draw attention to their sexuality can't have a reasonable expectation that people should ignore their behaviour. Put another way, we don't get to cram who we are down everyone's throat and then chastise those whose reactions aren't to our liking. Maybe that's harsh but it's fair, also.
jdblue82
Right, so then I should be well within my bounds to tell my boss to can it about his wife, as that is part of his sexuality. Since he has kids, they too are a reminder of his sex life, and so I should ask him to never bring them in to work. Also he keeps talking about how heterosexual his brother is, or at least about how his brother's marrying this woman, which is basically the same thing.
I really wish my boss would stop cramming his heterosexuality down my throat.
PeterH
Heterosexuals says that what goes on in their bedrooms is their business, yet they go out of their way to ensure that everyone who can see and/or hear them knows they're straight - family photos on the desk, wedding rings prominently displayed, relating what the spouse did over the weekend, etc. So sick of having heterosexuality crammed down my throat!
OK, so I'm being facetious. But just because a gay person "goes out of their way" to let you know they're gay, how does that tell you what goes on in their bedroom? Why is heterosexuality all about love & commitment & family, but homosexuality is just unbridled lust & fornication? Homosexuals are just as individual and boring in their everyday lives as heterosexuals!
jdblue82
Amen! There are days I marvel at exactly how much debauchery I should supposedly be having. It's a wonder I have time to work, go to school, pay the bills, care for my cat, call my mother at least once a week, carry an unhealthy MMO addiction (kidding! I know how to use a timer), go out dancing a few times a month, socialize with friends, bike to the beach, go on the occasional camping trip or more frequent short hike in the hills/mountains, etc...
I need to ask some of these self-annointed gay sex experts (i.e. the conservative evangelicals) what I'm doing wrong. Clearly, my lack of a sex addiction and my inability to philander are inconveniencing them to a great degree.
This user is no longer registered.
KoverStar
PeterH, you won't get me to sign on to the notion that heterosexuality is a panacea whilst homosexuality is the land of the lost.
I'm not sure how you drew that inference from what I wrote.
jdblue82
He drew the inference because of your obvious discomfort with acknowledging that gay people exist and-a shock, I know-do have sex from time to time.
It's probably inaccurate in your case, if you're telling the truth, but don't act so surprised. Plenty of folks who are uncomfortable with the existence of homosexuality and homosexuals hide their discomfort behind stereotypes like the one PeterH assumed you ascribe to.
harringb
KoverStar, no one hassles you when you "go out of your way" to come across as a WASPy a-hole. People are different, duh. Sorry that they don't all fit into the acceptable mold that you feel they should.
Maybe everyone should focus less on what's going on in everyone else's bedrooms, and instead on treating everyone with equal rights and equal courtesy, even if *gasp* you can tell that they are gay! Just from being near them!!
KoverStar
harringb, homosexuals would be much farther along in their quest for acceptance if I had my way, not because I agree with their lifestyle, mind you, but because aside from being bemused by some of what I see and hear (i.e., rubbing me the wrong way), I don't care enough about them to be intolerant.
And as for me being able to tell that they're gay just from being near them, please. A man wearing a t-shirt that reads, "I'm So Gay I Can't Even Think Straight" is inviting judgment.
jdblue82
KoverStar: You need to get over your discomfort. What you're saying is the equivalent to a white person in 1960 being okay with black folk as long as they keep to themselves.
urbancowgirl
Yeah but don't we all know plenty of straight couples who can't seem to keep it in their bedroom either? How many of us saw kids making out in the hallways at school or have seen a bit of a show on public transit?
Besides, can you really blame them? Most gays have been hiding their true selves for years - if they want to kiss their boyfriend or girlfriend in public and revel in that, so what? Like I said, straight folks do it all the time - we're just less averse to it having seen it so often.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
KoverStar
We do, yes, but as heterosexuals comprise the majority (or so it would seem), their PDAs are tolerated more readily than those involving homosexuals. And, no, it isn't fair.
jdblue82
Again KoverStar, you're letting your discomfort (i.e. prejudice) get the best of you.
hoffmak
To finderj: The thing that makes you homophobic is assuming that all gay people subscribe to the same "lifestyle." That is about as accurate as saying that all people in Michigan are left handed. You are ascribing a set of negative qualities to a whole group of people that you believe are bad people innately. That is homophobia.
To tkondaks: Just because Mr. Black had unprotected sex, you believe he should be "banned" from advocacy? Let me ask you this: What advocate has a perfect past? How can you hold him to a higher standard than others who have passionately advocated on the behalf of others but who had personal shortcomings. If Mr. Black were a safe-sex advocate, you might have a point. He isn't; he is an advocate for gay rights and equality. Plus, it is every persons right to have unprotected sex with their partner, and no one asked you to be the sex police.
To: Johnny Beagle: You almost have it. See, if you feel that a group of people are "bad" because they live their lives differently than you do, and you also feel they should have fewer rights than you have, that makes you hateful. That's how it works.
To anyone claiming that gay people are the real culprits of hate: Shame on you. We have been denied rights, murdered, imprisoned, cast out of our families, kicked out of our homes, tormented by our peers, driven to suicide and made to feel worthless for centuries. We have finally found our voice and are using it to demand equal treatment, and you have the nerve to condemn us for defending ourselves against a heterosexist and hateful cultural meme? You will be remembered with the same incredulity and shame as George Wallace and Strom Thurmond.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
Emmazon
Homophobes = gay cowards.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.