Actor Rupert Everett is causing a stir over in Britain:
The star of the 1998 film Shakespeare in Love blazed a trail for gay actors when he came out as homosexual 20 years ago.
However, he has been criticised by gay rights groups after giving an interview in which he decried same-sex couples who have children.
The 53-year-old told the Sunday Times Magazine that his mother Sara had met his boyfriend but “still wishes I had a wife and kids.”
“She thinks children need a father and a mother and I agree with her,” he said. “I can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads.
“Some people might not agree with that. Fine! That’s just my opinion. -- The UK Telegraph
26 Comments
I guess he's only entitled to his opinion when it agrees with the gay rights groups.
I guess he's only entitled to his opinion when it agrees with anti-equality groups.
We live in strange times when common sense is considered controversial(or even worse-"hate speech").
@Sean
Stop your anti-equality against our children.
“A mother and a father for every child” (whenever possible).
Equality for children Sean, get on board with NOM, we need ya.
Oh Sean, this has nothing to do with equality. We are all equal now. No one can marry someone of the same sex in most states. You are looking for special rights that no one else has.
Are homofascists still playing the "equality" card? Doesn't the glbt community know that the term "marriage equality" has lost it's deceptive power? Everyone knows that gays want to REDEFINE marriage since a homosexual lives under the exact same laws that I do and therefore already has marriage equality.
...its...
He understands that same-sex friendships do not a marriage make. It's good to hear some common sense coming from Someone who engages in homosexuality.
I just want the same rights as any other couple who has been in a monogamous relationship for 9 years as i have.
“I can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads." Except maybe by two lezbo moms.
@Good News:
@Mantronikk: Yes, I'm hearing the correct phrase "Marriage Redefinition" more and more often.
I agree with this actor. It's bad enough if a child isn't raised by their mother, but worse if they're under the custody of two men who see the absence of the mother as a structural benefit for their household.
SSMers will never, ever, be able to convince a sizable portion of the population that it's wonderful for children to be raised without a mother.
Ash, I would also add:
It's bad enough if a child isn't raised by their father, but worse if they're under the custody of two women who see the absence of the father as a structural benefit for their household.
SSMers will never, ever, be able to convince a sizable portion of the population that it's wonderful for children to be raised without a father.
It is right to think that in a mother-father relationship the mother should take on the majority of the child care – it is wrong to take from that idea that women are better for children, or better at child rearing, than men*. And it is even more erroneous to think that because of that, a child belongs more with (or more to) his mother than with his father. That's an artificial idea created by western divorce courts, lawyers and their hired psychologists (these are the people who do the final "convincing"). The same people that, if given the authority to do so, will be selling us the idea that a child's two parents can be of the same sex; and that it is the parents financial comfort and stability that determines their capacity and legitimacy as parents.
*As it is wrong to think that because the man should do the majority of the work outside the home that he is better at it than women. Being technically the best at something is not the end game here. More important is that each has his or her role, that is what is good for child rearing, family and for societal structure and its function. The idea of "equality" has been miss used on this topic as well. Though we're now far off the more fundamental issue, “the big take away”, which is that “marriage is the union of a man and a woman and any children born of that union”.
Sean: Equality is indeed allowing children both a mom and a dad, when possible.
In the absence of a household with a mother and a father. Shouldn't the child be raised in a household of love ? It is a shame that tradionalists do not show love to their fellow human beings just because they are not like them !. They are afraid of them because they are different. It is not a disease to catch. It is love in one of it's many God given forms. And love and care should be what matters...By denying a child their right to a family you show your true colors in the hate that you spew in support of traditional values.
Maybe nobody cares, but Rupert Everett was NOT the star of Shakespeare In Love, Joseph Fiennes was....he wasn't even IN that movie. Fact checkers???? Having facts that big that are wrong may take away from your message you are trying to send, as people will think other things are wrong in your story.
Cue the violin music.
Advocates of marriage redefinition would sever the link between children and parents, which is the only government interest in marriage.
Live how you want and love whomever you want. It's not marriage.
@ Maggie Foster
The question of whether or not gay couples should be allowed to adopt and raise orphans is a hard question. Hard, hard question. And I'm sure we disagree. But that is the debate that we should be having, and not this one about the redefinition of marriage.
But what is unacceptable is to encourage that eventual adopted child to think that he does not have both a mother and a father. And to encourage the child to believe that it does not make a difference to the child if he only has parents of the same sex. And so telling him that his sex, being a man or a woman, is of no intrinsic value. In other words, telling him that as a physical and biological being there is nothing of any value that he could offer himself (as in getting to know himself), nor offer his family, his children, his friends or the society (being male, or female, in and of itself is of no value). It is devaluing us, the man and the woman. It is devaluing the human being. And it is lie; and it is lying to the child.
And what is outright unacceptable, and what should be criminalized; for it is criminal. Is to have a child intentionally born into a same-sex couple.
As cutting away the African Americans from their roots was not a great thing for them personally. Cutting away so thoroughly a growing child and person from his origins (psychological and physical) through this new economically profitable practice, is not good for these yet unborn children. Add to that the reenforced education that he will get from his government, school teachers, state-laws and media etc., that he came from his two parents: his two daddies, that they brought him into this world.
_____
Love, love, love. Ya, ya, ya. Okay. But being raised in a responsible household is even more important, for love will come and go. The question is, is it possible to be a responsible (and a truly loving) parent when raising a child in the midst of such a loving lies.
I agree with this actor...
Wow. You know it must take a lot of courage for him, as one in a same-sex relationship, to tell it like it is on this subject of adoption by same-sex couples in an age where so many are in denial of the truth and stand at the ready to spew vicious attacks at anyone who stands for common sense. Props to his courageous stand for truth on this issue.
The hockers of gay identity politics insist that marriage defenders must now view marriage through the eyes of the gay identity group.
Except when a dissenter from within that group speaks up.
The pressure on the individual to conform to group identity politics is brought upon any dissenter whose voice is heard publicly.
In other words, the members of the identity group are often the victims of the asserted supremacy of said identity group's politics. The threat hangs over his head.
It is sad that homosexual activists want "recognition" that living in mortal sin and in sexual perversion is "ok" and worst that is should be "blessed and legalized" and children should be subjected to their lifestyle as normal. If you want to live in sin, nobody can stop you but don't tell people it is normal, it is good for children or that it is natural. It is neither. Gay activists now believe in their own lies, forgetting what is right and wrong.
Thanks, MarioLuiggi, it is great to hear the truth put into such simple and clear words!
And to the gays reading this, could you please explain to me why you are bending over backwards, costing the nation an unbelieveable amount of $$$, keeping lawyers and politicians busy who should really care for more important things, just to gain entry to an institution like marriage that until now has had such an easy definition?
Where's the gay pride? If you are so happy about being gay, shouldn't you be over the moon that homosexuality is not illegal anymore and enjoy life together? You have all the rights already, why is "marriage" so important????? Isn't that a bit like someone who is not catholic wanting to get confirmed without changing over to the catholic faith? (no, I am not catholic
)
Thanks for your answers!
I am "the gay" reading this.
I demand the same rights as other Americans.
If you would be happy to be told that you only count as 50% or 85% of a person, maybe this sounds strange, but I demand to be treated as an equal.
It does not cost you or me a penny for us to live in our respective homes and accept that God created us with equal rights and that we can easily live according to the Golden Rule.
When a person claims that I should not be allowed the same rights as my neighbor, I am done staying in my home with the door closed; I'm going into the streets and raise a stink.
If I have to bankrupt you to make you shut up long enough to read the whole Bible and get some context, or to get you to get the stories from the people you slander, or to meet kids that have been raised by loving parents in same-sex households and compare that childhood with kids that have been thrown out of their homes, I am perfectly content to bankrupt you.
No gay or lesbian person has said that they chose their path; it comes from God much like hair and eye color. I have read your posts. I have tried to hide my nature to please my parents, the church I was raised in, and society. Your sexuality comes from God. It is a gift, and rejecting or denying it is a terrible sin; it is contempt of God's ability to create according to His will.
I do not date people younger than 35. I do not think that it is possible for myself, Lady Gaga or President Obama to "make" somebody gay; that is God's doing and cannot be changed on Earth. The greatest thing I ever did as an advocate was to let a gay or lesbian person know that they are not alone, and the Bible assures us that their nature is not evil, but is in fact as divine as any of God's children.
God put you on this earth. You read in a handful of places that rights come from God, and for every right you have responsibilities. You get good grades and stay out of trouble. You go to church once a week and visit people in hospitals and prisons like Christ commands you. Now imagine, that because of your hair or eye color, your government decides that you may not marry.
Would you accept this? What kind of child of God would accept that God intentionally created you in a way that was unacceptable to God? What kind of an American would allow such a law to stand?
How much money was spent lobbying to ban certain citizens from marrying? Did Christ command this? No! "Judge not." Protect the oppressed. Read about Buddha; "End suffering".
If my partner dies, I expect to be allowed to know the cause. If I'm dying, I expect my partner to be allowed to hold my hand in the hospital. How many of your are trying to keep a wife and husband from having these rights? Can you live in the world that you are lobbying for?
LGBT kids have been thrown out of their homes because their parents missed the entire point of Christ's message. Dying on the street of hypothermia with an empty stomach, knowing that your own family doesn't love you and being told that God hates you is a worse experience than being raised by two dads or two moms.
A young person needs a loving home. When the old traditions do not have enough love to raise a family anymore, than it's time to make room because there are some new traditions in town.
About one person in three is gay or lesbian; most of them in your neighborhood are likely "in the closet" out of fear. Ask yourself where that fear came from; are you a big enough person to accept that one of your children might be gay? How about your neighbors and co-workers; are they afraid of you? Is your church open and accepting, or do they use the Bible as an alibi for gay bashing?
Gay marriage is important because everybody was created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain rights. These rights are not to be abridged by man or by any earthly government.
Jewish law established it before the word "Jew" came into existence; pre-semitic tribes had the Golden Rule. Christ commanded us not to judge. The United States Declaration of Independence established it in 1776, and during the 1780's it was locked down with the Equal Protection clause.
Without hate and bigotry there is no need for you, me or any government to spend money on "gay marriage" efforts. The first shot was fired by bigots that want to limit marriage to subscribers to some not-quite-Christian doomsday cult that likes to use the Bible as an alibi, but is not comfortable reading it. If there was no effort to withhold rights from a segment of the population.
If all Americans were guaranteed the same rights that they are promised, not a penny would be spent on either "defending marriage (a lie)" or "gay marriage". There would simply be marriage, the recognition that two people want it known to God, the government, friends and family that they expect to spend the rest of their lives together, and to ask for the blessing of the same.
What a hateful thread; not a single Christian here!
A Jewish tradition in which all law was summed up in the Golden Rule was established already when a man called Jesus, the Son of God and Christ came to Earth and commanded people, "Judge Not, lest you be judged!". Under this command, the founders of the United States drew up a set of basic legal principles, among which are guarantees of equal protection.
Some people foreign to the golden rule, Christ's teachings and the United States constitution try to limit access to marriage by slandering their brothers and sisters, claiming the Bible as an alibi and claiming to be defenders of marriage.
If you were created by God the way you are according to His purpose, and you accept to live as 85% of a person, shame on you.
If a couple is living in some sin because of their decision not to marry, then shame on them; maybe they don't expect to grow old together. Maybe they looked at the legal structures around marriage and got frightened.
If a couple is living in sin because some earthly government decided to deny them marriage, then the shame is upon that government.
If you were created a certain way by God, denying it is an act of contempt against God. Accepting that you may not marry the person that you expect to grow old with is shameful; you are bound to fight such bigotry if you are Jewish, a Christian, and/or an American.
Money is spent trying to keep gays and lesbians from equality. This is a hateful and bigoted effort.
Do gays and lesbians push back? Yes. Gays and lesbians are people, with families, jobs and were created as equals by God.
Accepting some subset of citizenship is not something John Wayne would've lived with, it's not something George Washington would've lived with, it's not something Captain Kirk would've lived with and it is in fact the kind of B.S. that Abraham Lincoln fought against. Nobody is going to sit down and be quiet while bigots fight against marriage equality.
If you pay taxes and expected to be treated equally, expect me to do the same.
Mark, could you please provide an example of legislation from any of the 50 states that names "gay" people as ineligible for marriage? Or someone with SSA, or anyone who has ever participated in homosexual sex? If you could give us a link to a marriage application license that requires proof of any particular sexual orientation, that would be so helpful. If a certain subset of the population is being treated unequally, surely there is some documentation available. If legislation exists which specifically names "gay" people as ineligible for a marriage license, we need to know about it and take steps to correct it. And, if you could just remind us what the characteristics of "gay" are, so we know what we're defining, that would also be helpful. Just the immutable characteristics, if you please.