Robert Knight could’ve at least been clever enough to compare Neeson’s Kinsey to Neeson’s Schindler. Now that’s a Kinsey/Nazi comparison worth writing about!

I think we all knew that “Anonymous” had at least one Nazi hero. Thanks for coming that far out of the closet.

“A racist, sexist, homophobic horror of a human being in film critic’s clothing”?

“Homophobic”? Fear of homogenized milk? Fear of homo-sapiens? Are people still throwing that made-up word around? That word was invented by homosexuals about 20 years ago to imply that men-humping-men is “normal”, and the rest of us have a weird “phobia” associated with it. A phobia is an irrational fear, and I can’t think of anybody who is afraid of homosexuals. Many (as do I) disagree with their behavior and regard it as sinful, just as other types of behavior are classified as such (gambling, drug use, alcoholism, etc.) Before you ask, yes I have indulged in drug use and impressive amounts of alcohol consumption. What’s the difference? Drug users and alcoholics know their behavior is dangerous, though they may not admit it. Homosexuals not only deny their behavior goes against all natural/moral logic, they collectively advocate and attempt to “normalize” it.

Am I “intolerant”? You bet. I believe there are some things nobody should tolerate. So, does my rejection of a behavior I disagree with make me a “homophobe”? A “religious nut” who bases his belief on a non-existent God? Or simply someone with traditional values?

In Mikes attempt to normalize intollerence, he has neglected to provide a complete list of ALL the different peoples that his god is so full of hate for. He has also neglected to shed any light on his relationship with a hatefull god. Did his god tell him to hate? Did his god teach him to hate? Or is he mearly emulating the example that his god has made for him in the world? I am trying to get a picture of Mike’s god. A god who sees Drug users as knowing their behavior is harmful, but fails to see Mike’s proud intolerence as harmful. Perhaps the day will come when Mike’s god will enlighten him about the stones he throws just as he has already enlightened him about his ilicit drug behavior. Hang in there Mike, we will pray for you.

Well, Mike, since you seem to know the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, it’s good to see you’re ready to admit you’re an intolerant person. Perhaps there’s hope for you yet.

Dearest Mike…wow…there are just no words…you’re posts just amaze me more and more each time you decide to enlighten us with your ignorance.

People like Swindell are upset with the demise of repression regarding anything construed as sexual. And now that everything is up close, in everyones face, on VH1, Will & Grace, etc. they feel cheated out of a laziness in which their Pleasantville lives provided them. Now they are forced to get up and promote their ignorance to any media outlet that will hear them. What hard work.

The problem has never been that these people disagree, or are offended by whatever form of entertainment it is, it’s that they feel movies like Kinsey shouldn’t be released, or aren’t given a 100% truthful representation. Directors, producers, writers are all human, with their own agendas — not to say that Kinsey isn’t accurate, I haven’t seen it. If you want your conservative anti-gay beliefs to be represented in the movies, make your own damn movie. Because what these people are usually getting at leans towards censorship.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041114/ESSAYS/411140315

Hey, Mike - who is your Higher Power? Bill O’Reilly?

The real sensorship here is that of Mike’s true feelings. If you look at the focus of his anger its easy to see that he feels threatened by, and hostile towards (Intolerant was the word he used), the very notion of homosexuality. Why would anyone be so overtly obcessed (haunted?) by other people’s behavior, to the point of creating an elaborate website about it, if they weren’t desperately trying to supress deep rooted feelings within themselves?

Dude, you’re totally gay!

Mike’s comments, and his admitted hostility are a smokescreeen, and are not intended for anyone’s benefit but his own. (to take focus away from his own subconcious sexual feelings)

Mike has already, in just a few lines of type, demonstrated a willingness to engage in “Bad” behavior, (Drugs and Alcohol) and views these “indiscresions” with a pride that is yet to find a way into his supressed sexual feelings, (though he does make a direct comparison between his own personal behavior as a drinker and drug user, and the conduct of homosexuals.)

Mikes repression is further reenforced by his view of Dr. Kinsey, (a father figure) who threatens Mike through the possibility of bringing forth evidence that will revealy Mike’s secret sexual wishes to a community, to which Mike belongs, that is hostile towards his subconcious feelings.

Difference of opinion is healthy and clear examples of it are apparent in the discourse of this blog without resorting to admitted anger or an agressive posture. This “intolerance” is a form of repression that is transparent to everyone except for Mike. Clearly his objective is not to win sway of opinion, as exhibited in the intended discorse of this and other blogs, but to obliterate the forum of free discourse. In short, Mike is so unwilling to face up to his own true feelings that he would rather strangle the free flow of Ideas rather than acknowledge ideas that he subconcously knows to be true about himself.

Further, his agressive posture represents an over compensation for a profound insecurity about sex, his own orientation, social discourse in general, the first amendment, the second amendment (see his website) The validity of his religious beliefs (see above) and abstract ideas such as “Normal” “Traditional” and “Values”. He even demonstrates hostility and insecurity about the English Language, the very medium thorugh which he makes his arguments. Here is a man truely riddled with contradiction and self doubt.

Mikes repressed feelings are so apparent that all of this can be deduced from the few lines he was able to write in this Blog. For further evidence I direct you to his website. 

Xris.

Oh, I wish I didn’t have to work so hard (despite being a liberal) so that I could devote some thought to Mike’s latest offering.

Among the stand-out phrases, I like “men humping.� We must assume “women humping� is not only a traditional value, but also an acceptable alternative (and likely a compliment, if you’re the lucky intended).

Mike, you tout racist labels and apply them to yourself in the classic �if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em� tradition of many people who’ve suffered discrimination. If is hardly the solution to label yourself first.

Made-up God? Well, that’s your choice to say that if we don’t share your personal view of God, we must not BELIEVE in a God because only your God is “real.� Phooey. I’m well acquainted with “your God� and chose to not limit myself to your definitions. I was spoon fed the same nonsense, and realized (duh) that you can look through the Bible or listen to a sermon (particularly a “sin based� sermon) and find a way to justify any hate.

For example (since I’m feeling playful), do you segregate yourself from the company of females during their “time� so as not to be “sullied�? You’re supposed to. How about not eating pork? Or (my personal favorite), should we execute people who charge interest? That was punishable by death in the good old days (remember Jesus overturning the tables in the temple). So what—we should execute everyone at credit card companies, banks, what-have-you? I mean, it’s in the Bible, right?

And I can’t say I wouldn’t like to see a bit more accountability on that, personally. I think the whole country is being financially raped (or “humped,� if you like). But death? Well, I still want my credit card. But I digress.

Is Mike a closet case, as suggested? Well, I wouldn’t go that far. Maybe he is, but I don’t jump to that conclusion personally. What has happened that amazes me is how fear and hate of gay folks (born that way, created by God that way, in every species on earth for as long as we’ve been here—ahem) has united such diverse folks.

As of this election, on the same side (a la Germany under Hitler), we can now include:

White Catholics (courtesy of the Pope)
Black Baptists (courtesy of Bush’s supplying names of whoever didn’t vote against gays)
Economic Conservatives
Soccer Moms terrified by war (now “Security Moms�)
White Supremacists
And our favorite—Homophobics of all ilk

The list goes on, but my mind isn’t up to a more inclusive listing. Please feel free to add on to the bonding of the bizarre, if anyone cares. We now have an “enemyâ€� within that everyone who hates each other and fears each other can finally agree on. Well, gee. How great for all those unhappy people that they can unite in hate on a common front. 

Yuck.

Who cares if the word “homophobic� has been around for 20 years of 100 if it means what it means? It means you fear something that’s not a threat to you personally. You object to it—fine. You want to punish people—not so fine.

Oops. Gotta get back to work.

Glad to see so many thoughtful posts. Keep it up. It’s great to read/think about so many divergent opinions and to also see that there are decent folks out there.