Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Hey Diane, I really do feel the pain.
For those who will tell you that we are far from living in any kind of a culture war in these
In the Sunday edition of the Post (1-8-06) Carman penned a piece that was as distorted and as agenda filled as any I've seen in a very long time.
With momentum for the hideously grotesque film "
When I say people, I mean specifically "men". Heterosexual men, that is.
Carman distorts the facts at will, totally ignores others, and makes clear that it is her opinion that the majority of straight men view homosexual men as only effeminate and girlish.
She's saying that those individuals on "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy", are the type of homosexuals that most men have in mind whenever they think of the "alternate" lifestyle.
That to suggest two whiskey and shot Cowboys, being homosexuals, is something that most men can't wrap their minds around.
While this has some validity, the fact is that I doubt highly, that whenever straight men may think of the homosexual community, they think only of the kinds of freakoids who parade down the streets in most homosexual pride parades, who push and flaunt the their way or no way lifestyle into the faces of normal people who look on in amazement...and utter disgust.
She writes that in her opinion it isn't the "humping" that people are uncomfortable with in this movie, rather, it's the "Heartbreak", Carman notes.
She writes about people laughing in movie theaters when watching this picture and also notes that they do this to make sure that laughter and humor takes the place of the "pain" that this movie is forcing you to confront as a viewer.
The "pain" that Carman alludes to, is in the fact that these two adulterous "Cowboys" are going through sheer torture at not being able to live their lives in the twisted manner that they so desperately want to.
I thought they were homosexuals?
Well they are. And they're two married guys as well...to women.
According to those I have spoken with who have seen this movie, the two characters work on the plains of a Wyoming prairie, herding livestock - and one night have a homosexual encounter in a pup tent that they both admit in the morning was some sort of a freakish accident.
Nothing happens between the two of them again - and when the season ends they go back to their homes and eventually both marry (you know the traditional way) and settle down with families that produce kids in both normal and regular families.
Several years go by and one character gets in touch with the other, tells him that he'll be in town and wants to visit.
Now several years have gone by, both guys have married and started families, and based upon a one time homosexual encounter in a tent on the
Ever have a one night stand? How many one night stands can you remember that eventually years later developed into a full blown love affair with that person?
But it happens in this movie - and the boys begin going on fishing trips where not too much fishing, yet plenty of that good old fashioned homosexual humping that Carman talks about takes place.
Carman talks about the pain, the anguish that these two men experience, in that nobody can understand or relate to their deep feelings for one another.
To make this long story short, one guy in the film dies, leaving the other to do nothing more than dance with his shirt in a bedroom, sniffing in the aroma of the cologne that still permeates the garment.
How out of touch is this garbage?
Whose pain am I supposed to feel here Ms. Carman, the pain from a couple of homosexual lovers who are now permanently separated, or the pain through the absolute carnage that was left in the wake of this ungodly affair?
My pain is with the two wives of these two men. My pain is with the children of the mothers in this movie - now fatherless, left dazed and confused about what on earth just wrecked their lives which would undoubtedly leave scars that would last forever.
My pain Ms. Carman is in contemplating the adulterous nature of this whole seedy story...but in Diane Carman's world, it's all about love. It's all about justification, based upon two guys who allegedly loved each other and substituted fishing trips in return for what turned out to be adulterous humping trips.
But those who laughed and giggled (and squirmed) their way through this cinematic piece of garbage were missing the real point I guess.
Those who saw this movie needed to be reawakened to a new reality that I gather they just hadn't the brains to consider.
We're talking about two people in love.
End of story.
Feel the pain, shed those tears...and come out of that movie theater with a renewed mindset and an open heart to the struggles of these two Cowboys.
After all, don't we all realize what they went through?
Yes, we do, we also realize that they destroyed their entire families in the process of exploring their unnatural affections for each other.
Carman's column would have to give carte blanche to any group of people who do things...in the name of love.
If you do it and claim love, then Diane Carman apparently gives you the green light.
Love your dog so much you think that you'd want to sleep with the little critter? Hey, if it's love baby, how can anyone deny you your pleasures?
Under the "Carman plan", a man who leaves his wife, sleeps with his secretary, and leaves behind a family of three children who are now dazed and confused is justified, so long as that man and that women are truly deeply in love. Who are you or I to criticize this?
If it was done in the name of "Love", the ends justify the means - according to the Diane Carman story.
But wait a second...perhaps this can and only will be justified if it is a man leaving a woman to go to another man?
And will Diane Carman and everyone else please drop these references to "homophobia"?
This played out word has really run its course, okay?
Homophobia from what I am to understand is defined by having an irrational fear of something or somebody.
For clarification purposes I have no "fear" of any homosexual on the planet - not in the sense that they scare me or I fear for my safety if they are around me.
Do I choose to fellowship with the homosexual community? Not if the choice is my own. Is this homophobic? Or is this my God given right to discern what I want to do, who I want to hang around, or who I can personally exclude from my own walk in my own life? Do I need some sensitivity training in your opinion?
The Diane Carman piece was a further attempt to force feed that lifestyle down my throat (pardon the pun) and to guilt me into acknowledging everything that goes against what I believe in.
Maybe what you believe in too. But then again, you and I aren't permitted by many people to believe in any one thing. The world now says that we must believe in and give justification to all things.
Sorry, but I don't subscribe to that plan.
What "I" believe in doesn't really matter much to those who are involved in their attempts to break me down and to see this issue the way that they would like to force me to see it.
The Carman column was nothing more than a house organ piece with designs on once again telling anyone (like me) who doesn't agree, advocate, or condone, with the homosexual movement in this country.
And in feeling this way we are painted as humans without hearts.
That if we were more open minded we would both see and feel the pain that this movie evokes.
The movie from what I understand has many moments of anguish, pain, and suffering. But the moments of pain that Carmen speaks of in the movie are not the ones I identify with at all.
I identify with all of those painful moments in the movie that Diane Carman so casually left out of her column - and doesn't want you to know about or consider.
The pain she wants me to acknowledge resides only with the Cowboys in the film.
However the pain I feel is for those families in the movie. The wives. The children. The wrecked lives that will never be the same again.
I invited Diane Carman to appear with me on my radio program today.
Our calls were never returned.
link to Diane Carman Column: http://www.denverpost.com/carman/ci_3379371