Tim and Ryan pay tribute to Stephen Gately and discuss the appalling coverage of his death in London's Daily Mail.
Plus, Tim shares his take on several new gay films (including Tom Ford's A Single Man), and both Tim and Ryan pick a side in the X-Factor Danyl Johnson outing "controversy."
All this and much more after the break!
Submitted by
on Thu, 2009-10-22 13:47.
I am soo so glad that you
I am soo so glad that you guys agree with me on the whole Danni thing. And to find out Stonewall agrees too is a plus! :D
Now I am going to wade in, as ever with an opinion which will undoubtedly prove to be unpopular, about the whole Moir article. Even though I wholeheartedly believe that the article was in very poor taste, and regardless of what she says, she definitely was attacking civil partnerships, I do agree with one of her points. Bringing home a stranger, in my opinion, when you are supposed to be in a happy marriage, to do whatever is something that is actually very seedy. I think that was what Moir was trying to draw attention to, that in her opinion, even though gays have got marriage like they wanted, they are still going to sleep around like the nyphomaniacs they are. Clearly this is your classic homphobe at work, using isolated negative examples to describe the gay community as a whole. This is what the focus should be on and not the fact that she is exposing how shady the night in question was, because she has actually got a point, it was a bit seedy. I even heard that Stephen took cocaine (or some drug) that night as well. So basically I just feel that everyone is solely attacking her for bringing attention to the events of that night, because everyone loved Stephen and don't want a bad word to be said about him. Don't get me wrong, Stephen was my fave from the band and he was a good role model when he was alive, however I hate it when things like this are whitewashed away because people don't want their memory of someone to be tarnished. I know I am going to be vehemently disagreed with, but you know me I can't keep my big mouth shut.
the thing is, so what?
I would use the term "unwise" or "risky" about bringing home a stranger. But the word "seedy" implies a moral judgement. It's not our place to judge the morality of it. They were all consenting adults, and didn't ask for anybody's opinion. Whether or not you consider the events seedy, it was part of Stephen and Andy's private life. It wasn't Jan Moir's place to discuss it in any context, but it was especially inappropriate to try to connect it to Stephen's death. Nobody ever died of a threesome. Moir seems to be suggesting otherwise.
As for the drug thing, it wasn't cocaine, which is a dangerous hard drug, with potentially cripling long term effects. Stephen had a miniscule amount of cannabis in his blood at the time of his death. And while it's still not legal, many people consider it comparable to alcohol use.
Of course we have the right
what about privacy?
Stephen and Andrew weren't out there talking about their sex life. And Andrew is not talking about it now. The only information that is public is that they had a late night visitor, and that was revealed because the police would have considered it important to know. Whatever else happened is nobody's business. The fact that Jan Moir finds it necessary to speculate on what was going on, and then comment on it, is a reflection on her character, not on Stephen and Andrew's. They didn't give her fuel. She doesn't have any fuel to use against them. She only has fuel to show the rottenness of her own character.
And, besides, for all we know, it really was just a friendly visit. The visitor is now claiming to have been a friend. I don't know if that's true, but I don't really care. It's nothing to do with me.
I really think the world would be a better place if we all stopped thinking about what our neighbours are doing in their beds, other than sleeping.
Under normal circumstances,
Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. However, the fact that we can assume that while Stephen's husband was getting it on with a complete stranger in the bedroom, Stephen himself was dying all alone on the sofa at the same time. I'm sorry, but I can't help but feel that Andrew should feel shame about what happened. I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if the same happened with the 'supposed' love of my life. Because of this, I guess I just feel more connected with Moir's point of view than anybody else's. I dunno, I must be wired differently than everybody else, because for some reason I always seem to be the contrarian in situations like this. It's wierd. I don't know how to explain it.
Sad you feel connnected with Jan Moir
No we really CAN'T assume.
Since no one else knows the details of the relationship between Stephen and Andrew and their friend, I find it sad that you would side with Jan Moir's homophobic speculations.
keep in mind, we don't know what happened
The thing is, you're making assumptions about what happened. We really don't know. I know many happily married couples don't sleep in the same bed because one of them snores. I also personally know at least one married couple who occasionally have friends over late at night to watch B movies and hang out.
But, what something did happen that night (whether during a game of snakes and ladders, or whatever) which would leave the surviving spouse feeling ashamed and unable to forgive himself. Is it really appropriate to be talking about that? Can you imagine the extent of that pain? How much more awful would he have felt reading Jan's column? Isn't it sleazy to be speculating about sordid details?
But everyone deserves to
You should write for a tabloid...
...since, just like Jan Moir, you have absolutely no qualms about making things up in the guise of seeking the truth.
Unanswered questions? She was the one who raised them in the first place. And based on what exactly? The fact that Stephen and Andrew invited a friend to stay at their place overnight? Are we to conclude that all overnight guests are there to have sex with their hosts now? Or only if the hosts happen to be young gay men?
Slightest possibility? Wow. Care to say that to Stephen's parents? You wouldn't happen to be related to Jan Moir, would you? Because you defend her with a zeal that's hard to fathom otherwise.
Thanks, I've always wanted
Thanks, I've always wanted to be a journalist :D.
She wasn't the only one who raised them, when I first heard that a third person was involved that night, I thought the exact same thing. And then when I read her response I knew I was thinking the same thing as her (bearing in mind the first time I did read her original article I thought 'Homophobe!' too). And I'm sorry but the fact that the stranger was the one who went to the bedroom with Andrew while Stephen was the one left on the sofa, has to make you raise an eyebrow at least. I would say the exact same thing if it was a straight couple, regardless of age. And I say the slightest possibly of being homophobic because if you took the time to read and understand her response to the article, you would realise that she wasn't saying that Stephen died because he was gay, and she wasn't attacking civil partnerships specifically, she was only pointing out the fact that gay marriage has just the same amount of problems as a heterosexual ones. Therefore she isn't homophobic. Also, I haven't seen or heard Stephen's parents come out publically with any hatred against Jan Moir, so why would I say that to them? I am only saying it to the people who are throwing hatred at her. And finally, the reason why I am defending her with zeal is because I am a very just person who always looks at both sides of the argument before I make a conclusion and I hate it when unjust things are happening to people. I am the way I am because I am part of a minority who has been treated unjustly for centuries and it has made me the type of person who doesn't back down when no one else seems to agree with me in discussions such as these. I suppose I am just on my high horse.
It's not your concern, thank you very much.
It has nothing to do with you what happened the night he died. It doesn't matter one bit what happened when they went to the bedroom without Stephen. For all you know they simply went to bed and didn't want to move Stephen. It's not your concern what the dynamics of their relationship was. As adults they made their decisions and they weren't hurting anybody. I'd kindly ask you to mind your own business...you and the religious right can stay the fuck out of people's bedrooms.
But as to the comment that she is not homophobic:
Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.
Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.
Strike a blow? happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships?
So in other words, Ms. Moir. Gay people are not able to have lasting relationships..it's all a myth. Nope, you're right Jay...she's not homophobic at all.
She then goes on to say:
Sure, all them gays aren't like GM...but the happily-ever-after part is still a myth. And then she draws in the suicide of Kevin McGee...because of course these two instances represent all gay relationships in the UK...probably the world.
I hope Ms. Moir has a very long life surrounded by her loved ones. I hope she dies a peaceful death in her old age. but more than that...I hope that when she passes she is treated with the respect that she so viciously and willfully withheld from Stephen.
*-----------*
It really doesn't get any more adorkable than this: Video
Thank Microsoft for donating $$$ to Approve 71 in Washington...use Bing.com
Stephen Gately Died of Illness, not Gay Marriage or Tricking
Stephen Gately died of a pulmonary edema, a natural cause.
He didn't die from being gay. He didn't die from having threesomes. He didn't die from being of loose morals or because he was married to a man. He didn't die because he sometimes smokes pot or occasional drinks on a night out.
He didn't die because his husband was a bad husband any more than kids who die of SIDS die because their parents are bad parents.
There is no evidence that he was any more of a drinker than your average 30 year old. There was no evidence that he was an alcoholic or heavy drug user. Even if there had been, it would not have saved him that night and it would not have had anything to do with the rights of gay people to get married.
The tiny amount of pot found in his system (based on the toxicology report) was so small he could have smoked a joint 5 days before he died for all they know. It was unrelated to his death. That is a fact.
He could have died of this condition had he been straight and married to a woman for 10 years sleeping in the same bed (particularly if his wife was a heavy a sleeper as my partner is)
It would have still been horrible and tragic and his husband will surely be haunted by this incident for ever. Losing his husband in this manner must be devastating. Utterly.
This man is a widower who did NOTHING WRONG and does not need or deserve other people heaping on the judgment and indignation. Anyone who looked at his face before and after that funeral and didn't see the crushing weight of his loss this man was experiencing is a heartless bastard.
Threesomes, gay marriage, alcohol consumption have NOTHING TO DO WITH STEPHEN GATELY'S DEATH.
Had the writer of the column NOT speculated about things which she has no evidence or knowledge of and simply reported that he died and that the cause was yet unknown (or better yet, actually waited to see what caused his death) she wouldn't have offended so many people or done such a undeserved disservice to this man who died so tragically.
Young gay men don't drink any more than young straight men and if young straight men could find enough women to have all the random sex they WANT to have, they'd have just as much sex as young gay men.
Everything you're saying about what she said is assumptions about a person's private life that have nothing to do with his death.
You are entitled to your opinions but there is no such thing as "People deserve to know the truth". Why? What business is it of ours?
Does the whole world deserve to know the truth about what you do in your bedroom or with your sex partners or husband or wife or whatever? Yes he was famous but he wasn't performing at the time or on stage or in a public place. So it's none of our business what went on in that room.
The only reason why the public would "deserve" to know anything about what happened in that room is if a crime had been committed and there was NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME. End of.
Straight couples get drunk, have threesomes and don't sleep together a night. That is fact.
Straight married couples are just as freaky as any gay married couple and no one ever seems to think that their individual behavior should give the world cause to question their right or ability to be married.
Stand outside any straight bar on a Friday or Saturday night and you'll find straight women and men from 20 - 40 who are so drunk they can't walk and are throwing up in the street.
Some of them are married, some of them aren't, some of them will go home alone, some of them will go home accompanied by a "trick" for the night (or as straight folks call it a "one off" or "one night stand")
We have no evidence that Stephen Gately and his husband brought home a trick and even if they had, that fact would have nothing to do with why he died or anything to do with gay marriage.
I'm still trying to understand why everyone thinks their personal moral feelings about sex or drugs should dictate what other grown people get to do in the privacy of their relationship.
If straight people aren't judged on morality before being allowed to get married, why should gay people be judged so? Citizens are citizens.
There is nothing sacred about marriage by the state. It is a civil contract between two adults. It has nothing to do with god or the church or morality.
Why is all of your compassion for this random ignorant journalist and not for the family of this man who died, a man about whom there was nothing but praise for his warmth and dedication to charities, etc?
Why do you care what other couples do in the privacy of their hotel or house or apartment if no law is being broken?
Nothing illegal happened there, there was no crime, just a horrible tragic death of an apparently lovely man (by all accounts).
Jan made her bed by writing what she did and she'll simply have to take the backlash and roll with it. That is part of being a columnist. It goes with the territory. Writers get called names and get death threats and they gay raked over the coals for their opinions. It is their job.
SHE decided to use this man's death to forward her own personal agenda without even knowing all the facts of his death. She picked up the cross, let her carry it.
When the ire about her article blows over and she's moved on to spew more ridiculous random judgments about people she doesn't know, Stephen Gately will still be dead and his family and widower will still be in mourning.
Maybe if his parents weren't busy GRIEVING THE LOSS OF THEIR SON, they might take out the time to voice an opinion about this putrid woman and HER opinions. They fact that they haven't doesn't make her any less of a horrifying human being.
As for why you're often taken to task, it's because you want to be the fly in the ointment.
Let’s be real, you want to be the contrarian, the gadfly. You’ve admitted this in previous posts. You like to play devil’s advocate, so just deal with folks disagreeing with you and stop acting like you don’t understand why or you’re surprised that it’s happening.
I normally don't even get into it with you because I feel like you live in a very idealistic world and your opinions are much to conservative for me to even be able to have a reasonable discourse with you.
You seem to completely ignore heterosexism and de facto homophobia in the world and think that the only truly homophobic act is when someone bashes a gay person up side the head while exclaiming "I'm hitting you because you are gay and I hate gays because they are gay therefore I hate you for being gay!"
Maybe you're too young to realize this but homophobia (just like all identiy-based hatred and fear) is insidious, ubiquitous and is often couched in discussions of "morality" by conservative people who hate/fear gays simply because we are gay (not because we are immoral or bad).
Jan's rant is just the same pig with lipstick on.
It wasn't a compliment
Unless you truly believe that tabloids employ real journalists.
You write the above yet claim to have read her article carefully. You also state that you are "a very just person who always looks at both sides of the argument before I make a conclusion". Let's take a closer look at what she wrote, shall we?
Kevin McGee committed suicide, probably from severe depression and his marital breakup from Matt Lucas may have contributed to his state of mind. But what exactly about the lifestyles of Stephen and Andrew or Matt and Kevin does Jan Moir consider glittering, glamorous or hedonistic? And what do the deaths of Stephen and Kevin have to do with civil partnerships? Homophobic illogical conclusions? Hell yeah! Not only does she stomp on the memories of these two people and their tragic deaths but she trivializes the very real medical conditions of sudden cardiac death in the young and severe clinical depression.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but please spare us the empty claims that you look at both sides of the argument before you make a conclusion. You might as well say you're being "Fair & Balanced <tm Fox News>".
Stephen Gately
Jay, Jan Moir was accused of homophobia because she implied that Stephen's death undermines civil partnerships in general.
In the same week that Stephen died of natural causes, two UK men were found guilty of murdering their wives because of adultery, and another man was accused of killing his two young children to punish his wife.
I'm still waiting for Jan Moir (or anyone) to inform us that these tagic events 'undermine the 'happy-ever-after-myth' of heterosexual marriage. Of course they don't and that is the point.
Only a homophobe would claim that two entirely unrelated tragedies call into question the entire institution of same-sex marriage.
Moir has made an attempt to undo the damage in today's Daily Mail but it's too little too late.
You hit the nail on the head!
I found it absolutely sickening that Jan Moir would bring Kevin McGee's suicide into her article about Stephen Gately's death.
I'd be interested to read Jay's comment(s) on that aspect of the article...
Hey Guys --
A Single Man did not come for the chicly designed beautifully scented mind of Tom Ford. It's a film adaptation of Christopher Isherwood's masterpiece.
He WAS English you know.
A single man
Yes Ford has spoken quite extensively at press conferences about the impact the book had on him. He said that he first read it in the early 80s, when he was in his twenties and was moved by its simplicity and honesty. The character of George stayed with him and he re-read it in his forties, with a totally different viewpoint, more spiritual.
I was reviewing the film though, which is directed by Tom Ford, designer. It is really quite good and I recommend you take a look, maybe you'll see what I mean about the 'commercial' style (I mean advertising, not popular!) That has actually been commented on by some other critics earlier in the year at Cannes - as much as I'd like to think all my words are original, sigh...
The book was written in the 60's
It was during a period when Isherwood thought he and Don Bachardy might break up.
Being the much-younger boyfriend of insanely famous man was quite burden for Don to bear. He becamse an artist and by the 60's was getting himself seriousl established for his portraits. He also had (with Isherwood's permission) left the nest to go out and explore himself sexually. Outside of a bried fling with George Platt Lynes, Isherwood was the only man he ever knew. As Isherwood had known TONS of men before Don he felt it only right to let him loose. But a time came when he felt it was al too much and it occured to him that if he lost Don "It would be as if Don died."
Then he started to think abotu what his life would be like if Don did indeed die. And so he created A Single Man. It's set in Santa Monica Canyon, where they lived. But the hero is a professor rather than an artist, and his romantic life is a bit different than Isherwood's. But everything else is right out of real life.
A few years back I reccomended the book to Patrice Chereau. He said he loved it but he hadn't "figured out Los Angeles yet."
I was rather taken aback when Ford got the rights and shot the film. But I'm very pleased that its turned out well.
If nothing else it will encourage more people to read Isherwood.
Marriage
Deceptive?