Rosie Revisited
Fri., September 20, 08:12 AM
Rosie Revisited
Yesterday’s post brought me some unreasonable feedback that I feel I have to answer. If anyone misunderstood, then I guess I have to explain – because, if you know me, you know how upset I am when someone just doesn’t get it.
-*- First, the suggestion that Rosie O’Donnell was “in the closet” until it suited her purposes to come out. She was? I was under the impression that everyone knew she was gay. I’m sorry you were out of the loop.
-*- Second, when she made a public announcement of it, it was not to support her own activities, but to help gay people who were trying to adopt. A person with any kind of power has an obligation to stand up for those who don’t have it. If two people can provide a nurturing home for a child, particularly a sick child, I don’t care what gender they are. I have no patience with people who produce children without the responsibility of caring for them, and I have the utmost admiration for those who are willing to assume that responsibility.
-*- Third, her book. I guess you didn’t read it. It’s a weird book, but it’s not about sex or homosexuality. (That pleases me, of course; I still contend that sex is not a spectator sport.)
No, I’m not condoning homosexuality. I can neither approve nor disapprove because, frankly, I don’t understand it. Personally, I have never been sexually attracted to another woman. But I believe that no one has the right to judge another person’s lifestyle, especially when it’s only one aspect of the entire person. I know plenty of good Christians – and I mean that in a positive way, kind and generous church-going people – who are ambivalent about their orientation, regardless of what they do about it. There is a difference between “sick” and “evil”; read this article by Andrew Vachss for a deeper understanding of it.
Finally, if you have an opinion about Rosie Magazine, don’t tell me, tell the editors. They have the power, I do not.
Do you get it yet?
