Hugh's long time (Business) Partner Photos! — Page 5

OS--you reduced all gay people to their sexual activities; whether you see this or not, it is, indeed, homophobic. And nowhere did I state that I was in favor of outing; please do not insult me with your simple minded "second grade logic"--I posted NPH and DHP as a dilemma for precisely that reason; my assumption was that readers of this board knew that they were gay, which was obviously not the case. I would gladly "mind my own business" if the world would do likewise, and give me the simple rights that heterosexuals have.

right, and i did not think of that...
but he is pretty open, at least in the theater community, and there have been numerous posts before on this board which refer to his orientation, and my mistake was to believe that it was no big deal
what about DHP? none seems concerned with him--joke

Thanks!
Who I have sex with (or who any of us has sex with) is the least important issue.

On the subject of Hugh Jackman, every time his sexuality gets brought up, I think of the Advocate interview he did in 2003.
--------
This is as tabloid as I get: Guys have hit on you a lot of times, I’m sure.
Yeah.

What’s your response? I assume you’ve never said yes.
No. I had a time when I was growing up [when] I heard “Gay or straight?” I’d say “Straight” and hear “OK, have a good time.” But Sydney was like that. It was never something that freaked me out. I remember going through an age, maybe when I was 21, and I was getting into acting. And I thought, I’ve got quite a few gay friends. I’d go to a gay dance party like I’d go to a straight club. And then I would think about it, and I thought, Maybe I should ask myself some serious questions here, you know? I felt, with my life—and I did it because of acting—I thought, I’ve got to be honest with myself about everything, whether I’m good, bad, gay, straight…

So you thought it over.
Yeah. I thought, OK. And I don’t remember thinking about it for any longer than that. I just remember giving myself the permission. I thought, If you found a man— I hadn’t, really, I hadn’t at all— a man that you’re attracted to, would you feel comfortable? And I just gave myself the permission. And it never happened.

But I’ve always felt very comfortable around gay men and women. I find them, generally, refreshingly honest and straightforward. And have I been hit on? Yeah. I’ve never done anything, and I’ve never felt like I’ve wanted to. So it’s all good.

But Sydney is very open to a gay community that is very mainstream and really has sort of crossed over. You know, a lot of our straight men quite like the gay neighborhood because the girls would go there looking for safety, and of course, there were us vultures waiting! [He makes big swooping gestures with his long arms; both laugh] Till [the girls] were drunk and thinking, Ah, God, I wish I was with a few straight men!

-------------

Despite a couple of slight defenses, I liked that he wasn't afraid to talk like that to the press.
http://hjackman.com/shtml/other/art_advocate090103.shtml

I don't want to fan the flames, but I do have another point that I believe no one has yet mentioned.

This entire dilemna is a smaller chunk of a much larger issue- personal privacy in general. If Hugh Jackman were having problems with his family, would he be required to 'out' those too? I don't think the public would be so demanding. If a public figure WANTS to share a personal struggle in order to raise awareness (a la Brooke Shields and post-partum depression), that's one thing, but no one should force him or her to talk. It'd be considered nasty by most people to force someone to talk about a personal issue. Why do people feel so differently with sexual orientation?

Maybe it's because the gay community has been shoved aside for so long and they feel that it's an insult to be 'denounced' by a potential member. Maybe I'm way off, but that is the impression I've gotten from reading this thread. I consider that to be quite a narrow view- if you might meet the qualifications, you have to join the club because if you don't, you're insulting us. If a rape victim does not wish to become public about the thing that sets her apart from 'the norm', would everyone look down on her? Everyone handles things differently. I don't think it's my place to go into what Hugh might feel about his relationship(s), but I'm sure anyone reading can imagine it themselves. It's not as easy as 'I fall into category ________. Ta da. Label me so I can do what you do.'

Some gays that I know actually avoid discussing their sexuality BECAUSE of the stigma created by such self-righteous groups. Maybe they don't want to be forced onto a soapbox. Maybe Hugh is gay and would like to go on as he is, without being yelled at by the gay community and nagged by the press. A gay person is not required to fork over their lifestyle in favor of becoming a martyr.

gymman, I don't mean to create the conotation of homosexuality being similiar to the pain brought upon by rape, but the media does tend to objectify such "juicy" stories in a similar way.

If a blonde wants to be a brunette, is she allowed to change? If someone wants to live life a little differently and not tell anyone, why aren't they permitted to just go on as they wish? As long as the person is alright with who they are and how they present themselves, it's ok. It really is.

The analogy was one of shame: "as a rape victim is shamed, so is someone "accused" of being gay"--that is the logic of the analogy, which I am responding to. I certainly do NOT think a rape victim ought to be ashamed--he or she is the object of an assault, pure and simple; I am merely responding to the logic of the analogy.

You can make apples into oranges if you nitpick long enough, huh? "Look, they're BOTH FRUIT". You know perfectly well that I never intended it as such.

"Hey, a STRAIGHT PESRON tried to act like she could POSSIBLY comprehend what gay means!!!'

It's not the SEXUALITY that is the issue, it's the privacy. And really, i think that straight people do have a certain latitude of understanding. They're not ogres who are too elementary for your high and mighty angsty 'you can never know, let me wall you off from my world' sh*t that divides people further. My parents' number one reason for ignoring the gay community? The elitist attitude. Sexuality is secondary in this conversation and in the minds of most open-minded people.

"Prior: I'm a homosexual, with AIDS, I can just IMAGINE what you think.
Hannah: No you can't. Imagine. The things inside my head. You don't make assumptions about me, mister, and I won't make them about you."

Angels in America, by Tony Kushner, Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award winner and gay activist.

And I'm not defending being in the closet -- so please don't, intentionally or not, imply that I am. I feel like this is just an excuse to preach, not even a real debate anymore; just an excuse for people to go on about the "need" to remain in the closet, and how it shouldn't feel like a necessity, and how bad it is that shame IS and CAN be attached to sexuality. That isn't what this is about. It's about respecting privacy -- something that does not discriminate in terms of sexuality, or anything else. Is that so hard to grasp?

---

"It's not the SEXUALITY that is the issue, it's the privacy."

Actually, it is the sexuality, since as gay people, we do not have the rights that straight people have.
Until gay people are willing to admit who they are, we will never have these rights--we will just be "sexual" as was mentioned earlier in this thread.

But this is no longer about Jackman--it is about all people who refuse to acknowledge who they are; he is, in that sense, irrelevent. He says he is hetero, and I believe him--he is a great supporter of the gay community. We cannot have privacy until we have civil rights.

"Like I said, an excuse to preach. "

It's so easy when you have those rights, isn't it?