Why is Broadway soooooo GAY!!??- Page 5

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 8:58pm

JR, I do believe civil rights should be extended to gays.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 9:16pm

Too much art, jrb! You either go to the Guggenheim or the Met! If you're going to insist otherwise, I'm sticking you on a crosstown bus!

(Ah hell, while I'm at it, I'll go to the MoMA, too....)

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/4/04 at 9:19pm

>> remember when chorus lines were comprised of masculine men and feminine women?

:: quickly going through a photobook on the history of the musical theatre ::

Uh, nope. When was it?

That's a serious question, BTW.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 1:50am

Margo, what an intelligent and moving response. You really are a welcomed and fresh voice here on the board.

Jose...what can I say..."Healthy" Male? What is that comment supposed to mean? And as Sean pointed out, when were the chorus lines full of "Masculine" men?

"I certainly respect their love for one another, whatever it might be."

Marc and Scott's relationship "MIGHT" be described as loving and committed. That's "what it might be".

You really disappointed me with these comments.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 1:58am

"Can we all just perform with talent without flaunting what gender you go to bed with?"

Perhaps gay people are just more comfortable with human sexuality in general than staight people.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 2:19am

let's see...


healthy male...could be read as a man with a sexual appetite.

whatever it might be...as i don't know either of them i've no idea of the level or depth of their relationship so my phrasing is appropriate, i believe.

the last masculine male chorus line was in the original produciotn of SOUTH PACIFIC. Josh Logan always made it a point to find the most masculine men for his choruses.

Updated On: 7/5/04 at 02:19 AM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 2:31am

......... his options must have been SO limited

[orion59]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 10:44am

"Some folks might applaud Shaiman and his partner for their TONY kiss. I certainly respect their love for one another, whatever it might be. My personal opinion however is that it came across as more a flaunting of one's private life choices because of the media moment. Not something I personally admire"

If you are following that line of thinking, then I would assume you and Mrs Jose never kiss, hold hands or in any way show affection in public. If you do, then you are being hypocritical to your own comments. You would be promoting a bigoted double standard.

To answer the question originally posed here, "Why is BW so gay?" I would say because life is gay. It's also black, latino, asian, heterosexual, male, female. Our daily life is filled with any number of diverse types of people and that is being reflected more in theater beacsue it can and should be. Good theater should attempt to reflect the world out of which it was created. In the past it was there but heavily veiled (Go back a bit and read Margo Channing's post briefly outlining the history of gay themes in theater). I guess now, we don't expect that anything that reflects the world we live in or it's diverse make up to have to be censored for the comfort of those who are unable to progess, move forward and have been unable to fully evolve to the point of being able to live in this world and accept the differences in others.

I have read the inital post a couple of times and am still unclear what the real issue is. Is it being considered gay because one likes theater? If so, the only thing I can say to that is you are dealing with very closed minded people who are depriving themselves of an an opportuinty to experience an art form that can entertain, challange the mind, and add a new dimension to one's life.

Is the problem that there are just too many openly gay actors on BW? If that is the issue, I wouldn't even bother getting into that discussion as I feel it would be unworthy of my time.

Maybe the issue is that there are too many gay characters on BW? If we cut down the number of gay characters should we also cut down the number of black characters? Should we not have shows that deal with the history of Black Americans like Caroline Or Change and Raisin In The Sun? Should we only have shows like Oklahoma, The Music Man and Millie? That would be pretty dull and would certainly not be representative of the country we live in.

We've all heard the saying that art reflects life. It isn't certain aspects of life or life as some of us see it.

Finally, I would ask yoitsme one question. I may completely wrong but I suspect from the date that you joined and made your first post, which is controvesial one, that you may be someone who has been around this board already. If that is the case, why would someone who is sure about what they are saying, is strong in their convictions and who belives that they are not sterotyping or being offensive, have to post under a new name? If what I belive is correct, then you obviously knew that what you were puttng out there was, on some level, wrong.

I can understand the frustration you feel in being automatically perceived as gay becasue of your interets in theater. I would certainly be upset over being perceived as heterosexual based on my interests. "Not that there's anything wrong with that" it's just not who or what I am. However, the problem lies with the people who would classify you based on an interest and not in theater. Maybe, instead of venting your frustration here and blaming theater, you should be showing these people that you are a proud heterosexual who is sophisticated enough to open yourself up to a wonderful art form that can bring you pleasure, entertainment and, in some cases, a new perpestive on life and a new way of seeing things. Maybe you could coinvince them to let go of their antiquated beliefs and try something new.

[dramaqueen]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 3:43pm

thank you orion

[sean martin]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 4:03pm

Excellent response, Orion.

And Jose? Go check those photos of SOUTH PACIFIC. I think you'll find them a tad surprising.

[boborunstheshow]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 4:06pm

Everyone has made excelent points. but, while i do not dilike or have any animostity towards gay people, and would never even think of treating them any differently than anyone else, i will disagree the the statement that has been made on this thread that being gay is not immoral.
Homosexuality, by nature, does not harm anybody, so of corse its not against a social law. That goes without saying. By making the distincting that it is "moral" you surely must be referring to religious values. And when that distinction is made, i feel pressed to sick my tounge into this light socket.

The bible and the christian community teach that homosexuality is a sin. (although how they handle this varies) I personally, will never bend on that issue. But as far as tolerance goes, i am 100 percent. And before anyone accuses me of "spewing hate" i would like to say that i view a lot of things as sin, so dont flatter yourselves.


As far as the topic goes, i believe there is a limit to gay pride, and it is often crossed. But there are also many people who dont cross that line and standing up for thier beliefs is commendable.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 4:09pm

This coming from the dude that wants Matthew Broderick dead.

Guess what, bobo--not ALL Christian and Jewish churches and synagogues believe that homosexuality is immoral. So, you can just keep your tongue in that light socket.

[boborunstheshow]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 4:34pm

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

Sorry, your right. i left out what i meant to put :"A good portion of the christian community"

Updated On: 7/5/04 at 04:34 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 4:35pm

yeah, I bet you are used to electroshock therapy

[shesings]

Posted: 7/5/04 at 4:42pm

Unfortunatly I think that since so many people are so closed minded about being gay, that perhaps broadway was a bit of a safe haven. A place where you were accepted for your talent regardless of your sexual preference. Thats how it should be everywhere in my opinion.... hopefully one day things will come around. Maybe gay men are just born with a little something special that leads them to theatre!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 12:23am

"the last masculine male chorus line was in the original produciotn of SOUTH PACIFIC. Josh Logan always made it a point to find the most masculine men for his choruses."

This is a joke, right? Josh Logan was a deeply troubled, closeted homosexual who always made it a point to cast men who were his sexual fantasies. I think you need a better example, Jose.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 1:32pm

I do have a few problems with the original post and it is easy to see why it received such a heated reaction:

In the first paragraph:
"OK, I know I will be 'bashed' maybe for this. But I have to ask, why is Broadway theater so gay and getting gayer every day? The actors are gay. The dancers are gay. and more and more the shows are about gay life, ie Rent, Ave. Q, etc..."

First, as Sueleen pointed out, you admitted you would probably get bashed at the outset, so why act so surprised? Second, Rent and Avenue Q nor any other show on Broadway currently, with the exception of I Am My Own Wife is about "gay life". The last two Broadway musicals about "gay life" were Falsettos and La Cage aux Folles. Two musicals in 20 years (and very few plays with far shorter runs) hardly constitute Broadway being "gayed up". The number of gay plays have actually decreased since Love Valour Compassion and Angels in America.

"What I'm asking is, why are gay people soooooo attracted to broadway??"

Which is not what you asked in the first paragraph, but ok, gay people are so attracted to Broadway because Broadway is one of America's first businesses to openly embrace gays and continues to do so. But the thing is, statistically, there are more heteros working for and attending Broadway shows than gays, so my question is, why are straight people sooooooo attracted to Broadway? Probably for the same reason gays are attracted to it. They love theatre. As for the joke about being gay because someone likes Broadway, that is just the same bashing that has been going on for decades. Gays have adopted it in their humor because if they can make fun of it themselves and have a laugh, it reduces the amount of ammunition for those who still use that old stereotype to bash others. The same type of reverse stereotyping exists with other minorities in music and stand-up comedy.

"It just seems that now, the gay life is being glamorized and becoming chic."

Not really. It is just becoming more openly accepted. Try to imagine that heterosexuality was never shown openly on television, films, theatre, in most literature, or allowed to display openness of affection on the street in restaurants or any public place and to do so could easily mean severe bodily harm or death. Seriously, these are things that gays have had to deal with for CENTURIES. The thought that if you openly display anything that might reveal yourself as a homosexual could result in being BEATEN TO DEATH. Granted, it is the extreme, but until the last few years, in most of the country, it was a reasonable conclusion and it NEVER LEFT YOUR MIND.

"I have had gay friends and their life was not glamorous in any way."

Most lives are not glamorous. I don't think all heterosexuals live their lives like episodes of OC, One Tree Hill, Dynasty, Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place, Dawson's Creek or any other show that glamorizes heterosexual characters.

"Can we all just perform with talent without flaunting what gender you go to bed with?"

Good question for the straight community as well. Ever been to a sports event, or watched one on TV? Or watch practically any major national or cable network? For every episode of Will and Grace, there is an episode of Friends or Everybody Loves Raymond or Frasier or COUNTLESS other sitcoms that "flaunt" or "glamorize" the hetero lifestyle. Gay life may be getting a bit more exposure than in the past, but it is still very much the minority of anything represented in the entertainment industry.

"Just think about show on TV, mainly sitcoms. So many jokes about being gay if you like Broadway."

You mean like the jokes about straight men and sports, women and shopping, lawyers and pretty much anything immoral? It's a common stereotype and there are many others. I'm sick of hearing about women and shoes. I don't believe EVERY woman is obsessed with shoes, but just because I'm tired of that ancient joke doesn't mean it will go away.

"Oh BY THE WAY ONCE AGAIN, it's not that there are gay people in theatRE, it's that gay people have this need to belt out, HEY, LOOK AT ME...I'M GAY!!!"

Most of them are not belting that at all. There are extremists who do so and then there is the Pride Parade, but that another topic altogether. Gay people just want the same chance to be comfortable in public and be represented in the mainstream just like every other person in this country. Right now, homosexuals are the ONLY minority that the government actually still condones prejudice against.

"Just sing and dance and leave your bedroom, well, in the bedroom!!"

Maybe if the straight majority would do it as well, we could follow their shining example.

bobo - "The bible and the christian community teach that homosexuality is a sin."

Actually, the Bible teaches about many things being a sin, but Christianity has chosen to only teach its followers the sins they pick and choose to be important.

For example:

Leviticus - A whole list of sins (including homosexuality) that were completely overthrown and later allowed. So at some point, activities that were once considered sins are suddenly not sins any more, with the exception of homosexuality because.....well.....no reason the Bible can explain, but men (not God) decided to keep it a sin.

Sodom - As I discussed in another thread. The story is about rape, not homosexuality. Sodom was destroyed because two angels were raped. Had the angels been women, would God had said, "Well, that's ok then"? Lot pimps out his daughters and then his daughters get him drunk and sleep with him to impregnate themselves which incorporates both date-rape and incest, yet neither the Bible nor Christians condemn this activity. They will condemn it in other parts of the Bible, but not here.

So why is every instance of homosexuality a sin, even when overthrown by Leviticus, but not every instance of rape or incest is not a sin? And why is homosexuality such a HUGE issue to Christians when it is not even one of the "ten commandments" that are so commonly broken constantly, yet never addressed with such vehemence by the conservative Christians?

While we're on the subject....THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. I am the LORD your God, you shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain.
3. Keep holy the Sabbath day.
4. Honor your father and your mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

How many of those are commonly broken on a daily basis? Numbers 6 and 10 deal specifically with the "sanctity of marriage", yet I don't see Bush trying to amend the Constitution based on either of those. So why is homosexuality such an enormous issue when it wasn't that big of an issue in the Bible in the first place?

Updated On: 7/6/04 at 01:32 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 2:06pm

Standing ovation for Mister Matt!!!!

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 2:11pm

Hell of a post, Matt.

[Marc Shaiman]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 2:46pm

well, since certain people have used me in their posts to prove a point, I'm finally gonna jump in...and to those who say I'm just a show-off who loves to talk about himself...YOU'RE RIGHT!! so what?!?! I'm an old fart who has entered his "sit here on my knee and let me tell you a story" phase! Sue me!

O.K., real quickly, I said what I said at The Tonys about "for some reason in this country we can't get married..." because I was up there wanting to thank my spouse (like Tom Hanks gets to do) and I realized I didn't have the word to convey it (I still think "my lover" sounds like I'm Pepe LePeu)

AND I was overcome with joy over our shared accomplishment, so I said something meant to be interpreted as "we can't get married but I love my wife!" And then Scott gave me a sweet kiss, no tongue! A kiss that would have gone unnoticed between any straight couple on a game show!

but anyway, that's old news

and speaking of old news, I now will cut and paste an Email I got back in the Dr. Laura days (remember then!?) having to do with her (and others in here) use of The Bible to persecute...I have kept in on my computer desktop for years, just for an occasion like this...

be well everyone...here 'tis

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

Dr Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that (Leviticus 18:22) clearly states it to be an abomination.

End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in (Exodus 21:7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. (Lev. 25:44) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. (Exodus 35:2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. (Lev. 21:20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by (Lev.19:27). How should they die?

9. I know from (Lev.11:6- that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates (Lev. 19:19) by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan, Jim Updated On: 7/6/04 at 02:46 PM

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 2:50pm

to quote my best friend (also gay, out and proud) I will not be TOLERATED.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 2:51pm

Delightful post.

Lev. 25:44 is the only reason that I have not enslaved the Canadians yet.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 2:55pm

I know of a Canadian on this board that I would LOVE to enslave!! :)


Thanks for that, Marc!!!!

Updated On: 7/6/04 at 02:55 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 3:00pm

Thanks guys. Jarico arrived Saturday and I'm just so happy to be with him again. If it wasn't for the small-minded conservative Christians that currently control the government, we could be together every day. Therefore, I cherish the days we have together. This thread just brought all those feelings bubbling to the surface again.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/6/04 at 3:04pm

It sickens me that you two can not be married and thus, together!