ACTOR in DR.SEX puts his foot in his mouth...

Paging "art2"! Where are you?

---

frankly, the moral decay is more likely to come from all the ways I twist the headline "Actor is Dr. Sex puts his foot in his mouth..."

ok, am I the only one who fails to see the problem? I know it wasn't worded so great, but he is hardly saying what you are all trying to make him say. He acknowledges that with what he is studying to do his current role seems controversial, which is true, and bully for him for taking such a role. And bully for him for not letting the controversey involved stop him from taking future, possibly controversial roles. Sometimes you guys (no, not "you gays") make such a fuss over the littlest thing. geez, just look how long that thread about the "homophobic" rent went on with this nonsense.

---

so he's willing to play a politician, a drug dealer, a drug addict, a sexual abuser and the list goes on. You read what you wanted to read because of the current climate of things related to gays and religion. You gave yourself a cause.

---

Do you realize the position playing this role has probably put him in? Honestly? You don't tink he is taking crap from all sides for doing it? Someone studying to be a man of the cloth playiong a decidely non-heterosexual role? People he knows who are already or who are also studying the same thing he is certainly can't be pleased, his family full of ministers and what not probably are less than thrilled and then there is the gay community that can't be happy with a man that involved with organized religion playing such a role given the reputation organized religion has when it comes to gays. I applaud the man for being able to play such a role and not turn it into a soapbox for himself. It can't be easy for him, and yet, his comments show he is doing it, and wants to contnue to do it and won't shy away from controversy. Get over your inane sensitivities. What he is tantamount (sp) to someone obviously and openly gay playing a member of clergy. Something that probably isn't easy no doubt controversial.

Now as for where I am coming from with all this. I am not a religious person, in fact, I'm an atheist, and also, I'm far from a poster boy for Straight Boy Monthly (of course if there actually was a Straight Boy Monthly, and they did have Poster Boys, it probably would be obscenely unstraight, but that is beside the point) so don't think I'm some sort of bigot or hate mongerer. I'm not. I just understand what the man is saying.

---

"adding that he wouldn't shy away from roles that "might possibly be controversial or lead to any kind of excess or moral decay." "

Where are you all getting that he is referring to this particular role? Read it again. Carefully.

---

I agree with everyone who opposes this kid's lame statements.

However, having been in his position before (a seminary student playing a gay guy on stage), I must say he is in an odd position. While I think what he said was stupid, I know form first hand experience that we need to take baby steps towards change. If his first step is saying it's ok to explore this part of himself, then good for him. However, he does need someone to let him know that equating homosexuality (God's gift to 10% of the population) is not the same as murder, stealing, or abuse (man's gift to her fellow man).

---

touchme, you don't know that he equates the two things, all we know is the writer of the article thought so and wanted us to think so. You can't always believe what you read.


Why do I seem to be the only one who wants to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.

EDIT ofcourse as i make that post someone else points out that we can't necesarily trust the author.

---

Updated On: 8/23/05 at 09:39 AM

No one told him to take the role. If he feels it necessary to affirm his displeasure towards homosexuality, then perhaps he shouldn't have taken the part. I don't recall "Off-Broadway Actor" being a pre-requisite for priesthood.