Who gives a fuck? Well not me any more. She’s older and not near the hottie that she use to be.
Bolding mine. How ANY information about celebrities constitutes “news” is what I’d like to know. I second the OP. Who cares? I don’t care who Tiger Woods has sex with. Really I don’t. It is not news, it is gossip.
And frankly, other than the media’s reaction, that is how most of us have felt for decades (yes, even we old folks), that is “who cares?” if a celebrity is gay. It’s not a recently developed sentiment among normal citizens and it completely belies the way the media seems to view it.
If a celebrity seemed really unlikely to the average citizen to be gay, there might be some surprise “Rock Hudson, really? huh, how 'bout that”. But it’s never been some beyond- shocking-life-changing announcement to anyone but the press. (discounting skinhead crazies etc of course).
I dunno, maybe back in the 30s up through the 50s, yeah average citizens would probably be pretty surprised. But I think they’d be way more shocked at the media’s handling of it, that is their over the top sensationalism, than at the actual fact.
I agree with you about Hollywood celebrities, but a big 3 (baseball, basketball, football) athlete who is currently active and at the top of his game would be a very significant news story if he came out.
Right now, I can think of… zero.
We need an Albert Pujols or a Lebron James to hoist the rainbow flag; pro sports are still notoriously homophobic, and this trickles down to lower level sports culture as well.
In other Family Ties news, Brian Bonsall- the miraculously aging Little Andy (the kid who went from cradle to five year old Young Republican in one season) was in the news earlier this week for an assault charge. It’s far from his first run-in with the law (drugs, dui, assault, domestic violence, others).
I can’t say I’m surprised, what with a skin-cream hawking lesbian survivor of every disease known to medical science and* Lifetime *for a mother and a brother with Parkinsons and a sister who’s slugging the fat away with known derelicts Willie Aames and Erin Moran and Screech on VH1 and another who became a hooker who almost made out with her brother on Arrested Development and a dad who moved out west to kill worms with Reba McEntireand then getting abandoned by a Klingon deadbeat dad, he never had a chance.
Trivia about Family Ties: both Michael Gross and Meredith Baxter were born June 21, 1947.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that sob story…
I didn’t know Joanie was a derelict in real life or in reel life, so I went and checked Wikipedia. I didn’t find anything except this:
Did she escape?
Well, she may not have been known as a derelict until that show.
(Did you see it? Total howling-at-the-moon barking-mad nutter who when she gained weight and was asked “why the hell are you on this show if you’re not going to exercise and diet and be critical of people who do?” answered bluntly “because I need the money”; some honesty points, but mostly nutter points.)
I’ve only ever seen one episode of that show. Everyone was mad at Screech, and Screech was mad at everyone. Don’t remember Erin Moran.
I have no idea who those guys are but…
Well, I’d probably pay even less attention, since I don’t follow sports at ALL. Well, okay I do lend half an ear to the radio during the Iditarod, and I do try to get to a University or minor league Hockey game now and then (the only sport I really like). But other than that? Nope, disinterested.
I think that American public is WAY too caught up in what happens in pretend land. And that, imho,“pretendland” includes the sports industry as well. I also believe that a large number of folks in the so-called minority groups think that those of us in the (whatcha callit? ) “default” races pay way more attention and are thinking way more of someone’s race or sexual orientation than we actually do.
Except for the aforementioned skinhead psychos, most of us think of someone’s race, or even sexual orientation, as nothing more than another trait. No different than a subconscious “hmmm… blonde hair”. Or “huh…stupid laugh”. No huge shocking concept, just as the OP said, for most people a very “so what” moment.
Apparently, she doesn’t any more…
If that were true, why do gay marriage bans consistently succeed at the ballot? In some parts of the country, by a considerable margin? Unless you’re suggesting that 76% of voters in Texas are “skinhead psychos,” it appears that mainstream America cares quite a bit about who is and is not gay.
Last I checked, lesbians still have sex.
Extra hot lesbian sex, is my understanding.
Actually you’ve seen every episode for two seasons then.
No actual fucking, though.
Tell that to my strap-on collection!
Now that Meredith Baxter is out she ought to forget about that crappy skin cream collection and sell her own line of Strap Ons. The “Bridget Loves Bernice” (held on by velcro “Family Ties”) could be her premiere.
“I’ve had three husbands. Would you like to know how many times they couldn’t get it up when I wanted it? Lots. Know how many times Bridget loves Bernice has that problem? Not once!”
76% of Texans voted against homosexuality? Are you trying to say a vote against changing the definition of marriage is a vote against people being allowed to have sex? That’s just silly.
First, you’re assuming that those against redefining a legal term are anti-gay. A person can be disinterested in who is, or is not homosexual, and still have a strong opinion one way or the other regarding the gay marriage issue. They are two separate issues.
Here is my take. The entire country is fighting over the definition of a WORD. NO one is ever going to win on this one. Not the those for keeping marriage man/woman, and not gay people getting married in Maine etc.
I don’t fully know all of the ins and outs of a civil union (IANAL), but from what I understand, it allows all of the legal benefits of a marriage (and if they don’t, then they SHOULD), the only difference is the use of the word, marriage. Which in my humble opinion can’t be legislated. The courts can’t force Americans to call a gay couple a “married couple” and the church can’t force gay couples to NOT say, “I just got married” or “my wife, my husband” about their gay partner.
I find it very interesting that both sides keep saying “but it’s just a word, why are you fighting so hard for(or against) it”? But yet to each side, it MATTERS what they get to call their partnership.
No, that’s not what I’m trying to say, and I’m not sure how you got that from anything I’ve written.
Although, since you brought it up, gay sex was illegal in Texas until 2003. It took a supreme court decision (specifically, Lawrence v. Texas) to over turn the law.
No, they aren’t separate issues. There’s no way you can argue that someone is disinterested in who is and is not homosexual if they want the state to check someone’s sexuality before they hand out a marriage license. That’s pretty much the definition of “interested” right there.
No, we’re going to win on this one. That much is pretty well inevitable. It’s going to take a while, of course, but the demographic trends are undeniably in favor of the eventual legalization of gay marriage.
Funny that you brought up civil unions. There’s a reason I cited Texas, and not, say, California, or Maine. See, the Texas law didn’t just ban gay marriage. It prevented the government recognition of any sort of homosexual relationship. In Texas, at least, it wasn’t just about the word being used. It was very much about the rights and benefits, and the opinion of the vast majority of Texans was that gay people (and only gay people) should have none of them. Which, if you’ll excuse me, does not sound like disinterest to me.
Right. So what? I don’t care if Johnny Godbotherer thinks gay marriage isn’t “real.” I do care that the state not openly discriminate against a minority. Gays are as much citizens as anyone else, and we deserve the same rights enjoyed by every other citizen.
Sure. Which is why I’d never advocate that the state forbid, say, Christians from getting married. If only more Christians would accord me the same courtesy.
I didn’t, that’s why I asked. 
They very much are separate issues. Related no doubt, but separate. Like every other aspect of the human condition, beliefs on this one have many shades of grey. A person can very well not care at all who is gay, but still care what a gay person may or may not DO. I’ve seen you post for many years, so I know you’re way too smart to honestly believe that this is a case of black and white. That is, Americans are in two groups…Group A believes “Gay is Good” and Group B believes that “Gay is Bad”.
You misunderstood what I said. There may or may not come a time in this country when the gov’t sanctions gay marriage. There will never come a time when the use of that word will be legislated to be used the way one side or the other wants it. That is, if it is mandated that Gay Marriage is disallowed, that won’t prevent gay partners from being life-partners and saying to all and sundry that they ARE married and “hi I’m Bob and this is my husband Joe”. This is already occurring despite laws against the actual legal piece of paper and what have you.
Did it prevent gay couples from having the same rights? For instance when it comes to sick partners, health insurance and such? As I said above, IANAL, and as I also said above, if Civil Unions do NOT include those rights, they should. And I have zero authority on Texans, I spent about 9 months there some 5 years ago, and they do appear to be living about 4 centuries ago if their attitudes toward women are any example. I have to say, as an independent ass-kicking Alaskan woman, I experienced severe culture-shock.
Well, the “so what” is that I hear a lot of very strenuous objections against Civil Unions among gay groups, primarily based not on the struggle to get legal rights, but for the rights to the word “marriage”. So, what you want is the right to be with your partner, and have the same legal rights as a married couple then? If a civil union offers all of that, is it acceptable? I honestly don’t know what drawbacks a civil union has, which is why I was asking about it above, and here.
I have a hard time understanding why any secular person would be against gay marriage. What difference does it make to them? But I do understand why Christians would be against it. And it’s not because “so and so is gay …oh SHOCK!!! GASP!!! OMG!!!”. Which is what I was trying to say above. The media acts as if it’s supposed to be just so shocking. And it’s not, not to anyone. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that people won’t have heartburn over certain aspects, particularly those that go so far against those beliefs. And it’s not because “oooooh, they just hate those meeces to pieces either”.
Personally, I think that anyone, heterosexual, or homosexual, getting married for ANY reason other than because they can’t bear to live their life without their soulmate, is getting married for the wrong reason. So, bearing that in mind, is a Civil Union an acceptable term and government sanctioned institution, if it provides the same legal rights as a so-called state marriage? (and I don’t want to get into THAT whole long thing, personally I think that the government has ZERO business in either type of marriage). And lastly, I appreciate your patience and willingness to explain things to a ….layperson….? regarding this subject. I know it’s a tough one.
I fixed up your quotes, Canvas, mostly to make it easier for me to reply. Which I will in a little bit.