Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Caution. . . . .this could happen to you. . . . .

I found this very difficult to watch.  While it is very tender, sensitive, open and truthful, this tore at my heart. . .where I live. . . you know what I mean.  It is a beautiful love story with tragic ending. . . .an ending unprotected in all but 7 States in the U.S.  It tells the unvarnished truth. . . . . . .justin

YouTube - Videos from this email


GreginAdelaide said...

The most overwhelming emotion/reaction I have is anger.
Anger at the stupidity of people.

Live and let live.

Second highest reaction to this story is frustration.

Gary Kelly said...

During the closing credits, I noticed one word in particular... bullies. So I commented "While there are bullies, there will be inequality. Simple as that."

Thanks for posting the link, JustinO.


I watched, and then a second time, and got thru it half way. I couldn't finish, it hurt too much.
Justin I can see your feelings, they are like most all of us. Just too much to bear. They had such a beautiful short life together. I know my life would have been different as well. At 26 had been to Beverly Hills Ca. Wanted to go back. I had eyes following me thru the department stores, and my mom
knew I was very much gay. And rich
cousin of hers, told me no, that my
place should be Home in Detroit.
Just remembering Back in 1964.
'O those were the Days My Friend'

J said...

These parents were obviously redneck religious zealots. Bad as that seems, in Virginia a worse situation developed in the last few days. The "Christian" right-dominated Virginia House of Delegates refused to confirm he judicial nomination of an openly gay senior prosecutor in the City of Richmond, allegedly because he supported gay marriage. This man had been nominated by his local legislator and endorsed as qualified by the judiciary committees of both the state house and senate. You can't hurt someone who's dead, but denying career success of a dedicated civil servant for this reason is an absolute outrage. This only confirms my contempt for organized religion.

Stew said...

Thanks for passing this on. The more people that see it, the better. This is the reality of this fight.
A fight I will not back down from. I will continue to demonstrate daily that we are not monsters. That we are loving, caring people.

It's mind boggling that this is even an issue.

Gary Kelly said...

While J has contempt for organized religion, organized religion has contempt for reason... probably because it doesn't take a lotta brains to be a redneck.

As I wrote on my blog the other day about marriage equality, sex makes babies, but it doesn't make a marriage. Love makes a marriage, and love is not the exclusive preserve of heterosexual couples.

Richard said...

Bridegroom's (how ironic a last name can you get for this relationship?)parents may be religious zealots, but they are obviously people of some means. If you watch another of his lover's videos about him called "The General" you will discover that he did his high school years at Culver Military Academy, a private school for boys.

I watched several of the videos and I just could not stop crying.

So sad!

But it happens over and over again in the US.

Even though they could not marry, they could have done things to protect themselves, like wills, durable powers of attorney, and living wills for health care. I URGE anyone who is in a long-term relationship to think about this and do it NOW! Yeah, it's tough to think about this at 26; but it's a lot tougher to go through the unintended consequences.

JustinO'Shea said...

GARY wrote that SO n'So "has contempt for organized religion, organized religion has contempt for reason... probably because it doesn't take a lotta brains to be a redneck."

If I challenge you on this statement you'd have a hard time defending this on logic and veracity. "Organized religion has contempt for reason". ..really now??? Nor can you truthfully assert that belonging to an organized religion makes one a redneck. Btw, WHAT is a redneck. . .really?
One cannot make a generalized statement and make it universal. . .as in this case.
One or two examples of what you consider "redneck ideas" cannot be justly be applied to all members of
that "organized religion".
Usually you do not make statements like this. . . .
A universal judgment of the group based on the 'narrow mindedness' of a few members does not hold up. . nor make it true. Some members of the organized government of the U.S. may be ignorant, self-centered, emotionally deranged, severely handicapped, etc. This does not make all members of the organized government of the U.S. like that, nor can it apply to all members. So for all members of one or other "organized religion". Applying one's personal contempt to "the entire group" would not stand up in a court of law, for example. One's own personal contempt for all makes you no better than the persons you contemn. . . .that is bigoted intolerance, is it not?
Right? ;-)
To do this is little different from the elsewhere action of the Virginia House of Delegates so roundly rejected and condemned.

Gary Kelly said...

At my stage of life, JustinO, I have nothing to prove or defend. Why bother? I'm too old to be concerned by those who disagree with me.

Sweeping statements are short and to the point. They save time and energy. If they are good enough for Benny Ratzinger they're good enough for me.

J said...

I get the feeling, Justin, that Gary has become my whipping boy. Yes, I have contempt for organized religion because its slavish adherence to ignorant, primitive doctrine. I've been to any number of Christian churches in my life, and the people who put Jesus' ethics into practice in their personal life--the real saints--would be kind people irrespective of their faith and willingness to attend religious services. The great bulk of adherents profess faith out of a sense of social obligation, and they only seem to get active in their community when they are crucifying someone who doesn't agree with their church hierarchy's weltanschauung. Their leaders are only interested in ignoring the shortcomings and preserving the viability of their brand. I don't care if they are bearded loons in Iran, paedophile-protecting priests in Rome or fundamentalist Christians destroying the careers of gays because they think they ought to have the right to marry. They have fostered wars and pogroms throughout history, and they're still doing it today. With the possible exception of Buddhism I can't see that any of them has on balance brought positive improvement in civilization for a long time now. They are too preoccupied with their power trip. Bigotry is at its core discrimination without objective basis. I believe the institutional extremism of these religious institutions outweighs their usefulness. If that makes me a bigot in your eyes, so be it.