Cole Porter and the "homosexual agenda"


Politicizing the life and accomplishments of a talented artist
I found this piece at LIBERTAS intriguing. Make no mistake, Jason Apuzzo is a conservative. That is what made his comparison of the film De-Lovely with McBrein's Cole Porter interesting.

In reality, like most young men, gay or not, Porter was certainly not opposed to one night stands, but throughout his life he would also have two (maybe three) monogomous years-long relationships with men. Men he truly loved. Whereas the film portrays him as no better than an animal prowling for sex, in reality much of his life was spent searching for the one true love he felt would complete him. The real Porter sought happiness. Winkler’s Porter sought gratification.

Films are about choices, and Winkler’s decision to focus on the worst aspect of Porter’s homosexual behavior is a curious one and boils down to the difference between accepting individuals and accepting an individual’s behavior. Something you don’t see very often in films are gay men and women in monogomous relationships. They’re usually the free-spirited best friend cruising for love and gossiping on about the cute guy they just met.

It’s one thing — and an honorable thing —  for Hollywood to ask us to accept gay people as individual human beings. It’s another to ask us to accept behavior we don’t find attractive even in heterosexuals. But Winkler, an old liberal lion in Hollywood, presents Porter and the worst apects of the gay lifestyle in such a way that we’re made to feel bigoted if we tsk tsk it. After all, this is who Porter was. If we’re going to accept him we must accept who he was as well. And isn’t it interesting that this man we find charming, kind, and talented behaved like this? 

But that wasn’t who Porter was. He was not a man who defined himself by his sexuality, he was a man who definded himself by his music. So, why not present the real Porter? If Winkler had portrayed Porter’s true male loves as a single character present throughout most of Porter’s life that would’ve been closer to the truth than what we’re led to believe. It’s as though Winkler worried that showing Porter in monogomous and loving relationships was somehow a cop-out to the real agenda.

Now I haven't seen the film or read the book. But if Apuzzo is accurate, I think he may be onto something. Among some, it's not enough that society "accepts" homosexuality, society must also tolerate and never question the worst excesses.

For example, in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, American public health agencies were just supposed to treat the victims. Never mind the risky behavior that spread all STDs and not just AIDS. Promiscuous anonymous sex was sold to the American public and American politicos as the gay lifestyle and no one was allowed to question.

Among other entertainment sites, I also occasionally read After Ellen and After Elton. One of the complaints that crops up time after time is how unrealistic gay, lesbian, and bisexual characters are portrayed in film and television. Besides being willing to jump in the sack with almost anything, such characters are often immoral if not villainous.

I'm straight myself, but I am sympathetic to alternative choices. Personally as long as everyone concerned is an adult and freely chooses the relationship, I don't think it is anyone else's business what sex the partners are or how many partners are involved. I would much rather see a committed long term relationship with everyone honoring their promises.

Too often it seems that the "homosexual agenda" goes far beyond acceptance of gays and well into accepting extreme behavior without consequences. I know more lesbians than gays, but that certainly isn't an attitude that my friends share. Their actions show me where they stand.

Committed relationships are good. Keeping your word is good.

Cheating on your partner or partners is bad.

Why should accepting homosexuality excuse dishonorable behavior?

That is the bit that I think Jason Apuzzo has nailed here. It's not homosexuality and Cole Porter's life he is objecting to, but how immoral and irresponsible behavior is sanctioned as part of the mainstream just because a gay person does it.

Not a bad stand for a conservative.

And why did a liberal film force that choice on it's audience?

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sat - December 30, 2006 at 05:26 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved