Tom Cruise is gay

Hey, I can understand that, but what I can't understand is this scolding I get from him when what Kevin says to me is probably 100 times ruder than what I said to him.

I also don't understand him telling me I lack compassion for people born into lesser situations. Quite frankly, I was born into poverty, and I don't see how he, or anyone else here, can know what my family's social/financial status is, seeing as how I don't believe I've told them.

You're right, there are situations where being white is an advantage, and I am thankful that I don't have to go through some of the things various minorities went through.

But, in my opinion, it's almost like forcing the descendents of Nazi soldiers to pay the descendents of holorcaust victims. I never owned a slave, and I've never chosen a white person over a mexican person for a job. My only problem is with laws against discrimination. It is not a practical thing to regulate. Let's try to influence people and public opinion, rather than force them -- it won't work if you do.

Oh, and I don't think Pigsnie is a bad man, but I do believe he's been a bit blind to what Kevin has said to me, and a bit amplified towards what I've said to him. I don't doubt his morals, just his opinions on how to make things better.

Ummm, I dont know TWT but maybe you gave Pigsnie the impresion that you are well-off because you said your dad works in TV & you are home schooled.

About poverty, I will warn you now that this is a very sore point with my bro. I dont know how many times --probly millions--he has told me that we have no idea what true poverty is like. Its not having a one room apt or having to eat beans twice a week or not gettin health care.

Go to India he says if you want to see poverty, and look at all the starving people sleepin on the side of the road or in train stations or in big pipes like in calcuta, thats poverty. Your born a beggar and you die a beggar and all your children are beggars too. So I dont know TWT, Ill probly get another lecture if he ever reads this post. lol.

__________________
God save Freddie Mercury!

Your brother is right -- I'm simply using poverty in the context of my country -- which is the only way I can use it really.

There's no doubt that we're all very lucky, but keep in mind that this is all a discussion about the laws and practices within the United States basically -- I don't think anyone here is talking about discrimination in India.

And, to clear things up: I am not rich, my families have been poor or average (usually the former) more of my life than not, and I am never pampered. Absolutely never -- even if we were to become wealthy, I would never be treated any differently.

I hope that clears things up. My basic point is that your brother assumed too much when he said I lacked compassion for those "born into lesser situations", etc. Oh, and home schooling is not a sign of wealth -- I havn't noticed a financial trend in families that home school.

Well, I am going to choose my words more carefully in the future. Offending anyone was never my intention. I originally joined in the discussion of the rumors of Tom Cruise's sexuality. At that time, I was in agreement with Commish on the subject. Commish stated that he felt that if Tom Cruise publicly stated that he is gay, Cruise's career as an actor could be jeopardized. I felt - and still feel - that sexual orientation is a personal issue. People who want to publicly state that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual should have the right to do so. People who may be gay, lesbian, or bisexual should also have the right NOT to state their sexual orientation publicly.

Gradually, the discussion evolved into a discussion about civil rights in general. I wanted to stay in the discussion - I think that a debate is a positive form of engaging the mind. Commish, I never meant to offend you or anyone else. Please accept my apology if I did offend you. I would like to respond to some of the recent posts specifically asking me questions.

1. When I used the word "children" to describe a 16-year old person, I will admit that I was using the word in a derogatory sense. However, stating what I stated is true: laws defining the acquisition the rights and privileges afforded to the adult population clearly still label persons under the age of 18 as "juveniles". A juvenile is a child. Certain laws prohibit what products juveniles can purchase: it's against the law (in Massachusetts anyways) to sell cigarettes to anyone who is under age 18. It's illegal for a person under age 18 to cast a vote in an election. It's against the law for persons under 18 to get married without signed parental consent. Alcohol cannot be sold to or given to a person under the age of 21. But, in the case of Chris, I sense that he's very mature for his age.

2. I was aware that the employment provisions of the Civil Rights Act were not introduced in the original Act. Could I have said the date off of the top of my head? No. Nevertheless, the provisions ARE now in place making certain discriminatory actions in housing and in the worplace illegal. I believe that citizens should obey the law.

3. For some reason, you want to know if I "think adultery should be illegal". My answer is this: I don't know - this is another topic involving the government making decisions about what is moral and immoral. Ask me about murder, I can easily say murder is immoral and should be illegal, but not necessarily because of murder being immoral. The morality of murder isn't why it's illegal. It's the fact that taking somone's life violates the victim's right to life that makes it illegal. Many states still have laws against adultery among their general laws. Most of these laws were passed centuries ago. No one has repealed them. So, I guess that in those states, adultery is illegal. What do I personally think about adultery? I can only answer this way: adulterous relationships aren't right for ME. I consider myself to have sinned if I commit adultery. I don't, however, think that my moral view of it should be imposed upon other people. I don't think that I have the right to be the ultimate judge of others' behaviors. Now, I realize that technically, because same-sex unions are not legally recognized by 49 states or the federal government, I am technically being an adulterer. My partner and I can't share a health insurance policy, we can't make health care decisions about each other in the event of an emergency, we can't pay taxes at the rate of a married couple... I could go on and on. It's not a real issue with me, because both of us were blessed with families who love and respect us for who we are. Some members of each of our families feel that homosexuality is immoral, but they demonstrate affection and respect toward my partner and I.

4. Commish and everyone else has the fundamental right to have her or his own beliefs. It is not wrong for Commish to believe that homosexuality is illegal. It's not wrong for him to believe that employers should be free to practice discrimination in the workplace. Everyone is entitled to have - and express - how s/he feels. But, how we feel about an issue sometimes just doesn't come into play. The fact is that many forms of discrimination are illegal, and that people who break those laws by practicing discriminatory actions because they don't believe that the law is "right" are still committing a crime. How we feel about a law does not excuse us from obeying the law. Example: I am driving down a desolated, straight uncurved highway. The speed limit is 35 mph. There's absolutely no one else on the road, and there aren't any houses around or kids playing. I can have the opinion that 35mph is a riduculous speed limit for the road, but if I exceed the speed limit, I am breaking the law and am subject to the penalties involved. My opinion of the law doesn't mean I have a choice in complying with the law.

I also believe that the entire context of the law needs to be considered. Here's an example: about a year ago, a 17 year old boy from Massachusetts was dying from a rare type of leukemia. He had no private insurance, but did have Medicaid. Conventional chemotherapy stopped working. The boy left the hospital and basically ran away. Meanwhile, researchers in Seattle called the Boston hospital the boy had been in. The researchers stated that they had an investigational drug that looked very promising - but would require the kid to go to Seattle and be in the hospital. The kid went home, emotionally bonding with his family and elated that he might have a chance for life. Then the you-know-what hits the fan: Medicaid denies paying for the hospitalization for this guy because it involved the use of an investigational medicine. Ultimately, what happened was pretty cool. People sent in checks to TV and radio stations to finance the trip and hospital stay. The kid got to Seattle, and he got the experimental treatment. That was a year ago. He wouldn't be around today without that experimental drug (which STILL isn't thru the FDA approval process so people are dying who don't have to die.) What's my point? My point is this: sometimes rules and regulations need to be put aside. Medicaid's rule nearly cost this kid his life. I believe in doing the humane thing.

5. The sole thing that bothered me in this last round of postings was when Commish said that he would shut down the discussion thread. The underlying message of that statement is that you feel that you have the right to suppress a forum member's contributions to a discussion topic, basically because the member's opinion differs from yours. You own and manage the site and you have the right to do as you please. But, cutting off the thread and/or any member's access to participate in the thread seems wrong to me. Would you do the same if we were disagreeing about an actor's performance in a film? I don't think so. What makes this thread different from the most other discussion threads on this forum is that a discussion - a real, interactive, impassioned discussion - has evolved. Again, don't want to offend Commish or anyone else. But, I think that it is okay that Commish and I not necessarily agree on everything. I apologize for anything that anyone found offensive. Being offensive was never my intention. I tend to express myself with sarcasm at times, and that's not a very good trait.

Again, here's my statement: Everybody has the right to have an opinion about anything. Everybody has the right to express that opinion, and to express disagreement with others' opinions. But, this should be done in a respectful manner. Commish, I don't get the feeling that you dislike me. And I do agree that you have the right to feel that my sexual orientation is sinful. I have the right to disagree with your opinions about sexual orientation, and the right to express my disagreements ... but I should apply common courtesy when expressing myself and not insult or call someone names. Back to the issue: IS TOM CRUISE GAY? I don't know. Do I believe that if he is gay and decided to publicly state that he's gay, he'll face the potential of a severe blow to his public image and marketability? Yes.
If he is gay, does he have the responsibility to publicly state it? No, absolutely not. If I were not in a relationship, and I met Tom Cruise, and he told me he was gay and asked me out, would I go? Yes, absolutely yes.
Hopefully that last line gave some of you a chuckle.

Commish - I will say it again - you have an awesome site here! Sorry for the length of my reply ... most people are probably getting sleepy reading it. Anyways peace to all and above all I want to say that I respect each and everyone's right to have opinions. I also believe that I have the right to my opinions too. Bye.

I agree with practically everything you stated there Kevin -- I think you and I both agree that discrimination is a horrible, horrible thing, we just disagree on how we should go about getting rid of it.

I can only find one thing I feel the need to respond to:

This may not be evident to all here, but this discussion has gone on much longer than it would have in almost ANY other forum. I frequent other boards quite often (every day, in fact), and I don't believe any of them would have let this thread continue to this point.

I mean, think about it: you compare the owner of the site to a KKK member, and you're surprised when he brings up the possibility of shutting the thread down? I think I've been incredibly open and flexible throughout this situation. The things that have been said here would have gotten this thread closed anywhere else.

The difference between shutting this thread down and shutting another disagreement down is that this one has had some very personal, serious insults thrown around. If you had an argument with someone else about how you didn't like a film, but the other person did, It would remain up, unless you felt the need to call his beliefs "stupid" for disagreeing with yours.

The subject of the debate isn't really what matters. The factors I would use when determining whether or not to let a discussion here continue are two simple things: personal insults, and respect. If a civil tone is kept throughout, I'll let a discussion on anything go on for as long as you all want it to.

Anyway, I hope that clears things up. I do not want to supress anyone's views, but I also want to keep a certain tone around here. It's a tough balancing act, for sure.

And don't worry, despite the KKK comment, I am not horribly offended, or scarred, or emotionally damaged. If I let that happen to me each time I got into an online debate, I'd have many pyschological problems.

I don't dislike anyone in this thread -- not even close. Kevin, Pigsnie, despite your disagreements with me, I'd be lying if I said I wanted you to leave. I'd also be lying if I said I was not glad this thread was started -- there is something to be learned from all such discussions.

Well actually I dont mind personal insults as long as I can say somthin back. Respect is overrated, heehee heehee. Ok dont get pissed at me TWT, I was just kiddin. Sometimes I think you dont laugh enuf like your brothers & Im not talkin about this Tom Cruise thing. Jest an overall impression of your posts, you seem a very serious person.

IM off to take a Whizard the wonderful whizard of OZZZZZ!!! Because because because because ...............

Chuckle chuckle, Kevin would go out with tom. I like you kevin. I think you even spell better than pigsnie.

Actually my brother cracks me up a lot, but he's definintely goofier than I am.

No, you're not being an adulterer. Adultery is sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than the legal spouse. Unless you are having sex with someone who is legally married to someone else, you are not committing adultery.

4. Commish and everyone else has the fundamental right to have her or his own beliefs. It is not wrong for Commish to believe that homosexuality is illegal. It's not wrong for him to believe that employers should be free to practice discrimination in the workplace. Everyone is entitled to have - and express - how s/he feels. But, how we feel about an issue sometimes just doesn't come into play. The fact is that many forms of discrimination are illegal, and that people who break those laws by practicing discriminatory actions because they don't believe that the law is "right" are still committing a crime. How we feel about a law does not excuse us from obeying the law. Example: I am driving down a desolated, straight uncurved highway. The speed limit is 35 mph. There's absolutely no one else on the road, and there aren't any houses around or kids playing. I can have the opinion that 35mph is a riduculous speed limit for the road, but if I exceed the speed limit, I am breaking the law and am subject to the penalties involved. My opinion of the law doesn't mean I have a choice in complying with the law.

Of course, you are technically breaking the law in many states if you have a homosexual encounter. Massachusetts has had one of the most stringent anti-sodomy laws in the nation, calling for as much as 20 years in prison on conviction. (Here in Texas, it's only a $200 fine, but that's still too much).

I also believe that the entire context of the law needs to be considered. Here's an example: about a year ago, a 17 year old boy from Massachusetts was dying from a rare type of leukemia. He had no private insurance, but did have Medicaid. Conventional chemotherapy stopped working. The boy left the hospital and basically ran away. Meanwhile, researchers in Seattle called the Boston hospital the boy had been in. The researchers stated that they had an investigational drug that looked very promising - but would require the kid to go to Seattle and be in the hospital. The kid went home, emotionally bonding with his family and elated that he might have a chance for life. Then the you-know-what hits the fan: Medicaid denies paying for the hospitalization for this guy because it involved the use of an investigational medicine. Ultimately, what happened was pretty cool. People sent in checks to TV and radio stations to finance the trip and hospital stay. The kid got to Seattle, and he got the experimental treatment. That was a year ago. He wouldn't be around today without that experimental drug (which STILL isn't thru the FDA approval process so people are dying who don't have to die.) What's my point? My point is this: sometimes rules and regulations need to be put aside. Medicaid's rule nearly cost this kid his life. I believe in doing the humane thing.

The Feds have addressed the problem of patients being unable to receive "last chance" drugs. Even though these drugs still don't have FDA approval, most dying people can have access to them to prevent their death. This is a very recent development designed specifically to address the problems inherent in the approval process in regards to last chance drugs. (This cancer drug specifically is very promising and is widely available to dying patients despite not having FDA approval).

But the FDA approval process is very important, and in the case of most drugs, it is a good thing it takes as long as it does to get FDA approval. American history is replete with examples of drugs that were released without enough study of the potential side effects. And many people's lives were destroyed because of these drugs. Consider Thalidomide. Here was a drug that was released in 1956 to help expectant mothers with morning sickness. As it turns out, the drug causes massive birth defects (potentially even a generation away). Because proper study was not undertaken (it wasn't required at the time), thousands of lives were destroyed. And for every Thalidomide, there are several other drugs that had similar unintended consequences. In the vast majority of instances, the lengthy FDA review process is a very good thing for Americans.

(Of course, the issue of paying for experimental treatments is a different matter. Many insurance companies, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. won't pay for experimental treatments even when people can otherwise get the treatment if not for the cost of providing the treatment.)

You know, I really rambled on in my last post - maybe I should start some kind of other web page that deals with topics of debate, especially if the debate is about a topic that has moral implications for some people. I don't know if Commish or I was the one that was called "serious" ... I kind of think I am a big goof. I just have a very sarcastic sense of humor and my statements have an edge to them that I don't mean. Commish, if I did not publically do so yet, I want to apologize for the extreme analogies I used - my choice of words were not reflective of the situation, nor were those words accurate. I should not have mentioned groups with horrible reputations, and I also realize that I shouldn't even name these groups as I did. Why? Because, again, everyone can believe in whatever s/he wants to. There are only 2 things that shouldn't happen: the law supercedes many opinions and the law needs to be followed, and it is inappropriate to respond with disrespect as I did. That being said, I just wanted to let ryan know that in some states adultery is not limited to sexual activity between married people; some of the really old statutes treat premarital sex as adultery. So, as I said,since I can't be legally married, any sex I have could technically be labelled as an adulterer. Premarital sex is technically also adultery; it is sexual relations between people who are not married to each other.

Massachusetts did have a very strong sodomy law that has been repealed. Massachusetts is a pretty liberal state now. The truth is that Mass. is one of the original colony settlements, and a great number of laws were written by the Puritans literally centuries ago and never revised. The truth is that consenting adults who have relationships behind closed doors are not prosecuted, nor is any attempt to enforce our old laws (we call them the "blue laws") made. Some of the "blue laws" are still enforced. Example is that it's illegal for stores to sell alcholic beverages of any kind (including beer and wine) on Sundays. Restaraunts can serve alcohol, but not prior to 12:00noon on Sundays. I think that this law is ridiculous, and I think that it should be challenged. Why? It makes the assumption that Sunday is the ONLY Sabbath Day, which isn't true. The Jewish Sabbath Day is Saturdays. Isn't it discriminatory if a Jewish person owns a liquor store, closes it on Saturdays, and then isn't allowed to reopen on Sundays because a Christian-based Sabbath is being imposed in the law?

Whoops, babbling again ... so, can I just ask one thing? What did this forum finally come up with regarding Tom Cruise's sexuality? That WAS the original question, and I think that Commish is right - this can be wrapped up if the participants return to the original topic.

Personally I don't think TC is gay. Why? The only evidence that TC is gay are the rumors that aren't substantiated by anything to support their validity. If he is gay, he has the right to choose whether to disclose that information or not. For instance, I am going to my nephew's wedding. I am not bringing my partner, I am bringing a female friend. I don't view this as being ashamed of my sexuality. I just believe that the day is my nephew and his bride's, and that my sexual oriention (which undoubtedly WOULD be a topic of conversation around some tables) isn't important. My invitation doesn't indicate that I can't bring a male date. My point is that I have the right to NOT discuss my sexual orientation when I think it's inappropriate. Commish was right - sexual orientation does become a factor whenever a public "celebrity" (whether from movies, sports, politics, whatever...)publicly states that s/he's gay. I actually think it's sad: Tom and Nicole at least appeared to be very happy. I think that the breakup of Demi Moore and Bruce Willis is sad too. I don't spend time wondering about the specifics of why couples separate, but I think it sucks when I see a public person have to go through private, tragic things in front of the whole world. People say that that's the cost of fame and that celebrities are aware of the lifestyle awaiting them. Maybe they do and maybe they don't. But, lots of us want to read about the pain in these celebrities lives (please notice that I didn't exclude myself). But I am feeling differently about what's appropriate paparazzi stuff and what isn't. Blatant lies backed up by airbrushed or doctored photographs taken by cameras three miles away don't exactly make me believe a rumor. I guess I am rambling, which makes me tend to agree with Commish that I have said about all I have to say.

I think that this has been a great discussion, and I'm still going to receive emails whenever a posting is made. I am just not sure that I am going to contribute a whole lot. This long forum, though, I think was a cool experience for me and for lots of the other participants and readers. Commish, I again commend you on your site and think that I should go browse through some of the other topics being discussed. I look forward to having more discussions with you in the future - you definately have your head on straight (and for the record, that last sentence is NOT in reference to the fact that Commish is straight and I'm not. Commish has opinions about sexuality. So do I. But, Commish is respectful - that's the official word). I think you're doing a great job in this site and glad that I somehow stumbled upon it.
Kevin

I just wanted to let ryan know that in some states adultery is not limited to sexual activity between married people; some of the really old statutes treat premarital sex as adultery. So, as I said,since I can't be legally married, any sex I have could technically be labelled as an adulterer. Premarital sex is technically also adultery; it is sexual relations between people who are not married to each other

That's a bastardized definition, though. The dictionary definition only includes extramarital sex.

Even my Black's Law Dictionary fails to list anything other than extramarital sex as adultery.

I have a hard time believing that there is any current statute that list adultery as any sex outside of marriage (especially since nearly half of all states had laws against adultery as recently as a couple of years ago, while very few had any laws against premarital sex. Clearly, those states with anti-adultery laws make a distinction since far more states had anti-adultery laws than had anti-premarital sex laws. It's certainly not the case in my state (Texas), and I quick search aruond the web turns up nothing to support the contention that there are such laws or definitions in some or any states. If you could point out to me which states have such legal definitions, I'd appreciate it. (And I would prefer your cite to not be some discredited chain email like before).

(And I knew that Massachusetts' anti-sodomy law was no longer in effect. That's why I said "has had" one of the most stringent anti-sodomy laws. It has only been recently that said law was struck down. Unless you've taken up homosexuality recently, you were likely in violation of said laws, which would seem to contradict your comments regarding respect for the law (though not necessarily. My point was that even though something is law, it doesn't make it right. So if Commish thinks there shouldn't be anti-discrimination laws, that's not far removed from someone thinking there shouldn't be laws that effectively ban homosexuality).

I appreciate your words Kevin -- I may have been too harsh as well. We were all a tad frustrated. There are certainly not hard feelings on my end.

Anyway, here's where I stand on the other issues.

1 - I don't think of homosexuals as adulterers. I don't know what the official definition is, but given the way the word tends to be used, I think it'd be misleading in describing people like yourself.

2 - I don't think Tom Cruise is gay, partially because people are always looking for "news" like this. You mentioned Willis and Moore: no one is questioning Willis and his sexual preference. Now, this may be because he's famous for "manly" roles, but I think people are just looking for something else to gossip about.

The question about Cruise is interesting: would his popularity wane if it turned out he were gay, and said so publicly? I think it probably would. Right or wrong, I think people would find him a bit less appealing. If he is gay (I highly doubt it), I'm not sure whether he should come out or not. I couldn't possibly say anyway, as I don't know as much about him as he does.

If he does come out, I'll be impressed with it for one simple reason: his career will likely take a blow from it, and ANY announcement that gives your career a blow (even ones of a less "controversial", gossip-type nature) is a big deal.

Haha, head on straight -- a nice pun, actually! I'm glad you found this site Kevin, and thanks for participating.

Hopefully we'll (all of us, really) be able to continue to discuss the possible implications of someone like Cruise (or other famous actors) "coming out" -- because honestly, it's interesting to try to determine what might happen. Obviously many gay people would become instant fans and admire them for coming out despite the career blow they may face, but would that offset some straight people who might not approve?

It's hard to say, because I don't know if anyone as famous as Cruise has ever come out. If there is, I'd love to know, but I don't think there has been anytime lately, which is why this is such an interesting thought.

Also, there is no Federal or Massachusetts law (Massachusetts doesn't have a law relating to adultery in any form anymore) that defines Adultery as any nonmarital sex, so you're not technically an adulterer even though you're not married according to the laws of that state and of the U.S. Government. (And searching FindLaw brings up no statutes in any state that define adultery as anything but extramarital sex, so far).

Hey got your replies. I just wanted to say again that I think that this particular discussion really was a great method of communication. I commend Commish and all others who contributed to what became a pretty large debate about rights.

I need to say that, regardless of my positions, I can see some merit in everything that had been posted (not that someone's opinion is validated by whether I see merit). Commish, you're very saavy and you really know your beliefs. You opened my eyes to quite a few things, as did a lot of people here.

Quickly, regarding the definition of adultery: Ryan is right ... adultery is defined as "extramarital sex". But, Ryan, the definition of "extramarital sex" is sexual activity between individuals who aren't married. In the legal sense, that would include people who have sex before marriage, people who have affairs, and people who have sexual relations with members of the same gender.

But, like I said, I think that everyone benefitted somehow from what was a really healthy conversation ... Thanks

i agree with OG- he's definatley not gay

__________________
madman

I saw a picture in the Enquirer last week, he sure looked gay to me.

What? I haven't been in this thread for a long time, I thought I'd start some controversy.