Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters: Nov 19, 2010

Friday, November 19, 2010

Know Your LGBT History - Spartacus

How many of you familiar with the classic movie Spartacus (1960) knew that it had a scene cut because it heavily inferred a homosexual seduction?

The scene was when Crassus (Laurence Olivier who was rumored to have been a bisexual and involved in an affair with actor Danny Kaye) attempts to seduce his slave, Antoninus (Tony Curtis).

It's a interesting conversation regarding the eating of snails and the eating of oysters. But I think folk knew what was going on.

That's why the scene was cut. It was later added to the 1991 dvd release:

When the film was restored (two years after Olivier's death), the original dialogue recording of this scene was missing; it had to be re-dubbed. Tony Curtis, by then 66, was able to re-record his part, but Crassus' voice was an impersonation of Olivier by the actor Anthony Hopkins. A talented mimic, he had been a protege of Olivier during his days as the National Theatre's Artistic Director and knew his voice well.

Here is the scene:

Anti-gay doctor loses legal claim and other Friday midday news briefs

Prospective RNC Chair Saul Anuzis Defended Right-Wing Extremist: ‘Exactly The Type Of Young Kid We Want’ - Remember this you lgbt voters who pulled the Republican lever in the last election.

Forget adult lives. Peter LaBarbera now wants your innocent memories, too - You get the feeling that Porno Pete just plain don't like us?

‘Shameful’ UN vote ‘may lead to more gay executions’ - This is awful.

Anti-gay Christian doctor has legal claim against adoption panel rejected - As well she should. I respect her personal beliefs but children have a right to a good home and being in a same-sex household is not detrimental to a child.

Anti-gay whine: patients should have NO say in visitation and medical decisions

If you want an example of how meanspirited and anti-gay some members of religious right groups are, check out this bit.

From the Huffington Post:

In a move hailed as a step toward fairness for same-sex couples, President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners.

The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments.

The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy, Obama's instructions said. It said Medicare-Medicaid hospitals, which include most of the nation's facilities, may not deny visitation and consultation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

The move was called a major step toward fairness for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

Now what's wrong with that allowing patients to be allowed to have a say in regards to visitation and medical decisions?

In reality, nothing is wrong with that? But in religious right land, the lgbt part seems to bring out the nastiness.

And one of the main purveyors of anti-gay nastiness, Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber just had to put in his two cents:

Barber considers the new rules political theater in trying to create the disingenuous idea that people based on their so-called "sexual orientation" are roundly discriminated against. Faith-based hospitals are not exempt from the rule.

"Certainly there are Catholic hospitals and Baptist hospitals that recognize homosexual behavior as sinful behavior," he points, "and they do not want to take part in affirming homosexual sin under the strong arm of the government."

Some religious hospitals may have to make a decision as to whether to conform to the rules or not accept Medicare patients. Barber says what the Obama administration is doing is casting liberty of conscience aside and forcing acceptance of homosexuality.

Seems to me that regardless of religious beliefs, a hospital's first priority would be the patient's well being.

I would sincerely hope any hospital wouldn't be so coldhearted to feel that there has to be a choice between beliefs about homosexuality and allowing an lgbt's partners to make crucial decisions in regards to care - especially if that decision is the difference between the life or death of the patient.