Actress Ellen Page publicly came out as gay Friday evening, while giving a speech at Time to THRIVE, a national LGBTQ youth conference held in Las Vegas.
"I'm here today because I am gay," Page told the assembled crowd, which responded with a standing ovation and a long chorus of cheers.
"Whoo!" said Page, before continuing:
Originally Posted by :
"And because maybe I can make a difference. To help others have an easier and more hopeful time. Regardless, for me, I feel a personal obligation and a social responsibility.
I also do it selfishly because I'm tired of hiding and I'm tired of lying by omission. I suffered for years because I was scared to be out. My spirit suffered, my mental health suffered, and my relationships suffered. And I'm standing here today with all of you on the other side of that pain."
Page is most famous for becoming pregnant by her awkward classmate Michael Cera, and for invading the dreams of a stranger alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, neither of which happened in real life, because she is an actress.
After her speech, the Human Rights Campaign, which organized the conference, congratulated Page on the front page of its website for "her brave decision to live openly and authentically." [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
It's the reason ethnic cleansing exists, is it not.
The white skin (just to pick on the easy target) is good and pure, according to one's racist beliefs, and therefore normal.
The dark skin, therefore, is abnormal and must be extinguished.
Don't make this a white brown black thing.
Another thing I've pointed out over the years, for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth we have over race here, the Japanese are stereotyping and bullying over minute facial differences we wouldn't even register.
It is primal AND UNIVERSAL to differentiate and assert dominance.
It's not some singular pasty white guy invention. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
Are you feeling okay?
I don't understand how they're different.
The distinction pat and BL have been making. Disapproving of a person being gay because that's abnormal is no different than disapproving of a person being a racial minority because that's abnormal.
On the other hand, disapproving of a person acting gay because it's proactive is no real different than disapproving of a person using similarly unapproved language or wearing unapproved clothes.
Either way, it's not clear to me why this is a view that must be included in the pluralism of public schools, or society in general. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
Come on, people. Swing the bat!
Given my prior position on the depravity and hubris of judging others, I can't but feel that you are trying to recruit me onto a degenerate path. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Don't make this a white brown black thing.
Another thing I've pointed out over the years, for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth we have over race here, the Japanese are stereotyping and bullying over minute facial differences we wouldn't even register.
It is primal AND UNIVERSAL to differentiate and assert dominance.
It's not some singular pasty white guy invention.
I just picked an easy and obvious target, and said as much.
If you want to respond to what I asked earlier, go for it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Given my prior position on the depravity and hubris of judging others, I can't but feel that you are trying to recruit me onto a degenerate path.
I hear your posts in the voice of Boyd Crowder of Justified. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
Come on, people. Swing the bat!
OK. The difference identified was that in one case disapproval is based on a characteristic that cannot be changed and in the other it's based on behavior that is a choice.
I'm not sure I understand your scope and severity question. Could you clarify it for me? Obviously, some people might find one behavior objectionable while not finding another objectionable to the same degree (e.g. homosexual activity vs. wearing objectionable clothing). [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
I don't understand how they're different.
The distinction pat and BL have been making. Disapproving of a person being gay because that's abnormal is no different than disapproving of a person being a racial minority because that's abnormal.
On the other hand, disapproving of a person acting gay because it's proactive is no real different than disapproving of a person using similarly unapproved language or wearing unapproved clothes.
Either way, it's not clear to me why this is a view that must be included in the pluralism of public schools, or society in general.
You are, presumably intentionally, ignoring the biological aspect of the discussion. Which is fine.
Originally Posted by Dick Bull:
In an attempt to convenience me by asking and inconvenience you by not looking it up, I offer this simple little question:
Who the **** is Ellen Page?
I'm actually amazed she's not more famous. She's a really good actress, if limited.
I think she's just been cornered by how amazing she was in Juno. She is Juno. [Reply]
Originally Posted by patteeu:
I'm not sure I understand your scope and severity question. Could you clarify it for me? Obviously, some people might find one behavior objectionable while not finding another objectionable to the same degree (e.g. homosexual activity vs. wearing objectionable clothing).
No clarification necessary. Your final sentence there shows you understood what I meant.
I guess I don't understand why homosexuality is a big screaming deal, and telling a basic, innocent lie (like lying about your age or weight on the internet) is lesser of one. One's a freaking commandment, and it ain't the gay one. [Reply]