Posted on 08/18/2008 12:28:13 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
Has Ellen DeGeneres won the culture war?
It’s somewhat surprising that DeGeneres’ daytime television show has become Republican central over the past several months, with high-profile appearances by Laura Bush, Jenna Bush and John McCain. Even more surprising: the fact that DeGeneres treated both Bushes and McCain with the utmost respect, although McCain and DeGeneres had a civil disagreement over same-sex marriage.
One cannot imagine, say, Rosie O’Donnell showing any respect for McCain and the Bush ladies. DeGeneres is far more tolerant—but mere tolerance isn’t the only reason DeGeneres avoids the usual Hollywood anti-Republican shtick.
DeGeneres realizes that her show is quite popular in the red states. There’s no real reason for the show not to be: it’s fairly innocuous stuff, free of the cultural obnoxiousness and political sloganeering that afflicts shows like The View. DeGeneres is a modest, self-effacing host, not a self-loving David Letterman type. She comes across as sunny, pleasant, optimistic, all-American.
By treating Republicans with respect, DeGeneres shows respect for a key portion of her audience. She is also, in a very subtle but very effective way, breaking down cultural barriers.
As everyone knows, DeGeneres came out of the closet in 1997, and shortly thereafter had her character on the ABC sitcom Ellen do the same. Her decision set off a national firestorm, with Jerry Falwell labeling her “Ellen DeGenerate” and social conservative groups calling for a boycott of ABC’s parent company, the Walt Disney Co. In the spring of 1998, ABC decided to cancel Ellen, citing low ratings.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Can’t help but like Ellen. lol.
Ellen threads seem to be pulled or locked lately. Good luck.
Good point made in the article though “DeGeneres treated both Bushes and McCain with the utmost respect, although McCain and DeGeneres had a civil disagreement over same-sex marriage.”
There is a lot to be said for civil discussion with people who disagree with you. McCain is a lot smarter then the people who went into hysterics over his appearance on the show.
She’s funny. I’ve enjoyed her performances over the years.
Yes, she lives a sinful lifestyle. So do I. As long as she doesn’t allow anyone to turn her talk show into pro-homo propaganda (which is what killed her sitcom), her success will continue.
I don’t watch her program, by the way. Nothing against her — I just don’t find talk shows (or TV in general) to be entertaining.
There is no such thing as gay marriage, no matter what the law says. However, the only person I can control is me. I am helpless to stop her from participating in this sham. As long as her “spouse” is of age and equipped with enough reason to legally contract, my only option is to look the other way.
Therefore, while continuing to oppose “gay marriage” with my vote and my public opinion, I see no reason to single her out as a sinner. My own sins are too great for that. If anyone asks me what I think of her “marriage”, I’ll tell them, and no holds barred — but in my opinion, in cases such as this we all should be reticent to cast the first stone.
Yes. I frequently commit mortal sins, may God forgive me. I’m sorry to say that, if I do make it to Heaven, it will be via the Divine Mercy of an infinitely merciful God. Please pray for me.
That’s a good way to look at it. I think I shall emulate your stance. Thank you.
Well stated.
And I will add, that I loved her sitcom—thought it was hilarious—until it turned into a homosexual infomercial. Even though I was a liberal back then, it still was off-putting to me.
My wife and I get a kick out of Ellen. She is goofy and funny and really entertaining and does seem to have a general respect for people period. I do need to pray for her more.
Sin is always great fun.
Ellen strikes me as a very sweet person. I occasionally watch her show and think she is great. I really don’t care what her sexual preferences are. God made Ellen, who am I to question God’s work.
God made Ellen, but Ellen chose sin on her own.
In the long run, sin isn’t much fun. It’s just a diversion for a lot of empty people.
A lot of folks who make that statment really mean to say that fun is sin, and you all better quit having fun because I say it’s sin and besides I’m not having much fun so why should you. Not applying that statment to you, but to many that I have known.
Did God create Charles Manson? Oh yes that right He did, so we can't judge Charlie's choices. /extreme sarcasm of kook dribble
I live abroad so I don’t even know who this lady is. The article however made a parallel between Black rights and Gay rights, which to me is wrong-minded. One is race and nothing can be done about ones race, the other is a practice, like cigarette smoking or over-eating.
Anyhow, as someone here mentioned, her’s is not a marriage, just as a funeral with the corpse only playing dead is not a funeral. She might have a wonderful personality and be a bundle of fun and an excellent showgirl, but she is part of something which is unspeakably wrong and ugly and far-reaching: the breakdown of morality and family values.
Being a good old boy or in this case, a good ole girl, makes her all the more dangerous to the single most important cause of our times: maintaining moral integrity, upholding the value of life.
She can fool the world, the press, her fans, the jet set, the intellectuals - everybody, but morality is not democratic or a question of popularity.
As such, being so popular and likeable, she is like a trojan, a virus, undermining, chipping away at what should be rock solid. Marriage is a sacrament between man and woman, a forever pledge and its purpose is the furtherance of life.
Race is 19th century pseudo-science, not reality. I don't think all the evidence is in yet on homosexuality, but I do know it (or something like it) is much more prevalent in nature than the 19th century Victorians would admit.
However: My church, too, teaches that active homosexuality is a sin. Love the sinner, and hate the sin, is about all we have left, here, I think. I used to watch Ellen's sitcom, and quit over the same thing that bothers many others here. I've also had gay friends who were otherwise good people. If she had to choose a serious sin to practice, maybe homosexuality is better than murder? Others can still make their choices around homosexuals, while murders take away all choices. Which is the “lesser of two evils” here?
I’m not sure I understand the comparison of a person who, under the influence of lsd, chooses to murder someone and another person who chooses to love and cherish someone.
I honestly don’t think sexual preference is a choice. For example, you could put a gun to my head and I couldn’t possibly have relations with a man. Never happen. Its not a choice I have made, it is who I am. It is how God made me.
Ciao Old Student,
Thank you for your response. Yes love the sinner, hate the sin, but in this case the woman is TEACHING. Her Lesbian marriage is meant to encourage and inspire and so therefore, it goes beyond her being a mere sinner: she is teaching / preaching, though discreetly (therefore one might say underhandedly) that gay marriage is okay.
What is prevelant in nature is beside the point. Choose any crime or perversion and if nature is your doctrine, then I can justify it. In fact, I can go far beyond it.
As Rabbi Prager wrote
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341
Man, is polymorphous, utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Historically men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other; by dressing in women’s garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman’s disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm.
As you see all this surpasses even the wildest Bonobo monkey. So, so much for nature! That’s a bottomless pit that can justify any wrong, never mind sexual perversion. Man is - or rather can be - crueler and more malicious than any animal!
I too love the sinner and hate the sin and having spent half my life as a sort of junkyard dog, I know both very well, but - I repeat - here we are in front of what in other times would be a heretic, a teacher of wrong, horrendously wrong morals, a teacher in a position of power and prestige and therefore despite her apparent innocence and likeability, she must be opposed and one must - IMO - not fall into the trap of some apparent good ole girl normality or show biz likeability.
Because of her thousands of girls, in a period of doubt and uncertainty, will think that a life with Mary is the same as one with Bob. That’s like saying a paved parking lot is the same as coffee-dark top soil by the river. That children and families are the same as silence and barreness.
She could have carried on discreetly, but she chose to teach, to set an important example.
That is just so stupid in the extreme! Why don't you explain to everyone how God designed and created two males for sex. Explain the anatomical fit. Explain the purpose.
It is just so hard to suffer through fools...
Amen.
I don’t like homosexuality. However, as a male nurse, many of the people I work with, men and women, ARE homosexuals. I have to deal in a civil manner with them for my patients sake.
As far as I’m concerned, they are sinners just as I am: judgment and punishment is God’s business - not mine.
As for me, I’ll love my neighbors as myself and leave their sins for them and God to deal with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.