1. Good TV show is an oxymoron.
2. Michelangelo produced timeless art that was not about his sexual orientation. This stuff is worse than drivel.
3. I'm sick of the media portraying homosexuality as culturally superior to heterosexuality. The "real" men who comprise this country are a little to busy building the future to spend much time worrying about what a "queer eye" thinks about the color of his curtains. If my wife tells me to put on a shirt or a pair of pants because they look good on me, fine. I'm not stupid enough to say no to the woman who sleeps with me. Everyone else can go to h*** in regards to my clothing choices. And any man who'd let a group of gay men give him a makeover is just a tad bit light in the loafers.....
I first heard this back in the 70s when a college professor gleefully told us about how DaVinci and Michaelangelo would compete on having the most young gay lovers. I have yet to see any first hand evidence that either one of these artists was a practicing homosexual. I am not saying they weren't, but if you have any convincing evidence, I would like to see it.
The homo-sypathizers also claim that Shakespear, Jesus, and every other person of historical renown was 'gay'. None of them were. (except of course for caligula and bluebeard. Seems that the sexual perverts are easily identified by the damage that they do). Of course they never offer any evidence proving that contention
I read a study once that when a woman is looking for a friend she reacts more favourably to more feminine looking faces (that is, mentally diseased 'gay' types) but when she is looking for a mate or father for her children she reacts more favourably to more masculine faces (that is, mentally healthy men)
Whaaaat? Do you have some sort of statistical backing for such a claim? Look, buddy, if I am required to dredge up empirical studies proving that men who molest boys are by definition homosexuals, you shouldn't be able to say the above without backup.
More importantly, all sexual proclivities aside, I am sick and tired of the elevation of "the arts" to some necessity of a well-rounded life as if it was as important as competence in engineering or money management. While some waiter with delusions of grandeur is thought to be brave for chasing his dream of living the thespian life, the nerd-in-high school guy that he pays to do his taxes for him is snickered at as some gray flannel drag on society, as is the real estate agent who sells him his a condo if he can actually eke out a living as an actor.
This is the sort of thing the elite and effete spit at President Bush, because he isn't pretentious about what great tomes he's read, doesn't quote Shakespeare, and named Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher.
One example: I doubt many Catholics would go Taliban on the Sistene Chapel just because Michaelangelo was gay.
Was Michelangelo a great painter because he was gay? No one with a brain would suggest that. But in the annual AIDS awareness event known as "Day Without Art," performances are cancelled and artwork is obscured with canvas as if art itself wouldn't exist if homosexuals didn't. News flash -- if every queer person vanished overnight, there would still be art -- maybe art that you don't like, but it would be there nonetheless. The existence of what is and what is not termed "art" has not a whit to do with the carnal activities of its creators.
Yet, in line with the current wave of queer chauvinism, five swishy, preening whoozats get to proclaim themselves fashion experts based on where they stick their penises, and nobody raises a red flag. Hmmm, let's see if ESPN will listen as I pitch a show about how white athletes can play more like blacks.