|
Post by lurleene on Oct 27, 2017 12:52:17 GMT -5
Hmmm, I thought the point lurleen was making was that Kathy called Anderson an "Heiress" and not an "Heir." That's that way I took it anyway. So 'spineless' is valid and 'heiress' is not. It is making a topic about 'gay' when it actually has nothing to do with it. That was Kathy's part in this. Clay Aiken has nothing to do with the story. Adam has nothing to do with the story. The only connection to anything about Anderson Cooper is the orientation. Why are they brought in? Because they are also gay, or because other people have made gay-specific comments about them in the past. And that is how any story can be strung up to be about gay people, when just one participant in all of this happens to be gay, and even when that factor itself plays absolutely no role in the story. That was my point. No one is saying that spineless is valid. My point was about a so called gay ally (and other allies) taking a shot at Anderson's sexuality. I don't like it when someone uses someone's sexuality as a joke or put down. Nothing more. The examples I gave fit the point I was making. It is not unheard of that someone would use other examples to make a point. Don't know why you are working so hard to make may comments about something else. Geez!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 16:42:28 GMT -5
.
Actually, yes. Her calling him “heiress” is about him being gay. Why would she use a female term to describe him otherwise? Sorry, but I don’t see how you can spin her choosing that word anything but that.
|
|