a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:29:11 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-04-07 20:25 , John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-07 9:36 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"Atheist wrote in message


Actually she made her career on her talent first with her standup
and then
her sitcom, then she came out of the closet (as it were) and her career
went

As I recall she came out of the closet and came out of the closet and
came
out of the closet until her coming out of the closet got pretty
tiresome.
How many times does one have to come out of the closet, anyway?

As I recall she did it once as her character on a sitcom and
simultaneously in 'real life'.

She milked it mercilessly.

alt.photography taken out. Why keep xposting there???

eh, no you didn't. I x-posted this where people might have an interest
in a photograph. I assume alt.photography participants have an interest
in photography, though I do wonder sometimes (that brush applies to most
photo groups, not just alt.p).

I will take a moment to apologize to Alan here. I should not have
allowed my personal opiunion to overshadow the technical quality of
this work. It is an excellent portrait. Did you do it?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 14:24:50 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-04-04 14:14 , Alan Browne wrote:
I've always found DeGeneres to have one of the most interesting faces in
the E crowd. This quirky portrait highlights her eyes beautifully.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...len1-popup.jpG

Link fixed:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...len1-popup.jpg

Sorry 'bout that.

Not a bad portrait of a woman who made her career on her sexual
orientation and obviously NOT on her talent.


Anytime a celebrity feels the need to "come out of the closet", even when
everybody are knew they were gay, it usually means their ratings are down
and they need attention. Plus Ellen took a step further and pretends to be
married to another woman. The 'law' may say they are married, but it is
just not possible. The 'law' can call a skunk a cat,. an orange an apple,
or a rose a daisy, but it does not make it so. I liked Ellen just fine when
she was just another gay comedian, but when she based her career on her
sexual orientation, I could not stand the sight of her anymore. As a man I
have nothing against sleeping with two women, but I would never try to get
the government to accept we are all married to each other. I mean seriously
that would just take the fun out of it. Who would want to do something like
that?

"Dr.Smith" wrote in message
...




Anytime a celebrity feels the need to "come out of the closet", even when
everybody are knew they were gay, it usually means their ratings are down
and they need attention. Plus Ellen took a step further and pretends to
be married to another woman. The 'law' may say they are married, but it
is just not possible. The 'law' can call a skunk a cat,. an orange an
apple, or a rose a daisy, but it does not make it so.

Well and truly said. A court may decide whether something is legal or not,
constitutional or not, but it has no competence to change the meaning of a
word that has meant "the legal union of a man and a woman" for as long as
that word has existed.

Ruling that a person has the legal right to "marry" someone of the same sex
makes no more sense than ruling that a cabbage has the legal right to be a
cantaloupe.

I recall a news item several years ago (long before the notion of same-sex
"marriage" became an issue) about a fellow who wanted to marry his TV set.
Seriously. What sort of nuptial bliss he expected to get out of that I have
no idea, but if we're going to throw out the definition of "marriage" and
have it mean something it never meant before, then I suppose the guy ought
to be able to "marry" his TV or his toaster or whatever he likes.

On 10-04-07 20:51 , John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-07 20:25 , John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:


As I recall she did it once as her character on a sitcom and
simultaneously in 'real life'.

She milked it mercilessly.

alt.photography taken out. Why keep xposting there???

eh, no you didn't.

You're right on that, of course. I used Cmd-c in error, instead of Cmd-x
when I pasted it into the body.

I x-posted this where people might have an interest in a photograph. I
assume alt.photography participants have an interest in photography,
though I do wonder sometimes (that brush applies to most photo groups,
not just alt.p).

What always seems to happen is that Hardwhinge guy will blow snotty in
this direction, setting f-u to that group.

It'd be decent not to post there on an X- not for him, but for the rest
of us in these two groups.

I'll post where I like, thank you.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-04-07 21:30 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
On 10-04-07 9:36 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"Atheist wrote in message


Actually she made her career on her talent first with her standup and
then
her sitcom, then she came out of the closet (as it were) and her career
went

As I recall she came out of the closet and came out of the closet and
came
out of the closet until her coming out of the closet got pretty tiresome.
How many times does one have to come out of the closet, anyway?

As I recall she did it once as her character on a sitcom and
simultaneously in 'real life'.

Once as her sitcom character, yes, but it seems to me she then did it
repeatedly in real life, perhaps in case anyone in the western hemisphere
missed it the first time.

Things may not be as they seem to you.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-04-08 7:04 , wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:29:11 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-04-07 20:25 , John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-07 9:36 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"Atheist wrote in message


Actually she made her career on her talent first with her standup
and then
her sitcom, then she came out of the closet (as it were) and her career
went

As I recall she came out of the closet and came out of the closet and
came
out of the closet until her coming out of the closet got pretty
tiresome.
How many times does one have to come out of the closet, anyway?

As I recall she did it once as her character on a sitcom and
simultaneously in 'real life'.

She milked it mercilessly.

alt.photography taken out. Why keep xposting there???

eh, no you didn't. I x-posted this where people might have an interest
in a photograph. I assume alt.photography participants have an interest
in photography, though I do wonder sometimes (that brush applies to most
photo groups, not just alt.p).

I will take a moment to apologize to Alan here. I should not have
allowed my personal opiunion to overshadow the technical quality of
this work. It is an excellent portrait. Did you do it?

Apoligize for what? Opinions are like ...

No, it was a FOX network photog - you can see the credit at the NYT site.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-04-08 11:55 , Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...




Anytime a celebrity feels the need to "come out of the closet", even when
everybody are knew they were gay, it usually means their ratings are down
and they need attention. Plus Ellen took a step further and pretends to
be married to another woman. The 'law' may say they are married, but it
is just not possible. The 'law' can call a skunk a cat,. an orange an
apple, or a rose a daisy, but it does not make it so.

Well and truly said. A court may decide whether something is legal or not,
constitutional or not, but it has no competence to change the meaning of a
word that has meant "the legal union of a man and a woman" for as long as
that word has existed.

Not at all. The law is what the people want it to be, not what an oral
history inaccurately reduced to many re-writings declares it to be.

In most western liberal democracies, gay rights extend to common law
marriage, and in many, include marriage whether formalized in a civil
office or church.

This is coupled to the fact that most educated people understand that
homosexuality is not a choice but the natural inclination of some.
Various religious denominations have demonized that natural choice as
against God, but they've failed entirely to prove that any religion
speaks with authority for God. Faith is faith. Only. Solely.

God probably does not want anyone to presume that they speak for him in
any case, esp. not based on fanciful scriptures written by men.

Ruling that a person has the legal right to "marry" someone of the same sex
makes no more sense than ruling that a cabbage has the legal right to be a
cantaloupe.

That's indefensible except to those that cling to religiously inspired
definitions of how people must live.

Religious based law is dead, it just hasn't rolled over yet.

Law is mainly based on reason with a healthy dose of tradition. Which
is why part of the ten commandments survive in law, and others have been
discarded.

I recall a news item several years ago (long before the notion of same-sex
"marriage" became an issue) about a fellow who wanted to marry his TV set.
Seriously. What sort of nuptial bliss he expected to get out of that I have
no idea, but if we're going to throw out the definition of "marriage" and
have it mean something it never meant before, then I suppose the guy ought
to be able to "marry" his TV or his toaster or whatever he likes.

There are nutcases everywhere. They should not be held up as an example
but rather as a sad or amusing curiosity.

IOW: Ridiculous examples are classic losing side defenses but have
nothing to do with gay marriage or other concrete realities.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-04-08 11:55 , Neil Harrington wrote:
wrote in message
...




Anytime a celebrity feels the need to "come out of the closet", even
when
everybody are knew they were gay, it usually means their ratings are
down
and they need attention. Plus Ellen took a step further and pretends to
be married to another woman. The 'law' may say they are married, but it
is just not possible. The 'law' can call a skunk a cat,. an orange an
apple, or a rose a daisy, but it does not make it so.

Well and truly said. A court may decide whether something is legal or
not,
constitutional or not, but it has no competence to change the meaning of
a
word that has meant "the legal union of a man and a woman" for as long as
that word has existed.

Not at all. The law is what the people want it to be, not what an oral
history inaccurately reduced to many re-writings declares it to be.

I was speaking of definitions. "Marriage" has always meant "the legal union
of a man and a woman," was always understood to mean that, and was defined
that way in every dictionary as long as dictionaries existed -- until
recently, at least. Look in any 50-, 40- or 30-year-old dictionary and see
if you can find any definition for the word that supports same-sex marriage.


In most western liberal democracies, gay rights extend to common law
marriage, and in many, include marriage whether formalized in a civil
office or church.

You mean homosexual "rights." I have nothing whatever against gay marriage;
indeed, I think all weddings should be gay -- lots of pretty flowers,
attractive girls in colorful dresses suitable to the occasion, women happily
weeping (I never knew why they do that but they seem to enjoy it), and
afterward a nice feast with drinking and music and dancing, all that sort of
thing. I am 100% in favor of gaiety at weddings.

I do object to the appropriation of the term "gay" by homosexuals, since it
has effectively taken a perfectly good and useful word out of circulation in
its original sense.


This is coupled to the fact that most educated people understand that
homosexuality is not a choice but the natural inclination of some.

What has that to do with high-handedly trying to change the definitions of
common words?

Various religious denominations have demonized that natural choice as
against God, but they've failed entirely to prove that any religion speaks
with authority for God. Faith is faith. Only. Solely.

God probably does not want anyone to presume that they speak for him in
any case, esp. not based on fanciful scriptures written by men.

I couldn't care less about any of that. I am completely non-religious, and I
have no idea why you're bringing religion, God, faith etc. into it, or what
you think qualifies you to decide what "God probably does not want."


Ruling that a person has the legal right to "marry" someone of the same
sex
makes no more sense than ruling that a cabbage has the legal right to be
a
cantaloupe.

That's indefensible except to those that cling to religiously inspired
definitions of how people must live.

Religious based law is dead, it just hasn't rolled over yet.

Law is mainly based on reason with a healthy dose of tradition. Which is
why part of the ten commandments survive in law, and others have been
discarded.

The Ten Commandments don't define marriage, have nothing to say about it
apart from that business of not coveting your neighbor's wife, and have
really nothing to do with this subject as far as I can see. You apparently
are quite hung up on what you see as a powerful religious connection.


I recall a news item several years ago (long before the notion of
same-sex
"marriage" became an issue) about a fellow who wanted to marry his TV
set.
Seriously. What sort of nuptial bliss he expected to get out of that I
have
no idea, but if we're going to throw out the definition of "marriage" and
have it mean something it never meant before, then I suppose the guy
ought
to be able to "marry" his TV or his toaster or whatever he likes.

There are nutcases everywhere. They should not be held up as an example
but rather as a sad or amusing curiosity.

I'm sure that was the general and appropriate reaction to the fellow who
wanted to exchange vows with his TV, and it's an equally appropriate
reaction to people who want to "marry" people the same gender as themselves.
The astonishing thing is that such nutcases are taken seriously nowadays. I
suppose it's just another one of those fads, fashionable today among the
looney left but will eventually go the way of the hula hoop.


IOW: Ridiculous examples are classic losing side defenses but have
nothing to do with gay marriage or other concrete realities.

You mean homosexual "marriage." Again: I have nothing against gay marriage
and think that all marriages should be gay. Who would want a morose
marriage?

On 2010-04-04, Alan Browne wrote:
I've always found DeGeneres to have one of the most interesting faces in
the E crowd. This quirky portrait highlights her eyes beautifully.

gay

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-04-07 21:30 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"Alan wrote in message
...
On 10-04-07 9:36 , Neil Harrington wrote:
"Atheist wrote in message


Actually she made her career on her talent first with her standup and
then
her sitcom, then she came out of the closet (as it were) and her
career
went

As I recall she came out of the closet and came out of the closet and
came
out of the closet until her coming out of the closet got pretty
tiresome.
How many times does one have to come out of the closet, anyway?

As I recall she did it once as her character on a sitcom and
simultaneously in 'real life'.

Once as her sitcom character, yes, but it seems to me she then did it
repeatedly in real life, perhaps in case anyone in the western hemisphere
missed it the first time.

Things may not be as they seem to you.

Indeed they may not be, but I think I remember Ellen's serial comings-out
becoming the subject of jokes on late-night talk shows.