Dance | Donny Osmond | Kiss | Mormon | News

Donny Osmond: Utah Won't Allow Me Back After Gay Kiss


Last night on Dancing with the Stars, Donny Osmond felt it necessary to stage a theatrical make-out scene with judge Bruno Tonioli after Bruno accused his Rumba to be "airy fairy".

Following the "kiss", Osmond said, "I don't think they're going to let me back in Utah anymore."

Donny Osmond says he condemns homophobia and opposes same-sex marriage. Which, of course, is an expression of homophobia.

Watch the Mormon make-out session, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Donny Osomonds actions are homophobic and he needs to apologize for his careless statements. Check the teen suicide statistics for Utah if you think its ok to make fun of gays. Can you imagine if we asked him if his Mormon magic underwear was giving him an advantage on DWTS? Toupee wearing, botoxed braindead has beens should not be throwing stones. Not funny.

    Posted by: Mark | Oct 6, 2009 12:18:21 PM

  2. It is the privilege of heterosexist bigots, like Osmond, to carelessly mock and trivialize those they openly hate...on national an audience of equally heterosexist bigots who don't care.

    Let's laugh at The Gays while trying to kill them.

    Hey Donny, fuck you. You stupid Mormon-tard fuck.

    Hey, DWTS: fuck off and die because your show is shit.

    Posted by: Mark | Oct 6, 2009 12:38:09 PM

  3. I'm gay, I oppose homophobia, and I am opposed to gay marraige. The two are not mutually exclusive. Everywhere it is legal (Canada, Netherlands, Massachsusetts) only a relative handful of gay marriages exist. Why? Weren't the streets filled with thousands of protesters dying to have their unions recognized? Just two percent of gay people in Netherlands are married, and they have had these rights for years. Whenever a court decision is handed down (or more rarely a vote takes place) Towleroad posts about the alleged rush of thousands of gay people waiting to get married. It's a misrepresentation; those people waiting in line at city hall ARE THE ANOMOLIES. They are a very small minority of gay people.

    My hunch is that when it is legal everywhere we will still see relatively few gay couples married. If gay people (as a class) were suited to the married life we would be living that life regardless of legal recognition.

    We should all be represented equally under the law, but we should have our own institutions that reflect who we are. The government should reward straight marriages because they provide stability to society. And we should receive those rights when we show demonstratively that we do the same (I.E. less stds, real proof gay parents are the same, that gtay couples can be monogamous, less drug use).

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 6, 2009 12:42:14 PM

  4. Chris,

    I appreciate your comments. However, the point isn't how many gay and lesbian couples get married. It's that those of us who want to get married HAVE the right to do so.

    As for this stupid crap on DWTS, I knew there was a reason why I didn't watch that show.

    Posted by: Terry | Oct 6, 2009 12:47:18 PM

  5. As I always say ... "Dancing with the Has Beens"

    Posted by: FunMe | Oct 6, 2009 12:53:46 PM

  6. Terry: I am not foaming at the mouth in my opposition and if gay marriages happens I will be happy and proud of those who do get married. But I think it will be bad for society at large.

    It used to be that you had to get married to leave home. It used to be that marriage was forever; no divorce. Then you had to get married if you wanted to have sex with someone. Then you had to get married if you had a baby. But none of these rules apply any longer.

    Marriage has been stripped of the elements that stabilize society and produce good kids. Gay marriage codifies the idea that marriage is principally about romance and love...not anything larger.

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 6, 2009 12:54:20 PM

  7. Chris, I don't particularly want to get married myself either, but I should still have the right to do so if I choose. I pay the same taxes as everyone else does and should have access to all the same rights.

    I'm unclear on why you think straight marriage provides more stability than a gay marriage would, but regardless it would be completely unfair to make gays qualify why they deserve the right to marriage. Straight people don't have to prove a damn thing to get that certificate, so I shouldn't be subjected to different terms.

    And have our "own institutions of who we are?" We've done this separate but equal thing before. It doesn't work, and it's not ok.

    Posted by: mb | Oct 6, 2009 12:57:05 PM

  8. Pulling a line directly out of the homophobia playbook, Donny says on his web site "some of my best friends are gay."

    Posted by: Johnny | Oct 6, 2009 1:07:32 PM

  9. Donny, you're injecting too much botox on your forehead you're starting to resemble Nicole Kidman!

    Posted by: gabe | Oct 6, 2009 1:15:17 PM

  10. Chris -- Being gay does not mean you do not have internalized homophobia. I grew up not believing I would ever get married, but I grew up in a very homophobic world where gays did not lead so-called 'normal' lives.

    Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not strip any element that stabilizes society or produces good kids. For the married couples, especially those with kids, it adds a stabilizing element. For the rest of society, it does nothing.

    P.S. CNN estimates that more than 10,000 gay and lesbian couples have exchanged vows in Massachusetts. That's quite a handful.

    Posted by: Alan | Oct 6, 2009 1:19:20 PM

  11. MB: I think the stability provided by heterosexual merriages is self-evident. The model has been used in all western societies for centuries and I think it's been pretty successful.

    As for the seperate but equal comment. The civil rights movement is not analagous to the gay marriage debate because race is a construct (There's no such thing as black, white and latino. Ethnicity maybe). Gender and sexual orientation are not constructs. They are real and meaningful biological designations and our society is structured around them.

    Moreover I don't think we have had to suffer as much as the African Americans who were brought here as slaves and then spent a century under Jim Crow. I think it is opportunistic to use their subjugation to support gay marriages.

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 6, 2009 1:24:40 PM

  12. hey Chris 49 I myself do NOT want to marry anyone, maybe its cause while growing up it was NOT a reality...but I'll Fight for the RIGHT to marry for any gay person now, or in the future,and those not born yet - so that THEY CAN grow up meet someone fall in love, and marry the person THEY want too....No one should have to prove they are "worthy" of marriage....if heteros can just go to some bar/get drunk,meet some stranger,and then go to ANY Justice of the Peace,or Elvis Impersonator...and GET over 1300 Federal RIGHTS handed to them on a silver platter..Gays should NOT have to prove thier worth to marry.

    Posted by: Disgusted American | Oct 6, 2009 1:25:22 PM

  13. Alan, I'm from Marin County and I'm 26. I grew up in just about the most welcoming community a gay teen could ask for.

    The CNN is a handful. 10,000 is a lot of people. But the numbers are relative to the total population. Also, that number sound higher than other figures I have heard.

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 6, 2009 1:31:07 PM

  14. Chris,

    Married life and marriage rights are often not mutually-exclusive in the Netherlands. It is a poor point of comparison. In the US, where so many rights for couples are bound by civil marriage, it is essentially a fight for equal treatment under the law and under the government that we pay taxes to.

    In Massachusetts, we are four years post gay-marriage, with over 10 thousand couples enjoying the state rights allocated to married couples, currently at a rate of around 1000 marriages per year, which dictates that it has been fully integrated into society in this great state.

    Other states that have subsequently legalized same-gender marriage are in a similar position, albeit negatively impacted by anti-gay societal undertones.

    The question isn't whether "all gays will get married". Instead, it is a question of equal protection under the law where marriage is still a fundamental societal goal: all peoples should have the option to marry the person (gender-exclusive) they so desire and share equal rights and liberties under the law as they are properly entitled to by way of our nation's creed.

    Posted by: G | Oct 6, 2009 1:34:04 PM

  15. Chris, it's simple: We either have the same rights, or we don't. If we don't, then we are inferior. You see a lot of trees, but no forrest. It's a shame.

    Posted by: David T | Oct 6, 2009 1:35:31 PM

  16. Yes, and add to that, Johnny, he also says that he, "opposes gay marriage but that he condemns homophobia. He believes that gay and lesbian Mormons should be accepted in the church if they remain celibate." (Wikipedia)

    Yeah, because celibacy-by-guilt is the most natural thing in the world and causes NO issues for the human psychology. What a fucking moron!

    And Chris, while you're certainly entitled to question the morality of a society and the misgivings of marriage defined, you come across as extremely inexperienced, unworldly and haphazardly judgmental. Most notably, when you say things like, "government should reward straight marriage..." you're presenting the opposition in such a ridiculously uneducated spin that I question whether you're actually homosexual or if you're simply a blog troll looking for attention.

    Additionally, if you say things like,

    "It used to be that you had to get married to leave home. It used to be that marriage was forever; no divorce. Then you had to get married if you wanted to have sex with someone. Then you had to get married if you had a baby. But none of these rules apply any longer."

    Then I question your thought process and what you really know about life and historical fact at all. I suggest you pick up a copy of Stephanie Coontz' book, "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage" as an example. Read a bit more history that wasn't written by a church or other religious organization, and leave the high school term paper mentality out of the discussion.

    I certainly hope that some day, you have the opportunity to meet people that are living proof that what you suggest currently is the absolute bunk that I know it is. Marriage is work, but with the right person, it's the kind of work that the right people together make a lifetime of happiness out of (with the inevitable bumps, roadblocks, and occasional brick walls incorporated). Maybe even you, Chris, may find yourself in that situation, and quite frankly, I hope you do.

    You oversimplify, but thank you for at least bringing your opinion to the table. I believe at times that no matter how idealistic many of us would enjoy being, myself included, it takes an occasional stick to the eye to jar us back into the reality that we so ardently resist. You have some valid points and at times, no matter how uncomfortable it may be, those valid points must be addressed, but if you speak in absolutes, you are nothing but a roadblock on the route to equality.

    Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Oct 6, 2009 1:41:31 PM

  17. Chris --- your academic blattering may get you points in college --- but you sound like an idiot here and in real life.

    Chris "There's no such thing as black, white and latino."

    Posted by: walter | Oct 6, 2009 1:43:17 PM

  18. One last thing "CHRIS" -- I was married and understand the social dangers not allowing that LEGAL protection.

    Without my marriage RIGHTS -- my partner who became quite unhealthy could have and would have thrown me out into the streets without the LEGAL monetary support (ALIMONY) that I was owed and deserved.

    I was only granted 5 years - because marriage was only available to me 5 years ago.

    If I had been married sooner - my future would be a bit more secure.

    CIVAL Marriage is about RIGHTS as well as LOVE and CHILDREN.

    Gay, Bi or Straight - you a STRAIGHT SUPREMIST Chris - and the ENEMY of EQUALITY.

    Posted by: walter | Oct 6, 2009 1:55:44 PM

  19. "It used to be that you had to get married to leave home."

    That hasn't been true for centuries. And it has been culturally and temporally selective.

    "It used to be that marriage was forever; no divorce."

    Again, that hasn't been true for centuries. Millenia, for some cultures.

    "Then you had to get married if you wanted to have sex with someone. Then you had to get married if you had a baby. But none of these rules apply any longer."

    Thankfully. Sexual compatibility is a critical component to the long-term success of a marriage. Forcing people to wait through proscriptions is inadvisable. If people want to wait that's fine, but I believe they would be better off assessing their sexual compatibility first. Fortunately, the vast, vast majority of people do. And forcing people to marry because of pregnancy is just as silly. Momentary sexual compatibility shouldn't bind people to a lifelong social and economic union.

    Let's address what marriage actually was. To most societies and people, it was a way to ensure economic stability through contract and custom. Men and women were bound together (or more precisely, women were generally bound to a man), and through the production of children, they were able to ensure their own economic well-being. This has changed a great deal in the past 150 years. Children do not simply provide for their parents, they provide for a society at large; parents likewise derive benefits from a society at large.

    All of the other supposed stability effects are really incidental. You've also pointed out that only a small number of gay couples enter into marriage; I'm not sure how this helps your case. The ones who are doing so are probably either a) romantic traditionals in their outlook, and do not engage in the behaviours you seemingly rail against, or b) entering into marriage for its economic benefits, which was the primary goal of marriage for millenia. Either case fulfills your pseudo-notion of stability.

    In any event, I am repulsed by the notion of having "our own institutions". I am not sure why someone would want to encourage such cultural ghettoization. That something so incidental to my overall character should dictate what kind of legal or cultural relationships I participate in is obscene.

    Posted by: Zach | Oct 6, 2009 1:56:28 PM

  20. One other thing. In the social sciences, gender is as much a social construct as race is. Like race, gender is derived from physical/biological characteristics that are identified and assigned to a particular identity. 'Sex' is the better biological term to use when differentiating biology from social constructs. By the same measure, your inclusion of homosexuality is problematic. I would argue that much of what is stereotypically thought of as homosexual behaviour is recently, culturally constructed. I have no authority to state that there is no biological basis for it, but until we better understand sexual orientation, we should err on the side of caution and not assume too much about behaviour from sexual inclinations.

    If you are going to quote from the social sciences, at least be accurate please.

    Posted by: Zach | Oct 6, 2009 2:06:39 PM

  21. It's crazy to me how nasty some people are to dissenting views. I would think that gay people above all would respect a dissenting voice.

    No I do not believe Zach's version of history. Please direct us to some proof of your assertions about marital history.

    ZACH: the idea that you can assert that divorce hasn't been around for a millenia is beyond parody. What record of history goes back that far? Can you please share with us your supernatural knowledge of human sex comes from?

    Shouting loudest is the domain of Fox and talk radio and Towleroad commenters.

    Posted by: Chris | Oct 6, 2009 2:07:02 PM

  22. Chris - you are 26 years old and you say you don't support gay marriage. Wow. What a young weirdo. No one is going to force you to get married - but you think others who have the desire to should not have the ability? You are a young, verbose wreck.

    Posted by: Dishy | Oct 6, 2009 2:21:41 PM

  23. I'm sure you can read something roughly similar to what I wrote on the Wikipedia page. There's a large historical consensus on the subject. Nonetheless, for some histories of marriage: Try D.L. D'Avray's Medieval Marriage: Custom & Society, Tim Stretton's "Women Waging Law" (which explore the full legal dimensions of women in Elizabethan society), and his "Marital Litigation in the Court of Requests"; most analyses of Hammurabi's will contain some commentary on the marriage laws therein; I don't have anything specific at the moment. You could try Zhao's "Marriage as political strategy and cultural expression" for Mongolian wedding customs over a lengthy period of time, or Halderbass's "Marriage and Divorce" for a good basic book on the history of divorce; uncommon in the West for about 1400 years, but existing centuries before and centuries after, not to mention being fairly prevalent in Islamic and First Nations Societies (many of which incidentally had provisions for a kind of same-sex union).

    Also, recorded history goes back to the 4th millennium BC. And really, given your own vague and ahistorical/inaccurate comments about what marriage is, you are hypocritical at best in your disrespectful 'supernatural' comment. You have provided no proof for your suppositions; I accept recorded history as necessary to our understanding of past events. Not perfect, but a better guide than thinking whatever the hell I feel like.

    And respect doesn't include not refuting factually inaccurate statements, or not attacking ones where I feel the evidence is unpersuasive. The minute you express a view, you submit it to evaluation. If you're not interested in a dialogue, don't post on a site's comment page. Start a blog and block all comments. Otherwise, be prepared for argument when you have logic and evidence gaps that I could drive a truck through.

    Posted by: Zach | Oct 6, 2009 2:37:36 PM

  24. @ CHRIS

    yeah...I dont think David Letterman had to prove anything so he could get married, and yet..

    why should I?

    Posted by: Felix | Oct 6, 2009 2:43:12 PM

  25. Chris and all,
    First, can we stop the sniping? It makes us look like the screaming queens they parody in popular entertainment.

    I can appreciate those voices that are over the institution of marriage as a whole and therefore see no purpose for gay marriage. I disagree, but I can see the point.

    There is no one single issue that does or should define the debate in the gay marriage conversation, but central to it is a very basic constitutional right in the United States...Equal Protection. The idea is that the constitution protects us from laws and practices that unfairly or improperly treat one class of citizens differently from another without legitimate state interests being served.

    The denial of our right of access to the legal protections--for property, inheritance, parenting, bankruptcy, and a host of other protections the law provides to married persons--can only be justified if there is a legitimate state interest in doing so...and the only interests that are put forth today are religious and ethical justifications that defy both available research AND the First Amendment to the Constitution.

    The fight for the right to marry is no less than a fight for the legitimacy of our Constitution and our right to live as equal citizens. It doesn't matter to me that I might never take advantage of the rights, because I may never find that one person with whom I want to share this bond, but the state as no right to deny me access to those rights and protections should I desire to.

    The advisability of gay marriage and the legality of it are two very different things. It is important for us all to recognize the distinction, however we may disagree with regard to the former.

    Posted by: notshychirev | Oct 6, 2009 2:44:04 PM

  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Activists to Picket Obama at Human Rights Campaign Dinner« «