MovieChat Forums > The Twilight of the Golds (1997) Discussion > "Are you still ashamed of who you are?"

"Are you still ashamed of who you are?"

posted 9 years ago by dunlap-mark64
10 replies | jump to latest

Steven asked David that question while discussing whether David should talk to Suzanne and convince her to keep the baby, to not get an abortion.

It's a question that I've been wondering a lot about recently: was David's tearful reaction to what his father said, in the previous scene, a sign that he is somewhat ashamed of his sexual orientation? When his dad said "I think you're sick and diseased, and if there were a cure, I'd want you cured," David almost burst into tears at that very moment. Then he did lose his composure and start crying about a minute later.
In the very next scene, Steven asked David whether he is ashamed of being gay. That question was not aimed at the fact David was crying in the previous scene, it was aimed at the fact that David seemed to be reluctant about talking to Suzanne and trying to convince her to not get the abortion. At first, Steven was more certain that David should be trying to save the life of David's nephew-to-be than David himself was. But nonetheless, the fact that his father's words hurt David so much that he even started crying seems significant.

If David's feelings can be hurt that easily, does he really have "gay pride"? Is that reaction to hearing his father say that homosexuality is a sickness, a disease, something that needs to be cured, an indication that he does feel ashamed of it, even though he knows it is something he can't change?

[–] sohrmn 9 years ago

Remember that the standard position of the 'pro-choice' movement is that a woman has a fundamental right to terminate her own pregnancy.

Remember also that the pro-choice campaign was generally more supportive of gay rights then the pro-life campaign.

David is thus in a tricky situation; if he tries to tell his sister to "choose life" he is basically making an "reactionary" argument from the (mostly) anti-gay pro life movement. Yet, if he says nothing he is basically endorsing a form of anti-gay discrimination.....

[–] CleverTitania 9 years ago

There is nearly nothing about pro-life or pro-choice in this film. And nothing in David's arguments against the abortion, is for or against the abortion on it's own merit - the family is a group of well-to-do Jewish intellectuals, and Suzanne's husband is a geneticist. No one in this family displays any real concern in the general concept of abortion.

It's about choosing to abort a child she wanted, as if it being gay meant it was defective. When the truth is this is NOT like finding out the baby has severe Down Syndrome or will be born with a degenerative disease. In those situations you genuinely have to worry about the quality of life you are protecting, and does it balance whatever pain that child will face? Which is basically Suzanne's lame attempt at a defense, which David shoots down pretty quickly.

Because being homosexual carries no such burdens. Yes, they might feel emotional pain dealing with being different, but there may be 100 ways they are different, that have nothing to do with being gay. Being gay isn't going to make them die young, or leave them in chronic physical pain. And you are not going to be obligated to take care of your homosexual child for the rest of their life, because as adults most of them can function just fine.

David's struggle is with having to see another child face the disappointment and disapproval of his family, and society at large. To see a child be subjected to the life he had. That is why he thinks, just for a moment, that maybe it's best she doesn't have it.

What I find odd is that, in all of this, no one seemed to consider giving the baby to an adoptive parent who didn't give a *beep* what its sexual orientation was going to be. Hell, if this story took place today, it might end with David and Steven adopting the baby.

[–] CleverTitania 9 years ago

There is absolutely nothing in the human psyche, that prevents us from being both ashamed and proud of ourselves, at the same time. And in the history of mankind, people have often been hurt and deeply traumatized by rejection of their family, while feeling no true shame in the parts of themselves their families are rejecting.

As just a woman in our society - still lingering in puritanical history - I grew up with messages telling me that I should be ashamed of my sexuality, or ashamed of too much effort to hide it. I experience body shaming, too-much-body-showing shaming, being called a prude if I didn't exhibit my sexuality enough, and just general skeeviness from people who judged me and my sexuality by how I looked. I experience all of that before I ever turned 18, or had my first 'adult' relationship.

And I'm straight.

Imagine what it must be like, to be a homosexual living in a world where people still think it's OK to call you a perversion of nature - despite how incredibly ignorant that is of how nature works. Imagine what it must be to be bi-sexual or transsexual, and know that you'll face ignorance and bigotry from both gay and straight people. Imagine what it's like, to know that the love of your life, the person who means the world to you - that the love you feel for that person, and which he feels for you, is something your own father considers a disease he wishes he could cure.

You can still be out and proud, and feel that internal shame and guilt, over somehow failing the cruel expectations of your parents or society. You can still be hurt, and devastated, by the rejection of who you are, without being truly ashamed of who you are. Most people have that experience at least once in their life.

I don't believe David is ever really saying, "Should this baby be gay?" He was saying, "Should this baby have to grow up being gay in these circumstances ?" The same circumstances that have him crying in that scene. David isn't just a gay man, he's a rather open and expressive gay man, whose family claims to love him while reviling a huge part of himself. That's what he's afraid of subjecting the baby too - not being gay, but being gay in his family.

If David wasn't proud of who he is, he wouldn't have been so hurt by his father's crass statements, or so moved by his father later trying to get to know Steven and truly embrace who his son is. If David wasn't proud of who he is, he wouldn't be producing Wagner and still living with a man.

The healing finally begins to take place in this movie, when each of the Golds begins to accept that there's nothing demonstrably wrong with being gay. It is David's pride which saves this family - because in this moment of crisis, they can look at their talented, kind, loving, smart, compassionate, wonderful son, and realize there isn't a thing in the world wrong, with this little boy growing up to be anything like his uncle.

This is still one of my favorite films. My son was born in 1996. That was definitely a year that made me want to actively make the world a more inclusive place.

Today I march to remember that I'm not just a me. I'm also a we, and we march with pride.
---------------------------------So go *beep* yourself, Acquinas. ---------------------------------

[–] Craboo1017 9 years ago

All great points and I completely agree!

[–] dunlap-mark64 9 years ago

For the most part that was very good, CleverT. Nonetheless, David's behavior throughout the whole "garage scene" (beginning with the moment he asked his mother what would she have done, would she have gotten an abortion if she had known that David was going to be gay, then ending with David driving away) is unpleasant, and all of his behavior makes me wonder about his level of gay pride.
When his mother said "I watched my son become something .... different," David looks at her with the utmost contempt. Then when Phyllis said "This [being gay] isn't what I wanted for you," David's reaction was petulant, harshly barking at her "Well get over it!!" followed by "You're letting her [i.e., Suzanne] kill me! You're killing me!"
Then David becomes very argumentative with Walter, even though it's clear his father didn't want to get into an argument at all. David even poked his father in the chest, aggressively, as if he is trying to start a fight.
It's clear to me that Walter and Phyllis love their son very much while simultaneously wishing that he weren't gay. David didn't understand that. He overreacted to what both Phyllis and Walter said. He told Steven "They don't want me for their son; I'm going to give them their wish," avoiding any more contact with them. But that was neither what his parents said nor what they meant by what they said. Steven, too, understood that it was wrong for David to reject his parents and cut himself out of their lives. At the end of the movie, David effectively conceded that he had done something wrong with the way he reacted to what both his parents said in the garage scene; he said that not only did his parents "come around," but he did too.
I think Jonathan Tollins, in writing this story, wanted us (I am gay) to think carefully about how we treat our family when they both show us that they love us but they also make it plain that they wish we weren't gay.

[–] CleverTitania 9 years ago

Petulant? I challenge you to hear your own mother, not only criticize the fact that you grew up, but that you grew up into something "different" she can't handle, and not throw harsh words around. I challenge you to find out, that your family supports aborting a baby they were all immensely happy to welcome, until they found out that "one little thing" about it. You may be gay, but you don't seem to be seeing the true horror of what this scenario does to David - his own parents admit that if they'd known he was gay in advance, he might've never been born. How can you possibly not be contemptuous of a mother who says that you're being gay makes your birth a potential mistake she made?

The scene is meant to be unpleasant, because like David's place in their family, it's asking the audience to examine real and unpleasant things. Too many people, like David, have found themselves genuinely faced with loved ones who see you as diseased simply for not being 'normal'. That scene is meant to twist your gut, so that you feel what the characters are feeling.

His mother and father didn't want to get into the argument, but it was very clear this family NEEDED to have that argument at some point, or they would never accept that David is a warm and wonderful person, who while he certainly has flaws, his sexuality is NOT one of them.

And you're completely wrong that David didn't understand that - he understood it quite well, hence his digs about Steven not being invited to the family dinner. That's why he loses it so thoroughly when faced with the news about the baby and the possible abortion - because he knows now that he can no longer pretend that the way his parents treat his life and his relationships is OK. He can no longer accept their half-assed 'acceptance', which is conditional on him keeping his homosexuality from being too in their faces.

I may not be gay, but I have been in a position to have a family member reject me for being who I am, and having to realize if that person can't accept you for who you are, they have no place in your life. Family is meaningless if they treat you with the same contempt or qualified tolerance you get from strangers. It's like Russia's moronic laws that being gay isn't a crime, but doing anything to "display" it in a positive light, any attempt to make being gay seem acceptable and not contemptible, that'll get your ass thrown in jail. Or like the Vatican saying that homosexuals are good people, but only if they don't do actually live as a gay person or embrace their sexuality on their own terms. Acceptance doesn't come with addendums.

There is NO such thing as overreacting to your family thinking you are diseased, because of your sexual orientation. Well none other than stuff like slaughtering them in their beds or committing Hari Kari. And no, his parents didn't flat out say they didn't want him as their son, they said they would rather have him as a different person than who he is. Which is the same thing. They may not have MEANT to say that they don't want him as their son, or that maybe he'd be better off never born than gay, but that IS what they said. When pushed to admit their feelings, they admitted they didn't love David as he was, but IN SPITE of what he was, and that's not an acceptable reaction to him being gay or the prospect of having a gay grandchild. They said they would rather have him on THEIR terms, with little regard for what would make him really happy, which would've been their acceptance and embracing of himself and his partner.

His father even complains that David forces him to think about things he would rather not think about - like is homosexuality natural - but that David's existence and lifestyle forces him to think about those things. They want to bury their heads in the sand, and bury David's sexuality under the rug - and that is also NEVER acceptable. And if they chose to all be a part of this new child's life, and to treat his sexuality with the same 'queasiness' as they have David's, they would all be doubly guilty of emotional and mental abuse.

And the end of the movie, David concedes only that while he had no longer believed it was possible, his parents and sister actually are capable of change and loving him - and the baby - for who he is. That's the only 'coming around' he does. And this only happens when he learns they have begun embracing Steven's place in their family - treating his relationship equal to Suzanne's - well and obviously the fact that Suzanne is still pregnant. Even Steven eventually decides that David is too hurt and traumatized by his family's attitudes, to ever approach them to resolves their issues - that he has to get the family to take the first step. The movie doesn't resolve until his family shows up on HIS terms, saying, "We love you for who you are, and we will find a way to embrace ALL of you, not just the parts we choose to." When THEY walk out from behind the magic fire, and embrace the brave new world before them.

I think there is a lot to be said for this film having message of finding a middle and/or common ground when it comes to serious conflicts in a family. But that middle ground can't be in treating a core element of a person's identity like it's a defect, and a person you claim to love, as defective. A message which is wonderfully demonstrated in such a simple moment, of Walter reminding himself that as a rational man, he knows he's not going to "catch gay" or get AIDS from sharing a towel, so he consciously chooses to hand his to Steven.

[–] dunlap-mark64 9 years ago

But I haven't and I don't relate to what David is feeling in that scene. I've watched this movie a lot in the last 15 to 17 years, and the more often I watch it, the more I feel that I can't relate to what David is feeling in the garage scene. (My own mother said things to me that were far worse than what Phyllis said to David.) As I listen to her say that she watched David become "something different," and she didn't want for him to be gay, I relate that to the fact that David, while he was in high school DID date girls (and it's easy to assume that the parents didn't know David once got a girl pregnant; it's not easy to assume they didn't know he dated girls, in high school). I try to understand his parents' emotions more than I try to understand David's. I said that David didn't understand what his parents meant by what they said, and I still stand by what I said. I respectfully disagree with your statement that "There is NO such thing as overreacting to your family thinking you are diseased because of your sexual orientation." I think that if I had ever been as pushy with my father as David was with his, and if my father said the same thing, my only reaction would have been to say, "You're mistaken, dad. You just do not understand that being gay is not a disease. It's understandable WHY you would think it, because of the time when the APA said it's an illness, and had that label out there for 20 years. Because you're relatively conservative, it's hard for you to change, and to go along with society's changes." I would not have reacted with tears to my father saying anything like what Walter said. (Walter reminds me of my father in a later scene, at the opera theatre, when he says "Just don't expect me to march in any parade.")

Furthermore, David has obviously known for years that his parents feel some desire that David keep his sexuality out of THEIR faces. You know about the indications: 1) the first time David fell in love, he was in college, the other guy broke up with him, he called his parents and asked for their emotional support, but they refused to offer him any support; 2) the first time Walter and Phyllis met Rob, they were thrilled, ecstatic to meet him, and David said to himself, "They're never going to be this happy for me"; 3) Steven has never been invited to Gold family get-togethers.

I can relate to David's desire for equal respect - his desire that his parents treat Steven the same way they treated Rob. You, CleverT, have reminded me of an important scene in Torch Song Trilogy, in which Arnold said to his mother, "The only things I need from anyone are love and respect, and anybody who can't give me those two things has no place in my life." But I say again that Steven himself thought that it was wrong for David to cut himself off from the Gold family; that it would be better if David just forgave his parents and his sister. Steven reached out to Walter, wanted to become friends with him, and arranged for the whole family to get back together - in order for David to see that his parents still want him in their lives. I've often wondered how Steven would have reacted to David's behavior in the garage scene if he had been there too, watching.

Yes, IMO, "petulant" is a good word for both David's tone and words: "Well get over it!!" I think it's an immature reaction. I would not have reacted that way. And I think Walter's statement "Maybe your mother and I wouldn't think about the things you make us think about," is open to a few possible interpretations.

[–] CleverTitania 9 years ago

It's odd to me that you've enjoyed this movie as long as I have, and yet you seem to see the family's history as existing in a bubble.

"You're mistaken, dad. You just do not understand that being gay is not a disease. It's understandable WHY you would think it, because of the time when the APA said it's an illness, and had that label out there for 20 years. Because you're relatively conservative, it's hard for you to change, and to go along with society's changes."

Do you really think David hadn't already said all of that to his family, probably hundreds of times over the years? Do you think when he came out, it was to stunned silence with no need to defend who he is or what he feels? Do you think that intellectuals like The Golds really NEEDED to be told that homosexuality is not a mental health disease? The APA stopped calling it a mental disease in 1974 - I'm pretty sure they got the memo. That is the entire reason this family is eventually able to see past their prejudice and see their son for the individual he is, sexuality and all - because they are not stupid people who genuinely believe that direct contact between their son and daughter is going to give her baby AIDS. It's a knee-jerk reaction they have to stop themselves from having, only they've allowed themselves to keep having that reaction for way too long.

We see in David's first dig about Steven and family dinner, and in subsequent "let's not talk about that" moments, that David has repeatedly brought up defending his sexuality under calm and rational tones, likely since he came out. What happens in that conversation is a whole other ballgame. Hearing your mother bemoan your sexuality, in the context of discussing whether or not your sister is going to abort her pregnancy to avoid having a gay child, and having your mother whine about HER conflict while having little regard for your own, that is so cause for a "Get over it!" And worse, his mother is basically asking David to either talk Suzanne out of it, or to forgive both her and Suzanne for being hesitant to want the baby under these circumstances. Imagine what you would say to a person telling your life might be a mistake, and asking you to forgive them for saying so.

His having been confused enough about his sexuality to date girls at a young age, doesn't mitigate his parent's responsibility to grow and adapt their love to him, as he grew and adapted. That is part of the job of being a parent - learning to accept your child for who they are, not who you wanted or expected them to be. As a mother, I know that's something I've struggled with, but I would never abdicate my responsibility to do that, no matter how my son changed from his youth to his adulthood. And if I dared speak in a demeaning way of who he had become, while asking him to forgive me for it, I'd expect to get a lot worse than "get over it" in any tone of voice.

Yes, David has known for years that his parents would just as soon ignore his sexuality - and that's the entire point of the conflict. He realizes that he has allowed them to do so for far too long, to the point where - conflicted or not - they kind of would rather the baby weren't born than have to deal with more homosexuality in their lives. That's not just morally and ethnically wrong, it's pathetic. I love all these characters, including the parents, but there is no universe in where they are not 100% at fault for their son's anger, sadness and pain, in the context of this film and the garage scene.

I don't think Walter's statement is open to much interpretation. He forces them to confront issues of homosexuality in their daily lives, and they'd rather not - but they still want to keep their son. That's not their choice to make. They raised a child, who grew up to be a kind, loving and productive member of society. They don't get to decide now, if they want to deal with who that child is while keeping that relationship in tact. They find a way to accept him or they don't - but nothing halfway between those two means anything. Their own prejudice feeds the larger pool of it, and harms not just their child but those people their child cares for.

Torch Song Trilogy is a great example of this issue. The graveyard scene in particular guts me, because the real crux of that argument is that she feels only her relationship with her husband deserves to be honored and respect, and that disrespect is displayed in the fact that her husband died in a hospital and his was beaten to death by bigots - bigots her attitudes feed. When you act with any level of acceptable prejudice, you encourage the extremely intolerant to act out. If people didn't act like it was OK to treat homosexuals as lesser humans, other people would stop thinking they can get away with doing worse - that's how you combat the guy starting the fight with Suzanne's coworker, the men who killed David in TST, the guys who beat the crap out of the eponymous Jeffrey.

The Rapper Akala said, "The moment human beings become non-human, that is a mandate for murder. And there's a long historical parallel of that." When you act as if a committed long-term relationship between two men or two women is inherently lesser or of lesser importance than a committed long-term relationship between a man and a woman, you are instantly making the homosexuals in those relationships lesser than their heterosexual counterparts. Lesser humans in our society, are instantly seen as less than human, by the extremes of our society - and any time you allow that form of behavior to go unchallenged, it encourages more and more dehumanizing. And sadly, it encourages not just intolerance, but violence.

Steven did think it was wrong to cut off his parents, which is why he tried to repair the rift. But he NEVER says David should just forgive his parents or Suzanne. Not once does he encourage that. He says David needs to talk to them to work out their issues - that silence will accomplish nothing. But he never tells David he is under any obligation to forgive them, with no effort being brought forth on their part to be forgiven. The fact that he kept pushing David while working on getting to know his parents separately, doesn't mitigate that he saw how important THEIR actions were, in accepting Steven and showing up to his opera.

And you'll also notice, that the absolute second Steven's new relationship with his parents is revealed, he becomes open to talking to them again. Demanding respect isn't petulance, nor is being pissed when you don't get it. When it becomes apparently he'll never get the basic respect he deserves, he's willing to walk away. As soon as they show any real signs of giving him that respect (just Suzanne's pregnancy is not enough), he capitulates and reconnects with them. That is the sign of the mature and loving person he is, not a whiny child screaming to have his self-esteem stroked.

[–] dunlap-mark64 9 years ago

David had never before heard his parents say that they think homosexuality is a sickness. It clearly surprised him when his father said it. The only thing WE know, from watching all of the scenes of the whole movie, is that David spent years knowing his parents are embarrassed at his sexuality, that they want to avoid being reminded of it. So I have no basis on which to agree with you that he must have been having conversations (like the one I hypothesized) with his parents years before that garage scene. For David to react with tears surprises me, and to go even further into thinking his parents don't want any gay son at all, they'd rather have gotten an abortion if they knew, just strikes me as wrong. Both parents were sitting on the fence about what they might have done, because, after all, the question he was asking them was extremely hypothetical.

David's behavior throughout the garage scene is, as I've been saying, behavior I don't relate to; I don't sympathize with him. I hear Phyllis saying to her son that she loves him, and I see her crying when David claims that "You would have killed me." I hear her denying that she is allowing Suzanne to make the choice (abortion or not) because she would have wanted David to be aborted too. I hear Walter saying that he and Phyllis will always love David, no matter the fact that they (or Walter at least) think David is "sick." But David wants to go away and never see them, speak to them, ever again because he finally found out that his father (mistakenly) believes homosexuality is a sickness? I don't get that. And/or he thinks they both would have definitely decided to get an abortion - IF the genetic technology had been available in the early 1960s, and they knew then what Rob and Suzanne know now?

Finally, yes, Steven explicitly said "forgive them" to David. The "them" was only referring to Walter and Phyllis, not Suzanne, at the time. It was the conversation David and Steven had when they were moving out of the old apartment into a new one; they were loading things into the VW. The way Steven said it was as if he was suggesting that David find some sort of compromise with his parents. So I'm sorry if the way I phrased it before seemed to imply that Steven wanted David to unconditionally forgive his parents. But my bottom line is that I've always thought that Steven's attitude toward David's relationship with his family was healthier than David's own attitude. I simply do not sympathize with why David would want to cut himself off from his parents just because of the things that were said in the garage scene.

Maybe you're right that the argument was long overdue. I had not thought about that before. But:
"She knows what I've been through with you."
"What have you 'been through' with me?"
"I watched my son become something .... different. It hurts David; if you were a parent you'd understand. This isn't what I wanted for you."
"Well get over it!!"
That's not a mature, compassionate, or helpful thing to say to your own mother when she has tears in her eyes, and she is saying that she has always loved you.

Lastly, I've been thinking about having this conversation with some other gay guys. I've thought that we ought to show this movie at a meeting of the St. Louis Gay Men's Social Group and have a discussion of what we think of David's reactions in that scene. Thanks for talking with me about it.

[–] CleverTitania 9 years ago

I never said David knew his parents felt so harshly about his being gay before, I said we know David has defended his sexuality in the past, because of the reaction to mentioning Steven at the first family dinner in the film. We have every reason to believe David has tried to talk openly about his homosexuality and been rebuffed, based on that conversation and others, including his father's obviously repeat attempt in the garage, to change the subject. This is not a family who's only had this conversation once - this is just the first time the conversation has escalated to this level of direct confrontation. But I would find it highly doubtful, that David has never pointed out the fallacy of treating homosexuality as an abomination or a defect before - as strong willed as David is, he wouldn't have tolerated the situation without such conversations taking place.

There is no difference between a parent thinking you're better off dead, and being undecided on whether you're better off dead - both attitudes would cut a person emotionally in the same way. To differentiate between them is cherry picking the same way his parents are already doing. Phyllis and Walter think they should be forgiven for thinking there is something "wrong" with their son's sexual orientation, but trying to care for him anyway. They are wrong. It's only when they try and work to accept all the parts of him, that they do their jobs as parents.

"I hear Walter saying that he and Phyllis will always love David, no matter the fact that they (or Walter at least) think David is "sick."

That is exactly the problem. That statement is completely hypocritical and repugnant, and it's NOT how being a parent works. Hell it's not how being a decent human being works. You do not get to call someone sick and diseased, and then expect "but I love you anyway" to be treated as some kind of ethical compromse. If he'd had a real mental illness where he harmed other people, like a serial killer or a child molester, you can maybe get away with such a statement. But not when the only 'sin' of his character is that he's attracted to men. That's crap.

I don't expect you to identify with David being gay - it seems to me you identify with Steven most of all, and I think that was an important part of Steven's character's function in the story - to point out not every gay person would react to this issue the same way. But I identify with both David and his parents. Because I've known what it's like to be served with that kind of contempt in my life, and because I am a parent, and of a young man who is different in multiple ways. And David's parents do not get to just say "we love you except for this perfectly natural and loving part we find repugnant." If I did that, I would be a horrible mother. It's like saying "God loves you but only if you stop being you." It's an ignorant statement full of contradiction and irrational expectation. If David could've chosen to be gay, in his circumstances, he never would've been.

And again its important not to take Walter's words so literally, as if he genuinely thinks homosexuality is a mental illness. That is not a valid argument at all. These are rational people reacting to prejudice, not confused by misinformation. That's why David gets tired of every weight drop implying he's got HIV, and Phyllis berates herself for telling Suzanne not to eat from David's mouth - because they DO KNOW better. They know damned well that being gay isn't literally a disease, just as they know that David is not going to give Suzanne HIV from the simple fact that he sleeps with a man and she shares his macaroon. Walter's comment to David is a prejudicial and hurtful statement, that Walter makes based on anger, resentment (i.e. privilege), prejudice, age and religious perspectives - that's why Walter says IF there were a cure. He's know there is no cure, because he knows damned well there is no real disease involved.

Also, Steven does not say "forgive them." He says, "But did you ever think it might be more courageous to make things right again? To forgive them?" Again, it's not a subtle distinction. At no point does Steven tell David to forgive, he says that David needs to be willing to talk, work things out and then see if forgiveness is possible. But when he goes on and on about what kind of pain Phyllis is in and how much it's hurting David to cut off his parents, I don't think he gets that for David, trying to maintain a relationship under their current circumstances would be more painful. That more pain is exactly what he's trying to avoid. He doesn't just cry at Walter's harsh words, he gasps - and so does Phyllis, the pain being so palpable on David's face that she becomes nearly hysterical.

No, it's not a mature, compassionate thing to say. But mature and compassionate people say snarky snide things all the time - it doesn't make them snide and snarky people. But my point was; neither is it mature or compassionate to call your child " something different," as if his being gay made him repugnant, immoral or sick and twisted. No parent of any worth, refers to their child as a "something" or uses the word different as a criticism. If my mother said such a thing to me, if she compared my sexual orientation to a trial SHE had to overcome in life, which burdened HER in a way I couldn't understand, she'd hear a lot worse than "get over it." I don't give a *beep* how many tears Phyllis has - the burden is David's, the trial and challenge are his, HE had to find a way to be an openly gay man living in the 90's, surrounded by even liberals who his existence makes uneasy. Her tasks were small and irrelevant by comparison - especially when you later find out they cut off a lot of emotional support, when he came out. It's not just bad parenting to play the "poor me" card in that conversation, it's offensive to the difference between being openly gay and being the parent of someone who is openly gay.

The irony of the film, is that the last one to know is the latest member of the family - i.e. Steven - and he is the first one to say what should be done on his own. Rob wants Suzanne to make the call, Suzanne begs Phyllis to tell her what to do, but Phyllis is too afraid to consider what she would've done in Suzanne's place. And when Suzanne asks Walter what to do, he basically gives her the same vague "hey no one is going to fault you if you have an abortion" response that Rob gives her. Meanwhile Phyllis puts the weight on David's shoulders, while only getting the guts to tell him about the genetic testing after she's told too much in her other story to keep the secret - all because she can't admit to her daughter she might've had an abortion, and it would've been a mistake. But David is so torn at first, because of the pain of that conversation with his parents, that even he isn't sure what Suzanne should do.

I think it's a great movie for open discussions about a lot of hard conversations one has to have in their life, not just about sexual orientation. For instance the family member who I cut out, in many ways my situation was similar to Rob and his father - that family member couldn't handle that I was not a Christian. He said things to me that are equally horrible to the conversations you and I have been talking about, like the garage scene in this film or that one between Arnold and his mom in Torchsong. Even to the degree of suggesting I might be better off dead than how I am. That is sadly something many people will experience in their life, especially if they are from particularly conservative families, where being "different" is too often synonymous with "defective."

Plus, it's always nice to have an honest debate about such things, with people who can be civil and respectful of differences in opinion. So thanks to you too. :)