Anderson Cooper Finally Comes Out: Shocked or Knew It All Along?
SodaHead Celebs
2012/07/02 20:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
174 votes
|
|
20% | |||
|
707 votes
|
|
80% | |||
After years of speculation, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper finally came out of the closet Monday. He didn’t take to the airwaves to share the news. Instead, he wrote an open letter to his friend Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Beast. Anderson Cooper stated, "The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn't be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud." Find out what else he had to say at 1:25 in the video below!
It’s not news to his family and friends, who have been aware of the details of his personal life for a long time. But it does finally bring an end to the speculation that has long been floating around gossip columns and was even the focus of an Out magazine cover story in 2007 entitled “Glass Closet.”
So some might wonder why it took the host of CNN’s “Anderson Cooper: 360” and the syndicated talk daytime show “Anderson” so long to finally speak up about his personal life. As he told Sullivan, “It's become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something – something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true."
But some wonder if Cooper waited too long to come forward and be honest about his personal life. Others wonder if it’s become a bigger story that it might have been because he kept it quiet for so many years. Fans defend his choice saying he has a right to maintain his privacy in any way he chooses. So we ask: Was Anderson Cooper’s announcement shocking -- or did you kind of know that he was gay before he officially announced it?
Read More: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20608652,0...
Top Opinion
-
Libertarian Right 2012/07/03 00:44:07Knew It All Along
Let me tell you something: There is a difference between thinking someone is attractive and being attracted to them. Sexuality of the person doesn't change their attractiveness.
You respond to people with the maturity of a child. If you are not prepared for even these neutral responses on an opinion website, you may wish to look elsewhere. This is an opinion and discussion site: People are going to reply to you.
The reason he kept it hidden was because the vast majority of America used to not condon deviant sexuality, however that was then, this is now and after 25 years of a near constant immersion in all things homosexual, America's attitude has changed radically on the issue.
In another 10 years or so being homosexual will be as common as washing your sox
Next up to bat in America's social engineering Hit parade, NAMBLA., another group of people who are missunderstood and ridiculed, just for being "different". When is America going to finally become enlightened and come out of the dark age's, and realize that what is done in the santicty of the alter of the American bedroom can't possibly hurt society and is nobody's bussiness, right?
The legitimate line between free cultural expression and crime is whether someone is hurting another human being, which violates their own reciprocal freedom. I don't trust Anderson Cooper due to his CIA history (as if the media and CIA weren't already intertwined enough) and complicity with the mainstream media's pathologically dishonest manipulation of the political sphere, but his gayness in particular doesn't hurt anyone. NAMBLA members' abuse of children's bodies for their own gratification does. It has nothing to do with degree: Doing something that personally offends you and actually violating another human being are utterly different in principle.
You must know I was being sacastic about NAMBLA, however that sick bunch is using the same arguments and points about what they do as the homosexuals did when they collectivly began coming out of the closet back in the late '60's. There just seems to be a pattern here, a template if you will that is being followed.
If you could go back in time to just the early '60 or late fifties and tell people how accepted homosexuality would become in American, in the enlightened Y2K's I'm sure you would get shocked looks of disbelief.
We can sit and argue all day long about whether homosexuality is bad for a society or not, and I'm not here to judge someone who elects to live that life style, I had a cousin who was homosexual (deceased), my wifes brother was homosexual (deceased), my Aunts Brother was homosexual (deceased) my best friend's son is homosexual, I have worked with homosexuals and frankly have had no issue at all with either how well they did their job or who they were generally as people.
I just happen to disagree with the life style for my own reasons. nothing more and nothing less.
Either way, it seems I misunderstood your original post a bit. I'm obviously more cavalier about gayness than you, but you have as much of a right to your feelings as anyone, and I don't see you pushing for forceful subjugation here...so, fair enough I guess.
Anyway, I definitely agree with you regarding societal attitudes toward "enlightenment." Young people in particular tend to approach popular thought like it's the pinnacle of philosophical achievement, as though postmodern ideas like moral relativism and the nonexistence of universal truth are themselves absolute truths...quite ironic. The prevailing attitude seems ...
Either way, it seems I misunderstood your original post a bit. I'm obviously more cavalier about gayness than you, but you have as much of a right to your feelings as anyone, and I don't see you pushing for forceful subjugation here...so, fair enough I guess.
Anyway, I definitely agree with you regarding societal attitudes toward "enlightenment." Young people in particular tend to approach popular thought like it's the pinnacle of philosophical achievement, as though postmodern ideas like moral relativism and the nonexistence of universal truth are themselves absolute truths...quite ironic. The prevailing attitude seems to be that there's no value in previous philosophical and artistic periods and trends, like postmodernism won't be overshadowed by newer trends in time, like these newer trends won't react against its excesses and rediscover worthwhile ideas from the past, and like no stronger arguments have ever been or will ever be produced against postmodern assumptions.
This "domination of the present" betrays a serious lack of perspective, and it's especially dangerous when it comes to political trends like socialism that misunderstand human history and walk ignorant of its most critical lessons. (Redistributive socialism is at least not as economically destructive as central planning, but we have more than enough of that too.) I'm sure the attitude has always been common, but not quite like today: Institutional pressures and government/elite influence have robbed academia of its genuine intellectuals and turned them into "useful idiots" who misuse their high intelligence to build sophisticated fortresses of argumentation on a foundation of quicksand, and our highly-connected society is constantly exposed to pervasive media propaganda. Combined, these circumstances have catalyzed an uncommon arrogance among adherents of goodthink, and you're not the only one who worries about it.
To me that would be like deciding that Downs syndrome was a completely normal thing in the human condition and never seek to find ways to reduce or eliminate it.
It is known that some plains Native American tribes tolerated Homosexuals, these young men often said that they had dreams that they were to assume the role of women in the tribe, instead of doing the hunting and engaging war. They were allowed to do so, and often excelled the women at their tasks.
So your point is?
He said it in an open letter to a friend. At least to this point, he has not made a big deal of it and he actually tried to go on not saying it at all. But society only lets you go for so long before they insist on knowing every little detail about you.
Believe it or not, these "coming out parties" mostly exist on Hollywood sensational news stories. They play it up to sell magazines, get hits on websites, etc.
Most only make the "announcement" to their close friends and/or family. Beyond that, you are indeed left to figure it out.