What the Grammy’s same-sex wedding ceremony didn’t show you, but why?

First watch and see what you see — or don’t see — during the ceremony what was missing. (Ceremony starts at 4:30)

______________________________________________

What is the apex of any wedding ceremony?

When Queen Latifah announced to the betrothed that they are now a married couple, CBS didn’t show them embracing in their first kiss.  Why not?  Did The Grammy Award Show or CBS ask that the couples not kiss when announced that they’re married?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  Why, if holding the mass same-sex wedding was intended to show how tolerant and accepting CBS the Grammy Awards is toward homosexuals, would they omit the “best part” of the ceremony?

If they did it to avoid offending viewers who might be sensitive to the whole thing, they’re too late.  Someone inclined to be offended by two men or two women kissing has already been offended by the ceremony itself.  How much could they claim to be “for the cause” if they still censor the fabric of homosexuality: the sexual affection?

It seems there’s a limit to CBS’s and the Grammy’s willingness to show support for same-sex marriage.  I thought it was odd to make such a grand spectacle and then pull the reins at the last minute like that. Perhaps they’ve been taken in by the unspoken attitude that “whoever is not for us is against us”. That, or CBC is just trying to play both sides of the coin.

Comments

  1. I noticed that last night. It looked like it would happen for a second but then the camera quickly panned away at the last moment.

    Plus, you gotta love the mimicking of stained glass windows on stage.

  2. All that reveals is parochial cultural lenses — in my opinion. Let me explain.
    I spent two years in South and was an Indian cultural fan for much longer.
    Two of my several hobbies there were street gambling and cinema. At least twice a week I’d go out to a theater to watch Indian movies.
    In Indian movies, kissing was not allowed to be shown, yet alone all the rest. “Kissing?”, I thought, “How Victorian?”

    My culture was much more lenient. But even Americans traveling in India would get in trouble for kissing in public — actually all over Asia. Kissing is private in the sensibilities of much of the world.

    When I visited Europe last year with my son, I had to teach him new sensibilities: Kissing strangers in France, and undressing on a public dock in Germany to swim. Wow, cultures vary.

    I guess I am a bit of a prude. I have always disliked kissing in Western weddings. I think the custom is perverse. But that is my sensibility and I know it is not everyones. My wife likes to kiss occasionally in public — I oblige but find it a bit odd.

    So, being care of sensibilities, I get that. Sensibilities take time to change.
    Basing your theology on sensibilities — now that is odd.

  3. @ John Barron,
    Odd that you would walk away with that impression. Maybe I write to subtly for you. Before responding, I will see if maybe Terrance understood my point or if any other of your readers do. Maybe it is a problem with my writing — though I suspect not.

  4. @John,
    I would agree that the networks don’t mind offending conservative Christian sensibilities. Do you think my comment argues against that point?

    Your comments don’t reveal that you really understand my comment, though. What do you think my comment says????

    You said,

    It seems there’s a limit to CBS’s and the Grammy’s willingness to show support for same-sex marriage.

    Do you think that not showing a kiss is part of that? Do you think it was all part of just playing both sides? I think my comment addresses that. But, again, I don’t think you understand my point — maybe I was not black-and-white enough, perhaps? Again, I hope another reader jumps in.

  5. Or, John, are you saying — “Look, the repugnance we all naturally feel at watching gays kiss shows the truth of God’s natural law. That is why the stations don’t show it.”

  6. Sabio, you make some interesting comments about cutural differences.

    I grew up in a very Old World European culture. One of our cultural norms was greeting each other with kisses. We said hello with a kiss on each cheek, or even a kiss on the lips. Men kissed men. Women kissed women. It made no difference. Likewise, at our local socials (a type of dance party/fundraiser that apparently exists only in Manitoba) I went to as a child, I remember seeing quite a few older women dancing polkas and waltzes together, or walking around holding hands, while many of the men were off somewhere else, drinking and talking. Everyone hugged. Everyone. Today, you couldn’t do that without someone thinking you were coming on to the person you were greeting, and if that person was the same gender as yourself, people would think you were gay.

    None of it was the least bit sexual, or course. THAT, I never saw. “Romantic” kissing. A couple might hold hands, but you’d never see anyone sucking face. I didn’t start seeing that until I reached my teen years, and even then, it was minimal.

    If you’re suggesting that they didn’t show the kissing due to some sort of cultural sensitivity, I completely disagree. I don’t think the networks give a rip.

    As to your beating around the bush with John, let me explain what may be a cultural difference. Talking around the point rather than saying it right out is not only annoying, but disrespectful. It’s not you being “subtle.” In my experience, people who talk in circles around what they want to say are 1) intellectually deficient or 2) rude and arrogant. Sometimes they’re both. I recognise that some cultures consider it rude to say things blunty, but would rather spent 10 minutes to avoid saying what would take 30 seconds, these are often the same cultures that consider it perfectly okay to lie, threaten and manipulate. I have no respect for them.

  7. @ Kunoichi (? くノ一 = 女 ),
    Great example.
    If the show wants to help people understand homosexuality outside of the century old model as a peversion and a disgusting afront to Yahweh, then they need to present it in a way that does not trigger disgust. Kissing can trigger disgust if one is not use to it and certainly most folks in the US are not. So, not showing the kissing was a wise move, given their objectives.

    It was not, I think, because they limited their support (as John suggests) — just the opposite. John thought is was odd that they pulled that part, I don’t think it odd at all but wise. But then John doesn’t have their objective so he uses a weak argument.

    As to your last point, you seemed to be beating around the bush. I don’t know who you were addressing or criticizing. Or if you were just telling us your sensibilities.

    I hope I was clear.

    • Sabio, I addressed you, by name, right at the beginning, referenced your comments to John, then explained exactly what the problem was, as I saw it. How could you not know I was addressing you? How was I beating around the bush? Or do you not understand what the term means?

  8. Hmmm, break down. Return to the first part of my comment. Try responding to that. Your attacks are uninviting. I am ready to leave as I often do from John’s threads.
    Stick to the discussion

    • Sabio: first, I did respond to your first comment when I said “If you’re suggesting that they didn’t show the kissing due to some sort of cultural sensitivity, I completely disagree. I don’t think the networks give a rip.”

      I also specifically said that your comments about culture re: kissing were interesting, then illustrated by example of my own cultural upbringing.

      I then suggested your “beating around the bush” responses to John were “what may be a cultural difference” and explained how it came across. I then illustrated, based on my experience, as to why.

      If you see that as an attack on you, personally, then you seem to be proving my point. In fact, based on my experience, your affrontery is right on script.

      Since I addressed your comment, and your references to culture as being a possible reason, directly, I am not sure how you can claim that I am not sticking to the discussion.

  9. LIke Sabio said, not airing the kiss was a prudent decision on CBS’ part. It may be for the reasons he mentioned, but personally, I suspect they feared the same backlash A&E endured after suspending Phil Robertson. Or, perhaps they had in mind several reasons, including those listed here.

  10. Thanx TerranceH, I was awaiting a rational voice.

  11. “If the show wants to help people understand homosexuality…”

    I don’t think that’s quite accurate, even if they proclaim that as an intention. Most who oppose homosexual behavior understand it quite well. That’s why such displays are forced upon the public. They can’t deal with the fact that the behavior is so well understood, so they try to portray it in as benign a light as possible. This attempt to deceive does not work, as it simply shines attention on the disordered behavior.

    More directly, this is an in-your-face attack on opponents of the behavior. It is proof that they intend to shove their immorality down our throats until we, like non-muslims, convert or pay a no-contest jizya. And the more radical proponents have no problem with the death of those who oppose the legitimization of the behavior, so the muslim metaphor is spot on.

    Cutting it short of tongue wrestling, however, is likely a consideration of protest that such displays would provoke. Network wallets are at risk.

  12. It is proof that they intend to shove their immorality down our throats.

    LOL !
    Just turn off your damn TV.
    Actually, I didn’t know of the story until I read it here. We don’t get cable at our house. We just watch the movies we want to watch.
    But if you sit blanked face in front of a TV for your nourishment, you can’t call that “showing down our throats”.
    LOL — I forgot Marshall’s vehemence.

  13. Sabio,

    Is there something you find problematic with one having passion for one’s position? It is more than obvious that proponents of SSM are vehement in their desire to further their agenda, as evidenced by this very display during the Emmys. And of course you demonstrate some yourself in your inane suggestion that I merely turn off my TV as if I must give up my own desire for entertainment in order to placate the misguided intentions of corrupt activists and their enablers. And of course it is shoving their immorality down the throats of America as they choose to do this during a show expected to have great draw.

    Of course, I haven’t forgotten your pompous arrogance and condescension. I just see no legitimate basis for it.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: