I stand by what I wrote.

I'm sorry to hear that. You have my prayers.

"I don't profess to know what is motivating your posts, as you profess to know what motivated Jimmy's original post..." I see you're not a telepath, either, SDG. We're at such a disadvantage. Especially at the poker table.
"Why should I RE-read the article..." Oh, you must be mistaken, Tim.

Notwithstanding-
Why should I RE-read the article, when you apparently can't be bothered even to fully read my comments?
I commented on the "substance" of the article in previous posts.
But, there is none so blind as him who will not see.

"Listen to yourself..."
I stand by what I wrote.
"Now tell me truthfully that you wrote all that out of a sincere desire to correct sinners according to the spiritual works of mercy."
That is and was exactly my intent.
"Sacred things are sacred, Notwithstanding, not to be invoked as a rhetorical shield. Consider this post a spiritual work of mercy, at least in intent. Take it however you will."
Duly noted.
"Better yet, tell me that you first wrote to Jimmy privately and tried to correct him, as Matthew 18 provides."
Nope, not a chance. Akin doesn't make appointments with those he targets; nor do I. He controls this web site. He knows all too well what goes on here. Again, his silence speaks volumes.
"Or is your brief really for the benefit of Jimmy's readers, not Jimmy himself?"
I would certainly hope that both would benefit.

Notwithstanding, you profess to be engaged in a spiritual work of mercy, but all posturing and rhetoric aside, the tone of your posts leaves the bitter aftertaste of a bitter soul.
I don't profess to know what it is motivating your posts, as you profess to know what motivated Jimmy's original post, nor can I speculate about what moral failings have led to your behavior here, as you have done.
What I can say is that I sense no savor of charity in the stridency of your accusations, no spirit of fraternal correction, no sense of measured judgment willing to see both sides or allow any benefit of the doubt -- nothing but the fierce rhetorical equivalent of going for the kill.
Listen to yourself:
I like you, Jimmy, your bigotry notwithstanding...

Jimmy Akin made the remarks he did for one reason, and that reason is quite evident to me...

Should we, say, now take to calling Jimmy Akin "Liar Jimmy"...

Little wonder you are so reluctant to debate James White. I suspect that you lack the courage to do just that.

Do you think that maybe a guilty conscience, The Eighth Commandment, or just plain cowardice have something to do with Akin's silence?

Now tell me truthfully that you wrote all that out of a sincere desire to correct sinners according to the spiritual works of mercy. Better yet, tell me that you first wrote to Jimmy privately and tried to correct him, as Matthew 18 provides.
Or is your brief really for the benefit of Jimmy's readers, not Jimmy himself?
Sacred things are sacred, Notwithstanding, not to be invoked as a rhetorical shield. Reflect that there is a reason Jesus spoke of motes and planks. Consider this post a spiritual work of mercy, at least in intent. Take it however you will.

"Do you think that maybe a guilty conscience, The Eight Commandment, or just plain cowardice have something to do with Akin's silence?"
Beats me. I don't have telepathic abilities. And I try not to assume, because, when I do, I usually make an--well, I'll leave it at that.

CCC 2358
CCC 2477
Tell me again, Jimmy/Jack, how writing about an article you never read does not involve "rash judgment," particularly when another's reputation is at stake?

"Jimmy Akin and others (yourself included) merely looked to the title of an article that they never read and, in their bigotry, concluded that the article must, therefore, comport with their preconceived and biased notions as to what sort of things appear in gay magazines."
Functional telepaths always amaze me with their abilities.

"How is it that people like you don't fear before God to throw around reckless and unwarranted charges of bigotry, solely on the basis of a mention of a group identity marker?" -- Jack Trehawke
"Really? How nice for you to be able to render such clear moral judgments of other people. You're awfully fond of citing CCC 2358, but you might want to think harder about 2477." -- Jack Trehawke
It is an Act of Mercy, Jack -- a Spiritual Act of Mercy, more specifically -- to (a) instruct the ignorant and (b) admonish the sinner.
Spirtual Acts of Mercy

"If you don't see the headline of the article, "How Gay is Superman?", to be an attempt to re-cast the Man of Steel into a gay icon, I can't help you." -- Tim J.
Tim, I am not a writer, but let's assume that I just wrote an article in which I explored and otherwise went to great lengths to document the well-established, anti-Catholic bigotry of Jimmy Swaggart. My editor, in her wisdom and in an attempt to attract attention to what I wrote, has chosen to ask a rhetorical question when she creates the title for my article. (Writing headlines and creating article titles is generally the job of an editor and not a writer, by the way.) In short, she has looked at what I wrote and entitled my article as follows: "How Catholic is Jimmy Swaggart?"
Now, would any fair-minded person that actually read my article -- as opposed to merely reading the article's title -- conclude that I, the author, was claiming that Swaggart was a Catholic? Of course not!
Jimmy Akin and others (yourself included) merely looked to the title of an article that they never read and, in their bigotry, concluded the article must, therefore, comport with their preconceived and biased notions as to what sort of things appear in gay magazines. (e.g., "Hooray, a gay director makes Superman!") Again, and I would respectfully encourage you to actually read the article, The Advocate article referenced above has nothing whatsoever to do with Superman being a gay icon. It has nothing to do with the Mr. Singer, the movie's director, or Mr. Singer's sexuality. The article had everything to do with gay kids identifying with the secret lives of Superman and other superheros.

A strange phenomenon I notice on the net is what I might call selective subtext reading. That is, there is a subtext to be read if it helps the person's position, but non-existent if it hurts. An example is a curious defense of The Magdeline Sisters by a Catholic no less. After going through the usual absurdity about how any Catholic criticizing must be white-washing, I pointed out that blazingly obvious overall message of the movie was not that Catholics sometimes do bad things, but that ALL religion is pure bunk and a mask for ugly power. The person didn't see it. Truly exasperating.

"The Advocate most certainly has not sought to 'recast Superman as an icon of gay culture.'"
Did you even bother to look at the Advocate cover before mouthing off about it? Or are you merely relying on what others have told you about it?
"Singer's sexual preference is not the 'obvious impetus' for The Advocate article. As was stated earlier in this thread, and as any fair-minded person that actually reads the article himself can readily see, the article has everything to do with gay kids identifying with Superman and other superheros"
You seem to be laboring under the curious delusion that the impetus for an article and the article's subject can always be directly identified with or derived from one another. I would be interested if you had any rational explanation for this unusual belief.
Here is a not very inspired example (hopefully someone else can come up with a better one). Remember the flurry of anti-Bush articles that accompanied the release of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11? Did all those articles necessarily mention Michael Moore or his film? No, but Moore's film was still the impetus for the articles, the cultural fulcrum that gave them leverage. (Obviously Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was about Moore's politics, so it's not a good example that way, but it still serves to illustrate the point that Moore wasn't necessarily mentioned in articles that were occasioned by his film.)
There's a cultural synergy that makes a subject "relevant," like Easter season articles in Newsweek and Time about whether Jesus really existed, and if so whether his summer home was in Tibet or India, and whether Christianity was invented by Constantine or St. Paul, etc. The articles don't mention Easter, but Easter is still the occasion for the piece.
Capice?

Notwithstanding:
What Tim J said, plus this:
I submit to you that had Superman Returns been directed by Brett Ratner... or McG... or Tim Burton... or any of the other directors who floated in and out of the project... the Advocate cover piece would never have happened.
However much or little Singer was mentioned, it was because of Singer's sexuality, and the gay themes in the X-Men films, that Superman became an Advocate cover piece at this time.
Did the Advocate have cover stories on "How Gay is Spider-Man?" or "How Gay is Batman?" coinciding with those films? No? So what's different about Superman, other than a gay director whose sexuality has influenced his previous super hero films?

Notwithstanding -
If you don't see the headline of the article, "How Gay is Superman?", to be an attempt to re-cast the Man of Steel into a gay icon, I can't help you.
The article doesn't even ask if Superman might be gay, but just how gay he is.
Add to that the author's assertion that in the X-Men movies, "mutant" is definitely a metaphor for "gay", and his opinion that superheroes are "totally hot", I don't see your complaint as anything but the product of deep denial.

. Your silence is deafening. Little wonder you are so reluctant to debate James White. I suspect that you lack the courage to do just that.
This is getting slightly rediculous. First off, Notwithstanding, cut it out with the ad hominems. IF you are going to be posting here more often, you should know that there is no faster way to destroy your credibility. The one above is clearly rediculous and you become guilty of what you accuse everyone else of: being too quick to judge.
Jimmy HAS debated James White, but James is obnoxious and a waste of time to debate. Whether you are right or wrong, resorting to ad hominem jabs robs you of any respectibility and puts you on the debating level of a fourth grader.
Jimmy, do you go out of your way to mention to your readers the sexual preferences of heterosexual people as well? (e.g., You know, Bob is really a nice guy, his heterosexuality notwithstanding.) How about when race is involved? (e.g., I enjoy reading Thomas Sowell, notwithstanding the color of his skin.)
Jimmy's remark was clearly in context: Bryan's sexual orientation would seemingly affect his position on this. Race has nothing to do with ones writing, nor does sexuality affect niceness. Sexuality does, however, generally affect one's perception of others' sexuality. Entire books have been written on that very topic (Gaydar, for one). When a director is notorious for inserting pro-gay (subtle or overt) themes into his movies, its even more so appropriate.
Finally, whether or not this article specifically mentions it, the attempt by the gay community to take over generally innocent icons is extremely well documented. Just look at the rainbow! 50 years ago, it was a sign of God's covenant. Fast forward 50 years, and a third grader drawing a rainbow is derisively labelled a "fag" by his
classmates. And thats no imagined example. I was in the classroom when that happened.
-El S.

Clearly, I need a little more practice with these HTML tags.
Here is The Advocate article mentioned above:
Advocate Article
Here is the word counter mentioned above:
Word Counter

A while back I posted HERE regarding the efforts of gay-advocacy magazine The Advocate to recast Superman as an icon of gay culture. -- Jimmy Akin
But the Advocate IS trying to recast Superman as a gay culture icon, just like has been done with Judy Garland or the Marlboro Man or others. -- Tim J
You've got to be kidding. Singer's sexual preference is the obvious impetus for the Advocate piece (hooray, a gay director making Superman!) -- Jack Trehawke
As you can see for yourself if you re-read my post, I never said the article was ABOUT Singer's sexuality. I said Singer's sexuality was the IMPETUS for it. "Gay director does Superman" is not the article's thesis, but the cultural fulcrum that gives it leverage. -- Jack Trehawke
Momma Akin didn't raise any children dumb enough to critique another person's position without having locked-down, verified, verbatim quotations of recent origin. -- Jimmy Akin ("You're so vain" thread, June 2006)
For the record, Here is the Advocate article that Akin, et al NEVER read before writing about it
According to this handy, dandy Cut & Paste Word Counter, there approximately 1,994 words in The Advocate article that prompted not only this thread, but one earlier thread started by Jimmy Akin. In only one sentence in that long article is Bryan Singer mentioned. (That sentence, quoted earlier, speaks to the Mr. Singer's apparent skill at picking out costumes that, according to the article's author, make an actor look good.)
That said, and with respect to the quotes above, I submit the following:
(1) The Advocate most certainly has not sought to "recast Superman as an icon of gay culture." You should have listened to "Mama," Jimmy, before writing about an article you never read. Your silence is deafening. Little wonder you are so reluctant to debate James White. I suspect that you lack the courage to do just that.
(2) That fact is not changed simply because Tim J reiterates a false premise, or because he capitalizes the word "is" in his last post on the topic. Please refer to the text of the article that supports your position, Tim J. Incidentally, in what Advocate issue can I find mention of "The Marlboro Man," much less The Advocate's, devious plot to make him, like Superman, an icon of gay culture?
(3) Singer's sexual preference is not the "obvious impetus" for The Advocate article. As was stated earlier in this thread, and as any fair-minded person that actually reads the article himself can readily see, the article has everything to do with gay kids identifying with Superman and other superheros because those characters, like themselves, have certain aspects of their lives that they feel must remain hidden. The article had everything to do with gay kids. It had nothing whatsoeverto do with Bryan Singer or Mr. Singer's sexuality.
(4) You should have listened to Akin's Mama as well, Jack, before mouthing off on an article that you never read. You are grasping at straws when ramble on about "leverage" and "cultural fulcrum." Again, the "obvious impetus" for the article was gay kids, not gay directors. And that fact won't change, no matter how desperately you try to salvage your original post on this thread. "Cultural fulcrum" ... LOL Thanks for the chuckle, buddy.
I'll write more on Sunday if need be. Right now, however, I have a house full of Irish and Portuguese that are very much celebrating England's humiliating defeat in the Quarter Finals of the World Cup.
Incidentally, thanks, Scott, for the tip on HTML tags.

"If there is ever a Liar's Pride Week I assure you there will be more commentary on the wrongness of lying."
Psst ... Lying is a sin; being gay is not a sin.
I am fully aware of that. I believe anyone could see that I was showing the fallacy of the argument that because we don't comment on x we are hypocrites for commenting on y. Seeing that there is a major public movement to harrangue the world into saying that homosexual acts are good, and that there is no movement out to convince the world that lying is good (at least none I am aware of, it is perfectly reasonable to comment on the wrongness of homosexual acts. That is, unless someone wants to make the absurd claim that the Gay Pride Week has nothing to do with the act itself.
P.S. To make italics (or bold, etc) use standard HTML tags. I don't know how to show it, but seach for a basic HTML tutorial online if yo uare not familiar with it.

"Lying is a sin; being gay is not a sin." That depends on what you mean by being gay. If "being gay" means being attracted to someone of the same sex, you are correct. If it means acting out on that attraction, you are incorrect. Someone who is tempted to lie is not committing a sin unless he acts on that temptation. Being angry is not a sin; losing self-control and acting on that anger is.

"A little tip for Jimmy Akin and his pseudonyms"
Bzzzt! Sorry Hans, wrong guess! Would you like to go for Double Jeopardy, where the scores can really change?
"As you can see for yourself, this long article barely makes any mention of Bryan Singer and his sexuality."
As you can see for yourself if you re-read my post, I never said the article was ABOUT Singer's sexuality. I said Singer's sexuality was the IMPETUS for it. "Gay director does Superman" is not the article's thesis, but the cultural fulcrum that gives it leverage.
"Are you relying, once again, on what others perceive to be these 'gay-themed subtexts?' Your assertion is as funny as it is false."
Um, no, I saw the first two X-Men movies for myself. Are you seriously denying the gay subtext of the X2 "coming-out" scene? If you think that's funny, you must think movie reviews are hilarious, since the critics see it.
"Incidentally, do you spend a lot of time looking for 'gay-themed subtexts,' Jack?"
I look at subtext. Christian, Marxist, gay, conservative, liberal, doesn't matter to me. Do you spend a lot of time ignoring subtexts? Or have you just never given the matter much thought?
"He had even less reason to feign shock that Singer's sexuality didn't influence his work."
Stop. Be honest, "Notwithstanding." Reread the post above, and tell yourself, if not me, whether you really think the language evinces "shock."
"Jimmy Akin made the remarks he did for one reason, and that reason is quite evident to me."
Really? How nice for you to be able to render such clear moral judgments of other people. You're awfully fond of citing CCC 2358, but you might want to think harder about 2477.

I see. Should we now take to placing the terms "gay", "lesbian," or "homosexual" before the names of each homosexual person we reference? (e.g., "Frank, I would like to introduce you to my friend, Homosexual Bob." How about "Where is Lesbian Theresa? She should have been here an hour ago.") Is that what you had in mind, Scott?
No. And nothing in my comments remotely suggests this.
And since we are going out of our way to point out "evil" whenever the opportunity presents itself to us,
I never suggested this. I DID suggest that when people try to tell us the depraved act is good, when need to say no it isn't.
would we be wrong to limit ourselves to just those who are gay? Should we, say, now take to calling Jimmy Akin "Liar Jimmy," in large part because he falsely claimed that The Advocate sought "to recast Superman as an icon of gay culture" when it is clear that The Advocate did nothing of the kind? (See the very start of this thread.)
If there is ever a Liar's Pride Week I assure you there will be more commentary on the wrongness of lying.
Another blogger recently started a separate thread on Nathaniel Hawthorne. I don't know if you are familiar with Hawthorne's work or not, Scott. That said, might I suggest you consider reading his great work, "The Scarlet Letter." I suspect that you will quickly identify with some of the more self-righteous characters in that classic novel.
I'm familiar with Hawthorne. No I don't identify with the self-righteous characters. But since you thought to quote the Catechism lets look at the context. I AGREE "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
But I also agree that:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

But the Advocate IS trying to recast Superman as a gay culture icon, just like has been done with Judy Garland or the Marlboro Man or others.
It's a legitimate topic for discussion to which Singer's sexual orientation is relevant, therefore your whining is pointless.
If Singer is gay, why shouldn't he be identified as such? What about gay pride?

"But the act itself is intrisicly [sic] evil and must be stated so."
I see. Should we now take to placing the terms "gay", "lesbian," or "homosexual" before the names of each homosexual person we reference? (e.g., "Frank, I would like to introduce you to my friend, Homosexual Bob." How about "Where is Lesbian Theresa? She should have been here an hour ago.") Is that what you had in mind, Scott?
And since we are going out of our way to point out "evil" whenever the opportunity presents itself to us, would we be wrong to limit ourselves to just those who are gay? Should we, say, now take to calling Jimmy Akin "Liar Jimmy," in large part because he falsely claimed that The Advocate sought "to recast Superman as an icon of gay culture" when it is clear that The Advocate did nothing of the kind? (See the very start of this thread.)
Another blogger recently started a separate thread on Nathaniel Hawthorne. I don't know if you are familiar with Hawthorne's work or not, Scott. That said, might I suggest you consider reading his great work, "The Scarlet Letter." I suspect that you will quickly identify with some of the more self-righteous characters in that classic novel.
http://www.bartleby.com/83/

"Singer's sexual preference is the obvious impetus for the Advocate piece (hooray, a gay director making Superman!) and therefore has immediate bearing on the story."
Wrong! Did you even bother to read the Advocate piece before mouthing off about it, much less before speaking to the "obvious impetus" that prompted that magazine to write about Superman in the first place? Or did you, much like Jimmy Akin did, merely rely on what the LA Times, Matt Drudge and/or others had to say about the Advocate article, rather than read it yourself?
Since you obviously didn't read the Advocate article before writing about it, here's a clue for you, "Jack," as to why the article was written in the first place: " ... The Advocate story did not suggest that the superhero is gay but instead described how the secret lives of superheroes resonate with LGBT youth who must conceal important things about themselves."
Source: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid32138.asp
Incidentally, here is a link to the original "Advocate" article:
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid3174...
As you can see for yourself, this long article barely makes any mention of Bryan Singer and his sexuality. Indeed, all the article seems to say about Mr. Singer is the following: "Not for nothing[, but] does gay director Bryan Singer have an eye for how to make the Superman suit most flattering to Brandon Routh in Superman Returns[?]"
That's a pretty far cry from "Hooray, a gay director making Superman!!" But then again, I don't suspect that someone who writes falsely about that which he does not know, would be at all concerned with writing truthfully.
(A little tip for Jimmy Akin and his pseudonyms: They don't allow hearsay evidence in courts for a reason. GO DIRECTLY TO THE SOURCE NEXT TIME, JIMMY, particularly if you are in the habit of criticizing others [e.g., journalists] about not checking their facts before writing.)
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/10/journalist_incr.h...
"Also, as noted above, Singer has interjected gay-themed subtexts into previous projects, including the X-Men films."
Are you relying, once again, on what others perceive to be these "gay-themed subtexts?" Your assertion is as funny as it is false. Incidentally, do you spend a lot of time looking for "gay-themed subtexts," Jack? ;-)
"So yeah, it's directly pertinent that Singer - notwithstanding his own preferences and his history of those preferences influencing his work - denies that there is any of that going on here."
What's Jimmy going to speak to next? Let me guess ... "Notwithstanding the fact that he is an Italian-American, Anthony claims that he isn't in the Mafia. Go figure." ... Or how about ... "Despite being Jewish, Ira gladly picked up the check and insisted to his friends that he'll pay for their lunch." Or how about ..."Surprisingly, Lamont, a black guy, left a decent tip."
Bryan Singer never mentioned his sexual preferences in connection with the new Superman movie. The Advocate article -- a long article, at that-- only made a brief, passing reference to Singer and his sexuality, and in no way suggested that Singer's sexuality had influenced the new Superman movie whatsoever. In short, Jimmy Akin had precious little reason whatsoever to mention Mr. Singer's sexual preference. He had even less reason to feign shock that Singer's sexuality didn't influence his work. Jimmy Akin made the remarks he did for one reason, and that reason is quite evident to me.
Once again, "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC 2358)
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm

"Singer's own sexual preferences notwithstanding"
Jimmy, do you go out of your way to mention to your readers the sexual preferences of heterosexual people as well? (e.g., You know, Bob is really a nice guy, his heterosexuality notwithstanding.) How about when race is involved? (e.g., I enjoy reading Thomas Sowell, notwithstanding the color of his skin.)
As heterosexual acts are normal and natural behavior, there is no need to mention it anymore than mentioning the nose on people's faces. Being black of course is not sinful in any way, so that comparison does not follw.
Incidentally, doesn't the Catechism (2358) say with respect to homosexuals that "they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" and that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided?"
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm
Yep. But the act itself is intrisicly evil and must be stated so. Just as we have compassion for the alcoholic but insist his drinking is wrong and must stop.
I like you, Jimmy, your bigotry notwithstanding.
As the shoe does not fit, I don't expect Jimmy will wear it.

"Jimmy, do you go out of your way to mention to your readers the sexual preferences of heterosexual people as well?"
You've got to be kidding. Singer's sexual preference is the obvious impetus for the Advocate piece (hooray, a gay director making Superman!) and therefore has immediate bearing on the story. Also, as noted above, Singer has interjected gay-themed subtexts into previous projects, including the X-Men films.
So yeah, it's directly pertinent that Singer - notwithstanding his own preferences and his history of those preferences influencing his work - denies that there is any of that going on here.
How is it that people like you don't fear before God to throw around reckless and unwarranted charges of bigotry, solely on the basis of a mention of a group identity marker?
If you read this blog regularly, you can't say you didn't know any better. Jimmy's already laid out the moral bankruptcy of this type of ad hominem HERE.
Incidentally, if like James White you have trouble with the semantic range of the term "ad hominem," see HERE.

"Singer's own sexual preferences notwithstanding"
Jimmy, do you go out of your way to mention to your readers the sexual preferences of heterosexual people as well? (e.g., You know, Bob is really a nice guy, his heterosexuality notwithstanding.) How about when race is involved? (e.g., I enjoy reading Thomas Sowell, notwithstanding the color of his skin.)
Incidentally, doesn't the Catechism (2358) say with respect to homosexuals that "they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" and that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided?"
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm
I like you, Jimmy, your bigotry notwithstanding.

Yes, Singer is gay.
If you arent looking for it in his stuff, you probably wont see it, as almost none of it is overt. But subtle references are there, such as Bobby Drake's "coming out" to his parents in X2.
-El S.

"Singer's own sexual preferences notwithstanding."
So . . . is Bryan Singer gay, then?
I've always enjoyed his work, and if he is gay, I really appreciate that it hasn't shown up too much in any of the stuff I've seen (although a few episodes of House get a bit too close for comfort).