Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Mickey Rourke: Rugby star Gareth Thomas had great courage to come out as gay

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Not gonna lie, I laughed at his refusal to apologise. Smooth.

    Anyway, but he looks nothing like Gareth Thomas. He would have to shave his entire head.

  2. Steve@GayWebHosting 28 Dec 2010, 9:33am

    Well, if he thinks that ´faggot´ can be applied to someone as an insult, and that it isnt even worth apologizing for, then no doubt he can easily understand the courage shown by Gareth in Mr Rourke´s favorite macho-sport in coming out as gay.

    Thats what its about for this Hollywood ´star´ really. A film about a rugby player who showed great courage. Not specifically about being gay and being considered a worthy human being.

    Yeah, I agree that it would make a good film, but Mr ´you faggot´ Rourke playing Gareth? No thanks Mr Rourke. Plenty of ´macho´ straight parts around for you to take!

    See the article in Pink News yesterday about the difficulty in Hollywood for out gay actors? Well, lets see an out gay actor, someone who has shown a similar level of courage in his own profession play Gareth!

    Mickey Rourke playing Gareth Thomas? I wouldnt go see it!

  3. How is Gareth Johnston a gay role model he got married stayed in the closet and cheated on his wife..Gareth may be out but its too soon to put so much pressure on him. Let GAreth find his true identitiy before these money grabbers start tearing strips off him. The film will not be made if it will not make money Hollywood is not know for its charity

  4. I hope Mickey isn’t planning on playing Gareth Thomas in a film. He’ss 22 tears older than Thomas. At 58 he would simply look ridiculous (moreso than he already does with his horrific, melted face.)

  5. I don’t see why he should Apologise. If anyone should apologise, it should be the ‘Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’ for being such whiney little assholes who view everything remotely negative as ‘ZOMG EXTREME HOMOPHOBIA!!!!111′ and make us all look like a bunch of twatty little Queens.

    As much as I like Rourke, I don’t think he’d suit the roll very well. As people say, he’s just to old for it.

  6. Nathan – is homophobic abuse less serious than racist abuse?

  7. Wow, he REALLY wants an Oscar

  8. No Dave, but what Rourke said wasn’t homophobic abuse.

  9. Nathan – I don’t understand why you don’t consider Rourke’s words as homophobic abuse. Would it, in your view, be acceptable for Rourke to have called the reporter the racist n-word?

  10. No matter how good an actor MR is, common sense should tell Gareth that another actor would be best suited for the role.
    How do we get this message across to him?
    I will not spend $10 plus popcorn/Coke cost to see this movie, unless someone sexier plays the role.
    Philippe in Anchorage

  11. Dave – No, but the N-word only has one definition. When you say it, you mean one thing and one thing alone. Faggot, gay, and other such words have lots of different connotations and are absolutely fine to use as a general way of expressing dislike without automatically implying that there’s something homosexual involved. Just like you can call someone a bitch without implying that they have the characteristics of a female dog or bastard without implying anything about their parents marital status. They’re just words.

  12. johnny2hats 29 Dec 2010, 7:03pm

    Nathan – the word “faggot” has only one commonly understood meaning, and that is a derogatory term for a gay man. If you call someone who is not gay a “faggot” you are attempting to denigrate them by comparing them to a gay man, with the implication usually being that they are somehow not “manly” enough. The connection to homosexuality isn’t magically removed just because you say it is.

  13. Actually, yes it is. That is in fact exactly the way language works. Words mean what you want them to mean and if someone else misinterprets you because of their pathetic sensitivities, that’s their problem, not yours.

    (Disclaimer, this statement does not cover speaking complete gibberish and expecting people to understand or any other such sarcastic suggestion you may be thinking of making at this point, so don’t bother trying)

  14. I can’t see this film being made. The script is being “worked on” and finance not yet secured. The Americans and Hollywood know nothing of and couldn’t care less about rugby and probably care even less for homosexuality (especially in movies). “Invictus” struggled to get finance because of the rugby theme and that film featured Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. It was a critical success but a commerical flop. Mickey Rourke is not a big enough star to get this started. Studios look at demographics. The average movie going age is somewhere in the teens in the US. No major studio will fund it; to them, its a case of a coming out story of a rugby player no one has heard of.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all