Thought experiment
If Andrew Sullivan weren’t gay himself, considering his politics, would he be crusading so forcefully for the civil rights of gay people?
Archives
- January 2022
- September 2021
- June 2020
- June 2018
- February 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- June 2004
- May 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
- May 2002
- April 2002
- March 2002
- February 2002
- January 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- October 2001
- September 2001
- August 2001
- July 2001
- June 2001
- May 2001
- April 2001
- March 2001
- February 2001
- January 2001
- December 2000
- November 2000
- October 2000
- September 2000
- August 2000
- July 2000
- June 2000
Because he holds this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal? I don’t want to sleep with most of the people I meet, but I don’t begudge them their civil rights. What a weird question.
I don’t find it to be a strange question at all, considering the fact that the social conservative spectrum includes people for whom homosexuality should still be punishable by law. Your own open-mindedness does nothing to wipe away the appalling conservative record on gay and lesbian issues.
Took the words right out of my mouth, John.
What about the rest of the social spectrum, who could care less unless you rub their face in it, in which case they will be annoyed at your specific behaviour, but not necessarily at everyone who looks like you. Tell me, is soi-disant “Gay Bashing” mostly a male thing? It seems like it is. It seems the ones who suffer most, and the ones who make others suffer most are men.
I guess my gut reaction to your question is – DUH! Just look at his forceful crusades on behalf of the civil rights of groups that he doesn’t belong to – oh wait, there are none!
TJ, the exact definition of “rubbing one’s face in it” is made almost meaningless by the de facto social inequity between heterosexual and homosexual desire. It might be acceptable to have a television show like “Temptation Island” on the air, or the women I work with might talk about how his uniform accentuates the tight buns on the “Italian Stallion” in the booking area without any response but a groan or twittering assent; yet I mention that I have a boyfriend and for some people, I’m rubbing their faces in my sex life. Why is this? Am I depicting sex acts, while the heterosexuals around me are engaging in good clean fun? Or is it that there is a baseline social presumption that homosexuality is about depraved sex acts while heterosexuality, despite its racy pecadilloes, is essentially about love and family and children and blond girls smiling in slow motion with American flags waving behind them?
Your anonymous comments shield you from the one thing sexual issues demand most: responsibility.
Get over it. If homosexuality prevents you from participating in the kinds of shows and conversations you list above, then I am all for it. We need more. I am married to an Italian man, but re: discussions of his or anyones buns etc. are just vulgar, and kind of boring actually. I mean, is this oppression? It has never occured to me that the fact that I have no interest in any of that, OR discussing the “juicy details” ofmy sex life means there is something wrong with me. There are probably about a billion other things that are on TV, or fairly commonplace that I don’t want to get involved with either. I have a son, and if it turns out that he’s gay, the only drawback I can think of is that having his own family might be harder than if her weren’t. But several of my (7) siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins are either single or living with a partner, no kids. So it isn’t the worst thing. Can’t you rise above and follow the lead of Gore Vidal, or even George Clooney? Does your life have to be about what you can’t have?
I don’t think that following the lead of a couple of ridiculously wealthy men who can have their legal and social cake and eat it too is either meaningful nor desirable. People who choose to live unmarried are choosing to live unmarried. People who must live unmarried don’t have that choice, and there are very real financial, legal and societal ramifications for that. I think that playing the “whining” card is a convenient way to gloss over actual day-to-day living issues. If same-sex marriage were legalized, a whole bunch of people would simply shut up, because there would be nothing to complain about.
Your arguments strike me as similar to bad child custodianship:
KID to ADULT: Those kids over there won’t let me swing on the swingset ever. They said it’s only for “cool” kids.
ADULT to KID: Why would you want to use the swing anyway? Look at all the other kids who don’t swing. They don’t need to swing. Why do you keep whining about the fact that you can’t swing?
Replace “swing” with “have the legal protections of marriage” and there’s your whole argument. Not compelling.
OK, your whining has convinced me. I’m sorry you don’t like your sexual orientation, or rather that you feel excluded. Of course, I don’t like my thighs, wearing glasses or my ethnic origins, some health issues I prefer not to share, but I’m sure whatever other inconvenient thing I can’t do anything about is just as ridiculous as anyone else’s problems except yours. It seems to me that the financial benefits of being married were originally intended as a kind of insurance to people who were the “breadwinners” that members of that family who were unable to support themselves would be taken care of in case of death, or disability. This would be women born before the 70s and minor children. Since traditional marriages in this country, with flags, blonds, etc. split up at a rate of about 50%, it might be even higher for couples with additional stresses such as social ostracism. I don’t know. It is hard for me to see what benefit a change in legal status between homosexuals would bring. Do you think being married would change popular opinion, and suddenly make everything easier? Also, it seems like it would attract rampant abuse, with roomates and passing acquaintances declaring themselves entitled to various tax breaks etc. I admire Gore Vidal and George Clooney for their grace in handling their alternative lifestyles. Unlike John Kush, I don’t assume that money dissolves all problems, and that their private reasons for their actions are all happy easy ones. Who knows? Who cares? Its their business. I admire their grace under pressure. They don’t lie, they don’t apologize, they don’t pretend. They have better things to do than mope. Vidal, in particular, I think you’ll find, has been somewhat of an iconoclast, coming out in the 50’s, openly proclaiming his homosexuality. I believe his early life was very difficult, but somehow he managed to achieve a reputation as a highly respected author and statesman. If I were a gay man, I would study him. If I were a gay woman, I would study Allred and Paglia. Anyway, the idea of speculating on whether or not public figures are gay, or whether anyone is or isn’t is distasteful to me. Like people who divide the world up into who is and isn’t Jewish, or who is or isn’t white trash, or whatever. Are they or aren’t they good enough, seems to be the question, based on something so irrelavant as these things. It is racism, it is ugly, it is wrong. Also, it is meaningless.
Again, you completely ignore the reality of marriage: in the eyes of the state (as opposed to various churches) it is a legal contract that bestows financial and legal benefits upon its participants. These real-world benefits should be available to everyone who enters into a lifelong partnership. It’s an issue of basic fairness and equity, and the denial of marriage benefits to same-sex couples has real-world detrimental effects. I don’t care about Vidal or Clooney, as their relative wealth and power shield them from much of the financial realities that face everyday same-sex couples.
Whether you can personally see the benefits of same-sex marriage changes nothing. It is for same-sex couples to decide whether marriage is right for them — just like heterosexual couples get to decide. It is not for people like you to decide. I will not be told how to be a good homosexual by anyone, much less some straight woman who doesn’t know me.
Just about everything else you mentioned in your post above comes straight out of your ass. You’re projecting attitudes onto me without knowing who I am. Whoever you are.
i wonder how many straight people are told to study and copy the lives of famous straight people? “”YOU – straight person – unhappy??? model yourself on Madonna – sure she gets criticized a lot, and has had a couple of bad films, but she bounces right back and seems to be doing okey dokey now.”
and btw, if you ask Gore Vidal if he’s gay, he’ll laugh at you. He is an avowed bisexual. And I seriously doubt that he thinks he should be the role model for ANY class of people.
Well, all hetero, homo, mono and non sexual people are told to follow models. “Mentoring” comes up pretty consistently as a factor for success in any big human development area. Madonna is a great role model, why not? She has certainly played her hand well, achieved a lot of her goals, and made the most of what she has withought any sour grapes that I ever heard of. She takes her failures on the chin and keeps coming back for another round. I have no doubt that if a thing can be done, she will get it right eventually. If I were looking for an example of how to deal with public criticism with a refreshing “I don’t owe you d–k” attitude, she would be perfect. I don’t know how she deals with her detractors personally, but I don’t see her crying on the way to the bank. Further, I am not going to tell you how to be a good homosexual, because I HAVE NO INTEREST. I am kind of interested in the ideas you present of dealing with exclusion, alienation, marriage which doesn’t serve the traditional purpose of raising a family, (and by the way, you still haven’t clarified what are the advantages of society recognizing such unions). For, as hard as it may be for you to see right now, those are issues that are not exclusive to homosexuals. And whether or not Vidal is or is not homosexual, he certainly thinks he is, has written many, many books from that point of view, Williwaw, his first book when he got out of the military, for one. He was publicly and quite viciously insulted during a TV debate once, and he never lost a beat. He’s a sick, tired fat old man now, but he had his day, and he’s still out there going against the grain of popular opinion. I think he just wrote another book, which, you”ll notice, many people find annoying, but they never quite dismiss him.
“I am kind of interested in the ideas you present of dealing with exclusion, alienation, marriage which doesn’t serve the traditional purpose of raising a family, (and by the way, you still haven’t clarified what are the advantages of society recognizing such unions).”
You’re spending a lot of time on the subject for someone with no interest. Telling.
Here’s a simple logical proof that “society” (which is a meaningless concept unless you’re trying to defend an indefensible position) would benefit from the legal recognition of same-sex unions:
1) the legal recognition of same-sex unions would benefit those participating in those unions by, for instance, protecting inheritance rights, medical decisions, insurance benefits, child custody issues (since some gay people do, in fact, have children — your “non-procreative” argument is more tired than Joan Rivers’ eyebrows), and so on
2) gay couples are a part of society
3) therefore, society benefits
Who is society? You have no idea, and neither do I.
Even if Matt and I never have children, we are a family. I think you’re mixing up social ostracism and legal exclusion. Social ostracism doesn’t mean dick to me — I want very little to do with those segments of society who don’t recognize me as a full person and my relationship as worthy of celebration. Legal exclusion, however, is another matter. I am a tax-paying citizen of the United States, and when my family is denied the financial and legal protections enjoyed by other families, merely by virtue of the gender of those involved, I’m not going to whine (and your whining about my whining is getting tired and whiny so why don’t you fucking can it, lady), but I’m certainly not going to shut up until something is done about it.
I have role models and I have mentors. Raise your own children and leave me out of it.