The late food critic Craig Claiborne used to tell a story of a woman who received a ham but didn't own a saw. Although she had never cooked a whole ham, she knew that her mother always prepared hams for cooking by sawing off the end, and she assumed it had to be done this way.
So the woman called her mother for instruction. The mother explained that she learned to cook from her mother, who always did it that way-she had no idea why. So the mother called the grandmother and asked: "Why did you always saw the ends off of hams before roasting them?"
"Because I never had a roasting pan large enough to hold a whole ham," came the surprised reply.
Such is the case with some of our moral beliefs. We hold them because our parents did, who held them because their parents did, and so on, even though no one is quite sure of the original rationale, and those who try to articulate it tend to fumble around a lot. It's certainly true of much opposition to homosexuality, which frequently boils down to "we just don't do things that way." Even those who claim to base their opposition in the bible often don't know what it says or why it says it.
Recently, I've become interested in a related but distinct problem: not people's forgetting WHY they object to homosexuality, but their forgetting THAT they do. More precisely, their forgetting that many people around them do. I was thinking of this recently as I sat waiting to lecture at a university in rural Illinois and anticipating The Shrug.
"The Shrug" is how I characterize the reaction many college students have to GLBT issues these days. It gets voiced in various ways: "I don't understand what the problem is." "Live and let live." "Do people really still have an issue with this?" So many of these kids knew openly gay students in their high schools, and they assume that homosexuality is now a non-issue.
If only they were right.
The same day as my talk, I received an e-mail from a student at my own university recounting an unpleasant (but not uncommon) experience in one of her psychology classes. The topic of homosexuality had come up, and a barrage of negative and ill-informed comments ensued: being gay is a mental illness; it's a result of child sexual abuse; it's a biological error. The professor did little to correct the students' misinformation, and even exacerbated the problem with degrading references to the gay "lifestyle." This, in an institution of higher learning in a major urban center.
Of course, that incident pales in comparison to what happened the day before, when fifteen-year old Lawrence King was fatally shot in a California classroom for being gay. Try telling King's friends that homosexuality has become a non-issue.
King's murder is an extreme example, and every decent person recognizes that it's a tragedy. Unfortunately, these same decent people often miss the subtler (but nevertheless powerful) tragedy of everyday homophobia. They ignore how the closet continues to undermine human dignity-even among educated, friendly, "enlightened" people. They underestimate homophobia's deep personal and social costs.
I don't wish to deny the tremendous progress we've made. We are, like the woman with the ham, asking the right questions and uncovering deep-rooted fallacies. The taboo is crumbling. But this success has a way of obscuring the fact that we're not there yet. Instead, we enjoy a sort of mezzanine-level acceptance-close enough to rub elbows with the highbrow folks in the front, but not so close as to avoid the riff-raff in the cheap seats.
The current presidential race provides a nice example. The Democrats are openly courting the gay vote, and even Republicans are warming up to civil unions and other more modest measures. This is progress! On the other hand, in a year where we've had a plausible African-American, female, and Mormon candidate for president, no one imagines that a gay person could get even close-not anytime soon. This is reality.
This dual position presents gay-rights advocates with a challenge. On the one hand, by treating homosexuality as a "non-issue," we help to make it so. We model the environment that we want, and we hope that the reality soon catches up to the rhetoric. On the other hand, by treating it as a non-issue, we gloss over the many ways in which we fall short. We unwittingly promote the myth that being gay is a cakewalk. It isn't-yet.
34 Comments for “Gays on the Mezzanine”
posted by Ashpenaz on
Why is it so hard for the gay community to critique itself? Is it possible that our problems are not due entirely to others’ homophobia but our own behavior? We make ourselves visible through flamboyant, amoral behavior and then expect people to think of us as monogamous, responsible adults. It’s like we’ve made a commercial which shows clip after clip of Pride Parades, circuit parties, Rosie O’Donnell, Lance Bass, meth labs, STD stats, and then follow it with the tag line: “Gays: Most of Us Aren’t Like That.” If gays aren’t like that, as so many here claim, why does it look like we are? Is it people’s fault that they think of us as we present ourselves during Pride Week?
The African-American community has worked very hard to give a better, more accurate picture of who they are with such models as Barack Obama, Condoleeza Rice, and Colin Powell leading the way. Who is the gay Barack Obama who will create a different image in people’s minds? Or are we so meth-crazed and fabulous that we don’t care how people see us?
posted by KamatariSeta on
Why does it matter to YOU so much?
posted by PSUdain on
Woah, there! Now, I realize that you know that just because these events occur does not mean that even a majority participate in them. Sounds like you don’t [participate], actually. And even many who do don’t go as “all-out” as some participants. (But I’m sure you get that, too. I’m just building my argument here, laying out the foundation.)
However, if a bunch of us were to, say…get together for tea, or have a lecture series, or whatever, how likely is it that the media will show up? They don’t like to cover that which is “passe” or “boring”. They say it’s, “not newsworthy”. You can press release it all you want. The media aren’t interested. (One notable exception in my college paper, The Daily Collegian: Last fall they covered the LGBT political forum which was held as a part of NCOD/W. Then again–college paper.)
Well, I say that those sorts of things are both not newsworthy and simultaneously are newsworthy. They’re not newsworthy, in that they are so common, in fact, common to the point of being “passe” or “boring”, as it were. They are newsworthy, in that they are so underreported, being passed up for the flashy and bizarre and, most importantly, easily sensationalized things that go on at events like pride parades. They’re newsworthy in the sense that, “Oops, we [the media] made a mistake. We’ve been covering this stuff like it’s the rule. Sorry.”
And think about it, if a bunch of gay people get together and just be ourselves, no affectations, no camp, no whatever, are we really that different from everyone else. What headlines do you want, “Group of Well-Dressed Men Eat Dinner Out–Story at Eleven”??
As for leaders, we have plenty of leaders who, to use Joe Biden’s words are, “clean and articulate.”
So how exactly do you propose that we make these changes you suggest?
posted by PSUdain on
One last thought: The extremes of any group are typically the ones that generate media coverage.
posted by Karen on
Yipee, another topic that can be pressed into service for James’ Poor Poor Pitiful Me routine.
You, James. Why don’t YOU be our Barack Obama? Clearly no other gay person is good enough. Clearly no other gay person has the time in between meth hits, exploitative affairs, and shopping.
Two sayings spring to mind:
1) Seek and ye shall find
2) You reap what you sow.
You seek the worst of the gay world, and then you act surprised and outraged when you find it. You claim to seek the best of the gay world, but when presented with it, you minimize or ignore it. You never stop to consider that if one looks as selectively at “black culture” or even “hetero culture” as you do at “gay culture”, one could easily come to the equally-false conclusion that all black or straight people are utterly morally bankrupt.
As for sowing and reaping, you sow anger and reap bitterness, over and over. You sow blanket accusations and you reap defensiveness. You sow lies and you reap mistrust. You sow self-righteousness and you reap scorn. You sow self-pity and you reap loneliness.
What do you need to sow in order to reap what you want? Think about it. And get help. I really think you need it.
posted by Leo77 on
Ash, this notion that gay people are entitled to civil treatment only and only when/if we’re all paragons of virtue is a standard that’s never been applied to anyone else.
Plenty of heterosexuals fuck around, do drugs and act out and no one suggests that they should be denied common respect and protection by country, state and local institutions.
If a masculine, hetro, jock who liked to party and who made no secret of the fact that he bedded a different girl every weekend was shot by a jealous class mate would anybody be suggesting his sexual expression somehow earned him his fate?
In another comments thread on this site someone brought up the tragic death of Dakota Remus. The post includes this link to a blog http://www.forgottenbeatitudes.com/?p=501. (I’ll see your dead gay kid and raise you one dead straight kid.) Remus was terrorized by bullies and died of a heart attack brought on by a brutal beating. Yes straight kids are bullied too. And all kids need to be protected–absolutely. The other point being made was that there’s an inordinate amount of attention being paid to King and none to Remus. Fair enough?maybe. But tacit in some of what I read is also the notion that Remus was maybe more deserving of attention because after all he wasn’t asking for it like King.
King after all, as the blogs author points out, “had also recently announced that he was gay. As if to drive this point home, Larry had begun wearing women?s jewelry and make-up to school, to accessorize (sic) his school uniform.” As if this fact rationalizes what followed? And in a jaw dropping bit of understatement the author goes on to explain,
“One student, though, 14-year-old Brandon McInerney, took particular exception to King?s behavior. On February 11th, Larry and Brandon quarreled after school about Larry?s appearance and orientation. On February 12th, Brandon brought a gun to school and shot Larry in the head in front of a classroom full of students.”
Particular exception? Quarrel?
If taking “particular exception” finds its expression by blowing a hole in someone’s head I would hate to imagine how extreme prejudice would play out. And by what stretch of imagination is it the place of a 14 year old to take exception to the appearance and orientation of some one else?
The notion that being different is in and of itself provocation to violence suffuses this and other things I’ve been reading. It’s ugly and indefensible. And It’s tacit in your post Ash.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Hate me if you wish, but please don’t characterize my posts as self-pitying. Far from it–they are part of my celebration of my break with the gay mainstream. Yippee!!
posted by Southern Decency on
Ashpenaz, everything you write is not only nonsense, but has nothing to do with Corvino’s article.
“Is it possible that our problems are not due entirely to others’ homophobia but our own behavior? We make ourselves visible through flamboyant, amoral behavior and then expect people to think of us as monogamous, responsible adults.
Why do you use the word “we” when you’re obviously not including yourself? That’s a misuse of the pronoun.
“Is it people’s fault that they think of us as we present ourselves during Pride Week?”
It’s their fault if they assume that the outrageous behavior of a few represents all same-sex loving people.
“The African-American community has worked very hard to give a better, more accurate picture of who they are with such models as Barack Obama, Condoleeza Rice, and Colin Powell leading the way.”
The African-American “community” has done no such thing. Obama, Rice and Powell have done that all by themselves. A black person might use similar whining as yours to bemoan that black people are always stereotyped as gangsta rappers doing crack wearing bling. Same nonsense.
“Who is the gay Barack Obama who will create a different image in people’s minds?”
You mean in YOUR mind. You want to have a role model for yourself, obviously.
You also constantly refer to “we” as if that included you, and continue to babble about some mythical gay and African-American “communit[ies]”, in other words, your thinking is infested with the collectivist notion of identity politics.
“Far from it–they are part of my celebration of my break with the gay mainstream.”
What the hell is a gay “mainstream”? The majority of gay people? The majority of gay people don’t do meth and are fabulous, and not just because most of them are not in their 20s and 30s.
posted by bls on
I sincerely doubt that Lawrence King (or any gay person who’s been the target of anti-gay violence and abuse) was killed because of gay meth-heads and Pride Parades.
In fact, I’d be willing to bet that the boy who shot him has never even heard of Gay Pride. (Which is, really, pretty much completely over by now anyway.)
Anyway, I’ve always associated meth with Midwestern heterosexuals; when did it become something that gay people did?
posted by Karen on
Pooor, poor James. What an afflication, to share a sexual orientation with people who are, by and large, horrible and terrible people. What a triumph of will, what a testament to his spirit, that he has been able to overcome the handicap of being gay and manage, against the odds, to be a decent gay human being.
Oh, you’re self-pitying all right.
posted by KamatariSeta on
Ash, have you ever actually been confronted with someone who said they did not like you because of what OTHER gays do, regardless of who YOU are?
I don’t want stories of times when you THINK that’s the reason, I want to know if anyone has ever put you down or something and clearly stated that the reason is because the actions of OTHER gays made it impossible for them not to dislike you.
posted by Virgil on
The “non issue” is in the cultural sphere. The norms are, in fact, well-dressed men dining out on a Saturday night and singing in the church choir on Sunday morning.
So much so, that the exceptions are newsworthy: murder of a kid in California, black closeted homophobe stumping for Barak in Saouth Carolina, professor talking about “lifestyle.”
The real issue is that the LEGAL environment has not caught up to our CULTURAL progress. Even though gay people now own big roasting pans, the Republic requires us to saw our hams in half. (Do I stretch John’s metaphor too far?)
But we bring this problem upon ourselves. Our elected representatives waste their time with “hate crimes” and “non discrimination”: two areas of law that have alomst become anachronistic.
Instead, we should focus on marriage and military service, two areas that represent real reasons why being gay still remains an “issue.” For every Matthew Shephard there are a million widows who can’t collect a pension, and a thousand troops who can’t talk about home leave.
posted by davenport15 on
Could someone tell me where the “gay mainstream” is? I seem to have found some other tributary that includes my husband (of 16 years) my friends and family (gay and straight) and my co-workers (of all persuasions). I know I should be doing bumps of meth and having corrosive, anonymous affairs, but I just seem to have wandered into the non-mainstream gay world.
posted by Pat on
Yep, I’ve been stuck in this non-mainstream gay world too. Or just maybe the perceived “mainstream” gay world isn’t so mainstream.
posted by Brent on
Yes, who is the gay mainstream? Ash is speaking of the gay mainstream that many people perceive it to be. And to be honest, it looks an awful lot like he has a pretty good point.
I?m sorry, but I cringe when I see a man that can be immediately identified as gay by his speech and behavior. I don?t have anything against him, I just know that the stereotype he displays will continue to keep all gays at bay (sorry for the rhyme). I?d even go so far as to say that many men marry and have kids and live as heterosexual for this very reason?..although with real positive role models, things for them may have been different. Sitting here at my laptop??I can?t come up with even one gay individual I admire. Yeah, let?s be join the club of losers why don?t we? You know what, I?m going to run right down to the gay and lesbian office in my town and tell them I want to help. I actually did that once. They were a lot like me. Barf.
posted by Pat on
Brent, unless I’m misunderstanding your point, it looks like you perceive yourself as well as everyone else gay as negative. If that’s what you expect, then that’s what you will get.
posted by Infovoyeur on
Well, the article illustrates what I’ve come to think is a sort of truth. “Change proceeds (IF it does!) at various speeds, at various time-and-place levels, outer institutionally and inner gut-feelings of individuals.” I get tired of easy dismissals “it’s not an issue now” etc. Sometimes defensive, often just superficial. Examples: much progress in professions and offices–but gut-level distaste remains. Roadblock in discussing this dissonance? Seems to accuse the residually-homophobic person with being a “bigot.” But maybe major social change is “archeological levels or layers”: the easier surface behavior etc. changes first, only later the lower, earlier-laid-down levels. I wish we could communicate 100% candid plus 100% civil. That is, say what we really think (realizing much anti-minority attitudes are not intended, but stubbornly-learned earlier, open to revision), but be cool about it including NOT demanding we tolerate, accept, celebrate everyone. (I reserve the right to have both very negative attitudes personally to some people or groups, but the duty to behave publicly fairmindedly to them.) Anyhow Corvino’s article raised this complexity interestingly to me.
posted by Brent on
Well, yes Pat you you are misunderstanding the point. Think harder, real hard. I bet you can do it.
posted by Ashpenaz on
As Brent points out, my post in this thread was not about individual gays. My post said that the visible gay mainstream creates an image of gays as hedonistic, amoral addicts. I’m not sure what else to call that large bloc of gays which create the standard gay stereotype. While it’s true many gays aren’t like that, it’s also true that lots of gays happily live up to the stereotype. What is interesting is that when a gay man, such as myself, suggests the gay community as a whole goes through a period of intense self-critique and look at things we are doing which add to the problems we face, I am condemned as a self-loathing closet queen. All of the gay community’s problems are not due to other peoples’ homophobia. We are actually doing things as a community which undermine our efforts at acceptance. Let’s look at those things and change them.
posted by Pat on
Okay, Brent. Let me try again. Your post was laced with sarcasm. Did I get it right this time?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Pat, perhaps you aren’t getting the point here.
Example:
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off.
This is the important part:
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
So it’s perfectly acceptable in the gay community for gays and lesbians to dress up their children in slave wear and take them to sex fairs to “show off”, and if you disagree, you’re antigay and homophobic.
Or perhaps this, or this:
Carlos Sosa is suing the club for $25,000. His lawyer accuses the staff of not ?exercising professional standards.? According to Sosa?s lawyer, Brian Kennedy, the suit is for ?breach of contract and emotional distress.?
Kennedy stressed that it is a ?contract dispute? and does not have anything to do with Sosa being uneasy about gay sex. (Sosa is heterosexual.) ?It?s not a straight or gay thing,? Kennedy said. ?I?ve asked a lot of gay friends what they think about this and they agree: it?s a matter of hygiene. They want to take a shower and not worry about what is on the seat.? Kennedy contends that his client asked for his money back many times and even sent the gym a certified letter; however, the company refused and did not reply.
?That seems to be par for the course,? said Kennedy. ?I sent them legal papers before I sent the lawsuit. The problem is they don?t respond to complaints.? The gym is located on West 23rd Street west of Seventh Avenue in the former MacBurney YMCA building and is not a stranger to accusations about too much steam in the steam rooms. In late December 2004, the New York Blade reported that Cyd Zeigler, a former Blade reporter, made a formal complaint with the gym about sexual activity in the men?s locker room.
Like Sosa, Zeigler charged he was not taken seriously. Zeigler charged the gym with ?want[ing] to encourage this type of behavior. The way the showers are set up, it seems certainly destined to encourage this behavior. It?s nuts.? The New York Post quoted other club members as not seeing any sexual activity at all. They, in turn, called Sosa homophobic.
?Don?t go to a known gay gym if you are a heterosexual homophobe?, Stephen Dimmick told a Post reporter. ?I know they?re insanely strict on it.?
Orlando Hernandez echoed the sentiments. ?If you can?t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,? he said. ?If it is going to make a difference to him, then he should go to a straighter gym.?
So according to those guys, public sex is a normal gay thing, and that anyone who doesn’t like it or complains is antigay and a homophobe.
And we won’t even bring up the bevy of antireligious bigots who hide behind their homosexuality.
As long as gays and lesbians continue to allow sexual orientation to be used as an excuse for all of these things, the public is perfectly justified in considering them as examples of normal gay behavior.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yikes, end italics.
posted by Pat on
NDT, then I’m stuck. Either Brent has a negative view of the gay community, which he said was not the case, or he doesn’t, and the post was written in a sarcastic tone. Maybe, he meant something else. But I’m lost, and perhaps Brent could spell out exactly what he means if he wants.
And NDT, I get your point. There are plenty of bad examples of gay behavior. Or better yet, simply bad examples of behavior, period. I hear stories of PLENTY of bad behavior in the city next to mine, and almost all of these people are straight.
So it’s perfectly acceptable in the gay community for gays and lesbians to dress up their children in slave wear and take them to sex fairs to “show off”, and if you disagree, you’re antigay and homophobic.
WRONG! That’s the point you are simply not getting. Apparently, these two “parents” believe it is acceptable, and apparently I’m antigay and homophobic according to these people. Guess what? I don’t give a rat’s @$$ what those two people think of me. They don’t represent my views of what I consider acceptable behavior. And I don’t believe I have to run an ad in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal to condemn every bad behavior exhibited by a gay person.
I?ve asked a lot of gay friends what they think about this and they agree: it?s a matter of hygiene. They want to take a shower and not worry about what is on the seat.
What? You mean there exist gay people that don’t want public sex at the gym? /endsarcasm
?Don?t go to a known gay gym if you are a heterosexual homophobe?, Stephen Dimmick told a Post reporter. ?I know they?re insanely strict on it.?
Orlando Hernandez echoed the sentiments. ?If you can?t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,? he said. ?If it is going to make a difference to him, then he should go to a straighter gym.?
So according to those guys, public sex is a normal gay thing, and that anyone who doesn’t like it or complains is antigay and a homophobe.
Exactly. The key here is according to those guys.
And we won’t even bring up the bevy of antireligious bigots who hide behind their homosexuality.
To be fair, NDT, when it comes to religion, you are a bit oversensitive. As such, not all anti-religious people are bigots. Even when someone says that God is a superstition or a fairy tale, I don’t consider that bigotry. If one is an atheist, of course, that’s what they’ll believe. If nothing else, it’s not any more bigoted than when a religious person calls an atheist immoral or amoral.
As long as gays and lesbians continue to allow sexual orientation to be used as an excuse for all of these things, the public is perfectly justified in considering them as examples of normal gay behavior.
I can’t help it if people use sexual orientation as an excuse for their bad behavior, especially when, as far as I’m concerned, their sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.
But if we use your reasoning, as long as Christians continue to allow their religion to be used as an excuse for all of their bad behavior, the public is perfectly justified in considering them as examples of normal Christian behavior.
Like I’ve said before, I don’t hold myself, or other Christians responsible for the evils of people like Dobson, LaBarbera, Robertson, etc. I don’t expect myself or others to point out their evils (which seems to be about any time they open up their mouths) every time they exhibit their bad behavior. If you want to accept responsibility for their behavior, it’s all yours. Leave me out of it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And Pat, here’s the latest example that washed up today.
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today.
The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass ? no political party has opposed it ? but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said. “It is dangerous ? considering the attitude toward sexual orientation in schools ? for a young person to attempt to make sexual contact with a peer.”
Of course, it gets better.
My name is Richard Hudler and I am here to speak on behalf of the Sex Laws Committee, which is a Toronto-based committee of individuals committed to changing Canada?s archaic laws relating to sex and sexuality.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
The Sex Laws Committee was originally set up by the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO), but since the issues surrounding sex laws have to do with sexual liberation generally, and go far beyond gay and lesbian liberation, we decided recently that it was better to become a separate committee. CLGRO continues to be concerned about the negative impact of these laws on the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities, particularly the indecency and bawdy-house laws.
We support all freedom of sexual expression and oppose the criminalization of sex, sexuality or sex work. Thus, we call for the repeal of all provisions of the Criminal Code restricting or prohibiting sexual activity involving consenting persons.
This includes both Criminal Code sections dealing with procuring, communicating and soliciting, and sections dealing with indecent acts and common bawdy houses.
You hear that, Pat? It’s normal for gay people to have sex with underage children who are seventeen or more years younger than they are. Gay liberation requires that all laws concerning sexual conduct be repealed.
Now, I know you can speak out rather loudly against and work to change religious people whose behaviors you don’t like.
Why not try applying it to LGBT people who do the same?
posted by Pat on
You hear that, Pat? It’s normal for gay people to have sex with underage children who are seventeen or more years younger than they are. Gay liberation requires that all laws concerning sexual conduct be repealed.
And once again, you’re taking an opinion from some gay people and saying “it’s normal.” Other than that, you’re preaching to the choir. I’ve stated before that I don’t believe that children under 18 should have sex. Besides risk of pregnancy and diseases, there’s also the emotional crap that comes with it at that young an age. And I would have no problem raising the legal age of consent to 18. Canada’s raising it to 16 is an improvement.
Now, I know you can speak out rather loudly against and work to change religious people whose behaviors you don’t like.
Why not try applying it to LGBT people who do the same?
First of all, while I disagree with the group’s opposition of raising the age of consent, I don’t know if they are advocating, say, sex between say a 30 year old and 12 year olds or younger (if so, then yes, I condemn their actions). Besides, isn’t the age of consent in some states still 14?
But I have condemned bad behavior by gay persons on this board. And in fact, I don’t believe you’ll have to go back as far as a January 2006 link in which I clearly condemn such behavior. 😉
I will admit to speaking out against wrongs by religious persons more than gay persons. Here’s why. The actions by religious persons that I condemn usually involve restricting the rights or justifying the restriction of rights of gay persons. And, in my opinion, I also believe that their rhetoric has hurt teen gay persons growing up, and in some cases resulting in suicide, and at the very least perpetuate the cycle of hatred and degradation of gay youth. The actions by gay persons, even those that are anti-religious bigots are not seeking to take away rights from religious persons. And, of course, the actions the you have cited, whether it’s sexual harassment, child molestation, bringing children to adult fares, etc., are all bad things and actions that I condemn. But these are things that people from all communities, unfortunately, engage in. Because some of the gay persons use their sexuality as an excuse doesn’t matter, because I don’t give credence to any of these persons. They can say the devil made them do it. Whatever.
Further, I do believe that religious people should take a higher ground here. As you agreed in another thread, and by your own experience, the Christian Church has been wrong regarding their treatment of gay persons. It should be no surprise that there are various levels of disenchantment of religion by many gay persons. I simply don’t believe it’s fair for any church to use the excuse of other gay people’s behavior to exclude or restrict the participation of moral gay persons who want to belong. I’m sure you follow and believe the tenets of your church. Why on earth should the foster couple, the parents at the Folsom Street fair, or Christian hating gay persons have any bearing on your participation in the church? If I really believed that a church would hold that against gay persons who want to belong to a church, then I also would have disdain for that religion. I’m just surprised that you have such a low opinion of Christianity.
posted by Ashpenaz on
The Christian Church has done less damage to gays than the gay subculture which preys on confused young men and drives them to suicide or death by drugs or STDs. Also complicit in these deaths are those gays who look away from this subculture and pretend not to see.
posted by Mario on
We live in a culture of victimhood. You cannot convince people that things are better than 40 years ago if they insist on being a victim.
posted by amicus on
The gravamen of this article is that, maybe, “post-gay” attitudes are not helpful, given the ways that people come by their homophobia.
There is a great deal of all phobia and prejudice that is “pre-verbal”, unexamined, irrational. They remain so because of the very taboos on discussion that might dispel them, boundaries often enforced by humor or other means of limiting the terms of acceptable discourse.
Altogether, this is the great, hard work of changing social mores, the educational plank, if you will. It seems noncontroversional to suggest that so much demands an active engagement (although I’d dispute it involves remaking all of gay subculture to start it or keep it going).
I’d throw out for discussion that even apparently friendly “post-gay” attitudes are quite often unexamined, themselves not having won the form of rationality. For instance, an attitude that, straight or gay, kids should just “experiment” or “do whatever they want” doesn’t seem to square with “gay rights” to me.
Of course, it may seem to, to some others. Without resolving that tension, we can still conclude that part of the hurdle for the “education plank” is that the voices that would elucidate are multi-vocal, with none have a clear ‘moral superiority’.
I doubt the solution is to try to establish “one voice”. I don’t see a problem with having two or three ‘interpretive frameworks’ that could be used to lead that discussion.
posted by amicus on
p.s. don’t imagine that we may not have already had a gay President and just not known it…
posted by Ashpenaz on
Straights do not support gays out of a concern for justice–they think being gay means sexual adventuring and multiple partners, so if they support gays, they can support their own immorality. If they can legitimize gay hedonism, then they can legitimize their own hedonism. Straights are not interested in giving support to gays who believe in no sex before marriage, and only within a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. Straights hate gays who have those values as much as gays do.
posted by Hank on
“Straights hate gays who have those values as much as gays do.”
I had no idea that Omaha was this hotbed of gay hedonism, to the point that the gays there hate people like me…. and most of the posters on this board.
posted by amicus on
they think being gay means sexual adventuring and multiple partners
=============
The point of a even a post-gay discussion might be to pull out that unexamined belief for inspection. For instance, there is ample evidence that ‘sexuality’ itself involved “adventuring”, with plenty of non-gay people quite … red-blooded, to use a vernacular. Why the bias in attitudes, then?
Even today, in America, to be gay or lesbian is to have had a ‘sexual liberation’ of sorts, to have broken through the boundaries of sexual attitudes, to have put oneself outside the fold.
While, in the past, that liberation has been linked up with a complex mix of sex, love, politics, and life (and economic life) in a hostile world, there is no fixed relationship between the two sets. Put another way, liberation does not have to imply abject libertine or hedonist-without-willpower.
Recognizing that seems to me to be the first step toward expanding the “gay debate” on the conservative side of the isle, in ways that do more than answer criticisms (or “hates”), but actually stakes out a stand-alone framework…
posted by Pat on
I had no idea that Omaha was this hotbed of gay hedonism, to the point that the gays there hate people like me…. and most of the posters on this board.
Yeah, I keep on learning how bad all the gays are in Omaha. They’re all hedonists, cheaters, predators, etc. And here in NJ, I don’t encounter that, although I’m sure there are some here too (maybe they came from Omaha). I guess it’s the flyover state gays we have to watch out for, or just Omaha. Yikes!
posted by Hank on
Actually I have tried to be a little bit supportive of Ash – sometimes his comments are really charming, in my opinion. Like when he talks about Dominic Purcell (even though Wentworth is cuter…)
But the constant association of all gays, everywhere, with the predators out there, is tiring.