It's easy to find fault with "The Homosexuals," a 1967 documentary from CBS, the first ever aired on a major network about "the problem" of homosexuality. Dave White at The Advocate, rediscovered the relic, and provides a litany of its sins. For example, it focuses exclusively on gay men, and has not a word to say about how lesbians (who, one assumes, are also homosexual) might be different. Amazing how that focus on gay men to the exclusion of lesbians plagues our discussion even now.
That may be because lesbians don't fit so comforably into the stereotype of relentless, anonymous sex that is the documentary's framework. Mike Wallace's sometimes squalid questions and lascivious tone appear presumptuous and patronizing today, if you can't give yourself a little distance and appreciate its camp value:
The average homosexual, if there be such, is promiscuous. He is not interested in, nor capable of a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage. His sex life, his "love" life, consists of a series of chance encounters at the clubs and bars he inhabits, and even on the streets of the city, the pick up, the one night stand, these are characteristic of the homosexual relationship.
It's impossible to do justice to his spin on the word "love;" you have to hear it for yourself (this passage is about the 8:20 mark) to appreciate how near to contempt he finds the very thought.
And that age's experts on homosexuality are given almost total deference in the piece. Charles Socarides pronounces, to a classroom of curious students (including us) the conventional notion of the time that homosexuality is a mental illness. But he then goes further in responding to a student question about "happy homosexuals," by scoffing; they don't and can't exist. Question answered. Next?
That's why it might be hard to appreciate how groundbreaking this documentary really was. No one who missed the 1950s and 60s can imagine how much sheer effort it took, then, for the nascent gay rights movement to be heard or taken seriously. Mention of the word "homosexual" on commercial television in a neutral way was almost inconceivable. An hour-long slot on the subject -- even with condescension, misinformation and insults -- was a bonanza.
We simply have no conception, today, of how dominant -- and successful -- the closet was in virtually shutting down any public conversation at all in which gay men are viewed as citizens rather than predators. Yet the documentary opens with a gay man who is well adjusted even by the standards of our own time. There are also interviews with a judge (from North Carolina!) and a prosecutor who are going through the first stages of questioning social conventions about homosexuality. And, of course, any journalism from those days that includes an interview with Frank Kameny won't make it easy to leave unchallenged the notion which took for granted our (in Dean Rusk's candid phrase) "personal instability." (Kameny and Rusk make their points starting at the 29 minute mark.)
The toxins that still infect our debate today are closer to the surface here. And chief among them is the human distortion that Jonathan Rauch, Bruce Bawer and Andrew Sullivan have all tried so valiantly to have heterosexuals of good will envision: What would life be like if you grew up believing that love would have no role in your future? How would that affect a human being's ordinary development and moral thinking?
I can't imagine any way to make that point better than Mike Wallace's discrediting of the word "love" for gay men. He honestly felt, as virtually everyone else at the time did, that gay men were "not interested in, nor capable of, a lasting relationship like that of heterosexual marriage." In fact, the documentary ends with a (heterosexually) married homosexual saying that he doesn't believe he could have a "love relationship" with another man. His moral imagination was formed, along with the rest of the culture, around the notion that homosexuality involves no emotions, no affection, no relationship to others except the physical.
Wallace has since regretted the documentary's tone, as well as the prejudices of the time. But he has no reason to regret having participated in helping this nation begin an open discussion about homosexuality.
Forty-three years later, this documentary is timely again. Heterosexuals today don't have to imagine the moral deformity that was demanded of gay men by assuming they had no need for love. "The Homosexuals" shows exactly what that looks like. When we fight for legal recognition of our relationships, it is because of this sabotage of our souls. I am grateful we have it today to help make our case.
43 Comments for “‘The Homosexuals’ — Timely Again”
posted by Arthur on
We cannot underestimate how the lives illustrated in this piece shape the attitudes of the large block of Baby Boomer voters. We all have friends who grew up in this era who accept gays and lesbians as individuals, but want to save their grandchildren from our horrible desperate lives. Many call them bigots, but fail to see the deep seated concern in their eyes when someoneâs child or grandchild comes out. The anti-marriage equality forces still play on these triggers.
posted by Throbert McGee on
“Some black people are like, It ain’t us, it’s The Media! The Media has distorted our image to make us look bad! — Please cut the fucking shit, okay? When I go to the money machine tonight, alright, I ain’t lookin’ over my back for The Media. I’m lookin’ for niggaz! Shit, Ted Koppel ain’t never took shit from me — niggaz have! You think I got three guns in my house ’cause The Media’s outside? Oh, shit, Mike Wallace — RUN! Get the fuck outta here…”
(Chris Rock, “Bring the Pain,” 1996)
posted by Throbert McGee on
“the moral deformity that was demanded of gay men by assuming they had no need for love”
It was? By whom?
posted by Bobby on
“The average homosexual, if there be such, is promiscuous. He is not interested in, nor capable of a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage. His sex life, his âloveâ life, consists of a series of chance encounters at the clubs and bars he inhabits, and even on the streets of the city, the pick up, the one night stand, these are characteristic of the homosexual relationship.”
—I guess I’m dating “average homosexuals” LOL. 😉 Let me rewrite that paragraph for the present.
“The average homosexual, if there be such, is picky. He is interested in, and capable of a lasting relationship like that of a heterosexual marriage as long as his mate has an 8 inch penis, no body hair and no more than 5% body fat. His sex life, his âloveâ life, consists of a series of chance encounters at adam4adam, manhunt.com, craiglist and gay.com, while old gay bars go out of business.”
Oh well, it beats dating women. Just kidding 😉
posted by Debrah on
Bobby, in that video even Gore Vidal—wittingly or unwittingly—made the case against the mythology, as some view it, that most gay men want and strive for monogamy and lasting relationships.
It’s so curious as to why many want to promote this fantasy, except as a means to have gay marriage become law throughout the land.
Symbolism, apparently, as well as financial benefits are the main objectives.
In my experience, people like Tom, Aubrey, and a few others on this blog are the exception. Not the rule.
So refreshing that you and “Throbert” always look at things as they actually are.
With straight marriage ending in divorce half the time, is anyone seriously pushing the fantasy that most gay men want “lasting relationships”?
Especially the way they are overtly looking for more d!ck all the time. LOL!!!
As you mention above, so many, including older gay men are all over those “man” sites and YouTube and it’s so disgusting because there are mainly boys there in their teens and 20’s.
It’s really quite astonishing the extent to which some will go to try to push this fairy tale.
posted by Throbert McGee on
But Bobby, Bobby, Bobby — don’t you see that American gay men would automagically turn monogamous if only we could get SCOTUS to impose same-sex marriage in all 50 states? It’s just The Man keeping us down, and by “The Man,” I mean Scalia.
Related to that, I just had this vision of an Orthodox rabbi saying, “You know what? Too many Jewish people cheat by eating shellfish and cheeseburgers. Clearly, the solution is for the federal government to start selling Glatt and Proud certificates for $30 a pop, therefore motivating more Jews to keep kosher.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
(Yes, I know that “Frum and Proud” would be a more appropriate phrasing, but the word “Glatt” is just mo’ funnier.)
posted by Bobby on
“So refreshing that you and “Throbert” always look at things as they actually are.”
—Thanks, you know, tonight I’m getting laid with someone I met online, he says he has a boyfriend. Apparently the boyfriend sleeps with other men, they just don’t tell each other. Maybe that’s how “monogamy” works for some people. A part of me feels guilty being a part of this, but after dating “normal” gay men that are looking for someone more athletic and younger, I have no choice but to get what I can get.
“As you mention above, so many, including older gay men are all over those “man” sites and YouTube and it’s so disgusting because there are mainly boys there in their teens and 20’s.”
—Boys don’t want old men for the most part. I’m 34 and I can barely get a 25 year old to go out with me, much less a 22 year old. Of the minority of young guys who seek older guys we’re talking of guys that find old men attractive or are seeking financial compensation. Either way, we live in a stupid youth-oriented culture, look at Abercrombie & Fitch, why can’t they plaster sexy 40 year old guys with hairy chests? Why can’t Victoria’s Secret feature women over 29? American youth culture is even corrupting foreigners, when I was fat one of my few sources of pleasure came from skinny foreign asians, too late, now they just want hairless twinks.
And it’s getting worst, today I learned today that in Amsterdam one of the gay bars offers a “twink orgy,” here’s the catch, you can’t be older than 35. I wonder if that’s the future, if sex clubs, bars, bathhouses and other establishment will stop closing their doors to the 35+ crowd.
“But Bobby, Bobby, Bobby — don’t you see that American gay men would automagically turn monogamous if only we could get SCOTUS to impose same-sex marriage in all 50 states? It’s just The Man keeping us down, and by “The Man,” I mean Scalia.”
—I love your sense of humor. The dark reality is that only a MINORITY of gays plans to get married and of that group only a minority plans to be 100% monogamous. Let’s face it, winning same-sex marriage is a victory very few of us will get to enjoy. I for example am thinking of pursuing other hobbies because a lifetime of looking for Mr. Right and only finding Mr. Right Now gets tiresome.
“Symbolism, apparently, as well as financial benefits are the main objectives.”
—You’re right, the wedding alone can be a huge financial windfall for any couple. You can make $5,000, $10,000, even more depending on how much your family and friends love you and how much money they have.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Bobby, assuming you’re actually interested in dating a 25-year-old, here’s my suggestion: in your online profile(s), say something like “I generally prefer men my own age or a few years older, but would consider dating a younger guy if he’s intellectually mature enough for me.”
In other words, if you’d like them to chase you, NOT chasing them is a good strategy. I speak as a 38-year-old who generally ignores anyone under 35, but gets appreciative attention from them anyway.
P.S. How long has the “blockquote” tag worked here on IGF? I’ve avoided it for years in favor of italicizing quoted text, because once upon a time “blockquote” seemed to make the IGF server choke.
posted by BobN on
“As you mention above, so many, including older gay men are all over those “man” sites and YouTube and it’s so disgusting because there are mainly boys there in their teens and 20’s.”
And we’re supposed to believe you spend a lot of time on Manhunt?
posted by Lori Heine on
Why are the guardians of morality wringing their hands about how many gays might be promiscuous, and using it as an excuse to deny freedom of contract to all same-sex couples? The choices of however many may incline against monogamy, why should the right to freedom of contract be denied to those who choose to commit to it?
When will they do a survey of hetero couples to determine how many of THEM are monogamous? Of course many would lie, but what of it? If the lack of absolute fidelity to a standard is not a disqualifier, then we’re all just quibbling.
The majority gets to see the minority however it wants. Monogamous gay men and lesbians are pronounced invisible by majority fiat. Whatever that is, it is a departure from every principle upon which America was founded.
Then again, in the struggle for tax breaks (which, of course, is what really lies behind it all), principle may be damned. Politics in this country have long since degenerated into nothing more than a squabble over who gets to use the tax laws to take the property of others. And the majority rules.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, assuming you’re actually interested in dating a 25-year-old, here’s my suggestion: in your online profile(s), say something like “I generally prefer men my own age or a few years older, but would consider dating a younger guy if he’s intellectually mature enough for me.”
—That’s an interesting tip and I appreciate it. I do think it’s mostly about looks, but maybe using some psychology can help.
posted by Tom on
I’m with Lori on this issue. I see no connection between (a) the assumption that a minority of gay men would elect to marry, and of that minority, a significant number would not remain faithful to each other for life, and (b) the conclusion that the opportunity to marry should be denied to all gay men.
A logical connection is missing, it seems to me. It just doesn’t make sense.
posted by Rob "Throbert" McGee on
Tom: I think that (a) amounts to a pretty compelling defense/justification of Prop 8 — why extend a traditionally monogamous institution to a community that’s upfront about its collective unwillingness to choose monogamy?
On the other hand, the fact that two men may prefer to negotiate a sexually “open” relationship between themselves is no reason that they should be denied access to a simple $40 document that legally establishes them as each other’s next-of-kin.
posted by Debrah on
TO “BobN”–
Well……how else are two dozen deep red roses left at my door on Valentine’s Day—which represent passion galore—if I do not go on a few man expeditions?
LOL!!!
posted by Debrah on
It really has to be said……and I risk being accused of dithyrambic praise…..
……however, “Throbert” represents one of the most magnificent examples of sheer SEX APPEAL with the written word.
And I would implore Bobby to take some of his advice.
There is really nothing that produces a more potent aphrodisiac than wit and intelligence—provided that you also look half-way decent as well. LIS!
“Throbert” is unapologetically candid when discussing any subject matter.
Does anyone not understand how much of the “man” is destroyed by wimpish and plaintive dialogue and the constant begging of society to be allowed to “marry” another man?
Even as the gay male culture is one of the open hunt and acknowledged promiscuity?
Man up, guys!
Stop acting like girls.
posted by Pat on
Tom: I think that (a) amounts to a pretty compelling defense/justification of Prop 8 — why extend a traditionally monogamous institution to a community that’s upfront about its collective unwillingness to choose monogamy?
Rob, because communities don’t marry. Couples do. Lori put it best. Why deny marriage to a couple who plans on being monogamous?
You do make a good point though. If we, all of the sudden, had same sex marriage, that is not going to significantly change the culture of gay people overnight. Something like this is going to take time, at least a couple of generations in which gay children are growing up with the same opportunities and expectations of their straight siblings. I suspect that even then, that there will be a higher percentage of promiscuity amongst gay people vs. straight people. That’s fine by me. Some people shouldn’t and don’t want to get married. I would still argue for same sex marriage, just like I believe we still should have “traditional” marriage despite the atrocious divorce rate.
Does anyone not understand how much of the “man” is destroyed by wimpish and plaintive dialogue and the constant begging of society to be allowed to “marry” another man?
Even as the gay male culture is one of the open hunt and acknowledged promiscuity?
Man up, guys!
Stop acting like girls.
Debrah, I guess we could look at this a couple of ways here. We have people who believe they should have the same privileges as someone else, but then are basically told no. One response could be, “Gee, thanks for even let us have the temerity to ask for what you got. I’m sorry for bothering you with this. Now we’ll just quietly slink away and not bother you again.” If this was any other issue or situation, the person quoted would be considered for the wimp of the year award.
On the other hand, if straight men were stripped of their rights to marriage, except to persons of the same sex. I can only imagine the type of “wimpish” and “plaintive” dialogue that will happen. I don’t think arguments such as, “you have the same right to marry a person of the same sex like anyone else” will quell their dialogue.
posted by Debrah on
Pat–
John Corvino has a column today on the right side of the page–Refining–Not Redefining which, again, argues the merits of SSM.
I like the way Corvino presents his arguments, both in speaking and his writing, He’s a cute guy and is an appealing instrument for presenting these arguments.
Love the metrosexual look!
However, I still do not agree that the word “marriage” can be used, technically, for two men walking down the aisle.
Disastrously wimpy!
Like most words we use, an issue can be debated and twisted into a pretzel on any given day so that each side will be the “winner”, as it were.
On most days, I really couldn’t care less who marries. I don’t personally place a high premium on the institution unless a couple wants to have children.
I’m the last person who would try to throw a wet blanket on romance. I love the initial stages of the love affair when every endorphin your body can muster is working its magic.
Pheromones which drew you, chemically, into their orgasmic carnal orbit are on the surface of every body cell……lusting for nonstop completion.
LOL!!!
That said, however…….
With what one has to deal after that romantic stage is what “marriage” is all about.
A kind of contract.
Usury.
Only about half straight couples in our 21st century find such an arrangement one for which they will sacrifice. I dare say that only a tiny fraction of gay couples will ever respect this institution to even be debating it so heatedly.
In the video above, I was struck by how many issues which Dr. Goldman illuminated that still hold true today.
I understand the narcissism and the non-committal nature. I chose not to have children for purely selfish reasons. I don’t think anyone should have a child unless they are dying to procreate and can’t imagine their life without children in it. Far too many people have them simply because it’s “expected”. And as a woman—a vessel of procreation—I didn’t want to put my body through the ravages of childbirth out of vanity.
But unlike gay men, I do not expect society to alter its way of functioning to accommodate my personal choices in life.
Anyway, I might get married one day—when, or if, I really fall madly in love!
But I take marriage seriously and that’s why I have avoided it so far. I don’t wish to enter into any situation for which I’d need a third party to get out.
But that could change.
posted by Jimmy on
The vast majority of states allow gay individuals to adopt, and only five have explicit prohibitions against adoption by same-sex couples. If a state is going to go to the lengths of establishing same-sex couples as parents, yet insists that those couples not have access to legal marriage, then a deep contradiction to the notion that marriage is the preferable institution for sustaining families, and the nurturing of children, is created by denying legal parents the benefits of legal marriage.
posted by Bobby on
“But unlike gay men, I do not expect society to alter its way of functioning to accommodate my personal choices in life.”
—Well, you’d be surprised how many mothers and pregnant women have a sense of entitlement. They expect parking spaces just for them, they want to nurse in public even if other people get gross out by it, single employees are almost forced to buy them gifts for the office baby shower, they expect tax breaks for every child they have, they force single property owners to pay school taxes that benefit their children… Still, I will admit that women do face a great pressure to have kids, my own parents cannot imagine a life without kids or why would anyone choose not to have kids.
Besides, we live in a child-centric culture, count the times you hear a politician saying he wants to do this for “our children” or how we should save social security, the environment and end obesity for “our children.” I don’t get it, children don’t contribute, don’t pay taxes, are a financial drain on parents until they become independent which they don’t always do, so why can’t society concentrate on adults instead?
posted by BobN on
“But unlike gay men, I do not expect society to alter its way of functioning to accommodate my personal choices in life.”
Could that be because society has already altered its ways to accommodate your personal choices?
posted by Lori Heine on
“Could that be because society has already altered its ways to accommodate your personal choices?”
BobN, you are absolutely right on. And Americans definitely will be reevaluating the special privileges of everybody in the days to come. Including those who, up ’til now, have blithely assumed that their special privileges were untouchable.
We should applaud this. Let’s bring it on.
posted by Debrah on
“Besides, we live in a child-centric culture….”
****************************************
We do, and it really gives me the creeps.
People bring loud and messy kids into restaurants where the clientele is entitled to an ambience comparable to the hefty tab at the end of the evening.
Long flights can be a nightmare when people bring their small children along. Often a screaming baby fresh out of its mother’s womb will literally highjack the entire plane.
Once I complained so much that the airline offered me a free ticket on my next trip. LOL! But the kid was a freak who wouldn’t stop crying and the entire section of the plane was up in arms about it.
I really share your frustration with people who assume that the entire world should be enthralled with and excited by something they’ve spawned.
posted by Debrah on
“Could that be because society has already altered its ways to accommodate your personal choices?”
***************************************
Yes, Bob.
That’s how life has always worked.
A man and a woman “marrying up” and “tying the knot” and then popping out a couple of kids is how it’s been done for generations.
Moreover, the very fabric of our culture is designed to accommodate those whose needs are most prominent.
Necessarily, society structures itself around the needs and desires of the majority.
I personally am not a member of any “group”, however, that I feel is benefiting unduly and through which I am “accommodated” in some fantastic way.
Like many, I may have benefited in some small way by inheriting good genes.
But if your think women have it easy in some way…..beyond men……think again.
posted by BobN on
unduly
Who said anything about the accommodations being “undue”? Certainly not me! I’m a firm supporter of the inalienable rights of slutty spinsters.
posted by Bobby on
“We do, and it really gives me the creeps.”
—Glad I’m not the only one. I always joke I’m a “child ignorer” because I try to ignore them as much as humanly possibly. Or as Woody Allen once said: “Spielberg makes the movies he wanted to watch as a kid, I make the movies I want to watch as an adult.”
“People bring loud and messy kids into restaurants where the clientele is entitled to an ambience comparable to the hefty tab at the end of the evening.”
—True. Or they take them to R-rated horror movies when they’re only 3 or 6 year old.
“Long flights can be a nightmare when people bring their small children along. Often a screaming baby fresh out of its mother’s womb will literally highjack the entire plane.”
—You know what’s worse? When the parents don’t even try to control their little monsters, just because they’re used to them doesn’t mean we are.
posted by Pat on
Disastrously wimpy!
Debrah, putting aside our differences about same sex marriage, I don’t see how two men wanting to get married is any more wimpy than a straight man wanting to get married.
Anyway, I might get married one day
I’m happy for you that you have that choice. Even though you have no intention of procreating. Good for you!
posted by Debrah on
“….I don’t see how two men wanting to get married is any more wimpy than a straight man wanting to get married.”
***********************************************
Pat, I think you’ve hit on a significant aspect of the debate, inasmuch as heterosexuals will actually discuss it honestly at all.
As I’ve said before, I’ve held court on this issue with an amazing number of people over the last few months. Simply because that’s what I like to do with regard to any culture war issue.
I’m surrounded by loads of provocative people—there’s more PhD’s in my vicinity than in any other place in the country (whatever significance that might hold…LOL!)—so, consequently, there’s always a political debate going on of some kind.
Even many who support SSM voice some of the same opinions that I do. They think that gay marriage is a superfluous venture……..but why object to it?
And many of those with whom I spoke were university students. They are “for it” even as they think it’s more symbolic than significant or actually equal to the authentic intent of “marriage”.
Senior citizens with whom I spoke seemed to be much more in favor and were much more accepting in their dialogue. Most exhibited cosmopolitan sensibilities and empathy.
That would appear to go against the stereotype that they are not in support of SSM. Adding further skepticism regarding the proverbial and overused “polls”. But who knows?
Does it not bother anyone that Barack Obama is against SSM?
No one wants to actually confront and discuss what seems to be his—the leader of the free world and for whom perhaps 100% of the gay community voted—personal views on this topic.
It’s always a hyperbolic blame game referring to “conservatives” and other palatable scapegoats.
Curious, that.
I’ve found it’s best to ignore some of the gay men here who provide illustration of the negative stereotypes people have of them. When Perez Hilton can serve as anyone’s role model in the fight for SSM, it’s futile to engage such people.
It’s also a widely-accepted stereotype that gay men who present themselves in that way are the “bottoms” and they have a seasoned hatred for hetero women. YAWN.
Pat, there’s a much-needed balm created when people like you and a few others show up and are able to discuss an issue without personalizing it.
If SSM is successfully signed into law, it will be because of men like you who have the capacity to debate and engage those—in favor or not—on these topics.
Your light sarcasm and good nature are duly noted!
posted by Tom on
Tom: “I see no connection between (a) the assumption that a minority of gay men would elect to marry, and of that minority, a significant number would not remain faithful to each other for life, and (b) the conclusion that the opportunity to marry should be denied to all gay men.”
Throbert: “I think that (a) amounts to a pretty compelling defense/justification of Prop 8 — why extend a traditionally monogamous institution to a community that’s upfront about its collective unwillingness to choose monogamy?”
When you refer to “a community that’s upfront about its collective unwillingness to choose monogamy”, you are (1) generalizing about a class (all gay men) from unrelated subsets (gay men who desire to marry, on the one hand, and gay men who do not desire to marry, on the other) and (2) generalizing about a class (gay men who wish to marry) from a subset of that (non-monogamous gay men who wish to marry), ignoring the existence of another subset (monogamous gay men who wish to marry).
The question you pose, though, is interesting: If a significant number of individuals within a class (gay men who wish to marry) fall into a subset (non-monogamous gay men who wish to marry) unwilling to meet a “traditional”, presumably definitional, requirement of marriage, should government refuse to extend marriage to the entire class (gay men who wish to marry), including the subset that meets the requirement (monogamous gay men who wish to marry)?
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the government has a strong interest in maintaining monogamy in marriage, it seems to me that there are two constitutional problems with remedy of denying marriage to all gay men because some gay men will enter marriage without the intention of maintaining monogamy: (1) the remedy is over broad, because it denies marriage to all gay men rather than just gay men who wish to enter marriage without the intention of maintaining monogamy, and (2) the remedy treats straight men and gay men unequally, because straight men are allowed to marry without regard to the question of monogamy.
But constitutional issues aside, it still seems to me that a logical connection is missing in the jump from (a) to (b).
Debrah: “Does anyone not understand how much of the “man” is destroyed by wimpish and plaintive dialogue and the constant begging of society to be allowed to “marry” another man? Even as the gay male culture is one of the open hunt and acknowledged promiscuity? Man up, guys! Stop acting like girls.”
I suppose that the extremes in attitudes toward promiscuity are men of the “f**k them and leave them” school, on the one hand, and men of the “if you want to f**k them, marry them and stay married to them” school, on the other hand, with a wide range of attitudes in between.
It sounds like you are more in sympathy with the “f**k them and leave them” than the “if you want to f**k them, marry them and stay married to them”, since you dismiss men — presumably both straight and gay — who wish to marry as unmanly and “acting like girls”.
It seems to me that the contrast between the schools involves a difference between models of manhood — irresponsible manhood versus responsible manhood — rather than a difference between “manly” and “unmanly”.
I’ve observed something over the years about straight men, and I think that it is, for the most part, true. Straight men in their teens and early twenties tend toward the “f**k them and leave them” school, but over time, usually by the late twenties, tend to become much closer allied with the “if you want to f**k them, marry them and stay married to them” school. The process is called “Settling down”, and I think that is an apt description, a maturing process that straight men go through, moving from irresponsibility to responsibility.
As others have pointed out, gay men of my generation, born in the 1940’s, raised in the 1950’s and coming of age pre-Stonewall, were enculturated at a time when the idea of “settling down” was unthinkable for us. Younger gay men do not seem to be as affected by the twisted enculturation process we lived through, and, if I remember right, a Harvard study two or three years ago found that a large majority of gay men in their teens and early twenties expected to “settle down” and marry during the course of their lives.
I don’t think that there is anything “girlish” or “unmanly” about believing that men can and should live responsibly.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “Does it not bother anyone that Barack Obama is against SSM?”
It bothers me. President Obama, a former constitutional law professor, and from the accounts of friends of mine who teach at the University of Chicago Law School, a good one, ought to know better.
Obama’s position on same-sex marriage strikes me as a craven political calculation.
Look, for example, at Obama’s statement in the August 2007 Logo debate:
Or at his statement in April 2007 on the Situation Room show:
Now, look at this mess.
Obama’s position, in a nutshell, is that because the word “marriage” has religious connotations to “some people”, civil marriage is not politically achievable, and, as a result, same-sex marriage is not in the cards, as far as he is concerned. — he’s not willing to ruffle the feathers of religious folks who believe that they own marriage.
Obama is an “accommodationist”, taking essentially the same position that Jon Rauch and David Blankenhorn took in the infamous “A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage” New York Times op-ed.
It is high nonsense, at best, and dangerous. It is dangerous because Obama’s views (and the Rauch/Blankenhorn Accord) give credence to the Religious Right’s oft-stated view that a particular religious theology should control civil law.
posted by Debrah on
“I don’t think that there is anything ‘girlish’ or ‘unmanly’ about believing that men can and should live responsibly.”
*******************************************
Nor do I Tom, and I would venture to say that few would.
It’s the idea of men feverishly screaming and metaphorically sticking out their tongues, and much worse, as we see on this blog occasionally, when someone does not give glowing praise for the idea of two men “marrying”.
Along with all the physical manifestations that gross out (privately) a significant percentage of the globe that this entails.
You cannot force people to look glowingly onto something or automatically assign an appellation to something that they feel does not apply.
And yes, Tom, most adults “settle down” sooner or later.
I think the “circuit” has a hold on many gay men longer, no?
But neither of us should generalize. There are people who fit into slots all over the spectrum; however, not every man—gay or straight—has your value system.
Or needs and desires.
I’m not placing a value judgment on choosing to marry or not. For me, it’s been the fear of commitment in the legal sense. Long-term relationships should be encouraged; however, the need for most people to “settle down” is almost always financial in nature.
Or, initially anyway, truly falling in love.
One should admit that.
On the Obama issue, the statement from August 2007 which you cite is so mind-numbingly typical. He tap dances for the duration, essentially trying to have it both ways.
How on earth did anyone gay in this country come to believe that, as Hillary mocked….“The heavens will open up…..”?
“……….he’s not willing to ruffle the feathers of religious folks who believe that they own marriage.”
*****************************************
Like many, Tom, you give far too much credit to the religious jesters.
I totally believe that Obama, himself, does not believe the word “marriage” applies to gay unions.
He’s not a shy guy. Au contraire mon ami!
He’s addicted to the cameras and should come out and explain his views fully.
In my view Rauch’s approach is a logical one, albeit frustrating in some ways to the “activists”.
posted by Lori Heine on
“It is dangerous.”
Yes, Tom, it is.
“the Religious Right’s oft-stated view that a particular religious theology should control civil law.”
That “oft-stated view” resulted in centuries of religious war in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Why so few of those on the religious right actually bother to read or study history is unfathomable and inexcusable.
Our Constitution forbids the establishment of a State religion. Period. Slyly trying to sneak one in the back door, because it’s “popular,” is what cowardly politicians are doing.
Obama is a nothing. He’s a total fake. Some constitutional scholar.
I will work against him in 2012. As should anyone who cares about the survival of this country.
posted by BobN on
That “oft-stated view” resulted in centuries of religious war in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Why so few of those on the religious right actually bother to read or study history is unfathomable and inexcusable.
You simultaneously give them too little and too much credit. Of course the religious right knows the history of religious persecution. Look at the pillars of the movement, the Baptists, the Mormons, the conservative Catholics. That they employ the tools others used to oppress them is not an indication of ignorance of their own history, it is proof that they have studied and learned the techniques.
posted by Lori Heine on
“[I]t is proof that they have studied and learned the techniques.”
Sadly, BobN, I think you’re probably right.
What that means is that the rest of us had better read the history our would-be manipulators hope we won’t.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Tom, do please attempt to be less wimpy and girlish.
Or explain to me exactly how I am “endangered” if Obama, Rauch, Blankenhorn, and the majority of voters express a preference for same-sex civil unions instead of having same-sex marriage?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Thank you, ma’am. Your intelligence and bluntness are also extremely sexy, and if you’re ever inclined to have a marriage of convenience with a man who only wants to cuddle, you should drop me a line. 😉
posted by Throbert McGee on
Here’s a little Gedankenexperiment for Tom (and David Link, and anyone else who insists that “Everything but the word Marriage” Civil Unions are in some way inadequate):
Leaving aside the point that marriage laws are currently up to the individual states, let’s imagine that the federal government, with the approval of most voters, agreed to issue marriage licenses using the word “marriage” to homosexual couples and heterosexual couples alike, with exactly the same legal benefits for homos and heteros, but with the following provision:
The federal marriage licenses for heteros would be printed with gold-metallic ink in an attractive calligraphic font on faux-parchment paper so that it would look très elegante, while the marriage licenses for homos would be plain black-and-white Courier, on standard photocopier stock.
Would that be “dangerous” accommodationism that panders to the Religious Right and makes homosexuals into second-class citizens?
posted by Tom on
Throbert: “Or explain to me exactly how I am “endangered” if Obama, Rauch, Blankenhorn, and the majority of voters express a preference for same-sex civil unions instead of having same-sex marriage?”
You asking the wrong question.
The choice between civil marriage and civil unions is not in itself dangerous, constitutionally, if whatever form of recognition is decided upon is applied equally to all citizens.
It would be constitutionally permissible, for example, to change the law adopt civil unions for all, eliminating civil marriage entirely, leaving the question of marriage up to religious authorities. It might even be wise, since there is considerable difference among religions concerning marriage.
What is dangerous is basing civil law on a particular religious theology, because law is no longer based on religiously neutral grounds. Our social compact, which underlies and gives rise to the constitution, is based on the idea that civil law will be based on what is best for the common welfare of our citizens, a religiously neutral test. Injecting theology as a driver into the equation pits religion against religion, and loses sight of the common good.
Let me give you an example that involves marriage law but is removed from same-sex marriage battleground, the question of civil remarriage after civil divorce.
Many, perhaps most, Christian denominations do not recognize civil remarriage after civil divorce as valid marriages. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, “Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. … Contracting a new union even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture; the remarried spouse is then ins a situation of public and permanent adultery.”
Nonetheless, as far as I know, civil remarriage after divorce is available in all states, and civil remarriages are recognized by the federal government.
That is, in my view, as it should be. Government has a legitimate interest in making the stability of civil remarriage available to divorced men and women, and making the legal protections that remarriage provides to the children raised by couples who have divorced available to the children of such unions.
Now, let’s say that Christian religious theology (Mt 5:31-32, 19:3-9, Mk 10:9, Lk 16:18, 1Cor7:10-11) instead of the common good was used to form the basis of our laws as it applied to divorce and remarriage.
We would have numerous effects:
(1) divorce would be less available than it is under current law;
(2) remarriage would not be available without a judicial finding that the prior marriage was, for some reason, not legally valid;
(3) because remarriage would be largely unavailable, couples in which one or both of the parties had been previously married would not be afforded the protections of civil remarriage, and the children of such couples likewise; and
(4) civil law would favor one religious theology (Christian, in which divorce and remarriage are curtailed) over another religious theology (Jewish, in which divorce and remarriage are not curtailed).
That is, more or less exactly, the situation in which we find ourselves in the debate over same-sex marriage. The driving force behind the anti-marriage movement is adherence to a religious theology not universally held, and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage favor one religious theology over another.
I believe that there is a place for “accommodation” in the same-sex marriage arena, and again, the question of divorce and remarriage points the way.
Civil law can be framed (in fact it is framed under our constitution) so that it is not binding upon religious practice. Civil marriage laws do not impose on religious belief — the Catholic Church is free to refuse to marry anyone who has been previously married and divorced, Orthodox Jews are free to refuse to marry a Jew and a non-Jew, and so on.
But “accommodation” should not, in my view, extend to the point of embodying a particular religious theology in civil law, or, as Obama proposed, refrain from enacting civil laws that would enhance the common good because adherents of a particular religious theology object.
Here’s the bottom line on marriage and religion: It is when the two — civil marriage and religious marriage — get mixed together uncritically, as has happened in the battle over same-sex marriage in a way that has not occurred with respect to divorce and remarriage, so that a particular religious theology is embodied in civil law, that the danger occurs.
Throbert: “Tom, do please attempt to be less wimpy and girlish.”
LOL, Throbert. Hike up your pants; your butt crack is showing.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
Such devilishly sweet charm!
Too funny!
Never allow lesser mortals to throw a gossamer blanket over your impetuosities.
“The federal marriage licenses for heteros would be printed with gold-metallic ink in an attractive calligraphic font on faux-parchment paper so that it would look très elegante, while the marriage licenses for homos would be plain black-and-white Courier, on standard photocopier stock.”
“Would that be ‘dangerous’ accommodationism that panders to the Religious Right and makes homosexuals into second-class citizens?”
*******************************************
It will be difficult for detractors to drive a straight furrow through this hortatory discussion.
Simply in-cite-ful!
posted by Tom on
Throbert: “The federal marriage licenses for heteros would be printed with gold-metallic ink in an attractive calligraphic font on faux-parchment paper so that it would look très elegante, while the marriage licenses for homos would be plain black-and-white Courier, on standard photocopier stock.”
Let me ask you a similar question: If the marriage license for white couples had a watermark, barely visible, showing a bride and groom in traditional garb, and the marriage license for African-American couples had a watermark, barely visible, showing a bride and groom “jumping the broomstick”, would that offend equal treatment under the marriage law?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hmmm… if the broom-jumping African-Americans also have bones through their noses, then probably “yes.”
posted by Tom on
Throbert: “The federal marriage licenses for heteros would be printed with gold-metallic ink in an attractive calligraphic font on faux-parchment paper so that it would look très elegante, while the marriage licenses for homos would be plain black-and-white Courier, on standard photocopier stock.”
Tom: “Let me ask you a similar question: If the marriage license for white couples had a watermark, barely visible, showing a bride and groom in traditional garb, and the marriage license for African-American couples had a watermark, barely visible, showing a bride and groom “jumping the broomstick”, would that offend equal treatment under the marriage law?”
Throbert: Hmmm… if the broom-jumping African-Americans also have bones through their noses, then probably ‘yes’.”
Okay, then lets add another question, closer to the question you posed: “The marriage licenses for first marriages would be printed with gold-metallic ink in an attractive calligraphic font on faux-parchment paper so that it would look très elegante, while the marriage licenses for second and subsequent marriages would be plain black-and-white Courier, on standard photocopier stock.”
Would that offend equal treatment under the marriage law?
posted by christina on
Your blog is really very nice but i am reading one interesting blog. So i can share with you.Information age has seen an explosion gay dating sites on the Internet. Business is thriving, and is seen nowhere so clearly as in an online gay dating scene. Meetings and dating homosexuals became very popular and common.
http://www.gaydatingpersonals.co.uk