that Camille Paglia is a self-absorbed idiot, look no further:
Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches.
(And yes, the link is to the right page -- the rest of the piece is a wandering, toothless, bad-tempered ramble that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in any context, so don't waste your time looking for the beginning of it. It's not worth the trouble.)
Well, OK -- so in one declarative sentence Paglia demonstrates that she doesn't know history, doesn't know how America works, and is given to ridiculous decrees. Please note that marriage has always been much more a civil institution than a religious one, even within the modern West, as Andrew Sullivan points out. It's even less a religious institution as you go farther back and spread the net wider, so basically Paglia's full of the brown stinky on that score.
As it happens, clergy who perform marriages do so as agents of the state: in all states, I believe, they are granted the courtesy of acting as magistrates and justices of the peace for that purpose -- and that prupose alone. They have no inherent right to do so, and any marriage performed without an authorized signature on that state license is not recognized.
And no, marriage is not a religious concept. It is a social/cultural concept. You can just as easily, and with just as much accuracy, if not more, call it a business arrangement, at least in the 5000-year-old "tradition" so often cited by the rabids.
And, big surprise! In the rest of that section of her screed, Paglia falls right into line with the "gay" conservative position that we should just STFU and go back in the closet.
I'm not terribly impressed. But then, I never am.
6 comments:
And, big surprise! In the rest of that section of her screed, Paglia falls right into line with the "gay" conservative position that we should just STFU and go back in the closet.
One wonders what experience you have with gay conservatives to write something like that.
Gods! Where to start? Jonathan Rauch on the Connecticut decision, which I discussed here, Dan Blatt on same-sex marriage, Bruce Carroll on gay activism in general, Andrew Sullivan and Chris Crain on hate-crimes laws (my thoughts on that issue are expressed most concisely here, and the general tendency on the part of those named above, as well as others such as Dale Carpenter and the Log Cabin Republicans, to decry the efforts of those who have been out there fighting to get the benefits that they now enjoy.
If you follow this blog on a regular basis (and of course, I encourage you to do just that*), you'll see that I recognize that enforcing our rights is not going to come as a gift from Daddy. Minority rights have never enjoyed that circumstance, and I don't see why we should expect our rights to be any different.
(* Besides, it's an interesting blog anyway.)
I can't speak of the others. I'm mostly familiar with Dan & Bruce, though I'm fairly comfortable when I say that Sully's no conservative. CINO, maybe. The main point from GP, like myself, is not that gays should "STFU" or go back into the closet. Rather, they put forth suggestions to improve the lives of gays and the "gay community", which doesn't really exist as far as I can tell.
Many of us don't want the obcentiy/absurdity of pride parades, Folsom Street Fair, Southern Decadence etc. to define who we are. Hell, we don't even want the fact that we're gay to define who we are. Just as you probably wouldn't want that asshole in WeHo screaming "nigger" to define you (at least I would hope not).
For mine own part, I'm a man who happens to be in love with another man. I don't feel compelled to make sure every body knows that I'm gay. For the most part, I don't think that's most people's business. The gay left calls that "self loathing" and/or "in the closet". If that's what you want to call it, so be it. "By my heel, I care not". I think it's safe to say that other gay conservatives are pretty much the same.
I am who and what I am and don't give a solid damn what others, especially gay liberals, think of it or call it. Most importantly, however, is the fact that if the "gay community" were consistent with the PR they put out, they wouldn't care either.
We're supposed to believe that gays are tolerant and inclusive of everybody. My experience is that gays are only tolerant and inclusive of those they think they can get in the sack with and to hell with everyone else.
BTW, what are these "rights" that have been fought so hard for? What is it that we're supposed to be so thankful for? I have the same, exact rights I had when I thought I was straight.
Leaving off the "who's a real conservative" part, which is of less interest to me than James Dobson's sex life, I'm pleased to see some real points brought forth.
Let's see . . . "obscenity/absurdity" of pride parades, etc. The only ones who define us by those are our enemies, just as they are the ones to define us simply as "gay." For most of us, I think, "gay" is a facet of who we are, but only a facet -- I can quite comfortably identify my self as gay, male, artist, writer, white, non-Christian, thin, and tall (ish -- people are getting bigger). None of those define me completely, or even in a substantive way -- they're fragments, that's all. It's a mistake, I think, to take the rhetoric of those arguing on a specific issue and apply those definitions as the sole element in their identities, but it's one that anti-gays are happy to exploit. It's a fairly easy way to ignore our humanity. When it comes down to it, that whole tack is grossly simplistic and is too accepting of the discourse as framed by those who want to do us damage. It's an odd sort of thing -- on the one hand, refusing to let "gay" define us is striking a pose by making a virtue out of a commonplace; on the other hand, it's pretty much a no-brainer.
I also have deep reservations about calling on the "gay left." I'll grant that there is such a thing, but it does not define the culture or the movement, just as "gay" does not define any of us as individuals. (And believe that I've ripped into some of those ideologues, as well.)
As for being who you are and not giving a damn what others think, there's no reason you should -- except that the ones who are going to make an issue of it are not, as you seem to imply, "gay liberals," but your fellow "conservatives." Take a look at recent history.
The "gay community" is another of those semi-mythical creatures that seems to pop up with distressing regularity in any discussion such as this. There are many gay communities, depending on what the focus is at any given moment, and most of us participate in more than one. Which particular community are you referring to?
"Tolerant and inclusive of everybody" -- well, that's the propaganda of the movement stalwarts, and frankly, as far as I can see, it's done more to cripple us as a group than it has to help us. It's an ideological stance, and like most ideologies, it doesn't have a lot to do with the real world. I tend to operate on a fairly personal basis, myself: treat me with respect and consideration and you're home free. And one little trick I've found works pretty much every time: I'm try to be nice to people, figuring they deserve some appreciation for having made it this far. They respond to that fairly well, in general. On the other hand, treat me like dirt and I'll drop a piano on your head at the first opportunity.
As for your last statement: that's another fairly simplistic take, as I see it. I have to assume that when you "thought you were straight," so did everyone else. However, now that you know you're gay (and, I assume, not hiding the fact, even if you're not flaunting it), then so does everyone else. That means that no, you do not have the same exact rights you had back then: there are still many places where you can lose your job, your home, your children, or be denied service in restaurants or any other public facility, with no recourse. (And if you think that's because "sexual orientation" is not a protected class, you're right -- but nobody's going to do that to you if you're straight.) In Illinois, as in only about 15 or 16 other states, we have guarantees against that sort of treatment. It took thirty years to get them, entirely too much of which was spent sitting around waiting for someone to hand them to us. When we finally got busy, it happened pretty fast. If you live in Massachusetts or Connecticut, you can marry the man you love, but nowhere else in this country, and it's not going to happen anywhere else all by itself. (And certainly not if we wait for the Democrats to do it for us; the Republicans, who used to be a natural fit for something like that, aren't even in the running these days.) So don't tell me you have the same rights as straight people, because in most places you don't. And in most of those places that you do, you only have most of them.
In fact, I didn't get a job with Houston Fire Department because I happen to be a white male. They had enough at the time and needed more minorities and females (liberals call this "fair"). I've been fired because I didn't tell the boss that his nephew pissed through the crack in his office door. I've been fired because I went by the company clock and not the clock on the bank sign next door. I've been fired for busting my castinets to do the job while black women sat around and talked all day.
If someone were to fire me because I'm gay, I wouldn't want to work for that person/company anyway and would consider it a blessing.
When I speak of the "gay community", I speak of the community as a whole. You'll pardon my apparent ignorance. Never got my handbook and membership card.
There's this grand notion that the gay community accepts all sorts under the rainbow flag. The reality is that they only accept those they agree with or whomever they think they can score with.
My main point is that, whether or not we like it, we're judged by our actions. There are those out there who have little to no experience with gays. I had none until I moved to Houston in the 90s. Those folks may not see Adam & Steve, down the street, who are average Joes living their lives, going to work every day etc. just like everyone else. What they do see is the pride parades, Folsom Street Fair, Southern Decadencem the recent hysteria of the California queens etc. Why? Because that's news. They get to see a prancing poof "Jack McFarland" and don't want anything to do with that sort.
I remember spending a few years in hell (in my mind)because I didn't want to be gay. I didn't want to be like the gays you see on TV. I didn't want to be like Scott Thompson's "Buddy Cole" and others. I didn't want to be a part of any group that attacks religion for fun and/or profit. Was that fair? Probably not. But that's the way it was. I have no doubt that it's the same for many others.
And yes, (call me naive), but I DO have the same God given rights. You talk of privleges, not rights. You don't have a right to a job and you don't have a right to housing and you don't have a right to adopt children. You need to realize the difference between rights and priveliges. I'm quite happy with my life and my partner of 12 years. I don't NEED validation from anybody else for my happiness. My happiness comes from within and is not granted by the State.
BTW, you'll pardon my writing style. I'm not a writer and I tend to have bullet points that I try to get out there. Not to mention the fact that I haven't gotten to reply to your comments until late.
Sorry for the hiatus. As I've noted other places, life is a series of interruptions.
OK -- my point was not about all the excuses people can use to fire you, or even all the real reasons, but the fact that if someone does want to fire you because your very existence offends their religious beliefs, most places you have no recourse. As for not wanting to work for those people anyway, many of us don't have that option. And, given that people have lost their jobs, homes, and children simply for being gay, I think that justifies heightened scrutiny and a guarantee of redress. Please don't try to tell me that we -- meaning gays -- have equal rights in this country: the mere fact that we had to go to the Supreme Court to affirm that we have the same right as any heterosexual to engage in consensual sex should give you a heads-up on that score.
And, to dip down a paragraph or two, these things are indeed rights, in common usage and jurisprudence, even if it's not always so directly stated ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" covers a lot of territory). Whether anyone has a right to a job might be debatable; for those who do, being treated the same as any other worker is pretty much a gimme. There's a basic principle of American society involved here: equal treatment under the law. That's evolved over the years to include things such as not having the right to fire an employee based on prejudice, whether it be racial, religious, or any other kind. That's the key element of our whole system of law: you have to have a rational justification for things.
(Side note: I'm not pointing out anyone specific here, but I find it odd that so many people who believe, for example, that you have an inalienable right to be born also feel that you have no right to anything that's going to keep you alive and functional after that. I mean, try that argument on a "pro-lifer" -- being born is a privilege -- and see what kind of reaction you get.)
Mmm -- the "gay community" thing: it's just like any other community, and as I think I mentioned, the all-accepting part is a tenet of PC left ideology, which like any ideology doesn't necessarily have much to do with reality. (And I have to confess that I'm in a strange land here: I just don't relate to people that way in real life -- I either like them and get along with them, or I don't, and all else being equal, I will at least start off by trying to get along, which is, I think, most people's reaction. Although I do find it instructive that I can't think of any of my friends or close acquaintances who believe my existence is an affront to God's plan, whatever that might be.)
And about the prancing, flamboyant gays so beloved of the media: I find it instructive that you blame them and not those who very selectively choose to present them as the sum total of the gay population. Frankly, I have nothing against being flamboyant, even if it's not really my style -- I'm really a pretty low-key person, although give me a costume that's a couple of straps and a bunch of feathers and who knows what I might do? Mmm -- I have to moderate that somewhat: I've been an actor, a dancer, and a photographer's model, and I suspect I have a very different take on modesty than most people. I'm much more likely to be concerned about whether my body looks good than about what's actually showing.) On the other side, I'd love to see a TV sitcom about two guys raising their kids. I might even get a TV.
But the point is, why shouldn't people go all out when it's a matter of celebration? That's what celebrations are for, and to blame gays for the way they are portrayed in the media -- echoes of that same PC political stance that tries to pretend we're all accountants and bureaucrats, the "just like everybody else" contingent -- strikes me as somewhat odd. (And it strikes me also, although it may go down sideways, that we are, in fact, just like everybody else -- and try to tell me that straights never cut loose and act up. Did you ever witness a fraternity party?)
As for not being a writer -- you're doing fine. It's all about clarity.
Post a Comment