|
|
2004-08-18 - 1:10 p.m. Okay, so I was just reading this article (written by, I kid you not, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach), which is a response to the outing of New Jersey governor James McGreevey. Basically, the article suggests that since the "vast majority" of gay men have at some point been attracted to women, they should just shutter themselves back up in the closet and live in a long, healthy heterosexual marriage...for the benefit of women, of course! The tragedy of the McGreevey marriage I just wanted to point out a few of the more ridiculous parts of this article: First, the author makes the distinction between religious sins and moral sins, arguing that murder and theft are moral sins, and idolatry and working on the Sabbath are religious sins. Homosexuality is a religious sin, but not a moral one. Adultery is both a moral and religious sin, since it violates the holy covenant of marriage. Okay, I'm down with that. Moral sins should obviously be avoided by all members of a given society, since their commission tends to hurt society as a whole. Religious sins are really only relevant to believers of that particular religion. Sounds good to me. Except, then he says this: Remembering this clear-cut distinction is the key to ending homophobia in America while simultaneously upholding the sacred covenant of heterosexual marriage. Excuse me, but huh?? How does that make sense? If we have determined there are religious and moral sins, and that homosexuality is only a religious sin (not a moral one), then how can we uphold both the "sacred covenant of heterosexual marriage" in a legal sense, and not violate the separation of church and state? If churches want to define marriage so narrowly as to only allow straight couples, that's none of my business. But churches don't run this country (at least in theory!), so shouldn't the secular state have laws based on morality, and not religiosity? Okay, so now that we've set up the fact that this guy can't remain consistent for, oh, three seconds, let's tackle his next assertion: There are two kinds of gay men, those who, amid strong homosexual inclination, still harbor an attraction to women, and those who harbor none. Studies show that the overwhelming number of gay men are, like James McGreevey, in the former category. They are capable of having sex with a woman, and indeed 90 percent of gay men admit to having done so. Alright, I want to see the study that says that 90% of gay men have slept with women. Not that I doubt that there is a large percentage of gay men that have, at one point in their lives, dated women, but I seriously doubt that they are 90% of all gay men. And even if that number is true, there is no indication of these men's motivations for dating women. How many of them were in the closet, trying desperately to have a "normal" relationship? Aren't these relationships evidence of pervasive homophobia and heteronormativity, rather than a strange heterosexual quirk inherent in every gay man? And, again, even if those numbers are true, why should we accept this: It is for this reason that society should not legalize gay marriage and elevate it to the same plane as heterosexual marriages, because there is then no incentive for these men, who are in essence bisexual, to make an effort to direct their erotic focus toward women and raise their heterosexual attraction above their same-sex one. In what world is this even logical? First of all, why should these men "make an effort to direct their erotic focus toward women and raise their heterosexual attraction above their same-sex one"? I thought people got married because they love one another. Inherent in marriage is the understanding that there will be the temptation to stray (which is why adultery has to be considered a sin, right?), so obviously no one expects that you will always and forever only be attracted to your spouse. Marriage is about more than mere attraction. So, if there are gay men that are attracted to women, but fall in love with men, why shouldn't they be able to get married? And why should we as a society be telling people who to be attracted to? Or determining what kind of attraction is better than the other? Shithead continues: Indeed, gay men who are attracted to women usually make much better husbands and fathers since they are usually softer, gentler, more domesticated and more nurturing than their heterosexual counterparts. Spoken like a man who has watched too many episodes of "Queer Eye!" Wow, the gender assumptions abound here. Gay men are nurturing and "domesticated" (kind of like a cat!), and heterosexual men are, apparently, rugged and aloof. And might I note that all you good hetero men out there should be steam-coming-out-of-your-ears, veins-popping-out-of-your-neck angry and offended by this statement. Because, according to this fuckwit, any old gay man could be a better husband and partner than you could simply because you are straight. Nevermind the fact that you may love your wife and would do everything in your power to care for her, support her, and help her whenever she needs it. But, because you're straight, you'd be a failure. And some more gender norm fun: Indeed, if men with attraction to both sexes are not encouraged to explore their heterosexual attraction, we are condemning millions of women to lives of loneliness without husbands since the much higher proportion of gay men to lesbians creates a strong numerical imbalance between the sexes. Ah, yes...play that trump card, honey. 'I'm just looking out for the ladies!' FUCK YOU. I don't need looking out for, and I sure as shit don't need one more man telling me that unless I hitch up, and right quick, I will be "condemned to a life of loneliness." Have I mentioned how much I hate it when men tell me what is in my best interest? Have I also mentioned lately that women are a minority in name only? We are 51% of the population, and I don't know any women lamenting her single status because of the number of gay men that, while they may or may not be attracted to her, would rather marry the MEN they love than marry her. And before I forget, this man is my favorite form of homophobe: the kind who hates gay men so much he forgets that lesbians even exist. Ugh. And this is honestly how the Religious Reich, er Right, believes it can argue against gay marriage and still say they aren't homophobes. Assholes. Edited to add this: Dan Savage's take on this very subject: But let's suppose that Mrs McGreevey didn't know. What if she looked so composed during the press conference because she downed a handful of Xanax a moment or two before it began? What if she, like most straight women who discover their husbands are gay, is devastated by the news? (Self-help titles available on Amazon include The Other Side of the Closet: The Coming-Out Crisis for Straight Spouses and Families and My Husband Is Gay: A Woman's Survival Guide.) If that's the case, I hope the religious right has the decency to send Mrs McGreevey - and every other woman out there who discovers she's married to a closeted gay man - an apology. For isn't duping poor straight women into marrying us the religious right's advice to gay men? According to the Falwells, Robertsons and Santorums of the world, I'm supposed to think less about the South African Olympic men's swim team and more about hell (hot!) and eternity (long!). Then I'm supposed to go find a woman I can trick into marrying me. So what if the foundation of my marriage is a lie? So what if I have to struggle against my sexual and emotional needs all my adult life? Do what you gotta do, faggot: if you need to think about other men - like, say, all those nice boys on the South African Olympic swim team - in order to perform sexually for your wife and make some babies, Senator Santorum says go for it. And if the truth about my sexuality were to ever come out - if I were, say, threatened with a $50m lawsuit by my same-sex piece on the side - the poor woman I've lied to will feel humiliated and violated but, shit, no one ever said that marriage was all sweetness and light, right? Wow...apparently, we are of like mind...and you know, we both like men. � 
|