Comments on: Respectability Is The New Closet

By: Mark Walsh

Mark Walsh — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:57:29 +0000

The misfortune about the marriage situation is that very few people have the curiousity or courage to step outside the status quo, or even find out what is outside the box before they set up critical boundaries.
Most people grow up in more or less streotypic families, where, regardless of real feelings, everyone acts a if the romantic, love generated prototype is pounded into their little heads before they can think; the same programing happens in the media.
The truth, if you are in a position to talk in dead earnest with straight men, is that , apart from the demands of nesting security minded females, heterosexual men would be out fucking different women left and right and every other way. Trust me , I relate to straight men well and have done my research. Marriage vows and the myth of love are all assurances for women and society and are not part of the male makeup at all. Gay or straight! Indeed gay men, who often attempt to relate more to females are buying into a program which will not, except in the least well realized most insecure individuals, (especially when they fail to have babies)not stand up to experience. As far as GLBT people only lesbians wil find it comfortable. on an ongoing basis.

All of this can be said external to all the religious insanity and need for social assimilation. I believe that there are a lot of young and older, wiser gay people who don’t give a hoot for conformity, and , like me, avoid it like the plaque, in it’s various dangerous self destructive forms.

As long as voices like yours and Marks’ get heard people will rally. That is the tricky part, unfortunately, being heard.

By: Marcelo

Marcelo — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:46:18 +0000

Both Marks! I think I’ll refer to you guys by your last names from now on – it’s interesting reading the comments on the original posting. There’s a strong divide, but it looks like a lot of non straight folk have been waiting for a statement like that. In fact, i’d say it’s a spot on manifesto for those who oppose conformity – a rallying call.

By: Mark Walsh

Mark Walsh — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:16:46 +0000

I don’t know which Mark you were beconing, Marcello, but nonetheless this is a very amazing! It’s very seldom that truth creeps into American media like that . It ’s really a very thorough, thoughtfull examination; amazingly so. Something,if it gets around which should resonate witha lot of people; indeed a majority who are really sick of this marriage routine mascarading as the major gay agenda.

Thanks from me for sending that.

By: Marcelo

Marcelo — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:21:34 +0000

Hi Mark – saw this commentary on Gay marriage which you might like http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/147936/index.php

By: Mark Walsh

Mark Walsh — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:42:28 +0000

Bisexuality is too confusing a concept for the extant midset. Indeed it might be a break from the bleak tedium that American gays are pushing down everyones’ throats. They need something with a spin to stick up the nether regions!

By: Mr. X

Mr. X — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:15:25 +0000

If being bisexual ever becomes totally mainstream and conformist, full of consumerism, and respectability that being a gay man has nowadays or God forbid being queer/GLBT becomes as ubiquitously acceptable and respectable as heterosexuality is, I think I’ll puke.

By: Marcelo

Marcelo — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 04:51:57 +0000

Great comments here by Mark and Sisu.
Love to have a coffee with you guys : ) if your ever in Australia.

Wapote, buddy… you need to learn how to breathe again. Stop being soooo emotional and pause, breathe, think – repeat.

By: Mark Walsh

Mark Walsh — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:59:50 +0000

Wapote: There is really very little else to say after Sisu’s estimable and lucid explaination; it appears that you are not reading at all! There are many authors who have addressed the matter of who is conservative, and who not ; it is certainly not one of us. Here are some American authors you might benefit from although if you slow down and try to understand what is being said, you might find a fresh way of understanding that not everyone buys the popular package that so may lawyers, groups and pundant profit from.

“The Trouble with Normal; Sex Ethics and Politics of Queer Life ” by Michael Warner (Rutgers Univ.)

Queer Wars:The New Gay Right and Its Critics: Paul A Robinson; about Sullivan, Bauwer,Signorelli, and Rotello. U of Chicago
(this is a really great assessment of the Right wWing movement)

Virtual Equality; the Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Libreration: (play on Sullivan’s” Virtually Normal”) Ursashi Vaid.

By: Wapote

Wapote — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:58:11 +0000

Do you need a step stool to get off your high horse? I think you are reading what YOU want to read out of my comments. For the last time, for those of you who cannot comprehend written English, I celebrate my diversity. I am happy I’m a big homo, and there is nothing I would rather be than a gay male. But yes, being able to marry and adopt children like anyone else is a right. Who says I shouldn’t be able to adopt a child with my HUSBAND if I could be a good parent. Why should some drug-addicted trailer trash, or some god awful chav be able to reproduce when they already have 4 kids in their single-wide or caravan. And yes, you should be supportive of the movement even if you think the institution of marriage isn’t for you. You seem to be as bad as the bigots during the civil rights movement who ‘had every right to think’ that whites and blacks shouldn’t mix. I’m sorry, but I don’t respect that opinion, and if you do in 2009, you are a sad and horrible person. Throughout time, the general intelligence of a society grows. Our society in 2009 knows more about social equality, science, etc than the society of the 1950s. By the way, the idea that marriage as an institution and as a religious sacrament/entity is supposedly already decided due to my country’s separation of church and state. I personally think that the equality movement is actually trying to make that a real issue, by showing that even though some religions think of marriage as a religious institution, not everyone is married. I think marriage is more of a cultural institution that religious one, because regardless of religion, there is always marriage, even for atheists. And my last note, when did I say the only respectable kind of relationship is marriage? I never did. I’ve never been married and I’ve had relationships that were respectable. Thanks for twisting my comment around, but I don’t think everyone should get married or less value should be put onto them. I’m saying that I personally want to get married, and I don’t think that you, a conservative, or anyone else has the right to tell me that I can’t get married because I’m a second class citizen and don’t deserve to be part of an institution that recognizes my monogamous and profound love for someone.

By: Sisu

Sisu — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:11:36 +0000

Wapote, no one is saying that all gay men are promiscuous and do not deserve the right to marry. I think you may be reading into the replies what you THINK is being said, and not taking the time to understand what is being said. And without wanting to get confrontational, I find insulting the remark, “Like seeing a black or poor republican, it just doesn’t make sense.” There is no mandate on how an individual should express themselves; do you to want some form of gay “Group Think” that is followed by all members of the GLBT communities?

Here are some ideas to ponder.

1) There should be no politics of sexual shame. Every person should have a right to express themselves sexually provided that the sex is consensual. A problem with the Gay and Lesbian Community (not so common with the bisexual community) is that only monogamous relationships are valued – hence the current push for gay marriage. My earlier comment was “queers and transgenders and prostitutes and the slutty singles just after their next shag and the bisexuals and those that just don’t (or won’t) fit in”. You took exception to the linkage between gay men and prostitutes. The point is not that gay men are like prostitutes, but that we share a level of sexual shame. The current Gay and Lesbian Movement sees the best way of dealing with sexual shame is to redefine it. Thus, the idea (as in Mark Simpson’s original post) of respectability being the new closet. To be respectable, gay men have to be monogamous and assimilationist, at least publicly. Or in your words, to “not stand out like a sore thumb that needs to be gawked at”.

But what then happens if you redefine this respectability? What happens to those gays who do not want monogamy or who are in committed but open relationships? Where does it leave the bisexuals who are in open relationships? Guys that do t-rooms and parks on the way home to the wife? Men and women who sell their bodies for money? Transgenders and intersex people? Polygamists?

So instead of the GLBT communities setting one restrictive agenda, why not deal openly with the politics of sexual shame? Why not go for true equality which protects any consensual relationships, not just promoting the one model of sexual monogamy / marriage?

2) You seem to have a problem with the idea that any gay person who is against marriage is somehow a “traitor” to the gay and lesbian movement. Wow. Here is what you wrote:

“Those of you who are against these equalization are selfish. Even if you are one of those homos that doesn’t care about marriage, you should still be supportive of the movement. If not for you, for your friends, and for the progression of the equality movement.”

So what you are saying is that we should all promote same sex marriage for the good of the movement? That equality can only be reached through gay marriage? That is akin to saying that all minorities should shut up in the face of the majority. What would you say if you were told by the larger society that your viewpoint was wrong and harmful to the goals of the larger society? Oh, you were – in California, by the Federal government. Let me rephrase your comment:

“Those of you who are for equalization are selfish. Even if you are one of those homos that does care about marriage, you should still be supportive of society’s interest to keep marriage between a man and a woman. If not for you, for your friends, and for the stability of society.”

How does it feel to be marginalised for your minority view? Not to have it discussed, or accepted as valid, or to be welcomed as different, but to be told that because you are a minority your view should be hidden and you take up the view of the majority for the greater good?

3) Marriage as a right. I hate to burst your bubble, but marriage (and children) is not a basic right. Food, water, shelter, education, basic safety – they are rights. Yes, the right to enter into a relationship (or relationships) is there too. But not the right to marriage. Marriage is a social contract that is valued in our society; and as a thing of value I agree that it should be examined. But instead of promoting marriage as equality, how much better would it be to separate marriage (as a religious institution) from law; and to recognise in law the different ways we can form relationships?

As for your comment that having children is a right, I would suggest that the opposite is true. Having children is a responsibility. That is why the state reserves for itself the ability to take children away from unfit parents.

I noticed in my country’s gay glossy an article – written with no sense of irony – that one of the benefits of having children is that you can plan glamourous parties for them. Dress them up, cater, hire some ponies – this is the ultimate in gay narcissism. Children should not be a fashion accessory…and although most gays and lesbians make fantastic parents, the idea that having children is some expression of self is abhorent.

4) Lastly, I suggest you follow up on Mark Walsh’s comment about gay history. Rather than the likes of traitorous, slutty, non-monogamous me putting back gay and lesbian rights 25 years, it is the likes of you that are putting the rights back – to the 1950’s where assimilation was seen to be the key. No celebration of difference, the observence of heterosexual type behaviour, the idea that if we don’t frighten the horses then we will win our freedomes. Ironically, the same message that African-Americans were told prior to the civil rights movement – especially ironic because of the passion the current gay movement has in quoting the black civil rights movement in their struggle. Equality in America started when a black woman said she wasn’t going to be a good ol’ girl any more and sat up the front of the bus. And now here we are in (almost) 2010 and we are being told that to win our freedoms, we have to be good gay girls and boys and sit demurely in that same bus with all the straight girls and boys. In our alloted spaces, with no discourse, no challenge to the status quo.

And, in the end, the bus goes around in one big circle.