![[SA]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivnHmuljS5JifTHnyfjoH_evxzLaiwAXPEX-Nc2T6daRXSWHh65uLjUXKbVR64ODzxSOFAbRgACVVchEjbHIUX9l2wOXo8eNW7sE9BvfY5GuTucenKXSHiaF-MBYPzax640z0ufE-q2rw/s150/Spoiler+Alert+Cover.png)
Not to pile on or engage in partisan political hackery or anything, but it's been another banner week for Republicans complete with ineptitude, hypocrisy, and, of course, the rearming of a terrorist organization.
A few thoughts here:
- Nobody has worked this hard to figure out someone's very obvious sexuality since George Michael left the world confused for the better part of the decade. (That article is a must read).
- Like George Michael, it might be time for Senator Craig to just admit that when innuendo and rumors cross the line to creepy bathroom stall arrest, it's probably best to just come out.
- Because, I mean, there are plenty of excuses for a lot of those things taken individually, but when added up, just saying "I have a wide stance." doesn't really undo twenty years worth of gossip coming to a head. So to speak.
- Obviously killing Shredder wasn't enough.
- I'm adding "Jiminy God" to my internal list of exclamations right between "Jesus Christ on a cracker" and "Khhhhhhhaaaaaan!"
- The next time you scare me I'll probably yell "Jiminy God!"
- Or possibly "Jesus Christ on a cracker!" or maybe "Khhhhhhhaaaaaan!"
- Shouldn't we have all suspected this Sen. Craig thing after his last gay sex scandal ended with him marrying a woman six months later? I think her maiden name was Beardra Beardson.
- Who would have thought the new TMNT movie would be legitimately good? Sure, they neutered Leonardo a little bit--just as they did with Cyclops in the X-Men movies, I have a theory about this--but my buddy Ryan and I couldn't have been more surprised.
- On second thought, maybe Senator Craig is just really bad at selecting men's rooms. Could happen to anyone.
And I've got nothing to add about our former Attorney General who I'm sure is a lovely man who has never personally listened to a person's phone call without a warrant and even if he had, cannot recollect it.
8 comments:
I don't know what to feel about Republicans getting caught soliciting male-male sex. I guess I feel mad and angry that they get to sit in positions of power and deny rights to those of us brave enough to come out, while all along getting to enjoy the same sex (and arguably hotter) that we do.
I don't want this asshole to come out, nor do I think he ever will. He's not "gay" and he'll be the first to admit it, because "gay" to him means flouncy and urban and eternal-club-kid-y. It means saying no to a life of American Goodness and Plenty.
It still, though, feel bad for him. Like if he weren't a Republican senator I'd be enraged that the police want to spend all their time stopping gay sex from happening. Sure, maybe the concern is they want to stop public sex from happening, but I'm sure there's a brighter glimmer in the eyes of the cop busting two fags going at it than that in his partner who finds a married couple in the bushes.
-"It" and +"I"
I understand the ambivalence. The last time this happened with Foley, a lot of the right-wing talking heads took the position that it was actually the left being hypocritical for "demonizing" a gay republican while supposedly being GLBT friendly. That's an argument that way missed the point with Foley (and Haggard), and still misses the point here.
Say what you will about whether or not he's gay--and I know your definition of the term--he's certainly someone who has demonstrated a lifelong tendency towards physical relationships with men which certainly suggests he's a homosexual whether or not he would ever call himself one. As such, his decision to take political positions in direct contradiction to his lifestyle is enough to see him (and the party that groomed him) as hollow, corrupt, and morally comprimised regardless of his sexuality.
I feel bad for him because he's clearly a tortured individual forced to lead a life he probably wouldn't have chosen had he been born in, say, 1975 in New York City. That said, he's had plenty of time to be honest with himself (and those who elected him) rather than using his seat of power to self-hate on a national stage.
Yeah, but he *hasn't* taken positions in direct contradiction to his lifestyle. His lifestyle was chosen as happy white middle-class American with a wife and kids. At some point in his life he decided this desire, or the desire for this lifestyle, was greater than his sexual desires, and so he found in himself somewhere an ability to sleep with a woman for years (or maybe he doesn't have kids...I haven't done any homework on this issue) and thus live the lifestyle he fought for.
I don't know why I'm defending this guy, and I'm not. Or I'm not trying to. I think I'm trying to get at a point you and I probably share, which is that some people choose a lifestyle that allows them to publicly (or, well, openly) have sex most people think is deviant, and some people don't choose this no matter how much they want to have that same kind of sex, and it's these people, these latter people, that are rewarded and allowed into positions of power, while us former folks who are the same at some basic biological level don't.
I guess what I'm upset about most is that this disparity seems like it's going to continue, no matter how many of these dudes get caught being just as deviant as the rest of us, and yet so upstanding otherwise!
Well, I guess I was considering the repeated rendezvous with anonymous men in extremely seedy conditions part of his lifestyle. Clearly, whatever is going on with Mr. Craig--and it seems pretty clear--he chose to persecute and discriminate against those who share his urges. Unless he was reaching under those stalls to lead someone by the hand to Christ, whoever he met in these circumstances he later denigrated and used them to rally the troops for his political party.
He is gay. Or, I should say, if the things they are saying he's done are true, he's gay. Or do you want to draw a distinction between homosexual and gay?
By pretending he, or anyone, has a choice in the matter gives defense to those who would deny rights or attempt to "cure" a child (or an adult pastor from Colorado). This is one of the fundamental tenants for the gay rights movement, no? (See Richardson, Bill at the Dems GLBT debate).
The blogger who outed him basically seems to be taking the position that there is no privileged class of closeted men, that a person can't live that double life anymore. In other words, he's basically screaming "You're a gay. You're a gay pants wearing gay." (or whatever) and trying to deny that choosing a lifestyle outside the orientation is possible.
I don't think it really came through, but what I was trying to say in that third paragraph is that my perception is that most in the GLBT community (including the blogger I mentioned) seem to be much more all-or-nothing on orientation issues than you are, and I think that's interesting.
Would you say he--or some person, or most people--could successfully choose ambition and "mainstream values" over sexual orientation? And if so, is that ever a defensible and justified choice?
I guess I'm under the impression most would say a person could pretend or "pass" or whatever, but I'm curious about your use of the word 'choice.'
Obviously you've read and know far more than I do about this, but humor me.
Yeah I was super hyperaware that I used the term "choice" in that last post---so loaded term---and that I should explain, but then felt I was already taking up too much space.
The majority of those in the gay-rights movement eschew any mention of homosexuality being a choice, because proving or at least agreeing on a biological basis for homosexuality is the first step in demanding that rights be given to us. How can you deny us rights for being what we are?
Some tricky issues, though, are at play.
One is that "homosexuality" as a term can (and maybe should) be thought of as descriptive of three separate but related things: behavior, orientation, and identity. This guy's got probably two of them, the first two. He's sucking men off in bathrooms: gay behavior. He's doing it repeatedly: probably oriented sexually toward men.
These are often, but not always, nested, in a way. I identify as gay, which means that I'm oriented toward men and do stuff with them in bed. So I hit all three. Men in jail usually only have the first one. They have sex with men, but as soon as they're out they probably won't do it again and so can't really be said to have an orientation.
Craig probably won't ever identify as gay, but this doesn't mean he isn't oriented toward them as I say. Orientation is like the sin that fundamentalists hate when they say they don't hate the sinner. Orientation is the thing that Craig doesn't want to admit to himself, I imagine.
Orientation, also, I argue, isn't a choice. We are attracted to whoever we find ourselves attracted to. What remains a choice is whether to enact that orientation through behavior (though most would argue it's hardly a choice...we're compelled to do it). And it's also a choice whether to identify as someone who is oriented this way.
So, it's like the argument doesn't necessarily have to be "is it or isn't it a choice" but maybe "people should be allowed to make the choices they want without it affecting their rights." Of course this can't be the legal language.
I've been distracted from my argument. Am I done? I have to run to class. If I were more on top of my game, I'd refer you to someone who argues that demanding/proving a biological basis for homosexuality ruins the long-standing project of the queer-rights movement to completely overhaul the gender divide.
Oh, and another good argument is that no one is born Christian (though of course they're indoctrinated at birth) or Moslem or Wiccan or whatever, but that he chooses his religion and is protected from discrimination based on that choice. So if I choose to live a "gay lifestyle" why can't I be protected as well?
Awesome. That's exactly the clarification I was looking for. I feel like I've learned something today.
Now, who wants to talk about the Ninja Turtles?
Post a Comment