Comments on: The joy of my world is Mark Kleiman (Beautiful, beatiful Kleiman)

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:38:47 +0000

There are three issues being conflated here: sexuality, sexual behavior, and solidarity. Kleiman et al. appear to argue that sexuality should be a private matter in certain cases. Why then are they not disturbed by the way heterosexual politicians (not to mention millions of others) “flaunt” their offspring, their wives and husbands, their wedding rings? Sexuality is patentaly NOT a private matter – except somehow when it’s HOMOsexuality? I don’t think so. Religion, art, and the media have us all “soaking in it,” to paraphrase Madge. Please don’t confuse sexuality with sexual acts, which are indeed private. You have no more idea what I do in the bedroom, knowing that I am gay, than I know what YOU do. (Hint: After twelve years in a relationship, the answer might be—- not a whole lot :) When straight people hide their sexuality, I’ll consider hiding mine, too. In the meantime, the issue isn’t privacy – it is freedom and equality – as Michelangelo Signorile persuasively argued in his first book over ten years ago. However, given that gay people are at risk in our society, progressive people have an obligation to practice sensitivity and solidarity with gay people who are closeted. This is true even in liberal Cambridge, where I had my landlords tred to rent my apartment out from underneath me when they discovered I was gay, in 1988. Closeted anti-gay politicians, however, have forfeited any claim on our solidarity and sensitivity. Bottom line: Atrios had it right. Especially when he said that he is not disturbed if someone asks if he is gay.

By: David Ehrenstein

David Ehrenstein — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:37:22 +0000

Snowball, would a Jew voting for Hitler be considered “a private matter”?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:12:56 +0000

…Dreier came out against the marriage ammendment, so he’s not an absolute schmuck. He was lying. He voted FOR the amendment.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:54:47 +0000

By outing socially conservative gay politicians, you are aiming to advance the cause of gay rights by violating the privacy, and failing to respect the political freedom, of gay people. There were a hell of a lot of “socially conservative” political figures here in the US who very loudly decried the Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws. That is, they were defending the right of the government to arrest people in their homes for adult, consensual sexual activity. Now, if it turns out that one of said socially conservative figures is, at the same time they’re lamenting the demise of sodomy laws, getting it on in public restrooms or trolling for sex on the net, we should refrain from exposing them out of concern for their privacy? Sorry, Snowball. I find that utterly bewildering.

By: trilby

trilby — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:45:30 +0000

If a closeted-gay politician is vociferously anti-gay and supports anti-gay legislation, I think it’s permissible to out him. Otherwise, I agree with Kleiman on this one: None of your fucking business.

By: David Ehrenstein

David Ehrenstein — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 16:00:39 +0000

Do you have a response other than blithering idiocy? Is the sexual orientation of a heterosexual a “private matter”? Answer!

By: David Ehrenstein

David Ehrenstein — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 14:55:42 +0000

Do you have a response other that blithering idiocy? I the sexual orientation of a heterosexual a “private matter”? Answer!

By: snowball

snowball — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 06:37:45 +0000

David, I wasn’t trying to impress you. I was making the argument that, if you feel as I do that gay people should have the same rights as straight people, then you ought to respect their right to be wrong in your judgement. Blackmailing them with the threat of making public what really is their private business in an attempt to gain their compliance, or out of pure vindictiveness, looks like a morally contradictory tactic. By outing socially conservative gay politicians, you are aiming to advance the cause of gay rights by violating the privacy, and failing to respect the political freedom, of gay people. You are allowing your (understandable) antipathy towards conservative, closeted gays to blind you to this contradiction. Do you have a response to this argument, aside from sarcasm?

By: se

se — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 03:24:28 +0000

There’s a difference between questioning someone’s decision, and removing from them the option to make it. Drier put himself on the stand. And that changes everything. I think Atrios would agree, but maybe not.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Sat, 04 Sep 2004 02:13:21 +0000

Two points: Dreier came out against the marriage ammendment, so he’s not an absolute schmuck. And the question came up in the context of an interview on Michelangelo Signorile’s radio show! J. Fucking Christ! You think he’s not going to ask that question! Fair ball! Kleiman is a pompous ass. “Beautiful, Beautiful….” eesshh. But of course David Ehrenstein would not allow anyone their own confusion, under any circumstances. There is no private life. Stop hiding your insecurities behind a mask of bitchy moralism… dear. You’re the kind of self hating faggot I can’t stand. Atrios was calm, and he was correct.

By: Atrios

Atrios — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:18:32 +0000

Do you get upset when people ask you if you’re gay? I don’t.

By: David Ehrenstein

David Ehrenstein — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 19:45:00 +0000

He most assuredly deserved it! Either you find gayness acceptable or you don’t. If you do then you’re not ashamed of it in yourself, or feel it’s a detriment to others. Lying about who you are is most definitely detrimental. And finding such lies acceptable behavior for those who would attack non-liars is quite simple heinous.

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:59:10 +0000

David, You wrote: “Obviously there’s something about gayness you find unacceptable under any circumstances, shelby.” You and your arguments are very welcome here, but I’m quite sure that Shelby didn’t deserve that.

By: David Ehrenstein

David Ehrenstein — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:14:26 +0000

“Personally, I am strongly in favour of equal gay rights.” Oh I am just SO impressed!

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:18:28 +0000

And, by the way, the point isn’t pure snark; Homosexual activists are NOT seeking legal equality. Why do I say this? Because they’re NOT standing up for the principle that anyone who wants to marry should be permitted to. In fact, they’ve specifically disavowed any such support. Rather, they’ve simply asked to have their prefered form added to the officially sanctioned forms of marriage, and told the incestuous and polyamorous to go pound sand. They don’t want to extend liberty in a principled, equal fashion, in other words, but only to be added to the list of the privileged.