restigmatizing homosexuality perpetuates an old racket
Rand Simberg has a post Glenn Reynolds linked earlier, which is so good that I don't think it belongs in an update to either of the posts I've written about Senator Larry Craig; hence this post.
Commenting on the now-routine charge that Larry Craig is guilty of "hypocrisy" for being against gay marriage, Simberg asks a couple of excellent questions:
what difference does it make what his position is on gay marriage? It would have made as much, or as little, sense to me to have written, "Craig, who has voted to cut taxes," or "Craig, who has voted against more stringent gun controls." The guy's supposedly a conservative. How did they expect him to vote?
With the left, of course. But gay marriage is seen as one of those litmus test things which every gay person must support. This brings to mind another obvious question:
Where is it written that gay people are intrinsically supposed to support gay marriage?
I've asked that myself, as it often seems to me that people concerned with sexual freedom and sexual privacy might think twice about casually giving the government (via Family Law courts) jurisdiction over their domestic lives. And it would happen. Once marriage is there, how would people opt out? Heterosexual couples cannot opt out of palimony or court-implied common law marriage status, and unless special exceptions were passed for gay couples who didn't want to conform, what would stop an angry gay partner from hauling his ex into court on a palimony lawsuit? (Right now, they can't.) A lot of gays are very concerned with preserving their privacy, and they don't especially want the nanny state coming into their lives, with census takers asking them if they have lovers, and things like that. There are bohemian type people who don't want to be mainstreamed and normalized. By what authority do these activists pretend to make them do that? Right now, they have no legal authority, but gay marriage offers a way to let the government -- and activists -- in the bedrooms of people who simply don't want "help."
You'd almost think that there was no moral right to privacy, nor a right for anyone to be in the closet. Indeed, "closet" is a word implying evil. Secrecy. Something to hide. Those who are not open about their homosexuality are considered pathetic misfits, and morally opprobrious by those who demand they "come out." And those who are conservative on top of that are guilty of "self loathing."
Who the hell has any right to demand that anyone else "come out," anyway? I think it's despicable.
Where does it end? And from where does this system of morality derive? I thought the idea was to get past the imposition of sexual morality by society, not reimpose it. With the old system of stigmatized homosexuality, it was believed that normal people had a right to look down on homosexuals, who were disgraced. A man's sexuality was a relevant consideration in determining where he could work, where he could live, and even whether he had the right to freedom itself. Under the new, "improved" system, homosexuals only have limited rights; provided they surrender their privacy by publicly announcing they are gay and declare themselves part of an "identity," they are permitted to claim certain rights and privileges. But if they feel uncomfortable with building a whole identity around their genitalia, they're seen as less than full citizens. Why is that? Whatever happened to the right to make up your mind about how you want to live?
Seriously, this not-letting-people-be-in-the-closet business is the same mechanism that used to tyrannize closeted gay people in the old days. They once feared being outed, and they still fear being outed. Only the identities and political perspectives of the Ask and Tell people have changed. (Of course, they used to pry in order to hurt; now they pry in order to "help." Help the identity politics cause, that is.)
Anyway, I don't know whether Larry Craig is gay, or straight, or bi, or confused, or in the closet. So I can't say that he is "in the closet" -- even though he is considered to be "out" by now. But why doesn't he (or didn't he -- at least before the guilty plea) have the same right to be in the closet as any other asshole walking around on the streets? It seems to me that if Larry Craig had no moral right to be in the closet, then neither do they.
Is that desirable? Should all people have to confess their innermost sexual desires, so that they can be officially tolerated -- but only by the Democratic Party?
It sure seems that way.
What a racket. I'm amazed people can't see past it.
Finally, speaking of rackets, Simberg also discusses the "sex offsets" racket:
So votes for gay marriage and keeping abortion legal are "sex offsets" for Republicans. In fact, come to think about it, it's what kept Republican Bob Packwood in office for so long, despite his long history of sexually harassing women. Apparently, though, he apparently didn't buy enough of them to cancel out his most egregious behavior.
In other words, as long as you vote like a Democrat, you get a free pass, just like them.
Beware! This can all lead us straight down the path towards double reverse outing! (It's not as if we weren't warned.)
Whatever happened to the right to be left alone?
Don't ask. It's evil to want to be left alone. Such an obsession with individualism might lead to the closet!
(Of course, it would be unreasonable to expect such a powerful source of shame to be lightly discarded. That's why we have new closet masters.)
UPDATE (08/31/07): My thanks to Matthew Sheffield of Newsbusters for the link -- in a very thoughtful post.
posted by Eric on 08.29.07 at 05:42 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5453
Comments
Man am I grateful for your continued writings on sexuality, I really do doubt my own sanity sometimes.
And I had to laugh at this in your linked "double-secret outing" post:
"...it was a smear to say that someone was gay. ....if made falsely, it could get you sued. (It probably still can, although it's debatable."
Once again you underestimate reality -- I'm sure you saw the whole Merv Griffin kerfuffle? It could get you sued even if it's *true*.
jason · August 29, 2007 11:19 PM
What a great rant! You outdid yourself on this one.
As a gay man in a nearly 30 year relationship, I oppose gay marriage. And while not technically conservative but perhaps a conservative libertarian, I guess I'm practicing self-loathing.
What crap.
Eric, you should write a book.
Frank · August 30, 2007 12:01 AM
Thank you both very, very much! (However, I think if I wrote a book I'd have to write it from the closet in order to have any credibility. A perplexing conundrum....)
I was in general sympathy with you right until up I read this:
But if they feel uncomfortable with building a whole identity around their genitalia, they're seen as less than full citizens.
That, as you must know, grossly misstates the argument.
Do you believe that when heterosexuals hold elaborate public weddings, or place pictures of their spouses and children on the desk at work, or speak easily of how they enjoyed the weekend with family, or beam at the accomplishments of their progeny, or stroll the mall holding a companion's hand, that they are "building a whole identity around their genitalia"?
In much that gives meaning to his life, we can see the heterosexual's sexual orientation. Indeed, I have never known a heterosexual who made any effort to hide the corollaries of his orientation, or who asserted a privacy interest in the orientation itself. (Wedding bands are intended to celebrate, not conceal.) Still, it would be both inaccurate and vulgar to say that his identity is built around genitalia. Surely his relationships are not best described in terms of anatomy.
Why, then, by implication do you reduce openly gay men and women to their genitalia?
We can believe that the closeted homosexual should be left undisturbed, while also believing that all choices are not morally equal. We don't have to out anyone to insist that living an honest, integrated life is morally superior to living a lie.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Man am I grateful for your continued writings on sexuality, I really do doubt my own sanity sometimes.
And I had to laugh at this in your linked "double-secret outing" post:
"...it was a smear to say that someone was gay. ....if made falsely, it could get you sued. (It probably still can, although it's debatable."
Once again you underestimate reality -- I'm sure you saw the whole Merv Griffin kerfuffle? It could get you sued even if it's *true*.