Poet -- We both have known from the outset that I must be on the losing side of this debate.
The threshold for me to lose is not if I say something negative about gays. The threshold
is much lower than that. It is if I say something about gays that is anything less than
complimentary. And the standard for judging whether I do that, is the standard of what
the very sensitive person could perceive.
So that does tie my hands behind my back, if I want to avoid being called insensitive at
the very least, and more likely being called much worse. Notwithstanding, I will
continue the discussion. I am choosing to respond to the spirit of your message, rather
than selected sound-bites fom it. As I see it, the two prevailing themes are the
courage to declare one’s self as gay, and the sensitivity that should be
shown in discussing gayness.
Your eloquence about the courage of gays in declaring themselves such was very moving.
And it would even be true ... if we were living in America many years ago, or if we were
living today in Afghanistan But the reality in America today is that it would take more
courage to risk being perceived as anti-gay. You could easily lose your job for doing so.
You could be sued. The might of the federal government stands ready to come down on
you in all of its force and majesty. Social opprobrium is the very least you could expect.
Gay-bashing, even murder, will lamentably continue to occur, along with other hate
crimes. But these crimes will be given the highest priority by law-enforcement, and be
prosecuted with the utmost vigor.
I know a young man quite well, who faced the moment of informing his parents that he is
gay. We talked a lot about it. It did take a kind of courage for him to do that, but not
because he expected to be scorned (and he was not) ... only because he knew his parents
would be saddened and disappointed to know that they would never enjoy being doting
grandparents in the conventional way. That is an aspect of gayness that we don’t see
discussed very often.
You make an excellent point when you ask me to substitute other words for “gay,” such
as “black,” “feminine,” or “Jewish.” When I do that, I find some of my own words to be
insensitive or even offensive. But why is that so? It is because those terms refer to race,
gender, or ethnicity ... which do lie close to the heart and soul of who a person is. I think
you do a disservice to the historic battle for justice waged by these groups to imply that
“sexual preference” stands on equal ground with them.
I do not know whether sexual preference is determined at birth, or even before. I don’t
believe science as yet has an answer for this. Personally, I believe that this is the case
with many gays. (And I truly don’t know whether some may find it offensive for me to
believe that). I do know that sexual preference is not immutable, as it is common
knowledge that there have been those who have changed their preference or orientation.
I do know also that I could decide to change my own sexual orientation before the sun
sets tonight. I am not being facetious here. Husbands and wives have ended marriages
because they yield to an inner desire to live their remaining life as gay or lesbian.
This is going to grate on you, but gayness does mean sex. It is a word now substituted for
Homosexuality. It means the kind of sex one prefers having. That, anyway, is
what my three dictionaries say, in very much the same brief words. I think you become
annoyed with me because I seerm not willing to endow gayness with a host of other
attributes and qualities. Well, I just see no basis for that. And I guess, as you see it, that
tells the world that I am impossibly insensitive ... or worse.
Concerning my objection to the “outing” of deceased personages, you seem to be saying
that I only object to this if it is homosexual. Well, I think it can only be homosexual, or
perhaps bi-sexual, inasmuch as the “default setting” for sexual preference is
heterosexual. Eleanor Roosevelt lived one of the most magnificent and laudable female
lives, ever. She was a woman filled with love, for her family, for her friends, for
humanity. Perhaps she had sex with another woman, perhaps she had sex with the butler.
I don’t need to know whether she did or not, and I believe that it demeans her memory
and all of the true accomplishments of her life to insist that it is so important that we do
have to know. It may bring comfort and support to contemporary gays to establish that
Eleanor shared that orientation ... but I think it is selfish of them to invoke her memory
for that purpose. This has no connection to good or bad, it is simply a matter of invading
someone’s privacy and of deflecting attention from a person’s meaningful
accomplishments in life.
Well, that’s probably enough between you and me on this, Poet. It is the style here to
select tidbits of messages for zingers, and I have probably provided quite a few choice
candidates.
JC |
