Class act K-Lo sends best wishes to Andrew Sullivan, as he prepares for his wedding ceremony:
I wish Andrew Sullivan every happiness. We disagree on a whole host of issues, obviously. I’m endlessly frustrated that the MSM refers to him as “conservative.” But he’s my brother, ya know? He’s human and he boldly lives life with a fascinating honesty we watch on that blog. He’s said some awful and ridiculous things about folks here and elsewhere but we keep reading and that’s because he is a talent — even when he’s wildly wrong. And he reminds us that behind public-policy debates are people just as struggling and vulnerable as any one of us is — his doing it so openly, when it doesn’t drive us crazy, makes us stronger. God bless you, Andrew Sullivan.
Dittoes to that (except I consider Andrew a conservative in the libertarian tradition, not a CINO). When Andrew and I have clashed, it's almost always been over the issue of homosexuality and religion, not to mention homosexuality and politics. We just don't agree on that, and I doubt we ever will, nor are we likely to agree on most things having to do with religion and public life. But like Kathryn, I admire him and his writing, and ... well, I can't think of anything to add to what Kathryn has said, and I'm grateful to her for having said it.
The humanity that unites us is more important, in the end, than what divides us. The gay writer Dan Savage and I used to go at each other hammer and tongs, but on September 12, 2001, I showed up at my desk in Manhattan and found I'd received a message from him, asking if I was OK, saying he hoped I was OK, and that I was in his thoughts. That made a big impression on me, and I was deeply grateful for it. I remember being so incandescently angry at Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in the 9/11 aftermath, when they blamed gays and lesbians in part for 9/11, because it was such an inhuman thing to have said. I was spending those days on the streets, and on the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, with gay people and everybody else in NYC, lighting candles, crying and mourning. In that most dramatic moment in our individual and collective lives, all of us seemed to understand and grasp our essential unity in our shared humanity.
People can never be reduced only to their opinions on political, religious and moral issues. It's a hard lesson to learn, and I struggle to learn it every day, but even as we all dispute each other over serious matters, even irreconcilable ones, let us all remember that we're God's beloved creatures, and as such, each other's brothers and sisters.
Knowing where I stand on gay marriage, a friend asked me once what I would do if one of my children one day came out as gay. She thought it would be a hard question for me, but it wasn't. I told her I would love them every bit as much as I ever did, because nothing my children could ever do would separate my love from them. Love doesn't obviate moral truths, but it does have a way of putting them into a broader perspective. Having kids of my own has taught me a lot about the love of God the Father for us, his hapless children. I ask Him in prayer to help me to see others as He does, which is to say, to help me to love others as He does.
Anyway, mazel tov, Andrew, and I hope your reception is at least as rockin' as Jenna Bush's will be. That, and that you will pray for my salvation, as I pray for yours.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Dear anonymous,
"there are many gay people who do have "open" relationships."
About as many as there are str8 people who have open relationships. Ever hear of Eleanor Roosevelt? (Oops, not so "str8" - sorry!)
"Including married ones."
Ditto for heterosexuals. Like, um, say - the Kennedys!
"The big difference between gay and straight marital promiscuity is that men and women who take vows don't do so with the shared understanding that they will both have sex on the side."
Blarney. Ever hear of the British royal family?
"Fidelity is a normative value in traditional marriage that may be sometimes violated, but it's normative just the same."
The same can (and should) be said of same-sex marriages.
"For gays, sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't."
For str8s, sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.
"So there is this elasticity around sex that gays demand that just seems rather odd to me in the context of marriage."
The exact same thing can be said about some heterosexual marriages.
"About promiscuity, I don't play any cards Jim."
You sure played this one nicely.
"But research has shown that it is not atypical for a gay man to have had hundreds of sexual encounters with different men."
Can you say "Wilt Chamberlain"? Sorry, HIS thousands of sexual encounters were with women.
"I see those guys trolling around the parks here in DC all the time."
As has been caught on camera and in the news much of late, those "trolls" are often maried heterosexual men. Some of them legislators.
"Straight guys who are not pathological don't have those numbers of encounters with anonymous women."
Ah, NOW you've got it. Queers are just naturally promiscuous, but the hets who are are "pathological". Try comparing apples to apples and you'll have your answer.
"Now I'm not saying that all gay men are promiscuous."
It just comes across that way.
"And in fact I'm rather indifferent to that."
Apparently not so much.
"But now I'm trying to figure out how pointing out some facts amounts to an injustice."
Because they aren't "facts"; they are nothing more, less or other than your prejudiced conjectures.
SteveM,
"If one partner is lying going in, well then he or she is just as much as much a cretinous, self indulgent slob as the gay slobs who ruin good peoples’ lives by pretending to be something that they are not."
How, exactly, is the gay person (your "cretinous, self indulgent slob" remarks are surely against the Rules of conduct, no Rod?) pretending to be something that they are not???
You don't sound like a very nice person.
SteveM, I wonder if you've read much about the history of marriage as an institution. Male fidelity has never been considered an essential element of a marriage. One can infer this, for instance, from the fact that male infidelity was not even grounds for divorce in English law until 1923. Of course, one can't guess how many heterosexual men enter marriage with the intent to abstain from extra-marital sex until death. I would say, based on outcomes, that it's a good deal less than 100 percent of them. And that's in America. In many other cultures--Latin America, for instance, or Africa--male fidelity may be a fond hope in the bride's mind, but it's certainly not an expectation on the part of society.
I'm all in favor of faithfulness in marriage, but I think that if you make it the test of validity, you're going to create some problems for yourself. Moreover, I don't see how the lack of faithful intentions in one man can make another man's marriage impossible. If you're going to make that your criterion, you'd have to forbid heterosexual men from getting married as well. I guess that would leave us with just those loyal lesbian ladies as marital candidates. : )
"I am saying that the gay community in general looks at marital monogamy as being optional."
And you get this "information" where?
"That is a standard that radically redefines the historic context of marriage."
Sorta like Biblical polygamy, yes? Your take on the "historic context of marriage" is lacking - a lot!
"Again, if two gay men get married with the shared understanding that each would have occasional sex outside of the relationship, would that be an acceptable relaxation of traditional vows from your point of view?"
Our view of it counts for nothing. It really is none of "our" business, anymore than the heterosexual couple who get married with the shared understanding that each would have occasional sex outside of the relationship.
"You have chosen monogamy, but is a marital vow illegitimate for those who bilaterally don’t [choose monogamy]?"
Not for those that make the vows. What businesss is it of yours?
"With that being said, I let God down in a lot of ways. But not urging gays to monogamy is not one of them. It's not my job."
No. Your "job" apparently, is to spout moronic stereotypes that have nothing to do with our reality.
"I happen to think that government should get out of the marriage business all together because of the excessive economic entanglements that have grown over time. Let people marry anyone or anything they want in whatever kinds of private ceremonies they want to conjure up. Just don’t ask me to pay either directly or indirectly for the arrangement."
But gay people pay taxes too, so therefore WE pay for your 'arrangements".
"If people want to arrange private “civil union” contracts that specify bilateral rights and responsibilities, that’s fine."
Now if only it were "fine" with the government too.
"Now I accept gays on almost every term."
Guffaw! Re-read most of your posts, Steve, You emphatically do NOT. Au contraire, you willingly bear false witness about us.
"They have the same rights (and obligations) as everybody else."
We can only HOPE and wish so. Unfortunately, this too is a falsehood.
"Generally, what do I care what they do?"
Not according to your posts about our rampant infidelity, our incapability of taking marriage vows seriously.
"But if they engage in knowingly reckless sexual behavior..."
Not that ANY heterosexuals ever indulge in the same, eh?
"they accuse society of intolerance and homophobia when their moral incongruities are pointed out, well that bugs."
We accuse people of intolerance and homophobia when they spread lies about us, when they deny us equal treatment before the law. It "bugs" equally when YOUR moral incongruities are pointed out too, I'd bet.
"I don’t mind paying for the medical consequences of human weakness."
This is a direct contradiction to your above statement: "they engage in knowingly reckless sexual behavior that means we collectively have to pay $20K per year (like for Andrew) for medication to keep them alive when they get infected". Seems like you DO mind, Steve.
"Nobody lives pristinely."
It's just that gay people should be castigated for it, eh?
Steve,
If you sincerely believe I'm taking my vows seriously, why would you use the behavior of a segment (the size of which we probably would dispute ad nauseam) to deny me fair treatment under the law? I'm not asking for any church to recognize or sanctify my relationship, but I sure as heck want to shoulder the same legal responsibilities and have the same legal protections that a model hetero like Brittney Spears gets.
The fact that we are arguing about marriage and same-sex couples raising children in society today should say something about the aspirations of most people. As I have said before, you look at the word "gay", and you think of the tawdry "gay culture" that has grown up around the bar scene, the bathhouses, etc. etc. Yes, that is there and I won't deny or defend it. Just as you, if you are honest, have to acknowledge the existence of a "Mardi Gras" sub-culture.
I'd say that a big change since the early '90s is that there is a growing, more suburban/family-oriented culture that, because it is not loud and flashy and in your face, is not the perceived face of who gay and lesbian people are, but it is there.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.