Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Gaying Up Slog on a Saturday Afternoon

1

Kingsley Amis once said "I sometimes wonder why I like women's breasts so much. I can work out why I like them, thank you very much, but I wonder why I like them so much". Yeah.

Posted by Fnarf | November 11, 2006 3:44 PM
2

Exactly. You can usually stop an advocate of the 'choice' theory by asking, "When did you choose to be attracted to women (or men)?" "Is this a daily struggle - or does it come in phases like the moon?"

The Christian Far Right really needs homosexuality to be chosen - a mantle assumed - because in the absence thereof we are left with the obvious: that we are all god's creatures. What kind of creator would make such souls, only to damn them in turn? Not the god of the gospels. It must be unnatural; it must be a choice.

Posted by Laurence Ballard | November 11, 2006 3:52 PM
3

.. and i happen to know that a few of them aren't just mad about the choice, but are also jealous of that choice. that the very word gay suggests a smug joviality that they don't get to experiance. that, for many of them, their choice is a banal, boring, chore.

Posted by riz | November 11, 2006 4:03 PM
4

If you think that's _all_, how about the news that Haggard was a regular customer of a sex toy shop?

http://www.westword.com/Issues/2006-11-09/news/calhoun.html

Have fun! :-)

Posted by Sachi | November 11, 2006 4:04 PM
5

For what it's worth, Dan, there are a lot of us straight Republicans who more or less agree with you on this point and would prefer that the GOP leadership would go back to making government smaller and MYOB on people's private lives. Haggard made our job that much easier.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky | November 11, 2006 4:19 PM
6

After reading your article Dan here's what I thought: If they say sexual preference is a choice then maybe all these religious leaders are all really into transsexuals! Think of when you’re in the mode for soft serve ice cream. You've got your chocolate, your vanilla, and your swirl. At least for me (and most I know) I always go for the swirl. I feel as if I've beaten the soft served machine at its own game and gotten the best of both worlds instead of being forced to choose one or the other. If sexuality is a choice then ministers across the country must secretly be all about transsexuals. After all, if you can be just as turned on by cock or tits then why not wrap them up in to one tight little (sometimes big) sexual swirl?

Posted by Brandon Dismuke | November 11, 2006 4:20 PM
7

Fuck, guys I'm sorry... After listening to Savage Love pod cast 3 I realize I'm to say... Christen ministers must be into "She-males" not tranny's... My bad.

Posted by Brandon Dismuke | November 11, 2006 4:43 PM
8

Mr. Sharkansky,

Thank you for those comments.

Would that you - and others - might have found an earlier opportunity to give voice to and testify to such convictions. Right-wing bloggers - and others - have quietly carried water for these bigger government, snoopy, spiritually hypocritical types Mr. Savage mentions above - buckets, for years. Where were the protestations from these "straight Republicans" who "more or less agree" two weeks, two months, or two years ago?

"The cruelest lies are often told in silence."

Posted by Laurence Ballard | November 11, 2006 4:47 PM
9

You don't seem to know what a transsexual is, Brandon. They aren't blends of both genders physically (at least not when they are finished) and will be pretty offended if you want them to play at being their birth sex as well as their target sex.

Posted by Sachi | November 11, 2006 4:47 PM
10

Dan, you are so smart. I never thought of it that way. A Catholic priest that I met in Alabama did agree that being gay is genetic. But, he likened it to alcoholism, a vice that some people are born with and they just have to struggle to overcome. He believed that the solution is celebacy.

Posted by Papayas | November 11, 2006 4:49 PM
11

Inborn, yes, genetic, no. Genetic would imply that it's passed from parent to child, in which case homosexuality would be practically nonexistent. Although, I'm not an expert, and I'm sure studies have been done. Could it be a very common recessive trait? Or a trait with high mutation? Would (probably artificially inseminated) offspring of two homosexual parents have a 90% chance of being gay and a 10% chance of being straight? Anyway...

Did y'all see the NYT article about the shitstorm around the landscapers in the godforsaken holy land of Houston that wouldn't do business with a gay couple: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/us/11landscape.html ?

The last sentence made me punch the table - the landscapers basically say they don't hate or look down on gay people, because they themselves are "sinners" as well; I assume it just makes them uncomfortable to have the "sin" out in the open. I think what got me about it is just how much self-hatred the church imbues in everyone. It's also very defeatist - humans are all sinful, and all we can do is ask for forgiveness. Plus of course the contradiction between admitting that everyone's a sinner and the extreme social pressures to appear that you follow the rules. Maybe it's not a contradiction - maybe the fundamental idea is that the world will be okay if everyone keeps their sin covered up. It's all so twisted... I don't want to think about it anymore.

Posted by Noink | November 11, 2006 5:06 PM
12

Thanks for the amendment Brandon! I was composing my response while you posted that. Yeah, transies don't like to be mixed up with she-males; there's nothing wrong with being she-male if that's where you are, but most transies want to be seen as fully one sex or the other.

Posted by Sachi | November 11, 2006 5:07 PM
13

Laurence, I haven't been silent. I've made statements along these lines on my blog. I've called for ending discrimination by the military, I've called for civil unions. I've argued, both on the blog and at a party platform debate, against amending the Constitution to define marriage.

I've linked to one such blog post at my name below

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky | November 11, 2006 5:12 PM
14

oops. click on my name under this comment to get to the blog post I was talking about

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky | November 11, 2006 5:15 PM
15

Savage,
For the record, my righteous retaliation consisted of a post about a muscley 6' 4'' 24-year-old man pretending to be wizard by putting on a sparkly blue robe before running around in shorts with other men.

Posted by Josh Feit | November 11, 2006 5:17 PM
16

Well, let me have it again, Josh—I'm braced for it this time.

Posted by Dan Savage | November 11, 2006 5:20 PM
17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW8_cz-6qro

can you imagine if bruno had interviewed ted haggard?

Posted by ginger | November 11, 2006 6:47 PM
18

I know this is slightly off-topic, but can someone please clear up the "trannies" v "transies" debate? Is it a regional thing? Sachi is only the second person I've seen use the term "transies," but the first was a good friend of mine who INSISTS that she's only ever heard people say "transies." It's "trannies," right?

Posted by L | November 11, 2006 7:23 PM
19

L, some of us (I'm trans) consider "tranny" to be derogatory. So we use transie as a diminutive term.

It's kind of like the "n" word - you need to be black to use that and get away with it. If someone who's not trans calls us trannies, it sounds pretty ugly to our ears.

Posted by Sachi | November 11, 2006 7:33 PM
20

Noink, you fail to understand genetics. According to your logic, there would be no hemopheliacs, sickle cell anemics, people with genetic sterility, or any other host of genetic traits which prevent people from reproducing. Recessive genes get passed on, even if not expressed.

Posted by Gitai | November 11, 2006 7:34 PM
21

There is no conclusive proof that it is genetic (some evidence suggests that genetics may play a role), but there is overwhelming evidence that sexuality is something you are born with. The recent study showing that mothers who have had more male children are more likely to have gay children suggest that something happens in utero to determine sexuality.

Gitai I think it is a mistake to compare it to genetic diseases because it occurs consistently at much higher levels than diseases that reduce reproductivity and it is also consistently found in the animal kingdom at higher rates than one would expect if it were a "disease" - so um, I think Noink actually has a good point. Not that it changes that debate over gay rights anyway.

Posted by Lanik | November 11, 2006 8:35 PM
22

It is a choice.

I can choose to be miserable, pretending that I'm heterosexual. Or I can choose to be gay.

Posted by BD | November 11, 2006 9:15 PM
23

And as my Great Aunt Idelia would say as I headed out to the Gay Pride Parade, "Did you know that GAYEEEEEE means HAPPIEEEEE?" Followed by, "Are you HAPPY?"

Posted by Papayas | November 11, 2006 10:34 PM
24

Dan, I don't think your argument goes through completely--not from the Christianists' point of view, anyway. They don't believe that sexuality is a choice--they believe that HOMO-sexuality is a choice. They don't view homo and hetero as symmetrical. For them, there are people, and there are GAY people. People are born that way, but gay people aren't. Beneath the homophobia there's always that undercurrent of heterosexism. Heterosexuality isn't an orientation for these people: it's just the default setting.

Of course, just because they believe that it's a choice, somehow that doesn't compel them to explain why anybody would choose to be gay. Funny, that...

Posted by Matt | November 11, 2006 10:39 PM
25

I AM JESUS! I am reading this SLOG using my ultra broadband dialup in Heaven. I have something to tell you.....I have been lying to all of you for 2006 years and now I must tell you the truth. I.....have been secretly dating Noah for many many years and we have been living together on his arc. I am gay. The good news is, I am single again. Noah made me so sick because he has this stupid obsession where he just HAS to have 2 of everything. Our house is so cluttered. So....my Christian brothers, which one of you wants to be the first to run his fingers through my long blond hair?

Posted by jesus | November 12, 2006 12:20 AM
26

Hey, this is Jesus again. I just wanted to say that being gay is not a choice. I purposefully make people gay just so I can ogle them from heaven using my high powered holy telescope. Oh man...I am watching dan savage right now...Pant Pant. Well, I have to go now. I have a date with Buddha. Yeah he is gay too. We smoke pot together in his palace and then I rub his round belly. Yeah, Jesus is a total chubby chaser and a rice queen too.

Posted by Jesus | November 12, 2006 12:25 AM
27

While it seems (from your past writing) that you are a bit perplexed by bisexuality, if you can give its existence the benefit of the doubt for a minute, I think you've got a point.

I'm bisexual, putting me in the minority of people who actually could, in a meaningful way, choose between having straight and gay relationships.

I've often wondered if the Choice Mafia truly believe what they believe because they're as queer as I am.

Posted by Violet_DaGrinder | November 12, 2006 10:00 AM
28

First of all, I hate commentting so late; I feel like I'm talking to a wall (which I probably am).

Secondly, why does everyone try to discuss reason with religious people? THEY BELIEVE IN A MAN IN THE SKY!!!! That pretty much sets the tone for a logical discussion, doesn't it?

Lastly, that Falwell dude is a total fag. I just hope that I live to see the day that his Mike Jones comes forward.

Posted by Mike in MO | November 12, 2006 7:42 PM
29

Kingsley Amis once said "I sometimes wonder why I like women's breasts so much. I can work out why I like them, thank you very much, but I wonder why I like them so much". Yeah. I disagree go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl/

Posted by apartments warsaw | November 28, 2006 6:19 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).