"... asked Andrew Sullivan, one of the intellectual architects of the marriage movement. 'I don’t know the answer to that yet.' John Waters, the film director and patron saint of the American marginal, warned graduates to heed the shift in a recent commencement speech at the Rhode Island School of Design. 'Refuse to isolate yourself. Separatism is for losers,' he said, adding, 'Gay is not enough anymore.'... 'People are missing a sense of community, a sense of sharing,' said Eric Marcus, 56, the author of 'Making Gay History.' 'There is something wonderful about being part of an oppressed community,' Mr. Marcus said.... The most vocal gay rights activists may have celebrated being outsiders, but the vast majority of gay people just wanted 'what everyone else had,' he said — the ability to fall in love, have families, pursue their careers and 'just live their lives.'"
From a NYT article titled "Gay Culture’s Outsider Element Fades as Marriage Rights Arrive."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४४ टिप्पण्या:
'What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?' The rest of the leftist agenda, of course. Everyone knows that, like all women and all black people, all gay men think alike. Only white, heterosexual men have individual opinions.
Does this mean that the homo nazis will go away?
Liza Minnelli?
It is at all possible that they will just SHUT THE FUCK UP???
It will be nice when gay men and lesbian women can enjoy the right to simply be people, and not a political group.
I think it was Mark Steyn who wrote about "the love that dare not speak it's name" having changed to "the love that won't shut up".
Gay men were never oppressed in the U.S.
You've been playing the blackface game for status and to game the system all your life, Althouse. Your first blackface game was feminism. Gaydom is your second blackface game.
You may be the most spoiled-est poor little white girl in human history. What a disgrace!
Your weasel husband has probably visited a couple of dozen websites over the past few days, denouncing hundreds as racists. That scoundrel is bereft of any human decency and dignity. You once tried to portray your relationship as unique in some way. The alliance of the fag hag and the backstabbing weasel has been common in HR offices since the early 1990s. There's something desperate about Meade's epic week of backstabbing and denunciation. He's in a hurry to score as many fag hag points as he can while the iron is hot. It's how he makes his living.
The whole gay marriage thing started as a way for rich white kids to play nigger and game the system, and that's what it is today, too.
You are a scam artist in blackface... and a very successful one at that.
amielalune said...
It is at all possible that they will just SHUT THE FUCK UP???
No.
There is something wonderful about being part of an oppressed community.
Victimhood is powerful?
They're not special anymore.
Well, they have an increased risk of STD, TB, being murdered/maimed by their "partner", certain cancers....Some of which make them endemic risks to the public health.
The upside of legal gay marriage is it defangs the "oppressed victim" drama queenery.
SGT,
I'll believe it when I see it. I suspect the same was said of the Civil Rights Act back in the '60s.
Once a power base has been established it is not to be lightly tossed aside.
And today, with microaggressions springing forth like May Flies there is endless fuel for any and all fires.
The gay rights movement will come to understand they were used by and not a part of the great left-wing movement. They are useful fools that may have gotten something in the short run, but likely the same movement will take it away from them in the future. After all destruction of the Constitution and it's protections is the goal. To become a nation of men not laws. In a pure democracy 50%+1vote is all it takes to implement anything. A sufficiently skilled set of con artists can always gin up enough of the vote and keep introducing new shiny objects to distract the rubes.
"In a pure democracy"
"Pure democracy" is not where we've been, and it's not where we're heading.
I hesitate to join what may appear as the sore loser's club, but nevertheless, I will voice the opinion that as long as someone, somewhere, declines to join the gay cheer squad, we will be hearing about Poor Oppressed Gays.
I was born and raised in western Washington and live part-time in Seattle, one of the most gay-friendly cities in the world, and still I hear pissing and moaning about Poor Oppressed Gays, even after yesterday, when the majority of the city was celebrating with a gleeful fuck-you attitude to anyone who had reservations about the decision. My husband reported with amusement seeing Seattle PD cruisers with rainbow flags; the downtown skyscrapers were flying rainbow flags; I occasionally make grocery purchases in the Queen Anne Safeway which has long displayed a rainbow flag, in their wisdom city officials levied a fine on developers for the express purpose of permanently painting the sidewalks in rainbows; the Space Needle was lit up with a rainbow, and yet: there are still people saying that Gay Oppression is a real thing.
As the gentleman observes: it's fun and bracing and energizing to be part of an Oppressed Minority.
I won't deny that the defiant thrill of an illegal underground gay wedding would have been icing on the cake, but my sweetheart and I are going through with it anyway.
There will be no gloating. Attendance will not be counted as endorsement. Absence will not be counted as hate. Our cake and flowers will be 100% spite-free. No ministers will be asked to disobey their conscience and no sacred ground will be defiled.
All this ruling adds is the chore of syncing schedules to show up at City Hall together to get a license.
August 13. Save the date.
I want to clarify that my comment involved the idea of Gay Oppression in America being a thing forever as long as the aggrieved have breath is what I mean. Clearly it is not safe to be a gay person in some countries, which is a tragedy, but less of a tragedy to some, it would seem, than any remaining BADTHINK that needs to be rooted out and stomped to death (metaphorically, of course....probably).
I didn't say that it will stop the oppression theater; they will still throw their tantrums. I said it will defang it.
I've never had any trouble at all treating a gay person the same as anybody else so these people who make money trying to tell gay people how they should feel about themselves are quite the mystery.
It's a phenomenon hardly limited to the I-want-to-caress-the-same-genitals-I-have-but-on-somebody-else contingent.
I need to do a better job of finding a lecture series on psychology that explains it all.
So far, the best I've got is the hypothesis that were all dogs running in a pack, emotional insecurity a driving force.
There's an evolutionary explanation, probably.
Have any of the non-Fox news organizations commented at all on Obama's extreme hypocrisy on this issue?
'Have any of the non-Fox news organizations commented at all on Obama's extreme hypocrisy on this issue?"
-- They probably won't mention Clinton's either. You get used to it.
"The most vocal gay rights activists may have celebrated being outsiders, but the vast majority of gay people just wanted 'what everyone else had,' he said — the ability to fall in love, have families, pursue their careers and 'just live their lives.'""
I am not so sure about this. But any impediment to proving otherwise has now been removed.
What do gay men have in common when they don't have oppression?
The questions answers itself: the same thing they have in common when they do have oppression; preference for homosexual* sex partners.
*Originally phrased that as the new-speak "same-sex" then thought the conventional exact equivalent "homosexual" to be more correct. Perhaps a trigger warning is now appropriate for use of that word.
MayBee said...
It will be nice when gay men and lesbian women can enjoy the right to simply be people, and not a political group.
Like a tick they have thier burrowing mandibles in the political process now. It's going to get worse, not better. The outrage train just took on a huge load of coal.
On the other hand, Andy, Bristol Palin's pregnant again. That should keep your mind occupied for a while.
Look at the NYT's op ed today on "What's Next." Now surely this was not penned overnight. Rather, it was written and ready to go once the decision was released. Plaintiff lawyers are due for a bonanza. Bakers, photographers and pizzerias who do not adequately celebrate Gayness - not so much. And what do you have in the office pool for the first time a church will be required to host a same sex wedding - I say early 2017.
Shouting Thomas said...
Gay men were never oppressed in the U.S.
This is partly true. Many gay men can pass for straight. It is hard to conceive of Barry Diller as a member of an oppressed minority, for instance. On the other hand, many gay men do not easily pass as straight and were subject to intense prejudice, although they share some of this oppression with bookish or effeminate straight males. It is hard not to see Alan Turing as a victim of oppression.
Nonetheless, linking the gay marriage to the civil rights struggle diminishes both and strikes a false note for many people.
Is it gay marriage or same sex marriage? Are two heterosexual men allowed to get married for, say, tax benefits? (Or merely to enter a contest, which has already happened in New Zealand.) If not, why not? If we reject biological sex in the definition of marriage, why is the contstruct of sexual identity any less arbitrary? In fact, there's never been a litmus test for sexual identity for a man and a woman to marry.
ARM wrote -
"Nonetheless, linking the gay marriage to the civil rights struggle diminishes both and strikes a false note for many people."
Add me as among the many. Add yet, that's the model, civil unions were slapped aside in civil rights terms as separate but equal; second class citizenship. The real hate of statutory, physical, and societal oppression has been successfully conflated with the "hate" of nonconforming or insufficiently celebratory beliefs.
Politically, equal access was not the objective, protected class status is the objective. The former is how it's sold, the latter will be how it's practised. Indeed "oppression" will be what the gay lobby if not gays individually will have in common. Turn the ostracism, personal destruction and lawsuits up to eleven.
" It is hard not to see Alan Turing as a victim of oppression."
Yes but that was Britain in the aftermath of a war. There is doubt about his suicide still.
The treatment of gays in my memory of the time, I was 14 in 1952, was that of tolerant amusement, which of course is no longer permitted. Family friends were gay, such as Gene Krupa's brother who wore dresses at home. I know the police would break up parties but I knew no one who hated them. I had fraternity brothers who, in retrospect, I think were gay. Concealing the sexual preferences might be repression but we have the opposite now and it is a pain.
They are all going to die, the same as every human ever. Mortality, the only denominator.
Actually oppressed people, like manufacturers in California and their workers, are apparently still subhuman.
It seems to me that the gay subculture is fully integrated in coalition with the bureaucratic-corporatist conspiracy against the US working class.
I have one question for the sodomites. In the throes of white hot lust (as the Bible describes) when you pull it out of your fellow freaks ass, do you wipe it off before you put it in his mouth? I do believe the disease stats on you homosexual perverts has the answer you will refuse to give.
Gypsy,
Does biblical sodomy cover only anal sex or oral sex, too? The laws in many places treated both the same. Are all non vaginal apertures forbidden?
"Originally the term sodomy, which is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, was commonly restricted to anal sex."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy
"Nonetheless, linking the gay marriage to the civil rights struggle diminishes both and strikes a false note for many people."
Damn, ARM gets another one right! It might be love (strictly platonic, of course). I agree with the Supreme Court's decision but there is something faintly obscene about celebrating this victory for predominantly white middle-class folks as though it equates to the epic struggle of African-Americans.
It is striking too that this is the first time that I know of that a group had to pay cash for their civil rights victory. I wonder if down the road, supposing that gays no longer feel compelled to march in lockstep with the Left, there won't be a reckoning for that particular indignity.
'What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?'
Says one of the least oppressed people ever on the face of the earth.
Fucking drama queen.
Well, if they need a unifying theme, I guess they could start agitating for an Equal Rights Amendment. And they haven't destroyed the free exercise of religion yet, so there's that.
Welcome to the Borg, fellows. Remember that time when you were hip and cool and oppressed? Yeah, me neither. Your cool TV shows will slowly slip away, sheesh even the really gay dude from Will & Grace is reduced to posting videos on Youtube.
Pretty soon your role models are going to be seen wearing shorts on TV. You never know, even your cool friends will one day realize that changing their profile picture to a rainbow flag doesn't make them a freedom rider, and when that happens your victim status is gone forever.
“What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?”
They like to play with other men's bung holes. I would think to the other 98.4% of the population that is not LGBT that this is a unique and notable commonality.
I don't have anything against having marriage for gays at least for civil law purposes, but I think the SCOTUS may have unleashed much more than that in the opinion it issued. It seems that our hostess and Meade are gleefully celebrating what might have irreparably damaged our country's longstanding rule of law.
On the other hand, (for the humorous upside this week), it was fun seeing John Roberts using jiggery-pokery on the Obamacare case earlier in the week, only to have buggery-pokery used in the same-sex marriage case, which he did not agree with.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा