Here’s the thread of a three-way email discussion between R.J. Smith and Harcamone, with me popping in occasionally. It’s long, but worth reading, a very real, down and dirty talk about the whole ball of wax. Warning: There are some bad words, and frank sexual references.
R.J. Smith:
Agnostic, Gay, and in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
I see on this site, as on so many others, that folks are not willing or able to make moral judgments concerning sex. Gay Marriage, at its core, involves giving tacit approval to anal intercourse among men. Now, to be blunt, I like sticking my cock in another man’s ass and getting off, very much so, but although I may be confused (for whatever reason, environmental or hereditary) about just which orifice my cock goes in, I’m not confused about the fact that I am indeed confused. I don’t think you have to be religious to conclude that the proper pairing is between a man and a woman, not a man and another man. It’s just not rocket science.
Now, gay marriage proponents may bring up many of the benefits of it to themselves concerning everything from parental rights to inheritance to health insurance, yada yada yada. But in point of fact, very few of them have children, very few of them need health insurance from their partners, etc. But most of them would be engaging in anal sex. So the real salient feature of gay marriage, and civil unions, would be the implied acceptance in law of anal intercourse. (There are far and away more gay men then gay women, so I’m not even going to bother mentioning that small subset.) Sticking a cock in another man’s ass is simply not healthy sexual conduct, especially for the bottom. It tears the hell out of the tissue linings, and is the reason why hiv is so prevalent among gay men. There are no inherent benefits to society from anal intercourse that I can discern.
Now, I’m afraid laws have an inherent way of laying down the expected norms of behavior to everyone, including young teens. I’m not willing to imply to those folks that anal sex is just as acceptable as ordinary heterosexual sex. I may practice this behavior, but damned if I’m going to champion it. A lot of straight males are simply confused when they’re young, and while not gay, may experiment with it if we adults don’t give them clear signals as to proper sexual behavior. Gay marriage, I think, would fall in the category of not giving them clear signals. I’m sorry about the gay teens who might have their feelings hurt, but I’m not willing to sacrifice straight teens just so that some gay teens won’t have their feelings hurt. (I might point out that having your feelings hurt about something quite often serves a very good social purpose, like pointing out, for instance, that perhaps something about your behavior is not quite the social norm. You’d better either be able to change that behavior, or be prepared to live with it when you get older.)
As for discrimination, I’ve been discriminated against for my conservative views by gays far more than I’ve ever been discriminated against by religious ‘bigots’ for my orientation. In point of fact, very few highly religious folk have discriminated against me for being ‘myself’. They are simply against my homosexuality, which is a whole different thing. They mostly just want to save me, which, in my opinion, is commendable. It may take a little getting used to, but once you get past the self-defense instinct that arises WHENEVER someone challenges some aspect of yourself, you realize they aren’t bigots, just people trying to show you what they think is the way. (In point of fact, it has been the way, for thousands of years. It’s only recently that certain people have tried to institute a new norm). But now, if you want to see some REAL discrimination and some extreme invectives hurled at you, go and try to have a civil discourse with any left-wing gay man. Jeez. God forbid I tell them that in my opinion anal sex isn’t really normal. Now there’s some real INTOLERANCE.
As for this idea that being gay is the same as being black or Asian or whatever, I’ve seen some ridiculous notions in my life, but this one pretty much takes the cake. A black man still mates successfully with a woman. As does an Asian man. As does pretty much any man of any race (yes, yes, some men are sterile, but that’s the exception, not the rule. Please people, let’s keep this real. Let’s not do what liberals always like to do: that is, trot an ostrich across the stage and try to claim that it’s a chicken.) But I have yet to see a man mate successfully with another man. Just haven’t seen it. You know, when someone goes in to get reconstructive surgery, they don’t ever go in and try to make a nose look like an ear, or a mouth look like a chin. They fix a nose to be a nose, and an ear to be an ear. Why some men and women end up being gay I don’t know. No one knows for sure. Evidence exists that both environment and heredity play a role. But again, I don’t really think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that normative behavior is for men to be attracted to women, and vice-versa. There would be no society in existence if that wasn’t the case. Some of us end up having our wires crossed, but let’s not let society itself get confused about what the proper wiring is.
As for President Bush, this is a great man. Do I have problems with him? Yeah. He spends too much. He’s not Reagan. He must be the most inarticulate mf ‘er to ever become President. He’s done nothing about the borders. And he should be horsewhipped for signing campaign finance reform (Now THAT really rankles me). But when I think of all the shit and hatred he’s laboring under, it absolutely astonishes me that he hasn’t lost his mind. And thank God (if there is one, that is) that he was there when 9/11 happened. He’s a fighter, he is. A real gem. Unlike Kerry, who’s an absolute wimp, or Gore, who’s just a damn crybaby. Have mistakes been made in Iraq? I’m quite sure they have. There were a shitload of those things in WWII too, and FDR wasn’t even laboring under a divided electorate (Roosevelt ALSO made a shitload of domestic errors– he almost certainly prolonged the depression for years with his heavy taxing and spending). But Bush is willing to call evil by its name, and to see things in black and white, when they are black and white. With respect to gay sex, there is a black and a white. Heterosexual sex is normative, homosexual sex is not normative and should not be encouraged. I practice it in private, but I don’t need to force it on society. And I should mention that I have a really healthy ego. Don’t hate myself at all.
Nick:
Randy (if that really is your name), thank you for your literate, thoughtful letter. it resonates with my own deep feelings on the matter, but, you’re right, I am very hesitant to make a moral judgment about others’ sexual proclivities, and that does interfere with forthright discussion of gay marriage. I have gay friends and I don’t want them to be treated as, or to feel like, second class citizens. I want them to have equal rights. At the same time, I am very uncomfortable with the idea of radically redefining such a cultural bedrock as marriage. So I am conflicted about the whole thing. I am, however, equally uncomfortable with the idea of messing with the constitution to codify a definition of marriage. Thank you for making me think about it.
R.J. Smith:
Yeah, Randy really is my name, heh heh. I don’t really think this type of stuff should be necessary in the Constitution either. But mainly because it’s fairly obvious that cocks were not meant to be put in men’s asses. When society has to state explicitly something that is that obvious, it’s on a sure path of decline. Also, the fact of the matter is that the constitution is going to be amended one way or the other. The only difference is will it be amended implicitly by the courts and by the mayor of San Francisco, or will it be amended by the citizenry of the country. Last I heard only the second way is contemplated in the constitution. If the implicit amendment was not currently what was happening then your point would be valid. If it’s a choice between implicit amendment by a few elites and explicit amendment by the citizenry, then I choose the latter. It has the virtue of being democratic. Currently there is no other option on the table.
1) As far as your gay friends, do they really want your condescension? I would suggest that those who do are not worthy of your friendship. I would rather have second class citizenship without the condescension then ‘equal rights’ with the condescension (note: this may mean getting rid of a lot of ‘friends’). What I have observed from most gays is that they expect everyone else to follow their own (gay) moral lights, in essence denying anyone who disagrees with them their own beliefs and personhood. Most gay men are either very insecure on one hand, or bullies on the other, who are intent on trying to emasculate society (and, as a result, straight men). They can’t stand the power that straight men have just by virtue of being straight. Part of that power is simply being the physical incarnation of what normative sexual conduct is. (yeah, yeah, I know, straight men have their proclivities too. But at least they get the gender of their mate right. That’s fundamental. I don’t advocate mummification or other weird sexual practices among straight men any more than I would among gay men.)
Note: This is one reason why the war on terror scares the left so much. It requires society to value masculinity, and for men to be masculine once again. Society doesn’t really have time for effeminate, touchy-feely emotionalism when there’s a war to be fought.
2) With respect to equal rights, I don’t remember straight men having a right to marry other men. What gays want is a whole new right, the right for men to marry men. I have the same right to marry a woman as every other man in town. That I may not be attracted to women is irrelevant. So, yes, Gays have the same frigging rights as everyone else. What they want aren’t equal rights, but the right to transform society. It’s a shame homosexual behavior is disordered from the standpoint of society, but it simply is, and I don’t think society should be made to kowtow to it or every other whim that comes along. If this particular right that gays want was not so detrimental to young teens I wouldn’t be so adamantly against it, but unfortunately is does adversely impact them. (another thing: I would like to see those who are so actively promoting homosexual conduct take at least some responsibility for the high rate of hiv in that community. Few things bother me so much as one group of people advocating for other people conduct that they themselves would never consider practicing. And these self same people consider themselves ‘enlightened’!!! Amazing) As for any other rights in this country of ours, last I looked, I don’t think a straight man had any more right to run a stop sign than a I do.
3) Don’t forget, when you go to vote for Bush, that your ballot is secret. None of your gay friends need know that you have deep reservations about homosexual conduct. And Kerry is deeply unfit to be commander in chief.
Nick:
Well, actually I don’t have any gay friends, just a few gay acquaintances, and I really don’t care if they have the right to marry each other, and I think you’re very likely right about it all, especially that our society has been made to fear masculinity, and that in the current situation this is life-threatening. But I’m too chickenshit to espouse such views on my blog, cuz then I wouldn’t have ANY friends, except you maybe, and nobody would ever link to me again. The wife and I just went to see Team America, funniest movie I’ve ever seen. If you haven’t already, you should go see it. It’s a profound treatise on dicks, pussies, and assholes.
Harcamone:
Randy has a good mind. I like his rap. I agree with him about this gay marriage business. (On the ‘unnatural’ portion of his argument … well that is MOST interesting. I’ll have to think, uh, long and hard about what he said, to see how much of it I can go along with. But I totally dig him for having the creativity and balls to come up with his counter-correct position. Anything that drives the Queer Theory profs and the Gaygaygay Kulturmafia crazy is a good thing in my book.)
Randy speaks the unvarnished truth about AIDS: people get AIDS from fucking, not from imperialism or Republican social policies. I can see that Randy knows what’s actually what. So do I. Randy and I weren’t born yesterday. We know about the kind of fucking that goes on in the gay world. Jesse Jackson doesn’t know. I’m sure Molly Ivins and Al Franken don’t know, either. What does the army of diversity-worshipping, liberal-hetero social engineers know about White Parties? What do they know about the Down Low? What do they know about the personal ads? Not one damn thing. If they could see some of this stuff with their own eyes, the next thing they would see is a paramedic running towards them, carrying a heart defibrillator.
My unpublished position paper on gay marriage states explicity that the M-word — the word ‘marriage’ — should mean what the social conservatives wish it to mean. The word — and the particular institution that lives inside the word — should NOT be threatened by some minuscule portion of the community.
I say minuscule, because by no means all gay people — especially gay men — wish to marry. What are we talking about … like 4% of the population? Are there 12 million homosexual people in America who would like to get married? I dunno. Maybe. Or maybe not.
Even if marriage is a bunch of bullshit, and, say, 70% of married people get divorced, and 42% of married people hate each other, and 13% kill each other, I still say that the man/woman marriage Idea should not be undermined. That marriage is imperfect, even grossly imperfect, is not a good argument, in my opinion, for the re-making of the institution as it has been understood for a thousand years. Or however many years.
Back in the 60s, when I was in my twenties, I had a remarkable friend, and he and I were like a pair of beautiful wild dog brothers. We loved each other. For years we lived together, went everywhere together and were inseparable. Being so young, we had lots of testosterone and cum, and we had plenty of queer desire to go along with it. We didn’t advertise ourselves, but then again we didn’t hide, either. Looking back on those days I think most of our friends had us figured out.
We didn’t have a name for our nature — certainly not that word ‘gay,’ with its odd Victorian tone and whiff of camp, exaggerated hand gestures and show tunes.
The idea of ‘gay marriage’ did not exist in those days, but if it had I would have found it revolting. My heroes weren’t Adam and Steve; my heroes were Jean Genet, Pasolini and John Rechy. Like them, I was on the margin, I was an outlaw. I knew this, I accepted this. I liked being an outlaw. That was the whole fucking POINT of the thing, don’t you see?
I open the memory-box for two reasons:
a] to show the vast gulf beween my experience, sensibilities and erotic mythology and those of the twits running around throwing gay molotov cocktails and freaking out their fellow citizens;
b] to demonstrate that I possess a certain authority (as much as anybody else) to form, hold and express original or contrarian opinions on gay marriage, and other gay matters.
BUT …. I can’t begin to tell you how difficult it has been to make my arguments with my liberal friends. Does it matter that I have vastly more embodied experience of homosexuality than any of them? No. Does it matter that I understand deeply and personally what is at stake in the struggle to give homosexual partnerships the same legal rights given to married people? No.
You might think that a reasonable person would cut me some slack, realizing that I speak from a place he has never visited. Unfortunately this almost never happens. Liberals know best.
In fact, I do understand and appreciate the passions and emotions that are driving the battle for ‘gay marriage.’ I also understand and appreciate the deep well of grief and bitterness in the community, fed by the many tragic situations that result daily from these rights not being accorded to people.
I am deeply, strongly, unambiguously in favor of legal rights for homosexual partnerships — the same rights everyone else has. I think it is good for our society to do this. I think the denial of these rights is an injustice. But I also believe that the ‘gay marriage’ war is a terrible tactic that widens separation and decreases understanding among people, and thereby delays and confuses justice.
There must be a way to protect both the socially conservative majority and the precious lives of homosexual couples and families. If the path to the solution is not presently clear, that doesn’t mean a solution isn’t possible. It means that people (I mean all of us) need to begin thinking more creatively and envisioning more boldly. It means that people (I mean all of us) have to start talking to people, perhaps developing new language.
Harcamone:
Yes, you can forward that email to Randy. And this one too, why not?
I re-read his letters, and boy! is he right on. What a weird guy. He says things that are to me completely obvious — but his views cannot be uttered in polite liberal or gay company. They are off limits — like The Bell Curve, or pro-death penalty arguments in Europe.
I would like to see these kinds of ideas brought into the places where important discussions are taking place — academia, for example. But they would not be welcome. That’s really too bad, because what we’re talking about isn’t just some “gay subject” that belongs in the gay-bubble. We’re talking about fundamental things that this society — and its majorities and minorities — are dealing with in very clumsy ways.
One of the things we’re verging on here is the question of civil obligations, a subject that gets lost because everyone is so preoccupied with “civil rights.” I could go on for pages about that but I won’t. I need to write a short letter this morning.
Another forbidden subject rearing its head is masculinity, and the type of “nation-psychosexuality” necessary to fight a war. These ideas are not unique to Randy, but sadly you only find them on the conservative side — VDH speaks about these things, doesn’t he? And Robert Kagan does too, although more by implication.
And really, one can’t shlepp them into this blog , either — any more than they’ve already been. This conversation, if opened up in the blog, would invite tsunamis of participation and change the character of the blog — which is not only “not-gay,” but, like all blogs, needs to move, flow, get on with things. This is why, I think, blogs tend to have philosophical character — they aren’t places for argument, but places where like (or like-ish) minds gather.
One begins to appreciate David Horowitz’s brass balls. He too he was at one point sitting around with contrarian ideas and no audience, or community. Or at least very small ones. And now, look.
One place that is receptive to some of what Randy has been talking about is Amitai Eztioni’s Communitarian Network.
*****
I am eager to see “Team America.”!!!!!!!!!!!!!
R.J. Smith:
Nick, thanks for forwarding that letter from Harcamone to me, it was really interesting. I think he probably has difficulty making his arguments with his friends because they’re basically looking for something other than what he’s looking for. I expect he truly wants certain limited rights (though it would help him to get away from the word rights.) I suspect his friends, like most other gays, are using these rights that they want more as a Trojan horse. Inside this Trojan horse is what they really want, society’s approval of their conduct. I do think that there are a few, a very few, like Harcamone, that just want certain things between lovers made easier, transferal of property, custody of children, etc, and don’t have an ax to grind with society. I wouldn’t call these rights, because the whole rights language implies that there is some group that has been oppressed. As you probably surmise, I would not even begin to call gays an oppressed group (the only people that I consider to have been historically oppressed in America are blacks and maybe Indians. Currently these two groups aren’t oppressed and in fact are favored minorities, and that status needs to end, it’s damaging to both groups. Women have never been oppressed, there simply was a time when society was structured differently.)
Since homosexuality is obviously abnormal, gays are no more oppressed then are mentally retarded folks, whom we don’t allow to drive cars. They, er, we, are a problem that society has to deal with. But that requires laws, not rights. I’m willing to bet that a lot of the things these gay groups want is already available through contract law, but that this solution isn’t enough for them because there’s no implicit approval of sexual conduct through simple contracts between two adult individuals. With respect to custody, I don’t have any sympathy with two men or two women raising children together. Since I think society has an inherent interest in reinforcing to children what normal sexual conduct is, a relationship that would do nothing but confuse the children is and should be unacceptable. These couples should live in the shadows, if for no other reason than that this will suggest to the children that perhaps there is something fishy about their parents (Parents!) arrangement. If I had children I can’t imagine myself ever wanting to send such a confused message to them. Well, I can, but it would be due to selfishness or desperation, or some such, on my part. Certainly consideration of the children would not have been uppermost in my mind when deciding to get a live-in-lover of the same sex.
Thanks for sending my correspondence to Harcamone. Do you think it would be ok for me to email him directly?
Harcamone:
yes, randy can email me. i wish he would. i would enjoy exchanging views with him.
His ideas are fascinating. i have never heard a homosexual person say so explicitly that there is a “normal” part of the psychosexual curve, and it’s appropriate to see the other parts as not normal. This flies SO in the face of liberal theory, i am almost breathless.
he’s under the impression that i have been trying to convert my gay friends to my views. i have no gay friends. my friends are all liberals who think they have to support haywire gay extremism in order to be good liberals and not get excommunicated.