Hello World

I like to think of myself as a pretty open-minded guy. Germane to this post, I like to think that I'm not at all homophobic. I put that theory to the test tonight, when I went to see an all-male version of Dangerous Liaisons put on by The Actors' Theater of Washington.

You may remember the furor on Broadway when Take Me Out started its run there; it's a portrait of a Major League Baseball player coming out as gay, and in addition to its directly addressing tricky subject matter it also featured a lot of nudity by its (male) actors. I actually saw that with my mom, and although it was sorta awkward it was not really a big deal. Well, Dangerous Liaisons features male nudity also, but in a very different manner. Basically, it's a straightforward telling of the French tale of sexual intrigue and callous emotional deceipt--straightforward except that every role is played by a man, and the sexual intrigue is less implied than wantonly exhibited. It's difficult to describe the sexuality portrayed in the show--theoretically it's supposed to be gender-neutral, I think, but in practice it was hard to get around the fact that I was watching men make out, walk around naked, and simulate explicit sexual acts (also naked).

So here's my point: I sure talk a good game about gay rights, the ills of homophobia, and the fact that other lifestyles are as valid as my own, but could I handle it when it came down to a 210 minute play with regular and frequent examples of graphic homosexual activity? The short answer, I'm pretty glad to say, is yes.

The long answer is a bit more complicated, of course.

Was I totally comfortable watching it? No, I wouldn't say so, but this could also be because it's extremely likely that I was the only straight man in the audience. In fact, I may have been the only audience member who'd never had sex with a man. So that was odd--we straight white guys just don't get a lot of opportunities to be marginalized. Aside from that, my reaction was basically that it was a little bit gross, but not abhorrent. Which would be my reaction to seeing almost any two people copulating--we are not, as a species, handsome, on the whole. That being said, it's pretty clear that I've got a bit of homophobia still bouncing around in my psyche but as long as I'm conscious and ashamed of it I don't think it should resolve itself in any actions I would feel guilty about later. I can hold my head up high as a good liberal, and defend gay rights without feeling like a hypocrite.

I won't review the show beyond noting that it was interesting and pretty well-acted, and a friend of mine has a role (and was very good)--if you live in DC and think you can handle the rampant and unabashed male nudity (and a hefty ticket price) it's well worth seeing.

FYI, an in-depth review by Broadway World was generally positive and is worth reading if you're interested in hearing more about the show.

Tom Cruise proposed. Makes sense to me--they have been fake dating for a while. It's gotten pretty fake serious. It's about time for a fake engagement--to be followed, of course, by a fake wedding, fake pregnancy, fake children, and a fake breakup in 2008. It's fake fascinating!

Last night, I was talking with a friend of mine about Tom Cruise's totally legitimate relationship with Katie Holmes. We both agreed that he is a) straight b) not a credulous cult-member and c) extremely tall, and we definitely feel that his dating Katie Holmes, twenty years older than whom he is, is not in the least a publicity stunt and is in fact a public proclamation of a pure and honest love between two regular people who happen to be starring in upcoming summer blockbusters.

Anyway, apparently they are living together and engaged (maybe). What a storybook romance that no one, not even a heartless cynic, could take issue with.

Don't miss Batman and War of the Worlds: in theaters this summer!

Sarcasm update: See where I said "extremely tall" up there? That was the giveaway that I am not being entirely sincere! Not that you should need it! Even US WEEKLY isn't reporting this story seriously!

Turned away from the Blair County Courthouse because Pennsylvania law prohibits first-cousin marriages, Donald W. Andrews Sr. and Eleanor Amrhein, 37, crossed into Maryland to wed. Before they could think about a honeymoon, the newlyweds became the butt of jokes on the late-night talk shows.

But their marriage also cast a light on conflicting state laws surrounding the practice, and on such groups as Cousins United to Defeat Discriminating Laws Through Education (C.U.D.D.L.E.) and http://www.cousincouples.com/, which cite new research to encourage acceptance of such unions.

Between C.U.D.D.L.E. and that horrific photograph, this has got to be lauded as one of the best Onion articles in years.

Uh, but it's real.

I think the Post is trying to say something without directly saying it, though. The story is about two people who pretty much perfectly fit the stereotype of "poor white trash": they live in a trailer, she works at Wal-Mart, he collects disability from the government, they smoke, he proposed at Wal-Mart because wedding bands were on sale. I am conflicted, frankly, because although I find this story sort of funny I also think it is really sad and gross that, as far as I can tell, they're getting subtly mocked in a piece that purports to tell their side of the story. I really prefer to do my laughing at jerks who deserve it, not well-meaning people who aren't doing anything that will make my life worse.

Note: As I understand it, it's not truly a genetic disaster for first cousins to procreate. It's somewhat more risky, but is pretty safe in a large society with a diverse gene pool. Man, it sure does seem gross, though, doesn't it?

Anyway, let's let queers get married. Enough already.

Damn you, OC. DAMN YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL!

So, first of all, how did I do on my predictions?

( Read more... )

A friend of mine pointed me towards this story. Here's the first paragraph:

A Fairfax County School Board member has sent letters to the district's 24 high school principals urging them to ensure that students hear the views of people who believe that homosexuality is a choice and a "very destructive lifestyle."

This guy wants "ex-gay" speakers to go to each high school and describe the abnormality of homosexuality, and to explain that homosexuality is a choice.

The story notes, "Hunt said yesterday that he is concerned that students who do not support homosexuality may be afraid to speak up in school or labeled as intolerant." Uh, yeah. That's a big problem among kids--a reluctance to speak poorly of homosexuals. This one time, on the playground, an overweight eighth-grader called a small third-grade boy a "fag" and, well, you can just imagine how that was received. All the other kids told that bully, "leave him alone, being gay is perfectly natural and you should respect that!" The bully was so embarrassed he started crying, and his mom had to come to school to pick him up. He was a victim of the prevalent pro-homosexual attitude that dominates our youth, and one victim is one too many.

My theory is that this guy is alarmed by the success that musicals have had in theaters in the last few years (although shouldn't the utter critical and financial failure of The Phantom of the Opera have given him some comfort?) and wants to make sure there's always a place for uplifting heterosexual movies like The Passion of the Motherfucking Christ, Bitches (working title: We're Still Mad, Jews).

No matter. I think it's pretty clear what we need to do: photoshop this guy's face onto some gay porn and staple it all over Virginia.

First things first--I have gmail invites to pass out, so let me know if you're interested.

Second--a few selections from the first day of the convention:

As Republicans opened their convention, Bush stirred up fresh criticism of his leadership when he said in an interview on NBC's "Today" show that he doubted that the United States could actually win the war against terrorism. "I don't think you can win it," he said. "But I think you can create the conditions that those who used terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."

Bush's comment drew a swift reply from the Kerry campaign, with Edwards, the vice presidential candidate, accusing Bush of declaring defeat, saying the Democrats have a plan to win that war. White House officials moved just as quickly to explain that the president meant that the war on terrorism is unconventional and will produce no surrender ceremonies or treaties and that the United States must be prepared for a generation of vigilance.

Oh, that's what he meant. See, when he said "I don't think you can win it" I guess for some reason I thought he was saying he didn't think we could win the war on terror. Turns out, though, that he meant that the war on terror won't result in people surrendering. That's terrific! BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!

The platform provided sustenance to party conservatives, whose energy and support in November remain crucial to Bush's prospects for reelection. But the prime-time lineup the first two nights, which also includes California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, put the spotlight on prominent Republicans who disagree with Bush and the conservatives on many social issues.

Their role in the carefully orchestrated convention program underscored the importance of reaching beyond the conservative base to undecided and swing voters. [read: implicitly lying to the American people about their positions]

Yeah, this is getting off to a stupendous start, between the attacks on Michael Moore (leave those to the dems, guys, we actually have legitimate criticisms that might stick), Mccain's pitiable support of a man who pilloried him cruelly and unfairly in the last election campaign, and of course the obnoxious and ridiculous appropriation of 9/11 for political gain. It's almost enough to make you vote for Nader (just kidding! that would be idiotic!).

Anyway, if you pay attention, in the next three days you MAY catch a glimpse of a minority (and no, I don't mean someone who thinks the war was a bad idea). Don't hold your breath on the homosexuals, though; the Queer Eye guys will not be making an appearance, and despite the flurry of gay public servants I would not expect Dick Cheney or Mr. Bush to reveal anything juicy this week. Well, except that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian and he is methodically working towards making her feel like less of a human being than her straight friends. Thanks, Dick! You are a true American Hero!

So, in the Wizard of Oz remake, how's it going to work. Obviously, Bush is the Scarecrow and Cheney is the Tin Man. I say we make Rumsfeld the Lion. And of course Karl Rove is the Wizard. Powell is Toto. Swiftboat Veterans for Truth represent the lollipop guild. Is it clear to everyone that Dean is the Wicked Witch of the East and Kerry is the Wicked Witch of the West? The flying monkeys are moveon.org. Nominations for Dorothy? I don't want to make it Condi just because she is, more or less, a woman.

Old-fashioned as it seems, the coming-out story still holds powerful drama. (Especially when spilling from the mouths of politicians.) Someday the world will be safe for movie stars and football players. And so, governor, a glimmer of hope, and a reminder: You're not the last gay man in America to stumble tardily and embarrassingly out of the big, bad closet. You're not the lowest of the low. You may only feel like it.

That's the last paragraph of this column, which in theory is (I think) supposed to be in support of New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, who resigned yesterday because he was having an affair with a man. I think it's sad that he had to resign for being gay (he'd hardly be the first politician to have an affair and keep his job), but I think it's REALLY sad that his coming out is being seen as anything but an act of courage in a still very homophobic country. Hank Steuver, who wrote the column, is at times incredibly patronizing:

"As a young child, I often felt ambivalent about myself, in fact, confused," McGreevey said in his announcement yesterday. "By virtue of my traditions, and my community, I worked hard to ensure that I was accepted as part of the traditional family of America."

Yes, yes, yes. Gay men and lesbians know that story. They lived it, sweetie, and told it over and over again 20 years ago, in college, at the family Thanksgiving table, to suspicious but loyal prom dates of the opposite sex.

But, uh, Hank, he's not TALKING to gay men and lesbians (why not just say "gay men and women," by the way?)--he's talking to his fucking constituents, the straight ones who elected him and are now asking themselves either why he couldn't have been out all his life or why he had to come out at all.

What a stupid, ignorant, hateful world we live in, when even a column supporting this guy has to get in its cheap shots.

Orson Scott Card, who has written a ton of science fiction (I consider a few of his books to be among my favorites in the genre), has also written an ugly and disappointing article with an extremely stupid URL. Basically, he argues that the idea of gay marriage is harmful to society in general, and part of a larger campaign waged by... um, goblins maybe?... a campaign to destroy the institution of capital "m" Marriage in America.

I understand (though I don't agree with) many of the arguments against gay marriage, but I do not get how anyone can seriously argue, as Card does, that "Marriage Is Already Open to Everyone." Yes, a gay man is allowed to marry a woman, and a gay woman is allowed to marry a man, but in order to consider that a legitimate option one must ignore the idea that married people should actually want to be married to each other. To clumsily make a comparison that many people have more deftly made before me, it's like arguing that, years ago, black people and white people were allowed to marry... Oh, except that they couldn't marry each other.

Card suggests that society thrives based on stable and supportive families, and I certainly agree with him there, but he also asserts that only a household comprising a mother and father is suitable for raising a child. He argues that, because most men want to marry their mothers and surpass their fathers (hasn't our analysis gotten more sophisticated since Freud?), and because it "takes conscious effort to break away from this pattern," well, it's obviously Right. Because struggling against our natural limitations is un-American. That's why our national motto is "Status Quo Means Good Enough."

He says, 'We've already seen similar attempts at redefinition. The ideologues have demanded that we stop defining "families" as Dad, Mom, and the kids. Now any grouping of people might be called a "family."' Well, good heavens, first we define a group of people who care for and love each other as a "family." What's next? Legal file-sharing???

Things became more or less farcical when Card broke out this rhetoric:

Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.

Yes, "Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get." I'm starting to think Mr. Card may not be a Kerry supporter.
Card degenerates into a lot of talk of "mating" and "civilization" and generally comes uncomfortably close to eugenics as far as I'm concerned.

It's pretty clear, at least to me, that Card thinks being gay is icky and doesn't want to think about his own sexuality (see such comments as "Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back"). I think this, the "ick factor," is at the heart of the great majority of people who oppose gay marriage. The image of two guys making out in tuxedos sends an involuntary shiver down their spines and they reach for the nearest bible passage or oversimplified theory that asserts the superiority of heterosexuality, thus banishing from their conscious mind any need to consider and accept someone else's differences as acceptable or even valuable.

I'll close with the most condescending, insulting, arrogant, and despicable part of his hateful diatribe. You just tell me whether you think this is a measured, rational, and mature response to a complex issue:

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.

Full disclosure: I oppose heterosexual marriage.