Posted on 02/26/2004 3:17:01 PM PST by WL-law
As someone who was once a daily reader of Andrew Sullivan’s blog, and who had enjoyed his appearances on C-Span and elsewhere de-constructing the errors of the left, I like many find his obsession with gay marriage and his new overall tone unreadable and increasingly detestable.
Based on what I understand about gays and their lifestyle generally, marriage has always been the last thing on the gay man’s minds. As Camille Paglia has noted, male gayness can be described as a state of flight away from mothers, from women, from commitment and middle-class “normalcy”. It’s a state of ‘otherness’.
So – are the proponents of gay marriage being honest about their motives?
Well – let’s look at gay marriage cheerleader #1, Andrew Sullivan.
It turns out that while Sullivan was espousing conservative political values during the last couple of years, some gay activists discovered that Andrew had a dark side that would seem to brand him a “moral hypocrite”, in their calculus.
And so they circulated, in gay chats, what they discovered about Andrew.
Here it is: http://milkyloads.tripod.com/
Yes, it’s as bad as it sounds. If you visit the site, keep the kids away. It will open your eyes, though, to the mendacity of Sullivan’s campaign for gay marriage. The link goes to a gay group site where you’ll find where gay politico’s “outed” Sullivan, and they provide a link to what they discovered: Sullivan’s own posted sex ads, where he trolls for men (not “a man”) for anonymous dangerous unprotected HIV+ passing sex. Andrew posted on various cruising sites for rough 'bareback' sex with strangers.
And Andrew even posted pictures of himself – and trust me, it’s him, all right. Sullivan posted nude pictures of himself (face disguised, and one picture that just shows his ass!) and advertises how buff he is (he specifically mentions his 19" neck) and how horny he is to get it on with all "comers" (that's my pun, not his). It clearly is real, and Sullivan apparently immediately pulled the postings once he was caught "with his pants down" (my pun again). I recently saw him on MSNBC recently and observed the big neck he was advertising -- he's been weightlifting and apparently this is a significant plus factor for him in attracting gay trysts.
At any rate, it's clear that Andrew's lifestyle is about sex with strangers, as many as possible, not about "marriage". And, BTW, Sullivan is HIV+, but fails to mention it on one of the ads. And yet -- he's advertising for unprotected (bareback) anal sex.
“Isn't that just special”, as the church lady would say?
So – it appears that Andrew has decided to fend off one accusation of hypocrisy by adopting a hypocritical position that supports the people who outed him. Got it?! It worked on David Brock, and its working with Andrew Sullivan. He’s now back in the good graces of the gay police, -- but Andrew remains as his our own little "Typhoid Mary" spreading HIV (and poisonoud ideas) while he mounts the pulpit preaching to the American public that gays are wholesome and “just want to be loved”, meaning they just want to get married and live normal monogamous lives.
And now he's a different kind of hypocrite -- one that pretends that gays are actually interested in marriage, whereas he knows that gays are gays because they are running away from monogamy and that a fulfilled gay life is one filled with hundreds of partners, not one partner.
And he’s the #1 case-on-point to prove it.
You can clearly see from the pictures that it is him -- the face is obscured, but you can see his beard, and it IS his beard, and the "neck" thing is him, too. And there's enough obvious attempt to 'disguise' himself on the site -- he only identifies himself as "andy" -- that the sex-cruising posting certainly seems to be genuinely Andrew Sullivan, ie, and not a put-up job by someone trying to smear him.
Just doing research....like Peter Townsend.
Actually, someone else here on FR 'tipped me off' and gave me the link -- and I won't embarrass him (by revealing his FR name) the way you just tried to embarrass me. :^)
He opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, because it might strengthen his fictitious bogeyman, the "religious right." (Homosexuals feeling good apparently trumps saving babies from getting their brains sucked out). He also sided with Sen. Charles Schumer when Schumer wanted to use 9/11 as an excuse for making a permanent database of gun sales. He flirted with supporting Howard Dean until it became obvious Dean was tanking--this when Bush had not supported the marriage yet. He at one point attacked Newt Gingrich on some national security issue (I forget which one, but I think it was Taiwan), not because of the substance of Newt's generally correct remarks, but because Newt was the "most reviled American politician in recent history." (Note that Newt doesn't have a history of being especially anti-homosexual; Andrew simply doesn't like him because his homo friends tell him not to like him). He rejoiced at the departure of Phil Gramm, not because Gramm was any kind of an extremist--he admitted he wasn't--but because he had a Southern accent and therefore was beyond the pale.
The really ironic thing here is that Sullivan has gloated about the triumph of "gay" culture--even to the point of saying, not without some validity, that it's now the dominant culture--yet now that Bush supports the FMA, he acts as if homos were some beknighted victims. He can't have it both ways: they can't be persecuted dictators.
I think part of his rage is that Bush stole his show: he was planning on back-stabbing Bush in late October, and instead Bush has forced his hand now. No one is running headlines of "Sullivan endorses Kerry" at a crucial time; instead they're saying "Bush endorses gay marriage ban." As usual, Sullivan is angry at being the first one kicked to the curb.
If I want to read one-way, pompous treatises issued from On High, written by snobs who expect their readers to just shut up and consume, then I can get that in spades from Newsweek or The New York Times or any of a million other newspapers and magazines. I sure as hell don't need more of it from Andrew Sullivan.
YIKES!!! What a picture!! Profound....sad and profound.
I don't give a rat's arse, considering these transtressions, that he may oppose a highway bill here or there.
Why do we care what he has to say in public?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.