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.
Have you actually read his blog over the last couple of days? He's made it abundantly clear that George Bush has lost his support for good because of his support for a Consitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He quite explicitly stated that Bush just "declared war" on him and on all other gays. Does that sound like a man who "supports President Bush?" It sounds to me like he has elevated his sexual gratification above all other issues, including his support for the war on terror.
Just watch - he will be coming out in support of John Kerry within a matter of days of Kerry finally dispatching Edwards on Super Tuesday. As far as justifying his stance with Kerry's stance on the Iraq war / WOT, he'll probably rationalize it along the lines of "once Kerry actually sees all the intelligence, we'll be able to convince him that it's in our best interest to continue to aggressively pursue al Qaeda and the Iraq war." Deep down he'll know this is a crock of pure warm dung, but it'll be enough to let him sleep at night knowing he hasn't "compromised his principles."
My position too. Sullivan cannot even define homosexuality. He once wrote there are probably several "homosexualities," an obvious display of discomfort with conflicting and irreconcilable aspects of the condition as manifested in the gay community, a community that this powerful thinker is intimately familiar with. Sullivan knows that that community is packed with pathology, but he papers it over by talking about a plurality of homosexualities. That way the more afflicted gays fall into a category different from his own, or so he hopes.
He's also lately adopted the language of "gay families" without ever putting forward a public position which argues that kids raised in that environment are not harmed. He's a rigorous thinker so I know he made a conscious decision not to argue the point publicly but rather chose to ride the cultural zeitgeist and pretend (fingers crossed) that Rosie's kids will turn out fine.
To me this a great evil, because straight kids raised with two daddies (or, in the case of Rosie O'Donnell, two mommies) are bound to suffer a severe deficit in establishing there own psychosexual identities.
It's the real deal. Sullivan himself confirmed a few years ago that the ads were him.
Too much information. :)
No longer. Read the entries posted on his blog site, over the past three-four days.
The original poster was, sadly, correct. Sullivan has willingly Brock'd himself... because he (apparently) feels that the "right" to register his silverware pattern at Penney's is more important than such trivial, insignificant matters as (oh, say) the War on terror.
I, too, used to support Sullivan... but, in this instance, he has earned my contempt; and, I suspect, the contempt of a good many other former admirers.
Actually, it was a trio of guys who busted his business in public -- and mind you, it wasn't what he was doing late at night that motivated them, it was his failure to gee and haw in the homosexual political traces that outraged them. Signorile was one of them -- he writes for the Village Voice -- and one of his running buddies was a guy named David Ehrenstein, a Left Coast film critic and author whose tagline on Salon, where he was a regular, was "Gay PC Terrorist". I don't remember who the third guy was, but they all went on a fishing expedition together to "get" Sullivan as a service to homosexual politics.
Point taken. However, I see no harm in letting people blow off steam -- they have certainly been provoked.
It's not the same as formally putting forward an ad-hominem attack as an appeal to motive in lieu of support in a discussion about a proposal to do something or about a political principle.
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.