Andrew Sullivan endorses book: "The Skeptical Environmentalist"

AndrewSullivan.com ^ | 25 Nov 2001 | Andrew Sullivan

[RobertBauman]

A BOOK RECOMMMENDATION: Many of you may already have checked out Bjorn Lomberg's devastating insider rebuttal of many of the lies of the current environmentalist movement. It's called The Skeptical Environmentalist. It makes no real difference to anything, but I felt a little less beleaguered by the discovery that this brave and smart individual is also openly gay. Just one more reason for some conservatives to revisit their assumptions about gay writers and thinkers. Yes, there are still many protected left-wing maniacs, who haven't had an original thought since 1976. But there are many many young, bright free-thinking gays and lesbians challenging the lock-step leftism of the gay establishment. If you haven't checked the Independent Gay Forum (I've played a small part in its origins and functioning), give it a whirl. From Jonathan Rauch to Walter Olson to Camille Paglia and Bjorn Lomberg (to name just a few), many non-conformist gay thinkers are actually making a difference. Perhaps the gay establishment, instead of wasting energy demonizing and vilifying us, will one day see us as productive contributors to many debates. Then again, pigs might fly.

[RobertBauman]

I've read the book and it's great. What I don't understand is why Sullivan once again tries to spin something as an endorsement of his lifestyle? Aren't some things better left private? I'm curious if the author wanted Andrew Sullivan to blast his private bedroom preference all over the place. I'm not a so-called 'homophobe', but why do the gay militant types try to turn everything into an issue of either you endorse the homosexual lifestyle as virtuous or else your're an evil bigot?

[RobertBauman]

What the heck do the gay militants like Sullivan mean by 'openly' gay? I never hear them refer to normal people as 'openly straight'. If their lifestyle isn't a choice, then what is so 'open' about it? Could it be something more akin to 'openly evil' or 'openly immoral' such as a straight person who is 'openly adulterous'? It just seems strange that on the one hand they insist their lifestyle is so normal, but they still want to hide the embarrassment and shame of it.

[YaYa123]

Nice post, is this your first?

As to your questions about Sullivan's homosexuality, it's mox nix to the subject at hand, and most other Sullivan writing/thinking. He's brilliant, and I hope he stays healthy for many years to come.

And hey, welcome aboard.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Robert, I agree with you. Unfortunately here at freep there are many defenders of the homosexual agenda. I don't know why as it is incompatible with a conservative agenda imho.

I've been seeing you around and I do agree with you 100% btw. There are people here who are cheerleaders for immigrants as well. I don't get it. And I'm not for either the gay agenda nor the immigrant agenda. Please keep posting.

[Dolphy]

Gee, I have nothing against gays or immigrants, does this mean I don't qualify as a conservative? Sullivan mentions that the author is openly gay because gays are dismissed, degraded and discounted by too many conservatives, and it is a sort of validation that not all gays and lesbians have a liberal agenda. Some people are overweight, gluttony is a sin, are they not conservatives either? I will leave the judging to the one empowered with the almighty task.

[hoosierham]

It is great that not all homosexual buy into the socialist dream (which is really a nightmare); still they embrace a personal life that is un-natural and were ALL to follow it, lead to the extinction of the human race.

[ProudGOP]

why do the gay militant types try to turn everything into an issue of either you endorse the homosexual lifestyle as virtuous or else your're an evil bigot?

Simple. They seek acceptance of their lifestyle. It is not enough that we appreciate them for their accomplishments, in Sullivan's case, his writing. They want us to think of their lifestyle as normal and acceptable. I believe this is so important to them because deep down they realize it is not normal.

[marktwain]

There are far more homosexual men than women, and even that number is rather small, at most a few percent. As a man, I don't mind. It means that there are more women available as possible partners for me. I suspect women might see it differently.

[leilani]

"why do the gay militant types try to turn everything into an issue of either you endorse the homosexual lifestyle as virtuous or else your're an evil bigot?". Some could also say "why do rabid conservative types try to turn everything into an issue of either you endorse the conservative lifestyle or else you're an evil infidel", couldn't you? Good grief, you guys, what would you have gay folks do? They (the 2% of God's children who are of that persuasion) have to live on this earth with us.They have to eat and pay rent & hopefully not collect welfare to do it. Thank goodness not all of them are brain dead and do not buy into the professional victim business like liberals are wont to do. We should be CELEBRATING the Andrew Sullivans and Camille Paglias of this world (& not just because they write better than we do).Face it, they GET IT, while a lot of heterosexuals collecting disability who choose to father fourteen children out of wedlock on the other side of your town most certainly DO NOT.I'll take conservatives anywhere I can get 'em, and I think it's especially sweet when we can pick 'em off from the so-called "other side".

[JPR_Boise_ID]

Wow ... way to go ! That's a very good synopsis. The term "pragmatic" come to mind, a realization of the way the world actually is.

[ProudGOP]

Some could also say "why do rabid conservative types try to turn everything into an issue of either you endorse the conservative lifestyle or else you're an evil infidel", couldn't you?

Torturing this analogy even further, some could say why do complete idiots such as yourself mischaracterize a poster's position and then criticize it.

Re-read my post (freep mail me with questions if you need help with the big words). I never criticize Sullivan for his lifestyle, merely his continual seeking of acceptance of it. I think Andrew Sullivan is a great writer and enjoy his columns immensely. I can do that without agreeing with his lifestyle. I would prefer to do that without him continually throwing his lifestyle choice into columns about topics unrelated to homosexuality. However, it is obvious that he prefers to broach the topic whenever and however he can. It is his right, just as it is my right to speculate and criticize about his choice of topics.

As for you, you are simply trying to pick a fight.

[leilani]

ProudGOP,as you have just reiterated it, your position seems to be that gays are welcome to be conservative as long as they, as opposed to say, soccer moms, keep their personal lives private. I heartily - and respectfully - disagree. Currently, something on the order of 99.9% of gay voters seem to believe that the only way for them to be "authentically queer" is to cast their ideological lot with the party of big government. Anything Sullivan can do to disabuse those folks of the self-defeating notion that voting for politicians who believe they are not only qualified but somehow entitled to dictate to us schmucks in flyover country how we should live our lives, conduct our business, raise our families, honor our beliefs & spend our own damn money is somehow compatible with the interests of gay Americans is just dandy with me. It is precisely Sullivan's point that gays have just as much to lose from a free-spending nanny-government as gun-toting, bible-thumbing suburban smokers in the 40% bracket do. Anything he can do to evangelize that not-insignificant voting bloc is fabulous. 99.9% of 2% of American voters is a heck of a lot of ticks next to Hilary Clinton's name in 2004, ProudGOP. With elections, particularly national races, running as tightly as they are these days, I'd say we can use all the help we can get, wherever we can get it. Indeed, the argument can be made quite convincingly that, were it not for Log Cabin Republicans last year, the marines hitting the ground in Afghanistan right about now would be taking their orders from Commander-in-Chief Gore (shudder). I hope our good friend Sullivan says it loud & says it proud that he's here' he's queer and he votes for folks who want to keep government out of our lives and out of our friggin' pocketbooks. (PS:Just because people argue a point with you on these threads does not mean that they are personally attacking you, PGOP. There's plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree, OK?)

[ProudGOP]

ProudGOP,as you have just reiterated it, your position seems to be that gays are welcome to be conservative as long as they, as opposed to say, soccer moms, keep their personal lives private.

Wrong. Unless it happens to be relevant to the topic, I don't care to hear about the sexual lives of soccer moms either. I fail to see how someone's sexual preference is pertinent to, say environmentalism to use the example that started this thread. It would be rediculous for an author who, for example, preferred Asian partners, to try to work into every article no matter what the topic, a discussion about the merits of mixed race marriages.

Currently, something on the order of 99.9% of gay voters seem to believe that the only way for them to be "authentically queer" is to cast their ideological lot with the party of big government...

For 99.9% of Gay voters, there is no other issue except being Gay. You have acknowledged as much. Our only difference is that you state that Sullivan is trying to reach them. I disagree. I believe Sullivan is trying to reach straights to get them to change their opinions about homosexuality. In this thread, the sentence in bold Just one more reason for some conservatives to revisit their assumptions about gay writers and thinkers. is written for the benefit of straights not, as you say, to get homosexuals to consider conservative positions.

(PS:Just because people argue a point with you on these threads does not mean that they are personally attacking you, PGOP. There's plenty of room for reasonable people to disagree, OK?)

If you would like to have a reasonable discussion then I suggest you do not begin it by calling someone a "rabid conservative". You set the tone. Stop whining about it.

[Brian Bennett]

"For of all wars, this is surely one in which gay America can take a proud and central part. The men who have launched a war on this country see the freedom that gay people have here as one of the central reasons for their hatred."

"Our War Too, Gay Heroes, and Gay Necessities" by Andrew Sullivan