Michael and Colin, among others, have already addressed this and I applaud
them. Some of my own thoughts:
Louis Lynch wrote:
> EVERY SINGLE gay friend of mine is embarrassed about the Etheridge split-up
> -- it really doesn't help to advance gay rights. I work in a theater, and
> it was the topic of conversation yesterday. Both gay and straight, people
> thought it gave homosexuality a bad name.
Unless every single gay friend of yours is personally acquainted with this
couple, I don't understand what they have to be embarrassed about. This idea
that public figures are obliged to serve as role models for the rest of us
strikes me as specious and in need of closer scrutiny. I read that these women
were together for 12 years (if this is true, their union lasted longer than
Joni Mitchell's and Larry Klein's). Whatever. I don't consider it right or fair
to ask for details or jump to conclusions about the divorces and separations of
people I know, let alone two women I've never met. Their break-up is a highly
personal matter and should be treated as such. Nobody's suggested that the
break-up of Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid should give heterosexuality a bad name
(actually, two years ago during an intense thread about Matthew Shepard's
murder, nobody suggested that his killers gave heterosexuality a bad name,
either).
> Remember, when it comes to public opinion, one negative public exposure
> takes literally thousands of positive ones to overcome. Ask "Hanoi" Jane
> Fonda about that.
Interesting choice: it could as easily have been Senator McCarthy, Roy Cohn -
or, to keep this in the entertainment world, Charlton Heston or John Wayne. I
imagine Ms. Fonda would offer few apologies, and don't forget that at least two
celebrated conservatives - Johnny Carson and National Reviewer film critic John
Simon - went out of their way to let America know that they thought she was
right.
> I also received private posts from other people on the list, gay and
> straight, who agree that the couple shouldn't have made such a big public
> deal of their split -- or the fatherhood in the first place.
It already was a big public deal. One question: why do only the people who
disagree post publicly?
> Perhaps if you'd stop racing to call me names, you could slow down and see
> my point. Homosexuals want to be accepted in a world where more than 90% of
> the population (actually, 97%) are heterosexual -- gays want "heteros" to
> understand their viewpoints, and to acknowledge their rights to marry
> publicly and raise children and have shared legal benefits.
I'd be interested to know where you got that 97% statistic! (Presumably, you
can quote a study...) I'd be even more interested to know why you think "gays
want 'heteros' to understand their viewpoints." Like we all have the same ones!
If nothing else you wrote was homophobic, this certainly is. First, we are not
one and the same person - we have different viewpoints, and sometimes we even
disagree. (Go figure.) We don't even wear the same color nail polish!! (this is
a joke...) Second, what is the "right to marry publicly?" - the issue is more
about being able to ensure that our Last Will and Testament is carried out,
that our widow(er)s are not thrown into the street. Bottom line: all of this is
about taxpayers' money. We pay taxes. Do the math! Third, and (to me) most
important, why do you assume that I, as a gay guy, give a rat's ass whether you
understand my "viewpoints"?
> But, when it comes to making a minor attempt to understand why a "hetero"
> like me might have a different viewpoint, forget it. Just call me a
> homophobe and be done with it. And then call ME close minded.
Actually, Michael has said that he alone used this word. Interestingly, during
the Matthew Shepard thread, when we were bombarded with photos of people
picketing his funeral, carrying placards saying "Matt in Hell" and "God hates
Fags," it was Michael who reminded us that this was an example of Americans
exercising their right to free speech, and that free speech is an essential
right. One of many reasons I love and respect Mr. Yarbrough.
> And, if you think I am homophobic, you'd better stay out of the deep South
> and Utah, Buddy!
Or Arkansas. Trust me, you can get gaybashed anywhere, no matter how "liberal"
> I keep learning more and more about different lifestyles -- and this list
> has been helpful. I appreciate the discourse, even some of the more peppery
> stuff.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harper Lou
Yada yada yada - whatever. When I first joined the JMDL over two and a half
years ago, there was a lot of gay NJC stuff (i.e., "what are good gay movies,"
"why are there so many gay men on the JMDL," and others.). Within hours, there
were posts suggesting that this was the Joni Mitchell Discussion List and not
the Homosexual one. Fair enough. After a few months, I noticed that there were
many NJC threads, and that no one complained about them (aside from the usual
admonition to use NJC). So, I sent a (not) quite innocent post implying that
there was obviously good NJC and bad NJC, and that gay NJC was very bad NJC. I
got some pretty foul email - and so did the list.
Here we have some gay-related NJC, generated by a straight. AND NOT ONE WORD
from anyone about its appropriateness on the list.
Two years later,
I
REST
MY
CASE
Roberto,
with hugs to many, especially Michael, Colin, and Julius
