Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Gay marriage revisited
I was spot on when I wrote this a while back, with right-wing poof Andrew Sullivan penning this inelegant polemic in favour of gay marriage in yesterday's Oz.
I've gotta admit that I instinctively disagree with everything Sullivan writes anyway, but here he just takes the (almond-icing) cake:
The silent types in gay culture are now in the vanguard - the ones whose relationships are conducted away from the streets and the parades and the bars, in suburbs or small towns or residential neighbourhoods in big cities. Many have clearly decided that they do not need to wait any more for others to approve their relationships.
"The silent types", eh? Sounds suspiciously like the 10% only quota of "real" (=non-prancing) homosexuals that some nutcase Belgian cardinal has proposed.
And speaking of the Catholic Church, it strikes me that there is a very good argument for its being in the vanguard of gay marriage. Church doctrine, as I understand it, is that gay (the sexual orientation) is neither here not there, but gay sex (monogamous or otherwise) is definitely a sin. If two good (= celibate) Catholic poofs want their sweet little twin bed platonic love-fest blessed, I am at a loss as to why the Catholic Church is not racing to do so.
After all, the more imprimatur these Bert'n'Ernie couples get from officialdom, the less chance they will feel like taking to the streets and bars, so getting mixed up and mistaken for the other sort of homosexuals - the prancing variety (who think "celibacy" is what was stamped on the really, really good pill they had last night, although they couldn't be sure).
I was spot on when I wrote this a while back, with right-wing poof Andrew Sullivan penning this inelegant polemic in favour of gay marriage in yesterday's Oz.
I've gotta admit that I instinctively disagree with everything Sullivan writes anyway, but here he just takes the (almond-icing) cake:
The silent types in gay culture are now in the vanguard - the ones whose relationships are conducted away from the streets and the parades and the bars, in suburbs or small towns or residential neighbourhoods in big cities. Many have clearly decided that they do not need to wait any more for others to approve their relationships.
"The silent types", eh? Sounds suspiciously like the 10% only quota of "real" (=non-prancing) homosexuals that some nutcase Belgian cardinal has proposed.
And speaking of the Catholic Church, it strikes me that there is a very good argument for its being in the vanguard of gay marriage. Church doctrine, as I understand it, is that gay (the sexual orientation) is neither here not there, but gay sex (monogamous or otherwise) is definitely a sin. If two good (= celibate) Catholic poofs want their sweet little twin bed platonic love-fest blessed, I am at a loss as to why the Catholic Church is not racing to do so.
After all, the more imprimatur these Bert'n'Ernie couples get from officialdom, the less chance they will feel like taking to the streets and bars, so getting mixed up and mistaken for the other sort of homosexuals - the prancing variety (who think "celibacy" is what was stamped on the really, really good pill they had last night, although they couldn't be sure).
