Day of Pondering
I don't agree with how Andrew Sullivan sees same-sex marriage is the resolution to equality and neglects all the ramifications of marriage. Gay people want more than households, benefits, and recognition: they want the stipulative language of law rewritten and enforced. But Sullivan simply dismisses the cause as pathological. While I think subversion is the inevitable form resistence to the control of norms, Sullivan sees gay people as intrinsically normal but deluded into pathological queerness by the leagued forces of some theorists, wounded self-esteem, and the prohibition of marrying.
But when I'm reading Virtually Normal, which argues for assimilation to mainstream norms, I can relate to how Sullivan generalizes the way homosexuals react to their erasure in society by some complex undermining of the gay culture itself. The lack of violence and subterfuge can be attributed to a "space" within any oppressive social structure where human beings can operate from their own will. This space indisriminately exists in all of us and manifest as some silent, still, inner calling. It invokes an autonomy. This autonomy may be born out of anguish, agony, pain, or misery , out of the very forces (in the oppressive society) that thrive to extinguish it.
The resilient nature of autonomy suggests that social and cultural constructions do not completely shape an individual, let alone the sexual orientation of the individual. It suggests the existence of a human individual separate and independent from the culture in which he operates. In my culture, that oppressive force is simply a taboo, reproachful silence, shameful indifference, and a derogatory disapproval. Homosexuality is criminalized. The pent-up repression generates a momentum for me to be myself and not live an identity from what was perceived as some nameless and obscure urge.
But when I'm reading Virtually Normal, which argues for assimilation to mainstream norms, I can relate to how Sullivan generalizes the way homosexuals react to their erasure in society by some complex undermining of the gay culture itself. The lack of violence and subterfuge can be attributed to a "space" within any oppressive social structure where human beings can operate from their own will. This space indisriminately exists in all of us and manifest as some silent, still, inner calling. It invokes an autonomy. This autonomy may be born out of anguish, agony, pain, or misery , out of the very forces (in the oppressive society) that thrive to extinguish it.
The resilient nature of autonomy suggests that social and cultural constructions do not completely shape an individual, let alone the sexual orientation of the individual. It suggests the existence of a human individual separate and independent from the culture in which he operates. In my culture, that oppressive force is simply a taboo, reproachful silence, shameful indifference, and a derogatory disapproval. Homosexuality is criminalized. The pent-up repression generates a momentum for me to be myself and not live an identity from what was perceived as some nameless and obscure urge.
4 Comments:
I've always felt Sullivan to be a very sad figure. There is intelligence in there somewhere but it is clouded by poor choices and a great deal of self-loathing. I feel, in many ways, he is one of our biggest enemies in civil right gains.
Oh I never gets what in the world he would think the fight for equality is complete when same-sex marriage is legalized. What about the gay couple who *don't* wish to get married?
Michael Warner, professor of English and social critic, discredits almost every single point Sullivan raised for this issue.
When gay marriage was first brought up by conservatives to scare voters to the polls, I was surprised to find that I don' particularly have a desire to be married per se. Jeff and I have been together for nine years this July, and although in the past I once thought I would want a holy union, I don't feel it's necessary now. It's obvious that marriage means nothing to the same conservatives who attempt to sanctify it in the political limelight when they extramarital affairs and divorces are exposed. I don't need my relationship sanctioned by the church or state.
Some friends have been offended when they have referred to Jeff as my husband, and I've corrected them because he's not. By law, we're not married, and secondly, it's a heterosexual term that doesn't translate well, in my opinion, to homosexual relationships. Moreover, it just doesn't feel right to me. I don't mean from a semantic angle, but more of an aesthetic one--it's like having a preference for blue over green.
At this point, civil unions are most attractive of all the options. I would like to have some legal protections as a gay couple. As for the rest, we just take it one day at a time.
Conservatives acknowledge that ther are respectful people in the society who happen to be homosexual. But they shudder at publicly approving homosexuality. The combine private tolerance and recognition with public disapproval of homosexuality. That is the reason why conservatives have to keep their political stand in check as AIDS force the general public to be outspoken about the issue. Conservatives realize they have to take a stand either for for against the issue and cannot hide behind that shady area.
Post a Comment
<< Home