Outing

A while ago there was some buzz in ye olde gay blogosphere about a conservative politician who may have been involved romantically with another man in his past. These rumors are a dime a dozen, but it provoked discussion over the ethics of outing someone.

The consensus (among blog commenters, at least) seems to be that you should not out someone closeted. The big exception to this is if the person in question is actively harming lgbt people through their actions. There are also plenty of people who believe there is no harm in outing someone in the “transparent closet.” That is, people who are “obviously” queer in some way but have not acknowledged it publicly. I disagree with this vemiantly—the closet may not be a dignified thing, but for many people it is viewed as a necessity to maintain their life. “Transparent” or not, that person has their reasons.

As for those who harm people, like anti-gay conservative politicians, I am more open to the concept. In my mind, if I choose to view it as acceptable, it is a negative act that benefits the greater good. The thing is, I am very uncomfortable with this. A bigoted hypocrite may “deserve” to be outed, but there is something unsettling about weaponizing someone’s sexuality. In a way, it is reinforcing that to be openly lgbt is a negative thing that should avoided except when employed as punishment. By punishing people with something that most open minded people would claim is a positive thing (coming out), you are affirming that it is a bad thing to be feared.

On the other hand, some people may deserve it. I really am not sure how I feel about it, except that the only situation in which I am even open to outing someone is if they are a menace to the lgbt community.

A Relic

"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills"-- Texas GOP platform statement (p. 12 -- seriously):bit.ly/XFGfct
— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) February 16, 2013

Comedian Patton Oswalt tweeted this a while ago to draw attention to the Texas GOP’s educational policies. That is certainly something to ponder, but what caught my eye while scrolling through the pdf was this gem:

Homosexuality ― We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.”

I am astounded by the sheer level of animus present in a statement; if written by any other anti-gay group, they would at least try to hide the hate. Normally they portray themselves as satisfied with simply denying marriage equality to gay people—the Republican Party of Texas actually professes umbrage with the homosexual “lifestyle.” They take offense to gay people being gay.

In this day and age, it is difficult to find people with such brashly archaic opinions. It is—to put it mildly—not a future-proof statement; it will come back to bite them in their asses. There may still be a (shrinking) portion of people who oppose gay marriage, but you would have a harder time finding people who openly dislike homosexuality itself. It is puzzling that they chose to take such a position in such a time of change.

I would say I can only hope that people will look back on this in the future the same way we look back on statements condemning racial equality, but it is a very likely possibility and will probably happen in the near future.

‘Tis the Season

Because I apparently cannot stand to see myself genuinely happy, I have become worried that I am too materialistic this Christmas. The thing that excites me most is the gifts I will be receiving, not the prospect of seeing family members, not the religious elements. This troubles me. I would like to think of myself as someone who values the intangible, the abstract, and the qualitative in people and things. Instead, I feel like a spoiled child waiting for their pony. (Only my pony has a ten inch touchscreen.)

There are, of course, a few reasons why I should not feel this way. I think I am actually looking forward to giving gifts, for example.

But is that still a focus on the material aspects of the celebration?

Another contributing factor is that I have not personally given any money to charities this year. There will be donations as part of my Christmas gifts, but I have yet to actually take cash out of my own pocket. Part of this is due to my mixed feelings about the Salvation Army, to which I would usually toss my pocket change.

I do not really know where I am going with this post, but writing it was a useful exercise to make myself feel better about my desire for MOAR PRESENTS this year.

Puzzling Opposition

I am currently working on a persuasive speech on gay marriage for my Effective Speech class, and I am reminded of a bizarre argument I heard in that class.

(Since I shared my blog in class, there is a chance that the person I am writing about is reading this. In this case, know that I am not trying to make fun of you or be mean spirited.)

The argument was made by a woman who, despite being a political conservative, is okay with gay marriage. She confessed that she believes gay people are born that way, so to discriminate against them does not make sense.

But then she admitted that she is against gay couples adopting children. And her reason was… well, here it is: children of gay couples face ridicule; therefore, to spare them from this mistreatment, gay people should not be allowed to adopt at all.

To me, there is an inherent flaw in the logic of this argument. The source of this discrimination is not the actual adoption; it is society’s reaction to it. The thing to do is not prevent adoption, but teach tolerance.

Let me put it this way: before racial integration was common, it was a fair bet that any black student attending a previously whites-only school would face much difficulty and hardship. Using the logic of this person’s argument, the solution is to never integrate schools.

(I actually kind of hope she is reading this, as I wanted to explain this to her, but I do not know how to broach the topic without being a sanctimonious asshole.)

Low Hanging Fruit (2012)

I found James Adomian’s debut album to be good. Not incredible, but good.

Adomian is known around the Earwolf podcast network for his inventive, lively impersonations (including a paranoid, defensive Jessie Ventura, a maniacal Richard Branson, and an addled Gary Busey). His first comedy album, which was released through Earwolf, shows more of his normal personality, although he slips into several voices throughout the record to hilarious effect.

I first heard the comic on a number of Sklarbro Country episodes, performing as characters for mock interviews. They have several recurring impersonators, but I find his personas to be my favorites. He brings a great amount of energy to the table. In a recent episode, the brothers Sklar interviewed the man himself, and this got me interested in his standup. On the page for his album, you can listen to a great track that tackles the homophobic advertisements for beer that air during football games. I enjoyed it so much that I decided to buy the rest of the album (for a reasonable $10). While the rest of the bits do not quite live up to the sample track in my opinion, I got a great deal of enjoyment out of listening to them. At first I was lukewarm towards some of his material, but I must admit that upon further review I found myself laughing more and more. Taste in comedy is especially subjective, so it is difficult to judge how much Low Hanging Fruit will appeal to other people, but I liked it. I am not a fan of most stand-up, but I do appreciate the occasional alternative comedian, and Adomian is now one of them.

Plus, I just like the guy. I have written twice before about my tendency to latch onto personalities I like and support their work. I do wonder, then, how much I actually enjoy the things they produce because I want to like their stuff. Has my opinion of something been tainted if I have a desire to hang out with person who wrote it? Does the fact that I first was attracted to these people because of the quality of their handiwork remedy this?

In addition to the Sklarbro interview, Adomian appeared on Marc Maron’s WTF podcast. There he talked about growing up and coming to terms with his sexuality. As an out comic, he incorporates being gay into a large chunk of his act. I find his treatment of the topic agreeable; he talks about his sexual orientation as just another part of his personality, but is not afraid to utilize it to great effect. We need more people like him to help people understand sexual minorities as something more than stereotypes. But that is a topic for a whole other post (or series of posts).

Adomian seems to still be finding himself as a standup, but I feel that Low Hanging Fruit is a good first effort.

A Relatively Pointless Grievance

A friend on Google+ recently re-shared this story about Pope Benedict XVI issuing a statement against gay marriage. He tagged the post with the hash tag #nazipope.

This annoys me. Despite popular rumor, the Pope never actively supported the Nazi party. Whether he complied too much with Nazi rule is certainly up to debate, but to say he endorses Hitler’s views is a lazy exaggeration.

I am biased. I identify as Catholic (among other things), but I am not against calling out the Pope on this sort of thing (and there are plenty of things to criticize about him). Just leave the Nazi-calling to the Tea Party. Do not call him a Nazi, call him what he is: homophobic.

If by any chance that acquaintance is reading, I am not angry, just annoyed. And picky. And admittedly defending the reputation of a man whom I do not agree with. But I do not like inflating things unfairly.

It's No Threat to You

A common fear expressed by religious conservatives is the idea that if when gay marriage is legalized, churches will be forced to officiate gay marriages. I would hope that the reason why this is ridiculous would be obvious. But for some, it’s not. Why? Probably due to the large amount of disinformation and fear mongering employed by those people who are slowly becoming aware that they are on the wrong side of history. I know, I’m being conceited now. My beef isn't with the people saying these things, it's with the people telling them these things.

The government can’t force a church to change its doctrines. Take this recent example. Legally, no one can force that church to recognize a marriage between black people. Just as no one forces a Catholic church to recognize marriages performed outside the Church.

People who are afraid that their church will be forced to perform gay marriages need to calm down and think through what they’re being told lied to about. You will not have to explain your actions to the government. You will face the same fate as the church in Mississippi; you will have to explain your actions to your neighbors.