Mr. Radosh,
Firstly, I thank you for your mostly cordial and in all respects rational response. Whether I agree with you or not, I can say that it was a refreshing break from the usual model of Wesleyan discourse, and certainly an example from which the activist community would profit. Speaking solely as a student with an interest in rational debate, thank you very much.
That said, I do have to disagree with you on certain points. Most obviously and least substantively, you got the title of my column wrong. It was not “…But I don’t even like boys,” but rather “…And you don’t even like boys.” This is hardly a large critique, but it should be noted nonetheless. Secondly, you paraphrase my argument as, “rather than the straight majority accepting the queer minority as fellow humans right off the bad (GASP!), it is the queer minority’s duty earn [sic] acceptance by proving to the straight majority that it is equally human.”
I take issue with this characterization on two counts: firstly, on the level of interpretation, I did not intend to imply a moral duty on the part of the queer community to demonstrate its similarities to the straight majority, but simply a practical one. As one commenter helpfully put it on the Argus website, “People need to remember that Mytheos isn’t talking about what is right or wrong, but rather about what it realistic.” We could have the argument over whether such a requirement is just as a matter of abstract morality (and I think there is a strong case that it is not), but my point was solely that this requirement exists, especially given that the only means to tease civil rights out of such places is through the Democratic process, given the current strict constructionist bent of the Court system.
Secondly, I do not think it is fair to argue that, from the anti-queer perspective, the issue is the queer community’s humanity, but rather its decency. I know of nobody except for the rare dominionist or Christian reconstructionist who argues that gays should be stripped of their legal rights. The usual argument is that they should not have the privilege of marriage extended to them because, from the anti-gay marriage perspective, they are not fit for it. For a useful analogy, from the anti-gay perspective, one can safely assume that while criminals are still obviously human, the relevant point is that they are not decent humans and as such, deserve lesser rights and privileges than those who are decent humans. From this same perspective, especially if it is religiously motivated, gays may be human, but they are not decent humans and, moreover, because marriage is legally defined as a privilege, society has a choice about whether to offer it to them.
Now, quite frankly, I do not think it is fair or logical to view gays as fitting into the same category as criminals, given that I believe crime must have a victim to be meaningfully criminal, and also given that, like former Vice President Cheney, I am skeptical of the claim that homosexuality is inherently immoral. However, right or wrong, this is the argument which the anti-gay community will make, and given that it has already proven its ability to win elections, if you want to be able to fight it with a numerical minority of people via the ballot box, you will need all the help you can get, and thus cannot afford to alienate people via the use of radical, inflammatory tactics. If you were solely fighting social sanction, such tactics would be appropriate, but law is a trickier thing to change in a democratic society, because in order to change it, you must make 50%+1 agree with you.
I have no doubt you could do this at Wesleyan – my concern is what will happen when you actually go to the places where the majority believes that homosexuality is wrong. Will you draw ejaculating penises on their streets and, when they protest, call them “losers,” “eyesores” and “haters” and instruct them to “kiss your ass” as well? If I were a genuine homophobe, I would say I hope that you will, because such a set of tactics would embolden the anti-gay cause. As it is, I will say that I hope you do not because I fear for your safety and your cause’s viability if you do.
Cordially,
Mytheos Holt
Leave a Reply to Howard Cutter Cancel reply