Thu. March 21
Macho Men, Bullies, and Gay Marriage
There’s nothing worse in the world than bullying. It not only traumatizes the victim, but often makes that victim become a bully himself later in life.
This is the dilemma that American society will have to deal with as it becomes increasingly accepting of gay marriage. The Washington Post recently reported that more and more “macho men” in the sports and entertainment worlds are speaking out in defense of gays and gay marriage. The list includes rapper 50 Cent, Baltimore Raven Brendon Ayanbadejo, and Minnesota Viking Chris Kluwe. Washington, D.C., sports broadcaster Brett Haber this year joined with the pro-gay sports group Athlete Ally, started by former University of Maryland wrestler Hudson Taylor.
It is important to celebrate tolerance, while keeping watch to make sure that the tolerance itself doesn’t become oppression. It’s crucial that the virtues of forgiveness, kindness, and humility play a part in the new balancing act that people are trying to achieve with modern gay issues.
To me it seems like a lot of the testosterone geysers mentioned in the Washington Post article are catching up with the way I was raised. In fact I can’t believe I’m saying it, but my Irish-Catholic parents may have been way ahead of their time, at least in terms of how they taught us to treat gay people. While they would have thought the idea of gay marriage bizarre–to say the least–they taught us that it is a man’s duty not only to stand up for himself, but to defend the weaker. And, while acknowledging that this is a stereotype, those weaker people included gays.
Now, I was far from perfect. It was years ago, and I was a girl-crazy jock at an all-boys Catholic prep school; like a lot of kids at that time trying to gain acceptance, I used the f-word with abandon. But my parents and my brothers, although straight, were a gentle counterforce preaching tolerance. I still remember the revelation I had when I saw my brother acting in a play for which he would win the Helen Hayes Award. My God, I thought, watching him sweat and emote for three hours on the stage, he’s just as much of an athlete as I am, and so are his actor friends who are gay.
One night a friend of my brother’s, a talented actor, was mugged and beaten, or “gay bashed,” while he was walking through a neighborhood in our hometown of Washington, D.C. I came home to find my mother on the couch crying. She just kept saying “Those bastards beat him to a pulp.” My mother does not accept gay marriage–“why do they want that word so badly?” she asks–but she would be the first one to intervene on behalf of a gay person who was being mistreated. I can still remember when I was a teenager and my father, who died in 1996, heard me imitating an effeminate gay colleague of his. Dad came in the room and came face to face. “He’s one of the kindest souls I’ve ever known,” he said, “and you, my friend, sound like a jerk. Real men don’t pick on weaker people.”
Of course, dad may have been wrong to generalize about gays being “weaker people.” But I would argue that if not always physically weaker, twenty years ago homosexuals had a weaker position in the society. And, according to my parents, that meant that it was our job to protect them.
This is why it was quite jarring when a couple years ago I heard that sex columnist and gay marriage advocate Dan Savage had mocked another man for being effeminate. The man is the husband of a well-known politician, but that doesn’t matter. Dan Savage was doing what I used to do before my father told me not to–he was bullying someone who is different.
The philosopher Roger Scruton once observed that Christianity asks us to “step outside of the circle of retribution.” I believe that gay and straight Americans of goodwill want to do this, even as they remain at odds about the question of homosexuality. But sadly, Dan Savage’s kind of bullying, an echo of my own when I was younger, has become common among some supporters of same sex marriage. And it can be quite hysterical. People–like my parents–who would give a gay person the money in their wallet but think that marriage means a man and a woman are now “haters.” Dissenters from marriage equality are not just wrong, they are evil. I would only say to Savage and the other more emotional gay marriage activists that someone who would put himself between you and an attacker is not a hater, even if he isn’t as cool as 50 Cent.
Related Articles
-
Men and Manliness in the Age of Post-Feminism
This Valentine’s Day, we at Acculturated are asking our writers…
Read More > -
-
Revolutionary Road: The Pitfalls of Marrying Young
The thing is, people change. At least they’re supposed to.…
Read More >
Popular Articles
-
The Contagious Dynamism of Tim Tebow
In the land of the spiritually-blind, the man with one…
Read more > -
Act Like a Man, Think Like a Woman
H.L. Mencken nailed it perfectly, and almost a hundred years…
Read more > -
The NBA Finals Matchup as Cultural Metaphor
As it currently stands, the San Antonio Spurs are leading…
Read more >
“There’s nothing worse in the world than bullying.” Sorry, but you lost me (and I’m guessing others) with that hyperbolic opening statement. Bullying through the years has taken many forms, from cruel teasing to brutal physical assault. None of it should be condoned. But mischaracterizing it as the apex of human cruelty doesn’t seem to me to advance the cause of eliminating it. It simply makes it hard to take whatever else is said about it seriously.
“And I’m guessing others.” True. That first line…meh.
Other than that, you made a valid point: bullying is bullying, even if you think your cause is right and good.
Actually, it IS. What else do you call cruelty but a form of bullying, even non-physical, non-verbal bullying? What do you call hate crimes but a form of bullying – differing only in intensity of pain caused, rather than the substance of the “grievance” against the person. Victorian-era industrialists handwaving away legitimate concerns of their workers? French aristocrats telling their peasants/subjects to “Let the eat cake”? Political and institutionalized bullying. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I come to see that bullying is the root of 80% of all conflict. It’s actually the ultimate threat to democracy, and even world peace. Kids who refuse to give even the basics of decency and respect to others based on nitpicky, non-character differences of another person are more likely to grow up with a striking lack of empathy toward their opponents. The sooner society (both at home and abroad) come to see this, the less likely it is that we will see the site of caskets draped in flags (military, police, whatever).
Call this definition of bullying overly broad if you want. But ask yourself what impulses truly motivate people to commit war, crime, corruption against others. Ask yourself what is really the difference between throwing a “pencil-necked geek” into a locker and doing the same to a Jew, Muslim, gay, racial minority, etc. What kinds of people grow up to buy into hate-merchants on the radio (not just right wing). From what I see, it’s diffficult to see it as anything but contempt toward others based on impulsive petty personal distaste, as opposed to being the result of the rational thought process. What else do you call that but a bullying attitude (whether actual perpetrator or supportive or indifferent bystander).
I believe the voice of a gay republican needs to be heard (that’s me). So often I read essays arguing for or against marriage equality, but it never seems to be from someone who has “money in the pot” so-to-speak. As straight individuals, both republicans and democrats, wage war over our fundamental rights as United States Citizens, I can’t help but notice that voices like mine are lost in the shuffle.
As a conservative I was raised that large government is wrong – and after meticulous economics studying – I stand firm in my belief that big government diminishes the freedoms of its citizens and ultimately leads to some sort of tyranny. That has been proven throughout the history of mankind. France, after narrowly escaping the Dark Ages and feudalism, enlisted a new set of doctrines that would instill freedom in their people – but a small number of individuals began to garner more power and control of the legislature and eventually people like Colbert would tax his citizens at almost 100%. That same logic can be followed throughout history and it never works. Liberalism in theory is fundamentally sound, but in practice it cannot escape one human instinct: greed. I digress.
The belief in conservatives not “allowing” gay marriage is a hypocritical ideal. We as conservatives believe in limited government that does not intervene within the personal lives of citizens, yet in the case of gay marriage conservatives all of the sudden believe in big government. There is a glaring fallacy in that logic.
My problem is this: I own a business, I pay taxes, I pay (with everyone else) for roads, bridges, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, so why am I treated as a second class citizen? I am strong and able to make decisions on my own; I don’t need a straight republican telling me who I can and cannot marry. If marriage was so sacred to a religion (will not even get into separation between church and state) then divorce would be outlawed in the United States, adultery would be a crime punishable by death or castration.
When Frederic Bastiat wrote “The Law” he made excellent points throughout but the foremost idea is that the PEOPLE come before GOVERNMENT. I will argue for small government until I am blue in the face, but I will also stand up for rights that are afforded to me as a United States Citizen and human being. If the republicans want to use government to tell me what I can and cannot do, then I will use that avenue as well.
We are not asking you to compromise on your “principles” (as misguided as they may be), we are simply asking for equality. As a conservative I believe that your private life and principles are yours to have – I do not go after them and alter how you should live – and the same should be said of you to me. My life is my life, and a republicans belief that they should manage my life is the direct antithesis of conservatism and rooted in liberalism. If I marry a man, how are you affected in any way, shape or form? It has no bearing on your life as a heterosexual man or woman. It does not destroy the sanctity of a word that was destroyed decades ago, it simply means that I am paying into a system that treats me equally.
Will true conservatives like myself stand up for marriage equality? I hope so – or all republicans do is increase the role of government in its citizens’ lives.
But you’ll wind up telling people what they can and cannot do in any case. The Christian who is involved in secular business will be forced to treat you and your husband as a married couple under the laws of the state, and will sacrifice their convictions or divest themselves from the business. It’s government telling people what to do in both cases; just one way benefits you.
You can be married instantly if you want, in your heart. But this is is about societal recognition and approval, and the whole “it won’t affect anyone else” is disingenuous. When we softened society’s stance on divorce and fornication, it created our modern society, where divorce is pandemic, people fornicate till their mid-thirties if later, and it seems almost half of children these days are born out of wedlock. Any societal change affects others, and the amount of it we’re still trying to see.
That is why I argue for societal reform rather than a new government amendment or new law. I believe in small government – it just so happens the individuals who decided marriage was between a man and a woman made this into a governmental issue. Government should not be involved in this matter. DOMA and other acts are rooted in leftist agenda in terms of big government.
Our problem exists: I am treated as a second class citizen. If the only way to be treated as a United States citizen under all tax, inheritance, and hospital visitation laws is through the government – then that is the road that will be taken.
Thanks for the response! You bring up an interesting point about Christians and laws. The law of the land (Constitution) does not state that Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion EXCEPT CHRISTIANITY. It explicitly says it shall make no laws respecting a religion. If a Christian has a problem with homosexuality – that is fine, but Christianity does not belong in our government. Much like Islam and others don’t. The Treaty of Tripoli that John Adams signed sums up how our founders felt about it.
But government is involved. All I’m saying is that there are two different groups using government to promote a certain conception of marriage. This is not a small government issue and never will be. One will successfully use government, the other will be suppressed. DOMA was a reaction to the fear that SSM would be established similar to Roe, through federalism, or by using the full faith and credit idea.
As for Christians, yeah, this isn’t a theocracy. But I don’t think I like the urban elite theocracy much better, at that.
1. Dan Savage mocks Mr. Bachmann as hypocrite of being able to “cure” gays into sexuality. He’s not mocking him as an openly gay man trying to live his life. That’s a huge difference.
And Saying “my parents would help a gay being picked on, but I’m against gay marriage” is no different than a man saying “I’d help a woman I saw being assaulted on the street, but i don’t think she should be allowed to vote.”
History won’t be kind to those who oppose gay marriage.
This.
Mr. Savage wasn’t making fun of Mr. Bachmann for being effeminate, twenty months ago when this news item was current; he was pointing out that Mr. Bachmann opposes LGBT civil rights and participates in the “ex-gay” scam, while simultaneously giving (in Savage’s opinion) the appearance of being a deeply closeted gay man.
It’s relevant that Mr. Savage believes strongly that coming out is the most powerful political statement any gay person can make. In context, then, there are only two possibilities: either Mr. Bachmann is a straight man engaged in the literal attempt to suppress and deny others’ sexual orientation, in which case he’s despicable for his bigotry, or he is a closeted gay man doing the same thing, in which case he’s despicable for his personal and political cowardice.
***
Speaking now directly to Mr. Judge: I have no difficulty believing that your parents are good people. Your description of their beliefs and actions also indicates that they are, in fact, bigoted toward LGBT people. Those two statements aren’t in any way incommensurable, as you seem to believe, and acknowledging that fact is actually the first step toward understanding what the struggle for civil rights is about.
You quote your mother as asking “why do they want that word so badly?” One reason is because the word has become a polarizing symbol for both those in favor of LGBT civil rights and those opposed, but a more fundamentally important reason is that, in the simplest possible language, it’s a type of contract which gay and lesbian people are barred from entering with a person of their choosing–one with real, tangible privileges and responsibilities.
(I’m aware of the typical dodge at this point, which is to claim that gay people have the right to marry an opposite-sex partner, just like anyone else. I doubt the typical heterosexual person would be pleased with an arrangement under which he or she could marry anyone, as long as it was someone for whom the affianced felt no sexual desire, so let’s dispense with the pretense of equality in that case.)
You also quote your father as saying “real men don’t pick on weaker people”, which is a laudable but ultimately incomplete ethic: it’s gendered (is it okay for women to pick on weaker people?) and wedded to the determination of whether or not a person qualifies as weaker. I prefer the simpler, more straightforward idea that “good people don’t pick on people”, which has the advantage of making clear that real men and women don’t abuse privilege of any kind in order to enrich themselves at others’ cost.
It also has the advantage of being consonant with, for instance, Ephesians 4:29 and Matthew 7:12 (not to mention Kant and a host of other moral philosophers): treat other people the way you would like to treated. If others had power over you, how would you wish it to be exercised? Mr. Bachmann fails that test badly, since he uses his position of power for the purpose of inflicting real and lasting emotional damage on people like Mr. Savage. Mr. Savage is not being nice–he often isn’t–but he isn’t failing that fundamental test, because the power that he has acquired is used for the purpose of building up the powerless and castigating the powerful.
Mr. Judge’s implicit argument is that Dan Savage is the real bully, here, which is a viable rhetorical strategy but a terrible exercise in logic. What power does Mr. Savage have over Mr. Bachmann? Regardless of whether or not his tone was kind–and it frequently isn’t–Mr. Savage was engaging in a defense of those Mr. Bachmann, by virtue of his position and actions, abuses. Mr. Savage was, explicitly, inviting Mr. Bachmann to exercise a modicum of empathy–to be aware that he is bullying not just those directly in his care, but everyone who happens to share the sexual orientation of those Mr. Bachmann’s practices claim to treat.
There is no equivalence between Mr. Bachmann’s actions, or those of any bully, and Mr. Savage’s.
Interesting. You make an excellent point. What good is campaigning for equality and tolerance, when those exact people aren’t accepting the views of others, no matter how absurd they may view them to be? I believe that everybody has a right to marriage and, I also believe everybody has a right to live in a world free from the pressure of bullies. Humility is the way forward. Forgiveness, Acceptance and Love, that’s what we need in this world.
Funny, how “gay rights” have taken over our society.
Еven in the bad old days, two men or two women could live cohabit quietly as “roommates” or “distant cousins” or one as a “house guest” of the other, and nobody said anything, even in Church. Everyone knew, but nobody’s nose was rubbed in it. As for “I want to announce my LOVE to the world!” they were often inseperable and everyone KNEW. They could draw up contracts for each others’ benefits and write wills leaving each other their earthly goods.
So gay “marriage” isn’t about love or companionship or closeness or fairness or any of the other soft-and-cuddly emotional stuff. It’s about forcing, at the point of the government bayonet, hundreds of millions of people to see the world the “gay way.” And that’s wicked and wrong and will not end well for society.
Today, we have to glorify and praise the gay “lifestyle”: a straight man with hundreds of sex partners is pathologically disturbed; a gay man is just “living the lifestyle.”
You want different standards? Fine. But don’t tell us you want “in” to the precious cultural institution of marriage, as well. Live your “lifestyle,” be quiet about it, and leave us in peace.