Ghost of a flea

But Flea: while bigotry is not conservativism, neither is a refusal to discriminate between right and wrong, or allowing tradition to be trodden underfoot.

In theory, allowing gay marriage sounds conservative (and this is Andrew Sullivan's argument): "Now they will be 'normal' middle-class people, monogamous, etc."

But in practice, I just can't shake the stuff I've read by gay activists who say they are using marriage/adoption as wedge issues; to get more entitlements and irritate organized religion in the process.

I object to marriage being used by anybody, straight or gay, to air a personal neurotic grievance or for material gain.

If it is bigotry to "discriminate" in the sense that I believe that some things are right and some things are wrong, then I am guilty as charged.

Kathy, we are in broad agreement about discrimination in the sense you use it here though it is clear we differ about what needs to be discriminated against. I think we also have a difference in style that can make communication difficult. Agreeing to disagree with gay marriage, a specific AIDS education campaign, etc. is all fine by me. Mocking the dead and the dying is not. I will leave that to the anti-semitic commentary at IndyMedia. I am dismayed to find it at the Shotgun. I should also make it clear that it was as much the tenour of most of the comments left to your post as the post itself that I am responding to. I would like to be wrong about the following assertion: most of those people are not defending traditional marriage, they are hating gay people. That's the difference. I find no support for such convictions in the Gospel message or my heart. They turn my stomache.

"I object to marriage being used by anybody, straight or gay, to air a personal neurotic grievance or for material gain."

So, presumably, if Bruce and Jack sincerely want to get married for no other reason than they love each other, Kathy you would have no objection.

While I don't think that is actually Kathy's position if it is I applaud it.

I have noticed more than a few people * objecting * to gay marriage out of personal neurotic grievance or for material gain.

Some of the posters at Lucianne were representatives of the worst corners of conservatism, but ...

1. Sullivan sets himself up a bit by trying to mesh some of his gay lifestyle posts into the mainstream (see my parody of his bears post), and then wondering why some people resent it - some things just don't go. Sexuality (of any stripe) and conservatism are not peanut butter and chocolate.

2. He's gone off the deep end on the gay marriage issue. Agree with his position or not, his prioritizations are skewed. I consider Sullivan one of the most thoughtful, rational and logical writers I've ever read, until this gay marriage issue came to the fore. And I support gay marriage!

None of this excuses calling him a "fag," but don't assume that homophobia is the primary motivation for all of the backlash against sullivan. His decision to go wobbly in what he describes as a life-and-death struggle for Western Civilization over the faster realization of a specific gay issue is just ... well, I certainly feel betrayed.

Regarding the ad, like it or not, there is a much blurrier cultural line when you try to meld cultures based around sexuality. To be honest, I find that ridiculously provocative billboard ad campaign to be at least half as inflammatory as the reaction to it that you post. These are tricky issues - push too hard and the majority will develop the urge to push back.

Bill, thanks for this. It is a thorny problem because there are so many issues that get wrapped up into Kathy's response to the ad controversy. One of the underlying issues is that I used to do research around safer-sex education and have had a few friends who have died of AIDS related illness. Consequently, my response isn't just to the freedom of a man to refuse a particular ad campaign so much as to the crass, callous way disease and death were being discussed. Vancouver saw a string of prostitutes murdered over the last ten years in what turns out to have been the work of a serial killer. If a post at the Shotgun had called the women idiots - candidates for Darwin Awards - for their dangerous line of work I would have responded the same way. Christ's example is not one of ridicule or gloating in the face of suffering even and especially when those who suffer lead lives that could be lead differently. Kathy and I bump heads about this stuff. She is a sincere, thoughtful person who is committed to her beliefs and who I believe is trying to walk in Christ's footsteps. We sometimes have opposing ideas of how best to do so.

I am going to spam my own comments here because I am not sure how long these comments can be...

Ahem. To continue.

All of that obscures my opinions on a number of other issues. To whit:

1. I think the fellow should be able to turn down any ads he does not want to run for whatever reason he wants. They are his billboards. He is reported to have turned down PeTA ads, for example, and I am sure there were some people who would take him to task for that too. I say, those people should set up their own billboards.

2. I am pessimistic at the odds of any AIDS education materials having much of an effect. These latest are part of a broader attempt to understand why people make bad decisions - often at the spur of the moment - and to break the patterns of thought that facilitate those decisions. What these ads leave out is that those bad decisions are all too often made under the influence of drugs and I cannot see how these ads will help when people are off their heads.

3. I do not understand why these ads were meant for billboards in the first place. If this was any other product I would say they were wasting resources sending their message to the wrong people. Targeted leaflets make more sense to me than billboards directed at families in minivans. Unless, of course, the point was to raise controversy, be "in your face", etc. in which case I regard them as dishonest and tasteless. I think this latter is part of what Kathy was suggesting was in play and she may be right.

4. In some ways most interesting to me is your observation about conservatives and sex. I have an advertizer of my own with a risquee ad up on the sidebar and I have wondered if that has rubbed anyone the wrong way. I decided to accept the ad because I run my own Kylie cheesecake posts here often enough that people will probably not be scandalized. The critical difference for me between the safer-sex ad campaign and the disagreement at the Shotgun is that I write for the Shotgun. It is important for me to make my disagreements about things clear when the issue is fundamental to the way I see the world. The Flea is a different story because I always have the delete button. This is one reason I defend the billboard owner's right to refuse anything he would rather not run.

And that leaves Andrew Sullivan. This is a bit trickier because I am not an American. Ontario now has gay marriage so when William Shatner offers to take me away from my humdrum life I will be ready. Another difference between me and Mr. Sullivan is that I have no candidate or political party to vote for who agrees with me on the other issue you mention. I think it is obvious I regard the war as the over-riding task for our times. Electing John Kerry would be like calling back Chamberlain to restore England's respect in the eyes of Hitler and Hirohito.