Jolly Rodger said:
Yes, that's just as morally correct as putting children in a gay couples care.
Oh, hell, I'll bite:
And what does that even mean?
• • •
This brings to mind a recent conversation in which an acquaintance expressed certain fears about a situation he was viewing. Unsure as to the basis of his fear, I asked why it had to be that way--that is,
Who says that outcome is the only possibility?
Strangely, I didn't get an answer. At first I was disappointed, and even a bit confused. And then it struck me that I was watching a familiar process in which the point is fear itself:
Solutions are undesirable because they bring an end to fear.
This seemed an absurd proposition. Much as many a gay man, thanks to his bigoted neighbors, has had cause to inquire, "What person would wake up one day and
choose to be gay, with all it brings?" so, too, did I find myself wondering, "What person invites fear, and
why?"
Had this been a friend, I would have skipped all of that and simply latched onto the obvious conclusion. For instance, my partner is one who is willing to deal in fear: it makes her feel somehow special, as if there is privilege in being victimized. In her case, it's plain enough to see that this is simple envy and equivocation. Once upon a time, as we left a friend's apartment, she asked me, "How come we never get along like that?" The answers, of course, were simple: seven years of association versus a bit over one; a state of love and trust versus a state of constant suspicion; desire for one another's benefit and not a trophy-relationship.
Quite simply, we haven't that kind of association because she won't permit it; such a condition requires that people trust one another, something well beyond her grasp.
But having that kind of trusting association, in which two people understand each other so greatly, wasn't really on her list. In the end, that would require effort on her part.
No, she was complaining because in recognizing that close association, she was jealous, and felt victimized. The point was to have something to fear.
It's all about sympathy: a grown-up version of, "I wish
I was sick so everybody would come and see me and bring me cards and flowers", or wishing for a cast on your arm for all your friends to sign.
Certain of her fears should simply be ignored. They don't exist to be assuaged, but rather to be noticed and given sympathy. She does not wish to overcome her fear, as that would dampen the aura of specialness she creates by constantly being afraid.
And besides, a state of constant victimization justifies in her mind her poor regard for people. Always on the defensive, she feels people owe her compassion even while she's spitting in their faces.
No matter how many times I ask her what the problem is, though, she won't answer straight. One of her favorite things is to blame her actions on other peoples'
reactions. For instance, if she slapped you, and you hit her back, and everybody piled in and broke up the fight, we'd never find out why she slapped you in the first place. If we asked her enough that she felt compelled to answer, she would point out that you hit her, and that would be left to stand as her justification.
The whole time I've known her--nine years--she's been like this, and getting worse as time goes by. We've been having the same fight the whole time, and the sad thing is that all this time later, I still don't know what the hell the problem was to begin with. I mean, it can't possibly be that she didn't want to admit that it's better to watch the program and not the commercials.
And there's
nothing I can do about it. Every once in a while, I get an idea and give it a try, but she's more interested in being a victim than overcoming the adversity of victimization. It is not lost on me that she watches soap operas, specifically
All My Children and
Days Of Our Lives. Those familiar with American soap operas will recognize easily such a victim-complex. (Susan Lucci? Alison Sweeney?)
The gay fray is riddled with this sort of paranoia. Such self-victimization as the traditionalists have put forth is actually expected to pass for rational debate, and that's where the problem arises.
Your latest unsubstantiated moral declaration compares the child-rearing in a gay household to sexual abuse of children. Given the address devoted to that very issue in this very topic, I'm curious why you persist with insupportable theses and declarations. What is it you fear? What is this nebulous darkness that everybody in the world is so apparently failing to address? Your behavior has much in common with American homophobes, who are equally unable to put forth a rational justification for their poisonous moral declarations. It really does seem like they are choosing to be afraid for the sake of being afraid. None of their arguments rise to meet a rational standard, and yet if we don't bend over backwards to accommodate them, we're somehow being unfair and elitist.
It really is strange watching people insist on living in such a state of self-imposed fear, and I really have no idea why people do it on such a broad level. After all, it
is a human trait, but the desperation that extends it so far into public consideration refuses compassion and only demands its own perpetuation. It's a noodle-scratcher.
I've asked my partner why she puts herself through it. That answer, of course, was insufficient, as it was no answer at all. I figure the fellow I was having a discussion with will either identify the issue or not. And now, here you are, so I'll ask:
Why do you put yourself through it? And why the hell should everyone else suffer just to do so?