Several years ago, while browsing in a bookstore in an outlet mall in North Carolina, I chanced upon Dr. Ruth Westheimer’s Sex and Morality: Who Is Teaching Our Sex Standards. While I have never read the book, it has sat on the shelves in my various apartments for the past decade or so. I keep it as much because I intend to read the book as because its title intrigues me.
In the past week, particularly as I have followed the media reaction to the revelations that Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, recently honored by CPAC, had once done gay porn, that issue has once again come to mind. In the comments to Bruce’s post on the topic, a reader linked Kevin McCullough’s Townhall.com column explaining Why Christians Embrace ‘Gay’ Porn Stars. And while I disagree with many of his conclusions, I do think he gets a few things right. But, alas that he paints with too broad a brush, ruling out all gay sex.
On some issues, he does address issues essential to the conversation on sex and morality, issues which, I believe, we need to bear in mind. He suggests that the “thought of personal sexual restraint is foreign to” certain “homosexuals.”
Sexual restraint lies at the heart of any notion of sexual morality. And even while acknowledging — and one day hoping to act upon — their own longings for same-sex physical intimacy, gay people are capable of restraining themselves sexually. It’s just that our culture, alas, does not seem to promote such restraint, indeed, encouraging us to “let go” sexually just so long as we “play safe.”
Too often gay people turn away from discussion of morality in our considerations of sexuality because too many people, like Mr. McCullough, have cast sexual morality in such black-and-white terms. Merely by acting on our same-sex sexual desires, these people claim, we will be committing a sin.
But, the real issue of morality is not one of judgment, but one of personal/spiritual transformation — how to turn our longings for carnal contact into something more than a mere grinding of loins (to paraphrase Catullus). A friend once said, morals exist to help us live happier lives. I second that and add that they also help us live deeper, more meaningful lives.
In our (gay) culture, it is incredibly easy to find someone with whom to have sex. But, it’s quite difficult to find someone with whom to make a lasting, meaningful connection. I well know the siren song of sexual attraction and desire to which I have, on more than one occasion, succumbed. But, without a real connection to the man with whom I sought release, my desire led to a mere moment’s pleasure, but without much sustaining power.
A real understanding of morality would help us place our sexuality in a larger context. We would see that by the very physical closeness that sex allows, we are drawn together with another human being. If we can appreciate that that closeness transcends the physical, we can allow the physical intimacy to become something more than mere pleasure.
But, alas, men being men, too many of us are too eager to turn away from our partners once we have completed the “act.” A true moral understanding of sexuality would mean looking at these encounters not from the point of view of whether they are right or wrong, but whether or not they are good for our soul. Just as Matt Sanchez learned that porn “flattens the soul,” so do many of those of us who have hooked up learn that such encounters also numb us and prevent us from realizing sexuality’s full power.
In order to realize that power, we need to develop a moral vision of sexuality, to realize its potential to be more than a mere grinding of loins. We need to become capable of sexual restraint — and to tie our sexual expression to forging a real and lasting connection with our partner. To see him, as we see ourselves, not just as an individual with a body, but also as a human being with a soul.
Sexual morality thus would not mean labeling gay sex as per se immoral, but instead recognizing that, in the carnal act, there is a potential for spiritual intimacy. And to understand that sexual restraint does not necessarily mean denying our urges, but holding them back so that one day we might express them in a manner which both provides physical pleasure and promotes real relationship.
– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
UPDATE: In a comment, a reader offers an understanding a thoughtful understanding of “horniness” which, I believe, we should all bear in mind:
I think that horniness can be analogous to pain…we feel the need to do something (ie., masturbate or have sex) just to cease the “pain” in our brain. (Is this why we call an orgasm a “release”?) Of course, that doesn’t excuse us from behaving irresponsibly to others and ourselves?
Up to this point I agreed with you. Specifically, developing a moral *vision* or any kind of a *vision* is not the solution. The only answer is to develop character (there is no substitute).
I think the problem many have with Republicans is the incredible amounts of hypocrisy. A prime example is the example of ‘Conservative’ Andrew Sullivan. He said all the right things and condemned the shallow promiscuity of homosexual males in San Francisco. But at the exact same time he was advertising for anonymous gang-bangs (his words) to exchange HIV+ fluids. This was unconscionable.
Every time something like this happens, it is immediately written off as some kind of slip-up. But people don’t even listen. Andrew Sullivan responded in his article ‘Sexual McCarthyism’ that he had absolutely no regrets or apologies for what he did or the victims he sero-converted. Look at the case of Newt Gingrich right now.
Of course there is redemption, only after repentance. But there are so many cases like this where the sudden regrets of the perpetrator are just too conveniently tied in with some kind of book release, political announcement, or other media opportunism. A person of real character does this within their own soul between them and G_d.
In the case of Cpl Matt Sanchez. I have no problem what lifestyle he practices in private. The only problem I have is with his untrustworthiness. If you have ever served in the military, you know what I mean. Any man who has engaged in hundreds of acts of male/male sodomy and oral copulation and does not disclose that – puts his fellow Marines at unecessary risk for HIV. Remember, the military blood supply is of critical importance during battle. Periodic testing doesn’t alleviate this because of the long lenght of incubation.
The other related problem is that prostitution is a crime in the USA except for a few small places in Nevada (and that is for females only). Apparently Sanchez did not disclose that he was involved in criminal activity before he enlisted with the Marines. Again, if you have ever served in the military, you know that you have to have absolute trust in your brothers. If a fellow Marine had been a crack dealer, or a petty theft before he enlisted and never disclosed that during induction, then I would have no trust in that recruit either.
Again, I don’t care what lifestyle choice you practice as long as you don’t force it on me or my Marines. First Mark Foley and his homosexual pedophilia scandal and then Ted Haggart and now Matt Sanchez. Sorry, but this kind of deviancy does not belong in the military. If you agree to DADT and vow to remain 100% celibate during you time of service, then have at it. Otherwise work on improving your character first.
A slight quibble with your opening paragraph, Curt, I would say developing character requires a moral vision.
Although I agree with the spirit of your post that men should have less meaningless sex, I think you might be giving too much credit to the horny man. In my experience, when the Head Down South starts making His needs known, He can be rather insistent, and things like what “should” happen tend to go out the window. A horny man has a lot of trouble thinking more than about eight inches ahead (and that’s if he’s lucky — it’s usually more like five) until the Head Down South relinquishes control to the Northern Brain. Perhaps the advice here should be “Masturbate More.”
There’s a big problem with this article, and this quote is why:
“The first is – he stopped having homosexual sex. The ability to “choose” one’s actions particularly as it relates to which gender one has sex with is supposed to be unchangeable in the mind of liberals.”
This makes the underlying assumption that Sanchez was gay and suddenly just “chose” to be straight. He seems to be trying to laud Sanchez for turning away from homosexuality, whether he explicitly states that or not. The truth is that Matt Sanchez says he was not gay. He only had sex with men for money. He even told Alan Colmes that not only is he straight, but most of the men he escorted for were straight! So why is this about the immorality of gay men? In Sanchez’s own words, he is straight, as were the men he sold his body to. Shouldn’t this be about straight men who couldn’t control themselves?
“He suggests that the “thought of personal sexual restraint is foreign to” certain “homosexuals.””
This really has nothing to do with personal sexual restraint. Matt Sanchez was, in his own words, heterosexual and having sex with men for money. No other reason. So for McCulloch to compare this to gay men who have sex out of desire, or out of love, is false.
Using his logic, Matt Sanchez – who, after YEARS, decided to stop having sex with men for money – is more of a “moral” person than a gay man who has only had one partner and had sex with only that person for most of his adult life.
The attempts to make Matt Sanchez a martyr for the anti-gay cause fall flat because of the facts of Matt Sanchez’s life story. He is not a gay man who suddenly saw the light. He is a heterosexual man who had sex with men for money for years, then suddenly, when confronted with his past, he suddenly says a few words about boo hiss the porn industry.
To treat Matt Sanchez as if he has raised serious political or moral issues is a disservice to serious people and in fact to the concept of seriousness.
Matt Sanchez is a fraud and a liar from the word go. This has nothing to do with his politics. We are talking about someone who has misprensented his involvement with the Marine Corps, with Columbia University, with pornograph and with prostitution. His comments about his sexual orientation are a bizarre and laughable circus.
The only way to handle Matt Sanchez is to definitively track down the rest of his lies. You should be spending your time doing that, not by taking seriously anything he has said. Mr. Sanchez is a psychopath, and should be treated as such.
I should note that psychopaths aren’t necessarily violent, and in fact usually are not violent. So don’t think I’m calling him a serial killer. What I’m telling you is that Sanchez has slipped his tether. Don’t feed his jones by commenting on his political statements.
BTW, I know some here will probably agree with him (and of course, tell us that Clinton made DADT, so it’s his fault), but I wondered what you thought about the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying he doesn’t want gays in the military because homosexuality is “immoral”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201420.html
Besides, what were you people thinking when you decided to give serious consideration to the preachments on sexual restraint from someone who is featured in 34 porn movies and who has a long career as a prostitute?
Is leads me to wonder who’s crazier, Matt Sanchez or the deluded soul who write the article that I’m replying to. Think Cabins!
A clarification, Willy, I noted that Matt only raised serious moral issues when he said porn flattens the soul. It was just that in thinking about his story, this issue came to mind.
And Carl makes a great point noting the irony of those who suggest Matt Sanchez is more moral than two gay men in a monogamous relationship.
fixing typos:
Besides, what were you people thinking when you decided to give serious consideration to the preachments on sexual restraint from someone who is featured in 34 porn movies and who has a long career as a prostitute?
It leads me to wonder who’s crazier, Matt Sanchez or the deluded soul who wrote the article that I’m replying to. Think my dear Cabins!
I dont like folks like Kevin Mccullah, but I understand his POV. I’m objective enough to accept that Christianity does condemn homosexual behavior, and since a lot of conservatives are Christian, they will be quite critical of that behavior.
In my experience , I get hostilty, rudeness, disrepect, rage and almost violence not from Christians but from fellow gay people. in fact I have never had people be so downright vile to me like gay people are.
I dont have one bad experince with Christians, or anyone in my family about who I am… the same cant be said for gay people. As soon they find out I’m not joining in on today’s 15 Minute Hate of Bush, I’m the one being honored by the Hate next.
I agree with you for the most part untill your closing paragraph. I don’t see the connection between being gay and having to remain celibate. If a straight marine contracts HIV, Hep, or any other virus before or during their service then they are a threat to the blood supply as well. Being gay does not mean that you have a blood borne disease nor does it mean that you will contract one. Plenty of straight people have blood borne diseases, I have an uncle who just died of one and was as straight as anyone, was of poor moral character, and continued to have sex until he was physically incapable of doing so. It is absolutely wrong to impose restrictions on gays, in the military or otherwise, that are not equally imposed across the board. To say that a marine, or any other service member, has to remain 100% celibate during service you must require that from 100% of the military, otherwise, it is discrimination, which is absolutely inappropriate in any profession but especially a government funded one. And how exactly does not remaining 100% celibate equate to a need for one to work on their character? Does the straight portion of the military need to either be celibate or work on there character as well? My question to you is: How can you continue to fight and risk your life for the freedom of United States citizens and yet still advocate discrimination that eliminates the fundamental freedoms that this country was founded on?
Because your premise is flawed. No one has the freedom to join the military. The Congress has total authority to establish the standards of service.
But lets turn it around.. how can you live in the greatest country on the planet and not want to fight to protect it?
“In my experience , I get hostilty, rudeness, disrepect, rage and almost violence not from Christians but from fellow gay people.”
I’m happy for you. In my experience, I’ve been told repeatedly that if I’m gay, I need to accept Christ as my savior and renounce homosexuality, or I’m going to burn in hell. I’ve been told that gays are a danger to children, that gays are all going to die of AIDS, and I have seen some of my friends thrown out of their homes and disowned by their “Christian” families.
Oh, and Matt Sanchez is saying that the military has privately told him he has nothing to worry about. IF this is true, isn’t it nice that a man who made gay porn films and escorted is accepted by the military, but “immoral” gays and lesbians are not?
He also insists that he’s straight, has never been gay, and willed himself to get hard during his sex scenes. So anyone out there on the right who wants to use this man as proof of how wonderful it is to realize your sins and go straight – he was never gay.
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/03/facts-evasion.html
If you don’t agree to abide by DADT and the UCMJ (specifically article 125-A), then you cannot enlist. DADT requires 24/7 celibacy of homosexuals for all the years of service. Few people realize this. Also, yes it is selectively enforced because a straight soldier receiving oral from a female is just as guilty by the definition of sodomy in UCMJ. And they are actually quite open verbally about it yet never prosecuted.
Being gay does not mean that you have a blood borne disease nor does it mean that you will contract one.
And he would not make it into the Marines.
To say that a marine, or any other service member, has to remain 100% celibate during service you must require that from 100% of the military, otherwise, it is discrimination
How can you continue to fight and risk your life for the freedom of United States citizens and yet still advocate discrimination that eliminates the fundamental freedoms that this country was founded on?
When homosexuality is accepted openly in society is when homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the Armed Services and with all benefits as any other civil union/marriage.
Someone tells you you’re going to hell and you take that as an attack? Why? Is that person going to send you there?
You must be really concerned about the Muslim threat because unlike Christians, Muslims believe it *IS* their job to send you there.
Then you were told some lies that all gays will die from AIDS. Someone tells you a lie and you’re upset about it?
Wow , you sure give other people a lot of power over your emotions.
That pales in comparasion the very personal viceral attacks gay peolpe make on one another. Being told a theological concept is hardly the same thing.
-Someone tells you you’re going to hell and you take that as an attack?-
What else is it meant as?
-Then you were told some lies that all gays will die from AIDS.-
These aren’t lies to the people who say them. These people truly do believe that all gays are sick and twisted and that they need to be “cured”, or damned.
-Wow , you sure give other people a lot of power over your emotions.-
Then you say this:
-That pales in comparasion the very personal viceral attacks gay peolpe make on one another.-
So you only object to giving other people power over your emotions when it’s a straight person making the attack?
What’s going to upset a gay teenager more – being thrown out of his home when his parents find out he’s gay, or a gay man who makes a negative remark about him? What’s going to upset a gay man more – being beaten and possibly killed by someone who hates gays, or hearing a negative remark from a gay man? What’s going to upset a gay man more – being in a state that thanks to laws passed by straight people, he can’t adopt children or have most legal rights with his partner, or hearing a gay man make a negative remark about him?
I’m always amazed at the idea that non-conservative gays should pay no mind at all to ugly hate spewed by anti-gay Christians and other groups, yet gay conservatives are deeply, personally wounded because some gays make mean remarks about them.
DADT requires that an individual who is gay remain celibate and yet single (unmarried) straight service members are not required to remain celibate. Does this not strike you as discrimination? You are risking your life to fight for freedom and yet you are not free. Regulations can be quoted ad nauseum, just because they are on the books does not make them right.
Justice requires that all regulations be uniformly enforced and yet the military selectivly enforces rules that are on the books based on sexual orientation??
As are those who are promiscuous and those who engage the services of prostitutes, yet you don’t often hear of service members being discharged on these grounds (I am sure that if you searched hard enough you could find cases where they were but if you are feeling that ambitious why not compare those with the statistics of homosexuals being discharged)
Do they do a moral check? How extensive is their background check? My father was a marine and was just as immoral as his brother. A “swinger” and drug addict, he was still allowed to serve as a marine. I would check your info before you hold the marine entrance requirements to such a high standard, you previously pointed out that what is on the books is obviously not uniformly enforced.
“Mr. Bush” does not exactly have a sparkling track record of constitutional adherence, nor would I care to engage in conversation at any point with him. My conversation with “Mr. Bush” began and ended at the votes I cast.
Although the object of our fight is the same, the black cause has a history of using the gay fight for civil rights to their own benefit then ignoring us when it is no longer useful to them (you might want to read “the gay militants” http://www.amazon.com/Militants-Liberation-1969-1971-Stonewall-Editions/dp/0312112793) regardless of how any demographic treats us, equality is still equality and justice is still justice. Just as blacks, indians, women and jews have had to fight for their rights, so do we. Just because a group that was subjected to unfair treatment in the past decides to ignore our struggle does not take away from our rights, nor does it change the basis of my statement, which was:
discrimination is discrimination regardless of the history of those who engage in it.
Please explain how, exactly, my premise is flawed.
And I can very easily, for 3 reasons, live in the greatest country on the planet and note want to fight to protect it.
1) I am gay
2) I personally do not feel that my best contribution to the country would be via the military.
3) Military service requires certain characteristics that I do not, and have not ever, exhibited. Not that they are negative attributes, I simply do not have them and do not feel that everyone does.
Additionally, Thank God for those that do serve and serve well. This country certainly does need and deserve protecting. Those who do are a wonderful group and we would not be where we are without them.
I did explain it. See the following two sentence. Did you read what you cited? Jesus
Until now, I had maintained a level of sympathy and respect for Log Cabins. I figured that gays needed to be present in both parties and work within their constraints. I regarded the gay Republicans as, in a certain way, more courageous than gay Democrats who at least in recent years have enjoyed considerably more respect and support within the party than Republicans gays have enjoyed within theirs.
But I must say, that whatever reservoir of respect I’ve had for you people is rapidly drying up as I watch you embrace Matt Sanchez, a psychopathic phony from the word go. It’s really not about politics for me. I don’t even have to get to that level. It ought to be obvious to anyone who spends 60 seconds on this thing that Sanchez is several bricks short of a full load.
Cabins, this is a matter of your basic judgment. If you can get this one this wrong, then I’m really doubting that you have anything to offer anyone — even yourselves.
Not sure exactly what your comment #23, Willy, has to do with the post. I just used Matt Sanchez as a jumping off point to address a larger point.
Willy: I wouldn’t want respect from someone who respects nothing good and decent. It’s a compliment I don’t earn respect from a person such as yourself, a person who sees people trapped in a label, a person who exhibits no decent behavior yet thinks he is the judge of everyone else’s.
I was asking for more detail. I certainly have no intention, however, of continuing a discussion with someone who cannot hold a simple conversation without expressing distain and irritation for a simple request for more detail. If you care to explain your response in more detail then I would love to continue. Without the attitude, of course.
Assuming that you are willing to contain your attitude and distain:
Although Congress has the authority to establish standards of service, congress only has the authority given to it by the constitution, which was intended to be equality preserving we therefore have a right to question congressional decisions if they do not reflect equality, do we not? Why would a congress that regulates a military established to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country, base enrollment on discriminatory standards? And why should the people enrolled in this service be required to fight and perhaps die to protect freedoms and equality they are not extended?
I can see what you’re saying, GPW, but unfortunately these sites like Townhall are often so far to the extreme that they aren’t very objective on gay issues. I feel like they see the Matt Sanchez situation as something that it actually is not even close to being.
Okay, the guy wasn’t gay but he had sex on film and escorted – but only for the money. To paraphrase MGM “THAT’S prostitution!”
At least the ordinary sex worker has a rudimentary attraction of some sort to his or her clients – he or she may not find them personally attractive, but the client bears some sort of resemblance to someone the worker would find attractive enough to boff for free. The fact that Sanchez feels that it’s more distasteful being homosexual than it is to engage in sex he finds repulsive, with a gender he finds repulsive in return for money is pretty telling, don’t y’all think?
This poor guy is seriously damaged and that started long before he started making money with this dick. A wreck is Mateo Sanchez, and here’s hoping he runs across an exceptionally talented (and patient) psychotherapist at some point in his life.
In the meantime, I find it interesting that Christians condemn homosexuality. Christ didn’t.
Carl in #27, I think you may well be right about them seeing the Sanchez situation as being something more than it actually is. The story did get me thinking, but when I looked into it, I found that it did not address the topic of this post as much as I would like.
He did make a good point about porn which accords with what many men, gay and straight alike, have learned about casual sex.
Perhaps, I shouldn’t have brought him up in this post as all too many of the commenters have addressed not the point of the post, but the reference to Matt Sanchez.
Sorry, but this is faulty logic to the point of laughability. I have heard this same cliche many times. All you have to do is extend that ‘logic’ and you would have to supremely honor gays in the American Nazi Party because they are “working from the inside to change things” in such a harsh environment. And tremendously respect gay men and woman who work tirelessly for David Duke becuause it must be so hard. Hello?
Hi Mindy.. sorry if I was rude.
You phrased the question about joining the membership as an issue about rights. Well Constitutionally, the issue was settled, Congress gets to make up the rules, so it’s not about rights.
Now it’s perfectly acceptable to ask about the policy then. I think DADT is stupid. I dont know why the Democrats instituted it back in 93 because they had already stated they thought the exclusion policy was unjust. Yet again the Democrats give lip service but no follow through.
I dont view sexual orientation as a Constitutionally protected class, so i would disagree with your points, though your points are reasonable.
Dan, interesting post. I’m not surprised many on the GayLeft have taken your reference to Sanchez and focused in on him as a symbol of the hypocrisy of conservatives, the GOP, C-PAC –or worse yet—the hollowness and shallowness of ALL gay conservatives.
It’s because Sanchez presents the GayLeft with an inescapable opportunity to point out how wrong-headed you are, along with the GayRight, the GOP and conservatives in general. Plus, the GayLeft gets to kick a military-esque guy to the curb… oh, “Precious loves to do that, oh yes, Precious loves”. Like I said earlier, if only MattSanchez was an outspoken supporter of the WOT-Iraq… it’d be a bloody field day for the GayLeft.
BOT, I think that’s because it’s very hard for the GayLeft (or gays in general) to speak about morality and gay sex. It’s easier to head off into familiar “beat up the GayRight” territory for them.
But I’m not sure morality and gay sex ought to be spoken of together; in many ways, they are the antithesis of each other. Morality speaks to community values; the gay sex culture is all about ego-centric gratification, 24x7x365 –and anything that gets in the way of that lust-fulfilled endeavor is in for some serious bitch-slapping. Think of the last time you heard of someone speaking with a group of college aged gay guys about abstinence? LOL. It is positively laughable!
The message from the gay blogosphere is that the gay sexual act is THE act of self-fulfillment –it makes us whole, it validates our gay-ness and provides that very needy but false sense of community. More acts, more fulfillment. More acts, the more you’re being true to self, being a real gay; hey, let’s punch your GayCard. Getting a little bored with the hollowness of near-anonymous gay sex? Tired of multiple partners? Try leather. Try multiple partners in a room. Try fetishes. Learn from porn. Give in to restraints –or try restraints. Try bareback because that could be a symbol of a true, loving and trustful relationship. Maybe you can fool the self into thinking this is love?
Morality and gay sex? We aren’t ready for that public or private debate. We just got around to acknowledging that the GayLeft’s agenda for civil rights and victimhood may not be the correct agenda for gays in America. Baby steps, here, Dan. Baby steps.
For me, gay sex only has a moral dimension when it transcends the immediate needs of the 2,3,4,5 or 6 participants’ self-interest for gratification. Does it do that in a small percentage of LTRs? Sure; you’ve had commenters here attest to that. I think it did in my LTR when we adopted and put “building a family” first and thinking of us as a family –with or without kids.
As long as the gay culture is captive of the GayLeft’s predilection toward promiscuous sexual conduct, we’ll never have the opportunity to talk about morality and gay sex with a str8 face (no pun intended). You tried here, Dan… but the GayLeft is all about assassinating MattSanchez right now… just like with Foley, fundamentalist preachers, gay GOP Capitol Hill staffers, etc. It feeds the GayLeft’s need to gossip like drama queens standing tall amongst the “2AM-Left-Behinders” at the gay bar on Friday night.
There is an American Nazi Party? Oh, wait, I forgot – Sen Robert Byrd (D-KKK) used to be a Grand Kleagle. Never mind.
Regards,
Peter H.
GPW, despite the ongoing debate in this particular forum about everything it seems, except how Matt Sanchez relates to it, I’ll say this: another excellent, thoughtful post.
Perhaps if we all took time to reflect on things like this before we shoot off at the mouth, we’d stay on topic and have a reasoned debate about the implications of sexual impulsivity (is that a word? If not, I claim it. 😉 ) and how it relates to our community, Left and Right. Because I think the reality is that such an issue transcends our politics to reach all of us in the gay community, and indeed our heterosexual counterparts as well. It’s a discussion we should be having given the hyper-sexualiztion of a media driven culture.
Hey Mike, you wrote: “GPW, despite the ongoing debate in this particular forum about everything it seems, except how Matt Sanchez relates to it, I’ll say this: another excellent, thoughtful post.”
I thought Dan’s added comment was that he didn’t intend this thread to be about MattSanchez, but that some here took it in that direction. How’s that jive with your claim above?
I think Dan ought to debate on both blogs someone from the farRadicalGayLeftBorg… maybe a Joe.My.God type? Maybe Mike Rogers? Someone who knows what morality is, whether or not they practice moral behavior or not. How does gay sex and morality differ from the GayRight and GayLeft perspectives?
Seems like that discussion would have greater utility, eh?
BTW: I think your term “sexual impulsivity” is really just promiscuity dressed up in sow’s ear… but that takes us off topic, no?
Aside from his expansive sexual exploits – which I consider a highlight of his “career,” Sanchez just isn’t shaping up to be the “hero” gay conservatives and Fox News pundits would like.
He’s lied about so many different things, he’s coming across – in all interviews and statements – as a vaccilating sociopathic liar.
He is not in the Marines, really, but non-com reserves.
He wasn’t even “manning” the table at Columbia when this overblown protest occurred – or didn’t occur, according to all other accounts.
Most Marines are calling him out for disgracing the Marine uniform – not because of his porn/escort past, but because he’s a fabricating liar.
And sucking up to Ann Coulter on the day she called a presidential candidate a “faggot” at the CPAC event is beyond the pale, whether he thinks he’s gay or not.
How he got this award probably has more to do with his private sexual trysts than any merit.
(Warning: NSFW images on my blog.)
Matt, if I understand what you’re asking, then the answer is that my comment wasn’t clear. In re-reading it, I should apologize for being so unclear. Thanks for bringing the unintentional error to my attention.
I was attempting to imply that I understood Dan’s reference to Sanchez, but that in the comments it had become more about him than the discussion-worthy topic of Dan’s post. Maybe that clarifies it, or am I just confusing the matter more?
LOL – does kinda take us off topic, but I can’t disagree that the two are probably synonymous in most cases.
Tom, in a simple blog and gleefully embraced issue, you’ve redefined what GayLeftBorg means for most us in the community… it now also stands for sleaze. Gutter-lived, National Enquirer styled sleaze. Bravo for taking us even lower.
Frankly, you and your Canuck friend JoeMyGod do our community more harm, prevent us from advancing gay civil rights, injure the perception of all gays in MSAmerica and cater to the worst in our community… it’s no wonder those types of blogs do so well… it’s emblematic of our decaying gay ccommunity and it’s self-absorbed, FarLeft partisans who willingly shill for the Democrats.
Thanks for taking us back a dozen steps. Try NOT helping in the future.
Mike, understood; we agree on that point. I guess Dan does too ’cause he had to post another clarifying thread to try to get the discussion back on track.
I think Bacchus has drunk too much wine (or Kool-Aid, for that matter).
Regards,
Peter H.
You Log Cabins ought to go check the Marine Corps Times website and see what his brother marines are saying about him.
Willy : why are you stereotyping me? I’m not a republican.
#41 – Me neither; I sure as hell am not LCR.
Not too slick, Willie.
Regards,
Peter H.
-It’s because Sanchez presents the GayLeft with an inescapable opportunity to point out how wrong-headed you are, along with the GayRight, the GOP and conservatives in general. Plus, the GayLeft gets to kick a military-esque guy to the curb… oh, “Precious loves to do that, oh yes, Precious loves”. Like I said earlier, if only MattSanchez was an outspoken supporter of the WOT-Iraq… it’d be a bloody field day for the GayLeft.-
Actually, I doubt it would. If Matt Sanchez were a liberal pundit, I doubt that most liberal gays would be thrilled to support someone who a) lied by omission about their porn and escort past, b) claimed that they are straight AND most of the men they escorted for were straight, c) suddenly became anti-porn right when they were revealed as a former porn star.
I think conservative gays were those who were much more likely to try to make him a martyr, and those efforts have, generally, fallen flat.
If Sanchez was a Democrat I’d be even madder. I’d be really pissed that Democrats didn’t check him out first, and I’d be really pissed that he posed as one of my party. Look, Cabins, shit happens. Instead of going on hyper defensive, just take your lumps and move on instead of circling your wagons around the psycho bitch Sanchez. How hard would that be?
I think the word is “integrity.” Show some.
Feel free to go after your fellow Democrats then, Willy, who ban JROTC as evil and insist the United States should abolish the military.
And where are your “homosexual former Marines” who are getting vapors over Sanchez?
Oh yes, kissing these peoples’ asses and saying yes sir, yes sir, as they bash the military.
I agree that they give lip service and no follow through, but I would extend that to say that they simply changed the wording of the policy to be slightly more palatable while essentially maintaining the same standard which remains unjust. What has really changed? At its core is homosexuality not about the relationships you engage in (yes, I understand that emotionally and psychologically it is a lot more but for ease of discussion lets reduce it to its basic element, which is, who do you have relationships with) so, and please correct me if I am mistaken because I do not have the exact wording of the rule, it is acceptable to be a homosexual in the military as long as it is not acknowledged by you and you refrain from having relationships. That seems a bit contradictory. As for your comment about it not being a Constitutionally protected class, we all have opinions about that and you are certainly entitled to yours, the real weight is carried in the interpretation of the constitution by the judiciary and the laws passed by congress. Women, blacks and American Indians were all not originally considered constitutionally protected classes, that has since changed. No, we are not currently protected, that does not make it right that we are not. But, in the end, we shall see how the question pans out.
In response to Dan’s article, I think that horniness can be analogous to pain…we feel the need to do something (ie., masturbate or have sex) just to cease the “pain” in our brain. (Is this why we call an orgasm a “release”?) Of course, that doesn’t excuse us from behaving irresponsibly to others and ourselves. It’s just that it’s not always that simple to put logic over biology. A case in point is Andrew Sullivan’s own “act of immorality.”
Can we avoid rewriting history? It’s one of the few bipartisan efforts of the 90s, instigated, if reports are accurate, by some intensive lobbying by the then-Joint Chiefs. As I recall, it was one of Newt’s babies, was a compromise, and passed by a veto-proof majority. It’s still a crappy policy, but let’s please give credit where credit is due.
[DADT was passed in 1993 by a Democratic Congress. Hardly one of Newt’s babies; he was then House Minority Whip. –Ed]
To Dan Blatt:
Very interesting post. I don’t necessarily agree on all points, but I appreciate the seriousness of your treatment. My own reaction is here.