Why he felt the need to clarify that statement with a follow-up is a mystery, considering he basically makes the same point, only slightly more obnoxiously.
"So, to set the record straight (or shall we say gay?), I am not nor have I ever been opposed to anyone's right to marry - straight or gay. I myself just don't want to at the moment and feel a strong tie to the traditional bohemian concept of being a homosexual, ie: the last thing we want is to be like everybody else. But who knows, a girl likes options. Maybe someday I will want to marry! Plus, in terms of practical issues such as citizenship, taxes, inheritance, etc...it is appauling (sic) that LGBT couples don't have the same rights and options that other people have and compared with Europe and Canada, the US should be ashamed of how they treat love. I have voiced my strong opposition to Prop 8 on many occasions and will continue to do so until that referendum is reversed. OK?"Ah, yes. "The traditional bohemian concept of being a homosexual." How could I forget? How very avant garde of you, Rufus, to stick your dick in another man's asshole. What a bullshitty, Bill Maher way of looking at things, to say the point of being gay is to differentiate us from boring straight conformists. Isn't that just something we say to each other to make us feel better when straight people are being assholes to us? This isn't my rebellion, it's my life, and if you view yours as a constant quest to freak out the squares and reduce your entire subculture to a bunch of petulant children, at least don't gussy it up like a social philosophy. And stop referring to yourself as a "bohemian," it makes you sound like an asshole.
And I do love your music.
6 comments:
Now I want to know what the traditional bohemian concept of being a heterosexual is. Or is that an oxymoron? Eh, I'm probably a square anyway, I am married after all. Quit freaking me out, Rufus!
He is, however, being accurate about the once-fashionable 70s-gay-radical attitude about marriage: "it's for heterosexuals, not for us, and who wants to be a pallid imitation of them?" was the general rallying cry. I'm not sure how he comes by this viewpoint as his own, but if he wants to call it "bohemian," I understand what he means.
Heh, WOW. I kind of went off there, huh? Don't blog angry, kids. Anyway, I do stand by the sentiment, though. Accurate or not, it makes you sound like a douche.
Oh come on, give the 'mo a break.
I dunno, it didn't sound particularly douchey to me... I get what he means about not wanting to be like everyone else, and how he may be somewhat ambivalent about fighting so hard for "marriage", which to him and many others seems like a squarey, self-defeating, picket-fence, Revolutionary-Road-situation-inducing venture.
I get what you're saying, but I do disagree. I think it smacks of trying to maintain your anti-conformist cool at the expense of a debate about fundamental equality. And I think it's a ridiculously immature view of marriage to boot.
IMO, the whole gay bohemian = not getting married has officially died since straight people are having fuck buddies, open relationships, and *gasp* refusing to marry.
Personally, I'd appreciate it if someone - anyone - would come out and say "hey, this whole marriage thing doesn't appear to be working for anyone - how about we have domestic partnerships for everyone and call it a day?"
Post a Comment