Gay to a FaultI have been a reader of Andrew Sullivan's blog since I discovered the blogspace. I owe him something, since he served as my introduction to this space, where I spend, lately, several hours every day. His was the first site on my blogroll when I finally took the plunge and started to share my view of the universe with y'all. Yesterday I unrolled him, and today, I figure that I owe you (and him) an explanation.
It would be misleading, but true, to say that the trigger from his divestiture from my blogroll was a statement by Camille Paglia (his late-summer stand-in) that she had voted for Bill Clinton twice. That pissed me off. Not only do I question the intelligence of anyone who voted for such an obvious fraud, but I believe that it is a betrayal of one's audience to substitute opinion of a different bent, in an opinion site that is shaded in a conservative mode. I have enjoyed Camille's appearances on television, but her writing is something that I'd rather pass on. It's not that I don't read liberal thought - I do, a lot. It's just that her style is not to my liking. But when I banned Andrew's site out of pique against Camille, I realized that my some of my reasons for eschewing Paglia's writings are equally true of Sullivan's: These people are hung up on their sexuality. I add here that one of my best and longest friends is also a gay man. And for the same reason I find him to be a pain in the ass from time to time. But he's my friend, so I take him the way he is, and don't judge his mishegass. But neither Andy nor Camille would put anything on the line for me, ergo, I owe them nothing.
My problem is with the obsession with sex that these, and many other homosexuals display. I have heard some of them defend this tendency of theirs, but I don't buy the logic. The simple fact is that I have no interest in the who, what, or how of their sexual activities. It adds nothing whatever to any discussion that I wish to be a party to. I certainly don't expect them to listen to my own sexual problems, joys, or what have you. I don't wish to put it in their face. But they feel the right, maybe even the need, to put their's in mine. I don't choose to view the world through a sexual filter. They certainly have the right to talk about sex or any other damn thing that they want. And if they feel the need to put their observations on sexual practices in a political blog, that's great. But my disinclination to follow this particular conversation doesn't make me a homophobe.
You know, I have a sex life too. A good one, by my estimation. But I don't share it with my readers. I don't figure that anyone is interested. And if anyone is interested, then that is someone with whom I probably don't want to share these details. In my world, sexual activity is simply not a subject for public discussion. But many gays believe that it is. Maybe they believe that they are defined by their sexuality. That may be their hangup. It is not mine. In fact, they are far more disconcerted by discussion of straight sex than I am by discussion of homo sex. If I allocated a part of my time writing this blog to an examination of the various elements of the sex act that I find fulfilling, it would change my readership. I would pay a penalty for an obsession with matters sexual. It would taint everyone's perception of where I was at. I would expect that. So I don't feel that there should be a different handling of my objection to Andy and Camille's sexual obsession.
Bottom line: I provide a blogroll for the convenience and elucidation of passing fellow travellers in the blog world. I recommend the sites presented there to my readers. I focus on politics and world events. No sites, where a significant part of the subject matter is sexual activity, can be found there. My eight year old boy is a regular reader of my blog. Sorry, Andy and Camille, but your political discourse is just a little too provocative for him.... And for me.