quote:
1) He didn't come out as a flaming homo--he came out as a gay american. He wasn't wearing a g-string and a boa, and he wasn't mincing around and lisping. If he were a flaming homo, he really wouldn't have had to say anything--people would have assumed.
True. Very, very true. But also, this behavior doesn't necessarily indicate a flaming homo, either. Jesse Ventura certainly isn't homosexual.
quote:
I think what you meant by the remark, Mikey, is that some people will always consider gays as flamers no matter their conduct, but by putting it that way it further demeans McGreevey and trivializes that opinion.
Well, I guess this is simply my fault for the choice of words I used. Forgive me for making it seem like I consider all gay behavior to be flaming. I don't. I probably meant to say HOT!
quote:
2) I'm not as informed on all the other scandals involving McGreevey, but it is pretty apparent that this latest threat was the straw that broke the camel's back. Absent everything else that he's accused of, he may have been able to weather his public outing and at least complete his term. Instead, we'll never know if at least one state would have accepted an openly-gay governor.
Good point, and as I said, I have yet to judge him as an individual. All of what he said may very well turn out to be an intensely calculated statement, designed specifically to divert attention from his misconduct. Time will tell, possibly.
quote:
3) Balls would have been coming out, then running. Getting elected with a wife and kids, then coming out is deceptive and not a true test of whether NJ would have elected or accepted a gay governor. What McGreevey did yesterday was damage control--he got backed into a corner and had to admit who he is and what he's done on his own terms so that he would have the first chance at framing the ensuing media discussion.
Yes, I have explained that this very well may be the case, and most likely IS the case. I still don't think that the majority of society is ready for gay politicians, and I think that McGreevey coming out as a gay man is still a really touchy thing to do, even if it is just a political move. You don't think it's a ballsy thing to do, ESPECIALLY if it's just damage control? I'm not saying he's a great guy or even a decent one. I am saying that he's got fucking huge cojones. He might be demeaning the entire idea of coming out, which is also quite likely, but you've got to have balls or psychosis to do it the way he did it.
quote:
4) The problem I have with his conduct is that in addition to all his other ethical problems, he put his trick on the government dole and cheated on his wife and has certainly hurt his children. I would imagine this happens in the straight world all the time, but when they do it, it's indiscretion--when we do it, we're depraved and immoral.
No way, dude. I think it's an indiscretion no matter what the context. Gay, straight, it's fucked up either way. Cheating fucking sucks, for every party involved, unless you're a heartless fuck. He is a cheater. In probably quite a few different ways, I am sure. But he's a ballsy one. Maybe the scum of the earth, maybe just a schmuck. Who knows.
quote:
5) In California, there are plenty of openly gay politicians. My favorite example is the district attorney here in San Diego, because she's not just representing a predominantly gay part of town, but an entire county who thought she was the best candidate for the job.
This is why it's quite possibly detrimental to a whole shitload of people. I mean, he comes out in the midst of all this scandal and resigns, isn't that just adding fuel to the already hateful rhetoric of some of the opposition?
quote:
It seems though, at the national level or key state positions, the only time we find out a politician is gay is when he "bends over the pages" in the capitol or is otherwise caught in scandal. I hope if any good comes of this, it's that the people who originally had faith in McGreevey come to the conclusion that if they had known he was gay when they were in the voting booth that they still would have pulled his lever (so to speak).
Great point. That's what I was trying to get at in the previous paragraph. I don't like the fact that he is embroiled in scandal and all of a sudden he is gay, but I think the man has got balls the size of Texas, and you can take that whetever way you want.
I think, though, that because of the way he did this, and did not come out beforehand, etc., that it will probably hurt gay politicians and their causes. I think this simply because historically the politicians you find out are gay "later" on, only do so because of scandal. I think that this method of revelation is causing all gay politicians to be painted with the same brush. It's reminiscent of all the old pulp novels and currents of thought that ran through a lot of old literature and movies. The gay character in older novels was always the villain. You'll still find a lot of this in current movies and literature.
I would like to hear the rest of your thoughts on this.
