Good post. You may also want to read monde's article, (http://www.livejournal.com/users/monde/151975.html) which covers some similar ground. I find myself making the effort to type 'conservative' instead of 'right' since reading it.
Here is Moby's essay (http://www.moby.com/Essays/html/culturalconservatism.html) on aesthetics. Read it, then read it again. The confusion of aesthetics and morals is at the heart of the conflict between culturally conservative and liberal Americans.
Your comparison to puppy-raping is a good one. It invites the retort "But puppy-raping is not consensual!," but that's okay because it illustrates exactly the right point - that the conflict is not about morals, but aesthetics.
This is important because as long as it's considered a moral conflict they can't back down - to do so they would have to abandon their morals. Nor can the liberals accept compromise - I've known a couple of small-town folks who said they would tolerate gayness, not try to make it illegal, but they wouldn't accept or condone it. They got attacked by the liberals just as much as the other homophobes, because if it's a moral issue mere tolerance isn't enough. Racism is a moral issue, and if I were to say "I'm willing to tolerate blacks but don't expect me to accept them," I would deservedly be called a fucking racist.
Aesthetics are never threatening and never worth fighting over; there's no 'right' way to decorate your house, although issues of safety and practicality may arise. Nobody is going to lobby the government to pass a law saying you can't use damask wallpaper because it's un-american.*
Cultural conservatives are trying much, much harder to kill gay marriage than they are to preserve sodomy laws - and with much greater success. Why is that? I suspect because, as you suggest, small-town conservatives aren't that bothered by gays having gay sex and being gay in San Fransisco, but legalising gay marriage here, in a_small_town, somehow implies that they'll be suddenly inundated by hordes of newlywed, cosmopolitan, urban queers.
This would not be a problem if they had their own wholesome small-town queers, but with the degree of polarisation in the argument the only good conservative is one who gives in and accepts cottaging and BDSM clubs and the only good homosexual is one who abstains and actively tries to cure his deviant urges. We must make it clear to the small-town folks that they don't have to fear pride parades on Main Street as long as they're willing to accept the nice clean-shaven gay couple next door.
I'm not suggesting that it's a good thing for people to have to conceal and sanitise aspects of their lives for the consumption of others, (heaven knows, I have no sense of propriety) but the few gays who choose to live in the deep red are going to have to do so anyway in order to get on with their neighbours. If they happen to be wholesome, monogamous, and hang Rockwell paintings on their walls, social acceptability is potentially a much better defense than the closet. As Sir Ian McKellen once said, "You don't have to talk about it; just don't lie about it."
Fear of leatherboys moving in next door isn't the only reason people voted for anti-gay resolutions. In a large poll there is never an 'only reason'. Others did it because they're fanatical christians and actively believe gayness is a sin. Some did it because the ballot said 'amendment to define marriage only as union between a man and a woman' and they considered that an obviously true statement, like the sky being blue or birds flying.
Where gayness is a radical new idea, it's important to put people at ease with it, not threaten their small-town utopia and gradually give them the opportunity to build a model for incorporating homosexuals into it. They may never accept flamboyant urban queers, but they don't like the city, period; that's why they opted to live in small-town America. We don't need to lambast them for their aesthetic choices; after all, we do exactly the same thing, nor are we immune to making moral judgements based on aesthetics.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Here is Moby's essay (http://www.moby.com/Essays/html/culturalconservatism.html) on aesthetics. Read it, then read it again. The confusion of aesthetics and morals is at the heart of the conflict between culturally conservative and liberal Americans.
Your comparison to puppy-raping is a good one. It invites the retort "But puppy-raping is not consensual!," but that's okay because it illustrates exactly the right point - that the conflict is not about morals, but aesthetics.
This is important because as long as it's considered a moral conflict they can't back down - to do so they would have to abandon their morals. Nor can the liberals accept compromise - I've known a couple of small-town folks who said they would tolerate gayness, not try to make it illegal, but they wouldn't accept or condone it. They got attacked by the liberals just as much as the other homophobes, because if it's a moral issue mere tolerance isn't enough. Racism is a moral issue, and if I were to say "I'm willing to tolerate blacks but don't expect me to accept them," I would deservedly be called a fucking racist.
Aesthetics are never threatening and never worth fighting over; there's no 'right' way to decorate your house, although issues of safety and practicality may arise. Nobody is going to lobby the government to pass a law saying you can't use damask wallpaper because it's un-american.*
Cultural conservatives are trying much, much harder to kill gay marriage than they are to preserve sodomy laws - and with much greater success. Why is that? I suspect because, as you suggest, small-town conservatives aren't that bothered by gays having gay sex and being gay in San Fransisco, but legalising gay marriage here, in a_small_town, somehow implies that they'll be suddenly inundated by hordes of newlywed, cosmopolitan, urban queers.
This would not be a problem if they had their own wholesome small-town queers, but with the degree of polarisation in the argument the only good conservative is one who gives in and accepts cottaging and BDSM clubs and the only good homosexual is one who abstains and actively tries to cure his deviant urges. We must make it clear to the small-town folks that they don't have to fear pride parades on Main Street as long as they're willing to accept the nice clean-shaven gay couple next door.
I'm not suggesting that it's a good thing for people to have to conceal and sanitise aspects of their lives for the consumption of others, (heaven knows, I have no sense of propriety) but the few gays who choose to live in the deep red are going to have to do so anyway in order to get on with their neighbours. If they happen to be wholesome, monogamous, and hang Rockwell paintings on their walls, social acceptability is potentially a much better defense than the closet. As Sir Ian McKellen once said, "You don't have to talk about it; just don't lie about it."
Fear of leatherboys moving in next door isn't the only reason people voted for anti-gay resolutions. In a large poll there is never an 'only reason'. Others did it because they're fanatical christians and actively believe gayness is a sin. Some did it because the ballot said 'amendment to define marriage only as union between a man and a woman' and they considered that an obviously true statement, like the sky being blue or birds flying.
Where gayness is a radical new idea, it's important to put people at ease with it, not threaten their small-town utopia and gradually give them the opportunity to build a model for incorporating homosexuals into it. They may never accept flamboyant urban queers, but they don't like the city, period; that's why they opted to live in small-town America. We don't need to lambast them for their aesthetic choices; after all, we do exactly the same thing, nor are we immune to making moral judgements based on aesthetics.