# Andrew Sullivan: beneath contempt or just delusional? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 28, 2003, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743 "2003-04-28T18:43:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/21 "2003-04-29T04:13:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > Sullivan specifically attacked the NGLTF. Can you find me a cite on the [NGLTF web site](http://www.ngltf.org/) indicating that the NGLTF has taken a position in support of the Palestinian Authority? I cannot. You mentioned the Palestinians in the OP, and I jumped to a wrong conclusion. I apologize. > [@](#): > > I do not know the position on the PA of every founding member of Win Without War, nor are those positions relevant to a criticism of NGLTF’s decision to oppose war with Iraq. Win Without War includes in its coalition the [Arab-American Anti-discrimination Committee](http://www.adc.org/), which is pro-PA. However, that doesn’t mean that the NGLTF is pro-PA. I was wrong to assume that they were. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/22 "2003-04-29T04:46:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mockingbird \* > He’s still the same two faced pig who spoke about safe-sex out of one side of his mouth while looking for barebacking daddies with the other. > > He’s looking fo his “place at he table” in the same toadying way as ever. I guess I just don’t get it. This is what I see: In the first article, Sullivan says it’s not the business of a (single-issue) pressure group to go around alienating potential support by taking unnecessary positions (as with its anti-war stance). Put another way, they shouldn’t adopt political postures outside their mandate. In the second article, Sullivan emphasises the humanitarian angle and encourages gays - as individuals within the wider society – to support military action on the basis of the current regime’s hostility to gays. On that reading, his position doesn’t sound unreasonable. What did I get wrong ? ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/23 "2003-04-29T13:12:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **Since then, we have found out that anti-war leader and Member of Parliament George Galloway really was supporting Saddam, for money.** Quite apart from this being nothing to do with the OP, it is also false. We have not “found out” this at all. Rather, we have been told by a newspaper that they have proof that would suggest it. The issue is hotly disputed, in the midst of legal action, and if found to be true would come as a great surprise to most who know Galloway, and that includes his opponents. It’s easy to disagree with Galloway’s opinions, but most would agree in his sincerity. Nor is he an “anti-war leader”, whatever that is. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/24 "2003-04-29T13:17:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Futile Gesture \* > Quite apart from this being nothing to do with the OP, it is also false. We have not “found out” this at all. Rather, we have been told by a newspaper that they have proof that would suggest it. Not just one newspaper. The Christian Science Monitor found separate documentary evidence that he received something like $10 million. > [@](#): > > Nor is he an “anti-war leader”, whatever that is. I saw a newspaper photo of him speaking at an anti-war rally. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/25 "2003-04-29T14:03:05Z")
> [@](#): > > I saw a newspaper photo of him speaking at an anti-war rally. First, thank you for your aplogy and retraction. Now, where do you get the idea that speaking at a rally makes one a “leader” in the movement behind the rally? I’m not saying this guy is or isn’t a “leader” in the anti-war movement; just that claiming he is based on one photo of him spekaing at a rally is ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/26 "2003-04-29T14:06:06Z")
> [@](#): > > I saw a newspaper photo of him speaking at an anti-war rally. FWIW, I once spoke at an anti-globalization rally. Over a megaphone, no less. That doesn’t make me a leader of the anti-globalization movement. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/27 "2003-04-29T14:10:45Z")
**manhattan** , a fact that makes you uncomfortable is, nevertheless, still a fact. It’s called “reality”. Look it up sometime. Now, why a _moderator_\* would be using this board to _oppose_ the fight against ignorance is beyond me. Can you explain yourself? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/28 "2003-04-29T14:32:01Z")
Re: OP Title: Why can’t he be both? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/29 "2003-04-29T14:34:21Z")
Oh, wait. “Just” delusional, as in ‘only’. Never mind. Nevertheless: couldn’t he be beneath contempt _and_ delusional? ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/30 "2003-04-29T14:50:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*Second, given that his comments are coming less than a week after Rick Santorum’s anti-gay comments and the White House’s support for him, it is a little bit sick for Sullivan to imply that concern for the oppression of Iraqi gays was in any way the motive behind this war. He’s deluding himself if he thinks that anyone in the Bush administration had the oppression of gay people in Iraq even wander across their mind while plotting out war strategy. \*\* If Sullivan is implying that the oppression of gays was the slightest factor in this, he is guilty of gross misrepresentation. In Iraq, homosexual sex is legal as of the age of eighteen – I’m not positive, but it’s the only predominantly Muslim nation in the region in which this is true. Furthermore, it means the laws in Iraq under Saddam for gays and lesbians are more liberal than in _Texas_, Dubya’s former fiefdom, where a sodomy law is still enforced. The level of hypocrisy here is insulting – as Voltaire put it, “We have to tend our own garden.” ---
**Author:** ![Hamish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a5b964/32.png) [@Hamish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamish)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/31 "2003-04-29T15:09:32Z")
I did find another mostly-Muslim country where homosexuality is legal – Turkey. Here’s a [site with sodomy laws around the world](http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/world.htm). I worry about the situation out there. Dubya is a conservative, evangelical Christian whose government is _not_ friendly to queer issues. And there are plenty of fundamentalists of a different kind out there who are equally uncomfortable with this civil rights issue. The best we can hope for, I think, is the status quo, but like everything about this invasion, it has the potential to go very, very badly. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/32 "2003-04-29T15:36:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by matt\_mcl \* > \*\*FWIW, I once spoke at an anti-globalization rally. Over a megaphone, no less. That doesn’t make me a leader of the anti-globalization movement. \*\* I joined the Black Brigade, but only because the outfits are so slimming. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/33 "2003-04-29T16:07:57Z")
> [@](#): > > _London-Calling says:_ I guess I just don’t get it. This is what I see: > > In the first article, Sullivan says it’s not the business of a (single-issue) pressure group to go around alienating potential support by taking unnecessary positions (as with its anti-war stance). Put another way, they shouldn’t adopt political postures outside their mandate. > > In the second article, Sullivan emphasises the humanitarian angle and encourages gays - as individuals within the wider society – to support military action on the basis of the current regime’s hostility to gays. > > On that reading, his position doesn’t sound unreasonable. What did I get wrong ? Nothing. This is exactly my reading as well from the two articles and one that shows there are no contradictory messages here. I am a member of a professional organization. Recently, there was some discussion on whether said organization should make some kind of statement against the war, even though it is completely unrelated to anything that directly applies to our formal mission statement. It was decided that because of the diversity of opinion on the matter, it was inappropriate for the organization to take a specific position on the war since it didn’t have anything to do with what our organization is about. However, this did not stop us (individual members) from taking positions on specific policy issues re: the war that did have some (tangential) relationship to the responsibility we assumed as members of our profession. This is not hypocritical–it is simply an understanding of how individual/personal advocacy is different than formal position-taking by organizations whose members have a diversity of opinion. Nowhere do I see that Sullivan says that homosexual oppression was a motivation behind the war. The likely lifting of that oppression, however, is a result of the war (or rather, a reason for supporting it). The first article also lists a number of other reasons why he believes the NGLTF has lost perspective on its mission, instead taking positions that seem to situate it politically in the “appropriately” liberal camp, even though the issues themselves are not directly related at all to the advocacy or promotion of gay rights, etc. I was a student at UC Berkeley and I remember our student union spent an inordinate amount of time taking policy positions on the West Bank and global warming and the first Gulf War when none of these things had any relationship to improving student life on campus. This posturing wasted valuable time and resources, and all to make a statement that one could not even consider a consensus of the students enrolled. > [@](#): > > _Otto says:_ (despite his penchant in engaging in unsafe sex and making excuses for it) I think his “excuses” are [rather persuasive](http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=20010531): > [@](#): > > The motive for doing so was simple. For a few years now, I have tried to date and have sex only with other men who are HIV-positive. I am scared of infecting HIV-negative men; and I believe that sticking to men who are HIV-positive is one step I can take to avoid contributing to this epidemic. I have never hidden this fact; indeed, as Signorile was forced to concede, I have even written about it in my last book, where I describe the relief of finally having real sex with an old friend who was also HIV-positive. Hypocrisy? When I have written about it in a publicly available book, published five years ago? Has any other openly gay man actually written about their own unprotected sex so explicitly?.. > > The question I am required to answer is: is this reckless? The answer is an unambiguous no. I don’t think it’s reckless to entertain Internet fantasies using an anonymous ad. It’s a lot safer than non-Internet sex and millions of people do it all the time. I also don’t think it’s reckless if you are HIV-positive to seek other HIV-positive men to date or have sex with and to be open about your status while you do so. I don’t think there are many people in America who are more open about having HIV than I am. I didn’t have to disclose my infection publicly five years ago. I did it to help myself and others. To make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding, as Signorile concedes, I was quite clear in the ads that I was HIV-positive seeking other HIV-positive men. If every man with HIV followed these rules, we’d have far less HIV infection. For this, I am deemed reckless. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/34 "2003-04-29T16:28:26Z")
Sorry, **ArchiveGuy** , Sullivan’s excuses for barebacking are not persuasive. Even if he and his prospective partners are all HIV+, they still should not have sex without condoms because they can infect each other with different strains of the bug, rendering current treatments ineffective and creating drug-resistant [superinfections.](http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2002/07/11/2) People should only bareback if both partners are in a monogamous relationship, and they have both tested HIV- in two tests taken 6 months apart. Otherwise, no glove, no love. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/35 "2003-04-29T16:48:09Z")
> [@](#): > > What about “reinfection”? Signorile argues that it is possible for someone to be “reinfected” with HIV, generating new strains that could possibly worsen or possibly ameliorate your health. I am aware of this theory and the slim reed of research it is based upon. I have discussed the issue with my doctors, and my current boyfriend and my last boyfriend, both of whom are HIV-positive. Again, there is space for disagreement about this question, but to me, the evidence seems weak and hypothetical. But whatever the genuine, scientific issue here, the question of whether to abandon condoms in sex between two self-disclosed HIV-positive people is a decision for those two people alone in private. It is no-one else’s business. No-one’s. I have no intention of discussing my sexual life in this respect, but I would strongly defend the right of adult people with HIV to make their own decisions on this basis. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/36 "2003-04-29T16:52:42Z")
> [@](#): > > But whatever the genuine, scientific issue here, the question of whether to abandon condoms in sex between two self-disclosed HIV-positive people is a decision for those two people alone in private. It is no-one else’s business. No-one’s. I have no intention of discussing my sexual life in this respect, but I would strongly defend the right of adult people with HIV to make their own decisions on this basis. Bullshit. A. The scientific evidence shows that superinfections are possible. B. Nobody has the right to pass on a disease or a new strain of a disease to another person. This is not a privacy issue, as Sullivan claims, but a public health issue. I don;t care if the other guyis on all fours begging to be infected, it is immoral, nay evil, to comply with that request. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/37 "2003-04-29T17:03:19Z")
> [@](#): > > The scientific evidence shows that superinfections are possible. Given that the article linked was written two years ago, I don’t suppose there’s the remotest possibility that at the time, the evidence in spring 2001 may have been far less conclusive? And does _possible_ mean _likely_ or _theoretical_, and shouldn’t that make some difference? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/38 "2003-04-29T17:41:03Z")
From [thebody.com](http://thebody.com) > [@](#): > > Several questions remain in regards to re-infection. Will re-infection lead to more rapid disease progression? Will re-infection with HIV result in transmission/acquisition of drug-resistant HIV that will limit a persons’ anti-HIV treatment options? Both of these concerns are theoretically possible, and both have now been demonstrated in case studies. Currently there is not a large amount of data to assess the actual risk to the individual. Although only a little data currently exists and it is extremely difficult to gather more, it does not lessen the real potential for re-infection or its consequences. > > There are several reasons why people living with HIV would want to maintain safer sex activities. While the clinical implications of re-infection remain unknown (and will likely be unknown for many years to come), there is some evidence of harm and no evidence of harmlessness. We also know for certain that safer sex does protect against many blood-borne infections that are major causes of life-threatening diseases and death in people with HIV. These likely include CMV, some forms of hepatitis virus, genital herpes, possibly the JC virus (cause of a particularly destructive condition known as PML), to name a few. In the possiblity of re-infecting others with HIV, the decent thing is to lessen the possiblity, not increase it. People who pass on their disease with no concern for the welfare of others are no better than common murderers. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/39 "2003-04-29T17:45:04Z")
**Otto** – I see you’ve replied in the thread after I posted my interpretation of the articles. Now **Archive Guy** shares my view, can you help us out; change of heart in relation to the OP or do you disagree with our views ? ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/40 "2003-04-29T17:53:09Z")
So, case studies but “only a little data currently exists”, which means that in 2001, there was probably even less information for him to go off of. And how exactly does one have “no evidence of harmlessness” if there’s so little data to go off of? What’s the standard of evidence for something like that? > [@](#): > > People who pass on their disease with no concern for the welfare of others are no better than common murderers. I guess consulting with your doctors and your partners and applying meagre (but hardly conclusive) scientific evidence to a decision that’s mutually decided-upon falls under this “no concern” umbrella in your book. I don’t agree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743.md?page=3)