# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/41 "2003-04-29T17:59:55Z")
> [@](#): > > People who pass on their disease with no concern for the welfare of others are no better than common murderers. While I mostly agree with this statement, do you thing “ **no concern** for the welfare of others” applies in this case? Consent, assuming full disclosure, should count for something. ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/42 "2003-04-29T18:38:02Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. If you think guys are consulting their doctors before they trick, you’re living in a fantasy land. Most gay guys trick on a moment’s notice. Second, NOBODY should knowingly pass on their viruses to another person. Period. There is no case for disagreement here. Unsafe sex is off-limits for everyone, but especially for poz guys. ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/43 "2003-04-29T19:09:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \* > \*\ ***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 ? \*\* Nope, no change of heart. Sullivan’s still wrong and a jerk. ---
**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, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/44 "2003-04-29T20:11:11Z")
> [@](#): > > If you think guys are consulting their doctors before they trick, you’re living in a fantasy land. Most gay guys trick on a moment’s notice. I wasn’t addressing “guys”, I was addressing Sullivan (whom you likened to a murderer). > [@](#): > > Unsafe sex is off-limits for everyone _Everyone_, eh? Looks like Santorum’s not the only one telling us how to behave in private… ---
**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, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/45 "2003-04-29T20:43:08Z")
Unsafe sex is a Bad Thing-- do you have some relevant argument to contradict this ? ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/46 "2003-04-29T20:56:05Z")
No, but the implication wasn’t that it’s Bad, but that it’s Wrong (even with mutual consent). Stupid? Yeah, maybe. Morally wrong? Again, I don’t agree. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/47 "2003-04-29T21:51:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \* > \*\*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 ? \*\* In the first editorial, he is claiming that war isn’t a gay issue. Or, at least it isn’t a gay issue when it comes to protesting the war. In the second, he’s banging a drum, trying to get gay people on board for the war. It’s okay as a gay man to be for the war, because look at the unsubstatiated claims he makes about gays in Iraq. But, to be against the war… it’s not a gay issue and we should stop being divisive. What a load of bullshit from this toady kiss-ass(in the _bad_ way). ---
**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 30, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/48 "2003-04-30T00:47:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mockingbird \* > In the first editorial, he is claiming that war isn’t a gay issue. Or, at least it isn’t a gay issue when it comes to protesting the war. No he isn’t. He says it’s not an issue specifically for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. In other words (as I already said), the ‘anti-war’ movement was no more a place for an organisation concerned with a single, not-related cause to be than, say, ‘Save the Whales’ > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mockingbird \* > In the second, he’s banging a drum, trying to get gay people on board for the war. Sure, as individuals within the wider society. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp. And I don’t even like Andrew Bloody Sullivan ! ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/49 "2003-04-30T15:00:47Z")
Let’s change the premise a bit. Let’s say that Bush had advocated going to war against The Netherlands, which has legalized same-sex marriage and prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Let’s further say that NGLTF and Andrew Sullivan both oppose the war and NGLTF joins a coalition against the war. Would Sullivan damn NGLTF for joining the coalition in that instance? Given his silence in the face of Log Cabin Republicans support for the Iraq war, I believe not. It’s OK for individuals to vocalize on the war but not groups? Who does Sullivan think composes groups if not individuals? Sullivan wants to dictate what is and isn’t a “gay issue” based on what he believes about the issue. If opposing the war isn’t a gay issue then it’s ridiculously disingenuous to cite gay oppression (in a territory not being warred upon at the moment by the U.S. no less) as reason to support it. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/50 "2003-04-30T15:25:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Given his silence in the face of Log Cabin Republicans support for the Iraq war, I believe not. I’ve never heard that the LCR are specifically dedicated to the advancement of gay rights as much as they are simply a collection of gays who happen to be Republicans. The LCR don’t pretend to speak for the gay community the way the NGLTF does. Here’s what would have been hypocritical: if Sullivan specifically took the NGLTF to task for not supporting the war, using the “gay oppression” angle as a reason. Blasting them for taking any stand, and then promoting that they take a _particular_ stand would be talking out of both sides of his mouth. But he doesn’t do that. In the first article, he lists many other issues the NGLTF takes stands on that have nothing to do with the advancement of gay rights in America. The war is just one of many he takes them to task for. I’m not crazy about some of the rhetoric he uses in the 2nd article, but that’s hyperbole, not hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/51 "2003-04-30T17:52:29Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve never heard that the LCR are specifically dedicated to the advancement of gay rights as much as they are simply a collection of gays who happen to be Republicans. The LCR don’t pretend to speak for the gay community the way the NGLTF does. From the [LCR Mission statement](http://www.lcr.org/mission.asp): > [@](#): > > We represent the next generation for the gay and lesbian community. No longer will we be told where we must live, how we must dress, and how we must vote. Now there is a political alternative…The mission of the Log Cabin Republicans is to work within the Republican Party for the equal rights of all Americans, including gay men and women. So I would say that they pretty clearly believe they speak for the gay and lesbian community and that their primary mission is gay and lesbian equality. And again, where is the criticism of the gay conservative group for taking a position on the war that happens to match up with Sullivan’s? Even if one were to grant that Sullivan was doing nothing more in the first article than stating that gay groups shouldn’t take stands on non-gay issues (which I don’t) his failure to task groups other than NGLTF reveals that it’s the stance on the issue, not the issue itself, which he’s attacking under the guise of criticising groups for taking stands. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743/52 "2003-04-30T20:24:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \* > \*\*No he isn’t. He says it’s not an issue specifically for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. In other words (as I already said), the ‘anti-war’ movement was no more a place for an organisation concerned with a single, not-related cause to be than, say, ‘Save the Whales’ > > Sure, as individuals within the wider society. > > I don’t understand why this is so difficult to grasp. And I don’t even like Andrew Bloody Sullivan ! \*\* The title of the first editorial is about war not being a gay issue. Why is that so _difficult_ for you to grasp? And Sullivan is again being disingenuous. Especially in light of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” war is very much a gay issue. He brings in the big lie about how gays are treated in Iraq, and yet the gays who are in the military are more oppressed by trying to protect their country and serve their Commander and Thief. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-sullivan-beneath-contempt-or-just-delusional/171743.md?page=2)