Fun Size Bytes

“When you tell us it’s wrong to report on gay public figures, you are telling gays not to come out of the closet and journalists not to report the truth. (What you’re telling us as gay journalists is even worse.) When you insist being gay couldn’t possibly matter less, what you actually insist is that the subject never be brought up in the first place.”

—

From “Computer press so liberal it puts gays back in the closet” by Joe Clark.

swamibooba:

While having a gay man head one of the most important and by far the coolest company on the planet is pretty damn neat, I just don’t care that much. The only reason this really matters anymore is the general rule that the more gays you know the more accepting you become.

But yeah, the homos totally run everything now.

TJ:

I’m a straight white dude, so maybe I’m missing the point, but this sounds like Joe Clark is ridiculously far up his own ass (if you’ll pardon the expression).

While the media has gotten to the point of not caring whether or not someone is gay as long as they are good at the job, Joe wants to raise sexual orientation an important criteria for talking about someone whose sexual orientation has nothing to do with his job.

Next thing you know Republicans will be suggesting tax cuts for the rich and yelling at Democrats for caving to political pressure to extend the Bush tax cuts.

When I read this:

When you insist being gay couldn’t possibly matter less, what you actually insist is that the subject never be brought up in the first place.

Did that sound reasonable to you?

If so, imagine if Joe Clark was black¹ and heard Martin Luther King Jr say:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

And then imagine Joe had said

When you insist being black couldn’t possibly matter less, what you actually insist is that the subject never be brought up in the first place.

You’re wrong, Joe. When people say they don’t care if [name of person] is gay, it means that they don’t care if [name of person] is gay, especially when they know that [name of person] has not made their sexuality an issue in a context (i.e. running a tech company) where their sexuality isn’t an issue.

When discussing “Don’t ask/don’t tell” haven’t reasonable people said “If someone wants to serve their country in the armed forces, who cares if they are gay?” They say this not to support “Don’t ask/don’t tell” but in support of people who are gay being able to openly serve in the military.

People who wanted “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” overturned wanted people to be evaluated in terms of physical and mental fitness for the job, regardless of their status. If a qualified person was gay, and kept it to themselves, they could serve. If a qualified person was gay, and was open about it, they could serve. If a qualified person was straight, and kept it to themselves, they could service. If a qualified person was straight, and was open about it, they could serve.

Those who wanted “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” overturned did not want the military to ask every person who wanted to enlist “Are you gay or are you straight or are you somewhere in-between?” and then have the military say “We’re glad to have you, Gay Soldier! Anyone have a problem with the fact that [name of person] is gay?” or “We’re glad to have you, Straight Solder! Anyone here have a problem with the fact that [name of person] is straight?”

It’s the same way that you shouldn’t be denied a job because you’re pregnant, or because you’re married, or because you’re single, or because you’re a Yankees’ fan, or have some other mental disease, as long as you are qualified for the job.

That sounds like equality to me. But like I said, I’m a straight white dude, so maybe I’m missing the point.