« Convention Preview: The Republicans | Main | Obama at Saddleback Church vs. . . . »
August 16, 2008
Gay sex, politics and intolerance
Posted by: Chris
The bubbling controversy over the $2,300 contribution to John McCain from a co-founder of the gay hookup site Manhunt.net offers a classic example of the way idelogical intolerance sucks the life out of meaningful gay political debate.
When word first got out that Jonathan Crutchley, one of the original investors behind Manhunt, had donated the maximum allowed by law to the Republican's presidential campaign, the response was altogether predictable.
The public interest was altogether understandable. Here was politics making for very interesting bedfellows. It could have been an opportunity for some real discussion about how and why some gay folk prioritize issues like national security -- cited by Crutchley in his own defense -- over "the gay agenda," as he put it somewhat dismissively.
That's not what happened, of course. The blogs howled with angry calls for horny gay boys everywhere to cancel their Manhunt accounts in protest. Can you imagine a less effective form of political expression than this laughable suggestion? Don't give money to Barack Obama or the Democratic Party or your favorite gay group, noooo. Effectiveness wasn't really the point here, clearly. The idea was to savor that "special" feeling of cultural and political superiority (see Carvey, Dana: Church Lady dance).
The reaction within Manhunt, Inc. (a.k.a. Online Buddies, Inc.) was also swift and tailor-made for the company's hometown of Cambridge, Mass. -- the place where political correctness was born and I saw flourish in the late 1980s. The Manhunt board of directors -- wouldn't ya love to know just who that includes and how they got there? -- reacted with "disbelief" at Crutchley's donation, even though his moderate GOP politics had been known for years and his McCain contribution public knowledge for weeks.
Larry Basile, the site's other co-founder and more active in current management, offered up his liberal credentials in alternative, swearing he had made (smallish) contributions to Democrats as well as to Obama. The board even went so far as to ask Crutchley to resign, which he did, because, "Politically, [the donation] was just off-base, with the whole feeling over here at Manhunt."
Does anyone else find it ironic that a website that offers tens of thousands of men a relatively anonymous way to meet up for sex would sack its chairman and co-founder over his own private political beliefs? Isn't Manhunt as much about the right to privacy as much as it is about same-sex marriage? This ain't gay eHarmony, after all. Doesn't that double standard at least rival Crutchley's alleged offense?
Crutchley himself saw the irony. "Welcome to the age of the internet, where everyone's private life becomes public," he noted in a comment he posted to an early article about the donation,
Another insidious aspect to the controversy is the angry indignation we often see from the left that anyone who calls himself a Republican might enjoy an active gay sex life, much less be affiliated with a business that facilitates such for other gay men. Why is that so?
There's no hint that Crutchley agrees with the social conservative wing of the Republican Party on gay rights or personal privacy; in fact he made clear that his support for McCain was based entirely on who'd be the better commander-in-chief. (Crutchley also makes the interesting point that being a "Masssachusetts Republican is about the same as being an Alabama Democrat.)
You may fault his judgment on that score, and disagree strongly with the way he prioritizes civil rights and other issues -- count me in on both points -- but neither makes him a hypocrite.
Anyone who reads this blog with regularity knows I am no fan of John McCain and believe the choice we face in November should be clear for anyone committed to gay civil rights. Still, I am much more troubled by the arrogant intolerance that says the Crutchleys of our community should be excluded from gay-oriented businesses, organizations, etc., than I am by the misplaced political priorities of a few gay Republicans.
(Photo of Larry Basile, left, and Jonathan Crutchley via Out magazine)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e553eade148833
Comments
-
As if Manhunt would have actually been boycotted...
As if 99% of its users truly give that much of a damn that they'd take their largely anonymous and quick sexual hook-up business elsewhere...
Chris, you've hit it on the head (as it were). It was no different a reaction than a presidential nominee returning a check because it came from a gay person. Just as craven, and just as loathsome.
-
Then I must be the remaining 1% who canceled my membership with Manhunt, Kevin. How cavalier of you to think that the only way a gay man can think, is with his dick! You sound just like one of those gay, self-loathing Log Cabin Republicans who never miss a chance to put their fellow brothers and sisters down. Enjoy YOUR continuing membership with Manhunt. Hope you choke on one of the dicks you find there.
-
*sigh* Right, Chuck, the best way to address someone you perceive as presumptuous is to one-up him by not being only equally presumptuous yourself, but also an immature ass.
-
Of course, the hilarious part is that all of these aggrieved gay leftists themselves pumped tens of millions of dollars toward candidates that supported state bans on gay marriage, Federal constitutional amendments, and discrimination against gays in the workplace -- all of which said gays deemed "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive".
What I find ironic is that some guy who makes a living by facilitating anonymous gay sex would donate money to an anti-gay political candidate who would, if he had his way, shut the service down.Ah yes, the old "Republicans are opening internment camps" that gay liberals use every time they're asked to explain their own utter intolerance towards other peoples' political preferences.
Personally, I'm amused to watch the gay community insist that people should be fired or forced out for donating to the wrong political candidate. It shows just how "tolerant" these sort of gay liberals are.
-
NDT, are you by any chance the long lost twin brother of Bill Perdue? The similarity in your posting M.O. is striking.
-
I need to clarify and amend a couple of things...
First, I did not mean to suggest that the Manhunt board should have asked for Crutchley's resignation or that people should be fired for their personal political beliefs. That is improper and something I completely oppose.
However, it doesn't mean I have to like what Crutchley did or that I have to continue supporting his business (which I never did, but still).
Second, NDT is correct -- my statement that John McCain would probably like to shut down services like Manhunt has no basis. There is plenty of evidence that McCain is holds anti-gay views. However, there is no evidence that he would like to shut down gay-oriented internet businesses. So, I retract that portion of what I said.
The rest of my comment stands.
-
With all due respect to you Chris and whose opinions I generally agree with, I have to say that I side with Strict Scrutiny on this issue.
True, Crotchley...err Mr. Crutchley has the right to contribute to whatever cause he believes in as well as vote for whomever he believes to be the best man for the Presidency.That said, however, it should not come at the expense of the right of gay people who oppose his political views, to stand up and say so. Suggesting that those of us who disagree with Mr. Crutchley's support of a man who is so openly hostile toward the LGBT commnuity and are being 'intolerant' of his rights, is a little like saying that disagreeing with Mr. Hitler's views is intolerant and disrespectful. Disagreeing with those whose self-interests are not supportive of our self-interests is a basic American right.
Strict Security, while it is true that there is no evidence (at this moment in time) that McCain would like to shut down gay-oriented Internet businesses, his anti-gay rights statements at Saddleback Church, coupled with his past defamatory comments and insults aimed at the LGBT community that we are an 'abomination' and 'an intolerable risk' in the miliatry, his support of DADT, DOMA on a state-by-state basis and his non-support for ENDA, leaves no doubt that this homophobic man would, indeed, do what you suggested if given half the chance.
I do not regard your comment as a "jump' to prohibitive legislation, if I may borrow the comment John Edwards used to describe his feelings about gay marriage. I see no reason for you to redact or apologize for your comment. I think you have assessed Mr. McShame accurately.
The handwriting is on the wall. Some, like yourself, are able to discern it.
Other's, like NDT, are too blinded by the bs and the rhetoric to see the obvious.
-
Let's see if I understand your point, Chris.
It's a terrible thing when Americans use their First Amendment rights to protest the actions of others with whom they disagree?
It's wrong for people to use their freedom of association and the power of their dollar in the American capitalistic system to reward businesses with whose actions they agree and punish those with which they find fault?
It's wrong for a privately held corporation to determine that the actions of a board member have brought economic harm and reputational damage to the company and to reduce said member's role?
-
Suggesting that those of us who disagree with Mr. Crutchley's support of a man who is so openly hostile toward the LGBT commnuity and are being 'intolerant' of his rights, is a little like saying that disagreeing with Mr. Hitler's views is intolerant and disrespectful.
The reason is, Chuck, because, as I demonstrated above, your definition of "hostile" is based on political affiliation. You were not out in the streets demanding the resignation of Hilary Rosen, Andrew Tobias, or innumerable other gay leaders and businessmen for contributing to state constitutional amendment or FMA supporters, nor were you demanding their businesses be boycotted.
Furthermore, would we like to see examples of where gay and lesbian people have condemned boycotts against places like McDonalds, Disney, Ford, and whatnot, and claimed that the people who did so were wrong to do so?
Strict Security, while it is true that there is no evidence (at this moment in time) that McCain would like to shut down gay-oriented Internet businesses
Ah; so we've established the practice that, even if you admittedly have no evidence, you can say whatever you want about someone and it will be true.
Strict Scrutiny did exactly the right thing in rejecting that attitude.
-
I'm tired of my own people questioning my political preference. It's none of their GD business. Furthermore what they do with their money is THEIR own right. Get over bashing gay Republicans already...
-
TMI. All those people you dragged into the conversation have nothing to do with my understanding of the world 'hostile' as it applies to Mr. McShame. I am proficient in English, thank you, and do not need you to define the word for me. I know what the word hostile means and Mr. McShame epitomizes gay hostility.
>Ah; so we've established the practice that, even if you admittedly have no evidence, you can say whatever you want about someone and it will be true.
You are contorting my words. My comment was a speculation or prediction of what one might expect from a a proven homophobe like McCain. A speculation is not the same thing as the truth and it is not unreasonable to make a prediction or speculation based on information we already have on hand.
We predict the weather. We predict what the national economy will look like. Businesses prepare annual budgets based on predicted income, etc, etc. Some of these predictions may fall short of the truth, but we have good reason to expect them to come pretty close to the truth.
Allow me to give you a good example. Neville Chamberlain's legacy is marked by his appeasement policy regarding his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding part of Czechoslovakia to German dictator Adolf Hitler.
The ink stains on that agreement had hardly dried when Hitler invaded a series of countries despite the non-agression pact he had just signed.
Question? Based on his actions in Poland, would it have been wrong to speculate that Hitler might, nevertheless, invade any other European countries? Only a complete fool like Chamberlain would have believed a man like Hitler would keep his word.
And that, Sir, is precisely my position with respect to Mr. McShame and I'm sticking to it.
-
Lucrece on Aug 17, 2008 1:33:53 AM:
*sigh* Right, Chuck, the best way to address someone you perceive as presumptuous is to one-up him by not being only equally presumptuous yourself, but also an immature ass.
Umm...Pot....Kettle....Black? How bout taking a good look at your own statement?
My comments were addressed to NDT, not to you, so we have no quarrel....yet.
He's a big boy and I am certain that he can defend himself without your assistance.
-
Lucrece on Aug 17, 2008 1:33:53 AM:
*sigh* Right, Chuck, the best way to address someone you perceive as presumptuous is to one-up him by not being only equally presumptuous yourself, but also an immature ass.
Umm...Pot....Kettle....Black? How bout taking a good look at your own statement?
My comments were addressed to NDT, not to you, so we have no quarrel....yet.
He's a big boy and I am certain that he can defend himself without your assistance.
-
John McCain's "base", if they had their way, would criminalize people for being born with an homosexual sexual orientation. Forget about gay civil rights. His "base" also refers to us as pedohiles and degenerates.
They are trying their hardest to make us invisible, to deny us basic rights under the constitution [equal protection], to slander and defame us, and to lie everyday about the biological nature of sexual orientation.
His "base" will have an open line to McCain if he wins since they will have put him in office.
-
>Get over bashing gay Republicans already...
But, that's precisely the point, JC. Republicans, like the Evangelicans, continually try to put the LGBT community down and take away our rights. Your argument is as moot as the Pope complaining that we are "Church Bashing" when gays defend themselves from the hateful and bigoted utterances of that homophobic institution.
You are also forgetting taht we live in what is supposed to be a free country that grants us the Constitutional right of freedom of speech and debate.
There are a couple of old adages that come to mind.
The first is, "Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house."
The second one is, "If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen."
-
One problem I have with gay republicans is that they are republicans only b/c their parents and/or grandparents were. They need to think for themselves. I can understand economic conservatives [I am one] but does that mean you have to support the GOP?
As far as national security being an issue - what good is national security when far right wing republicans want us dead, in jail, or in mentla institutions?
-
Unfortunately for your argument, Gee, you and your fellow leftist gay and lesbians have been making it for at least the past eight years, during six of which "the base" of the Republican Party, as you put it, was in complete control of both the Presidency and Congress.
Guess what? No internment camps, as gay Democrats claimed already existed. No death marches for gays. No jailing people. Indeed, two of the most recent cases in which gay people were harmed were tried in Republican-dominated, heavily-religious states with no "hate-crimes" laws and where gay liberals swore juries would let people go free -- and they ended in not only conviction, but harsh sentences.
Meanwhile, as I pointed out above, during that period, gay Democrats like yourself endorsed and supported candidates who support the FMA, state constitutional amendments, and workplace discrimination against gays, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars and chants of "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" -- all, again, because they were Democrats.
Tell us, Gee: can you really claim to think beyond your sexual orientation, or is your sexual orientation merely a convenient excuse for your constantly voting Democrat?
-
North Dallas Thirty,
You are wrong. Look at the HRC's roster of Legislators' votes on gay civil rights issues and compare the Dem record with the GOP. The Dem. record is light years better than the GOP.
I can see beyond my sexual orientation - I am not a gay activist and I am fairly conservative on many issues. But the GOP wants to deny that gays even exist let alone pass legislation that includes us. The GOP has become the party of the religious right. Anti-science and anti-thinking bigotry has taken over the party. If and when the GOP becomes a party of real conservatives - conservatives that value granting individual rights and RESPONSIBILITIES that go with gay marriage - then I might rejoin it. There are some Dems that don't suppport gay marriage but even those Dems support civil unions.
Elizabeth Dole gave a major speech at the 2004 GOP convention about the GOP defending marriage [from gay people]. Unbelievably offensive and ignorant. There are many more examples of how bigoted and disrespectful the GOP is to gay people.
-
LOL....HRC also endorsed and supported as "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" people who supported bans on gay marriage, both state and Federal, and who support and practice workplace discrimination against gays who complain about it.
So explain that to us, Gee; in 2004, liberal gays and lesbians thought being in favor of a marriage ban was "bigoted and disrespectful", but when John Kerry did it and bragged that he had the "same position" as Bush on it, liberal gays and lesbians claimed it was "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive".
Sort of like how we've seen no comment on Obama's statement that marriage is a "sacred union" between man and woman and that civil unions were not less than marriage -- something which gay liberals used to shriek was "demeaning" and indicative of "homophobia" when Republicans said it.
-
North Dallas Thrity,
I'll take visibility over shame anyday. Thanks anyway.
-
Allan: Your First Amendment arguments are straw men. Just because people have the guaranteed freedoms of speech and association doesn't make every exercise of those freedoms a good thing. We can agree on that, right?
Also, despite the Cheneyesque line-blurring by some blogs, there is no absolutely no accusation that Manhunt/Online Buddies, Inc. itself engaged in any politics whatsoever. Another straw man.
So let's move on to your real point, which is whether the politics and monetary contributions of a business executive (or investor/owner) provide a good justification for customer boycotts and executive firings. For executives, I would say absolutely not, unless there is some evidence of effect on the policies/conduct of the business. I don't think we want right-wing groups going on witchhunts for gay and gay-friendly execs at top companies, do we?
For investor/owners, the line is more blurry and it's a judgment call. What percentage of ownership are we talking about? How much of our customer dollar is enriching the anti-gay owner and enabling his donations? Also, how specifically anti-gay are the politics and donations? Is he/she giving to groups/causes etc with a specific agenda that is anti-gay? Or is their support for the cause/group for other reasons or even despite anti-gay stands?
Crotchley is clearly not anti-gay, even if he doesn't prioritize gay rights like we would. If you support a Manhunt boycott because of Crotchley's connection to McCain, what about top execs at other businesses (gay or otherwise) who are Republican -- or even Catholic! Lord know the Catholic church has had a far more profound and pernicious impact on gay lives and in spreading HIV than John McCain and the GOP.
This kind of situational ideological purity is one big reason that political correctness so enrages many of us and wastes so much valuable energy in the movement for gay civil rights.
-
"I don't think we want right-wing groups going on witchhunts for gay and gay-friendly execs at top companies, do we?"
No we don't. But the anti-gay groups are wrong on principle and gay-friendly execs and companys are right to support gay people.
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the bible or any other ancient religious text. It is a scientific and biological issue which the far-right lies about or at the very is in denial about.
They are wrong. Its really that simple - if you respect facts and science. The far right's basis for opposing gay rights and demonizing gay people is false.
-
"Crotchley is clearly not anti-gay, even if he doesn't prioritize gay rights like we would. If you support a Manhunt boycott because of Crotchley's connection to McCain, what about top execs at other businesses (gay or otherwise) who are Republican -- or even Catholic!"
Chris, whether Crutchley is anti-gay or not, is not the issue, although a gay person who contributes money to a presidential hopeful who is clearly anti-gay, would introduce serious doubt in any logical thinking man's mind about that. The Lord also knows that we have our share of self-loathing, Log Cabin Republicans who regularly post their objections to same-sex marriage and other civil rights issues on Gay.Com, Queerty, Towleroad and this site as well.
If you do not support a Manhunt boycott because of Crutchley's connection to McCain, then you would also have be against a boycott of the owner of Manchester Grand Hyatt, Doug Manchester, who contributed $125,000 to Propositioon 8 because he is connected to the Religious Right.
May I also point out that your argument that "Lord knows the Catholic church has had a far more profound and pernicious impact on gay lives and in spreading HIV than John McCain and the GOP.", is also a straw man.
What has Crutchley's giving a donation of $2300. to the McCain campaign have to do with Religion or HIV? We are talking about a man who insulted gays in the American Military services and who wishes to maintain our status as second class citizens, not someone who spread HIV among us.
Minimizing McCain's bigotry and hatred for the LGBT community certainly does not in any way make him more angelic or lovable.
Hitler loved dogs. That, however, in no way, made him a nicer or more lovable person either.
-
"Crotchley is clearly not anti-gay, even if he doesn't prioritize gay rights like we would. If you support a Manhunt boycott because of Crotchley's connection to McCain, what about top execs at other businesses (gay or otherwise) who are Republican -- or even Catholic!"
Chris, whether Crutchley is anti-gay or not, is not the issue, although a gay person who contributes money to a presidential hopeful who is clearly anti-gay, would introduce serious doubt in any logical thinking man's mind about that. The Lord also knows that we have our share of self-loathing, Log Cabin Republicans who regularly post their objections to same-sex marriage and other civil rights issues on Gay.Com, Queerty, Towleroad and this site as well.
If you do not support a Manhunt boycott because of Crutchley's connection to McCain, then you would also have be against a boycott of the owner of Manchester Grand Hyatt, Doug Manchester, who contributed $125,000 to Propositioon 8 because he is connected to the Religious Right.
May I also point out that your argument that "Lord knows the Catholic church has had a far more profound and pernicious impact on gay lives and in spreading HIV than John McCain and the GOP.", is also a straw man.
What has Crutchley's giving a donation of $2300. to the McCain campaign have to do with Religion or HIV? We are talking about a man who insulted gays in the American Military services and who wishes to maintain our status as second class citizens, not someone who spread HIV among us.
Minimizing McCain's bigotry and hatred for the LGBT community certainly does not in any way make him more angelic or lovable.
Hitler loved dogs. That, however, in no way, made him a nicer or more lovable person either.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Strict Scrutiny on Aug 16, 2008 6:19:03 PM:
Can you imagine a less effective form of political expression than this laughable suggestion?
Yes. Doing nothing would have been less effective. There is nothing more American than boycotting or canceling the service of a vendor who offends you for one reason or another. The call for canceling manhunt accounts was entirely appropriate.
You are correct that giving money would also have been effective. Perhaps those who canceled their accounts should have contributed their cancelation savings to the Obama campaign.
Does anyone else find it ironic that a website that offers tens of thousands of men a relatively anonymous way to meet up for sex would sack its chairman and co-founder over his own private political beliefs?
What I find ironic is that some guy who makes a living by facilitating anonymous gay sex would donate money to an anti-gay political candidate who would, if he had his way, shut the service down.
Another insidious aspect to the controversy is the angry indignation we often see from the left that anyone who calls himself a Republican might enjoy an active gay sex life, much less be affiliated with a business that facilitates such for other gay men. Why is that so?
Because, Chris, it's disgraceful if this "Republican with an active gay sex life" is supporting conservative, anti-gay political candidates who might win office and sign anti-gay laws into effect (or at least not advance our issues). Anti-gay laws affect me because I'm gay. Ergo, I'm irritated. And I'm indignant when another gay person makes helps make it happen.
And BTW, who cares if Crutchley doesn't support the religious right-wing. He's supporting a candidate who espouses anti-gay views.
Look, gay businessmen can hold whatever views they want and can vote anyway they want. But if they want to donate to conservative causes or candidates which stymie the gay rights movement, they need to be prepared to suffer the consequences, such as having their businesses boycotted by those in the community.