Today a man called radio talk-show host Dr. Laura with an interesting dilemma. He was gay, he said, 51 years old and had been celibate his entire life. He had a female friend whose company he enjoyed. They were both growing older, and the prospect of being old alone was not attractive to either of them. Would it be wrong for them to get married, he asked, with the understanding they would sleep in separate bedrooms and never have a physical relationship?
Dr. Laura reminded the caller that women enter marriage with expectations and fantasies of what the relationship will develop into. Did his friend secretly hope she might un-gay him? Was she really prepared to spend the rest of her life without physical intimacy? What would happen if she came to his bedroom one night needing something more and he refused her?
I'm really looking out for you, Dr. Laura informed her caller. You are the one who stands to get hurt if this marriage doesn't work out.
But as she often does, Dr. Laura was not content to let the matter rest but went a little deeper. If you are gay, she asked, Why have you spent your entire life celibate?
In his response the caller revealed he had come from a conservative, non-gay-accepting background, and had always been fearful and ashamed of his homosexuality.
But aren't you even now, probed Dr. Laura, Avoiding the reality of your gayness? Instead of marrying a straight woman and setting yourself up for heartbreak, why don't you find a mature gay man with whom you can have a real relationship?
And here is my question for Dr. Laura. She is against gay marriage. But she is also against "shacking up", as she calls it when two unmarried people live together. She is against sex outside marriage, often describing women who engage in it as "unpaid whores". But didn't she just go against her own principles by advising her caller to find a gay man with whom he could have a relationship? She was encouraging a relationship that would naturally include physical intimacy, as far as I could tell, and at the same time asserting he and his partner could not get married. I don't get it.
Dr. Laura reminded the caller that women enter marriage with expectations and fantasies of what the relationship will develop into. Did his friend secretly hope she might un-gay him? Was she really prepared to spend the rest of her life without physical intimacy? What would happen if she came to his bedroom one night needing something more and he refused her?
I'm really looking out for you, Dr. Laura informed her caller. You are the one who stands to get hurt if this marriage doesn't work out.
But as she often does, Dr. Laura was not content to let the matter rest but went a little deeper. If you are gay, she asked, Why have you spent your entire life celibate?
In his response the caller revealed he had come from a conservative, non-gay-accepting background, and had always been fearful and ashamed of his homosexuality.
But aren't you even now, probed Dr. Laura, Avoiding the reality of your gayness? Instead of marrying a straight woman and setting yourself up for heartbreak, why don't you find a mature gay man with whom you can have a real relationship?
And here is my question for Dr. Laura. She is against gay marriage. But she is also against "shacking up", as she calls it when two unmarried people live together. She is against sex outside marriage, often describing women who engage in it as "unpaid whores". But didn't she just go against her own principles by advising her caller to find a gay man with whom he could have a relationship? She was encouraging a relationship that would naturally include physical intimacy, as far as I could tell, and at the same time asserting he and his partner could not get married. I don't get it.
7 comments:
Maybe her views are changing! :)
Susanne, I believe Dr. Laura's views are changing. I don't follow her closely, but it seems to me that in the past she saw homosexuality as unnatural, and now she encourages gay people to accept their sexuality.
Perhaps I did not express myself as well as I could have, but my point was that if she believes it is wrong for unmarried straight people to engage in sexual activity, why would she encourage this gay man to find a partner (and assumedly engage in sexual activity). If at the same time she does not believe that gays should marry, is she not forcing him into behavior - a sexual realtionship outside of marriage - that she herself describes as wrong?
I might be of assistance, since I listen to every minute of her show and read her blog postings.
You can read everything at this link, which links to some other things, including her most recent "formal" statement on homosexuality.
Here's some of what I wrote:
...and that children should be raised by a married mom and dad, and not by "day orphanages", shack-up couples, unmarried individuals, or same-sex couples.
It is that last one that really sets people off – the idea that children need a mom and a dad. So people refer back to a quote from her show in which she said that a homosexual orientation is a biological error. I'll grant that the quote is accurate for the sake of this discussion. Repeatedly, the spin put on that quote is that she called people (gays and lesbians) biological errors – and that is not what the quote says. But notice she did say that homosexuality is inborn. Regardless, homofascists have treated her like Lou Sheldon or even Fred Phelps, despite her stating that homosexuality is not a choice. Despite the fact that she repeatedly takes calls from gays and lesbians and treats them with dignity and respect, she repeatedly tells others to be loving, friendly, and accepting towards gays and lesbians, and she repeatedly tells concerned callers that the gays and lesbians they know are not going to stop being gay and lesbian and their partners should be treated with respect and kindness. She has even said same-sex couples should avail themselves of the ability to get marriage licenses in the states that will issue them to brideless or groomless couples. But because she notes that children need a mom and a dad and that, because of that (and to avoid creating "extra" embryos destined to be killed), same-sex couples should not make babies through third party reproduction or adopt infants - she gets severely disparaged continually.
There are the extensive whiny webpages. And hardly a day goes by that someone doesn't blog a "letter to Dr. Laura" that was also adapted by lazy West Wing scribes in which she and the Bible are mocked over the issue of homosexual behavior. The letter emerged when Dr. Laura was practicing as an Orthodox Jew (she no longer identifies as Orthodox). There's an excellent response to that letter here, by the way. No matter – people will still keep putting it on their blogs and pretend like they really know what the Bible teaches, and what Dr, Laura said all those years ago.
You can read things I previously wrote about these matters here and here.
Read Dr. Laura's full recent statement yourself.
Meanwhile, the poof is in the pudding. You can read letters to Dr. Laura, listen to her callers, and read blogs from everyday people that reveal that her advice has led to happier and better behaved children, happier and better behaved spouses, and happier and more self-respecting people in general – including people who are gay or lesbian. There are gays and lesbians who benefit from her advice, and I can only hope that as a result, they see how some of the venomous haters and advocacy groups do not represent their best interests.
ding ding ding! By, George, I think you've got it! "Doctor" Laura is a hypocritical charlatan! :p
Wow . . You put absolutely no thought into your reply. No thought at all.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I've been wondering about that, too.
Wow . . You put absolutely no thought into your reply. No thought at all.
Post a Comment