Colin McEnroe’s Strange Tastes
February 18th, 2010 by Peter
It was a staple of Colin McEnroe’s former radio program. Whenever my predecessor, Brian Brown, was mentioned, Colin would say he wanted to marry him. I had forgotten his old joke until I came across this totally-bizarre-coming-out-of-nowhere-swipe at FIC in a Sunday Courant column by Colin on a topic totally unrelated to us:
the Yankee Public Policy Institute — which is like the Family Institute of Connecticut but without all the gay sex —
The first thing I noticed was not those last two words. It’s that Colin thought he had to reference FIC just to explain to his readers who the Yankee Institute is. That’s no reflection on Yankee, though it may be on Colin.
But about those last two words. As Catholic blogger Mark Shea frequently notes, gay sex is treated by our opponents as “the source and summit of all that is noble, true, good, and beautiful.” So in Colin’s world, that would actually make FIC a good thing. Perhaps he meant it as a compliment.
Along those lines, Colin’s comment brought another old memory to mind. In the course of an interview with then-Governor Rowland, Colin made a reference to his girlfriend. “You mean Bill Curry?” the governor deadpanned.
I think I have done quite well at not commenting on this blog for a long time now but some things cannot be ignored. The statement by Mark Shea is one of the most ridiculous things I have read from any of you and is on top of that an outrageous lie. Certainly there is a segment of the gay communities for whom sex is the main focus of life. But that does not define the rest of us except in the minds of pseudo-family types. It is your obsession with sex that taints your every word used against us. Perhaps if you had the ability to view us as complete human beings not walking genitals the whole discussion would be different. But without demonizing us you have no case. Actually, I think FIC is less guilty of that than most anti-gay organizations so McEnroe’s statement really doesn’t fit and I’m not defending his words. As I’ve said many times, until you can use the truth to fight against us not lies, exagerrations and insane assumptions you have nothing intelligent to say. Can you grow up beyond juvenile playground insults? If you were truly “pro-family” you would clean up your act and focus on the true threats that exist.
I think it sort of depends on what your interpretation of “opponents” is — to me this conjures up not the actual contingent of gay people, but the straight, almost poseur defenders who seem to me more numerous and, interestingly enough, can be the more vitriolic (if they think they have your best interest at heart, by the way, they are sadly mistaken). If the actual statement was an exaggeration, the point remains that it’s ironic that McEnroe or anyone lobs that sort of remark when one could add, Seinfeld-style, “…not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
I’m sorry, but sex is the crux the issue. Without it, your couples would be platonic friends or a kind of brotherhood/sisterhood with none of the same moral implications and there would be nothing to discuss. So I’m afraid you’ll have to get used to it.
And David, you show your own disingenuous hand when you say “true threats.” In your mind it may not be a threat. If there can be any such thing as objectivity, though, you have to admit it’s not going to come from somebody who seems to have a vested interest. Exactly what argument *are* you going to be persuaded by? To paraphrase some ancient wisdom, if you won’t listen now, would you even listen if someone rose from the dead?
Respectfully,
N