Judging by what I’ve read here (and pretty much only what I’ve read here,) I’m really torn.

Like PB, I’m uncrazy about taking a “you’re with us or you’re against us” attitude toward political issues. Like RevSPark, I’m uncrazy about giving a podium to man who basically makes his living talking about sexuality yet is kind of intolerant of sexualities we make an effort to treat decently since few others will.

I want to say “If there were a cool, popular columnist who just happened to take a snotty and dismissive view toward, say, Native Americans, there’s no way in hell we’d want him speaking at GA.”

But at the same time, if the columnist was snotty and dismissive toward Christianity, we might well be OK with it.

I guess in the end it comes down to what groups of people it is OK to speak badly about.

CC

Let me see if I can explain why I bothered to comment at all. I think it was the juxtaposition of the “I bought him a drink” with the previous post that expressed indignation at a satirical piece in The Onion. It seemed inconsistent.

As far as the immaturity of those who “turned” on Dan Savage after his GA presentation, I think that’s an ad hominem attack that’s beneath all of us. Some of us objected to his presence from the time it was announced because we didn’t think it appropriate for the office that acts as our advocate to invite someone who had consistently dismissed the concerns of bisexual and transgender people.

I don’t care how “hip” “cool” or whatever it made us seem, having the OBGLTC sponsor, support, and introduce him was incredibly insulting to those of us who are trying to live in a society that is trans and biphobic enough already.
The OBGLTC knew what to expect and invited him anyway.

I didn’t hear him at GA, but he doesn’t seem especially mature and I can imagine a religious gathering tempting him to show off how shocking he can be.

Shrug.

CC

And therein lies the difference! I didn’t listen to him expecting a pastoral response.

His column is “Savage Love” and can be found online at The Stranger (www.thestranger.com) and other places. Read it for yourself.

The fact is, he holds opinions some people don’t care for and other people do. It happens in all enterprises. He pisses people off. He makes some people laugh. And I’m not going to fall into the trap of simplifying him as solely good or solely bad. I don’t care for some of his opinions. In general, people seem to love him or hate him–but I prefer to take a more nuanced view.

I believe I recall Dan Savage making identity-denying comments about Bisexual and Transgender people.

His argument, if I recall, is that nobody is actually Transgender inherently. He says that it is a decision somebody makes in response to the limited range of acceptability that society imposes on gender expression/identity.

It is an argument that is patronizing and simplistic.

This had to be one of the all-time surreal GA moments. It was an amazing combination of embarrassing, awkward, pitiful, and absurd, all tied up with a kind of celebrity-worship that probably doesn’t reflect all that well on us as people of faith.

I’d gladly pay money to go hear Dan Savage entertain. Not so much at a religious gathering.

If you’re talking about The Onion, I look at it every few months, usually when someone sends me a link. I’ve never seen them do anything at all about bisexual or transgendered people. And the paper that Savage works for — whose name I’ve forgotten — I’ve never seen before, or heard of before yesterday. Is it discriminatory? Is it an on-line thing or an actual paper publication?

I hope you’ll contribute another comment letting us know.