In Response to "what Are Homosexuals For?"

In Response to Andrew Sullivan’s What are Homosexuals For?

With the modern world’s hyper-sensitive awareness of race and gender and religion and sexual preferences and politics and, well, everything, making a few misplaced generalizations is inevitable. Although stereotyping can be false and misleading, it does not have the same implications that actively discriminating has.

“All stereotypes turn out to be true… All those things you fought against as a youth: you begin to realize they’re stereotypes because they’re true.” (David Cronenberg) In What are Homosexuals For?, Andrew Sullivan mentions that making generalizations about homosexuals is synonymous with being homophobic. Maybe today’s society is too sensitive to acknowledge the validity of most stereotypes, but the truth is that they all had to start somewhere—assumptions and generalizations cannot simply materialize out of thin air. It certainly is not true that all gay men love to go shopping, but that does not stop the Fab Five from solidifying the stereotype—and capitalizing on it, one straight bachelor at a time.

Even those who proclaim that they cross boundaries and break barriers and rise above the stereotypes can’t always escape them. Just yesterday, I was scrolling through the channels and ended up watching CNN. A segment on Barack Obama was playing. While a woman interviewed a harassed-looking hair salon owner about who she would vote for in the coming caucus, a clip of Obama played in the background. He smiled and waved and kissed babies, looking immaculate all the while. He is half black and running for president! He embraces all races and genders and will make the world a better place and knows exactly where you’re coming from, really, because he’s just like you. He even acknowledged his past drug use. "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man." (Washington Post) By rising above it, he showed