August 19, 2005

Dumb Arguments

Via gay orbit, we come to this post at White Peril:

I'm not going to get involved in opining about Cindy Sheehan and what kind of person she is. I will, however, ask my fellow gay guys this: Is it really a good idea to be fawning over a mother whose authority in argument is implicitly predicated on the belief that she gets to own her son's memory and legacy now that he's dead? No matter what allegiances he publicly and consistently took while alive, as an independent adult? Even if what she supports is diametrically opposed to the way he lived? Do gay men really want to do that? Really seriously really? I'm thinking maybe it's not such a hot idea.

Which is just about the dumbest thing I think I’ve read on the Sheehan thing.

Before I dissect it, though, let me tell you where I stand on Sheehan. I think some of what she’s said is over the top, clearly. I also think she has every right to do what she’s doing, and I don’t think she is bringing ‘shame’ to her son’s memory. I think she’s angry that her son was killed for reasons she doesn’t agree with, and she’s taking a stand. Which, really, is what we’re supposed to be about as a nation.

So, yes, she gets to ‘own’ he son’s memory and legacy – because he was her son, and she loved him. The allusion here (I think, since the question is about whether gay guys should fawn over Cindy), is if you’re gay and you’re parents don’t agree, should they be able to use your memory (assuming you’ve died) to promote their anti-gay agenda? The comparison, though, is a false one. An anti-gay parent who uses the memory of a dead gay-child to promote their anti-gay agenda is (arguably) actively working to tear down their son’s memory. Sheehan isn’t doing that.

She hasn’t had anything bad to say about the military and, to my knowledge, hasn’t said she opposed Casey’s choice to be in the military. What she has said, is that she doesn’t understand what her son’s sacrifice is was for. I suppose you might argue that if Casey was staunchly pro-war-in Iraq (as opposed to pro-doing his duty as a member of the military), you might argue that his mother’s anti-war activities somehow go against his wishes, but even then, it’s not the same thing. Cindy is proud of her son, she misses him, and there’s no indication she wanted him any different than he was – that she didn’t support him.

Cindy has done nothing to sully her son’s life, nor has she uttered one word which condemns or questions the life Casey led. Instead, what she has said is ‘I don’t understand how my kid’s death was for any greater good’.

And, you can disagree. And maybe Casey did (there’s no evidence I’m aware of either way). but that doesn’t make them diametrically opposed, nor does it mean Cindy isn’t proud of who Casey was.

And, I think, any gay child could be happy with a parent like that.

Comments:
Posted by Henry at 09:56 AM || Link to me || Track this post (1) || Category:: Politics, Just Left on