W. Kiernan wrote:
> > ...His big crime is that he thinks that monogamy is an individual and
>> social good, for homosexual as well as heterosexual.
>
>Caveat emptor, turns out he doesn't actually _think_ that, he just says
>it.
+Or, it's good for the masses, but not for him. Typical elitist social
+management through morality crap.
Again, where did he even say that, or even that he wasn't looking for monogamy? You've got to find someone before you can settle down with the white picket fence.
It's this kind of attempts at mind reading based on scraps of personal life information that makes this whole argument-by-scandal so intellectually bankrupt. I posted the long article by Sullivan on the issue and his actions. Instead of playing this mind-reading game, how about quoting any text or any real piece of evidence for assuming anything other than Sullivan was lonely and looking to meet someone. Are we now going to stake out gay bars and designate them by their particular attraction to the "wrong" kind of gays, thus condemning patrons by association - which is what Kelley seemed to do by arguing Sullivan was wrong in his choice of bulletin boards to post to.
Unless people have some kind of proof otherwise, the basic story is that Sullivan was lonely/horny, posted a couple of messages in bulletin boards where he might get in contact with fellow HIV+ gays for sex and maybe more down the line.
Where is the scandal and where has Sullivan ever condemned trying to meet other people? The only angle on it is the pure prurience of looking for "barebacked sex" - an exoticism of the fact that guys, gay and straight, often prefer sex without condoms when they can get away with it. Or when it no longer matters much, as the case may be with HIV+ folks.
And as a few folks have pointed out, pointing out the "hypocrisy" probably does more to reinforce the moralism that folks say Sullivan is guilty of.
-- Nathan Newman