Columns

QueerTheory

At Commonweal, John explains how a little queer theory (misunderstood and misapplied) can be a dangerous thing:

What social conservatives want is nothing less than to dismantle the very vocabulary by which we express and realize our inchoate longings for intimacy. They want to push us back to a time when homosexuality was not merely the “love that dare not speak its name,” but the love that could not speak it. They want to restore a regime where the boy with the funny feeling might—if he’s lucky—grow up to have a good-enough heterosexual marriage, but he might just as easily grow up to have a lonely life of furtive, dangerous same-sex encounters.

Read the full article here. Also check out Hannon’s reply and John’s rejoinder.

Read more

Corvino meme

In a New York Times “Room for Debate” discussion on plural marriage, John rebuts the slippery slope:

Polygamy raises a number of public-policy concerns that same-sex marriage does not. That said, the gay-rights movement has bolstered the polygamist-rights movement in one key way: by insisting that finding a practice weird or icky or religiously anathema is not sufficient reason to make it illegal.

Read his full post, and watch the accompanying video, here.

Read more

 

At the New York Times “Room for Debate,” John argues that gay rights and transgender rights are related but distinct:

Each group has distinctive needs and challenges. By jumbling them all together into one alphabet soup — L.G.B.T.Q.I.T.S.L.F.A.A., anyone? — we run the risk of covering or erasing people’s experiences, especially those who are already most marginalized.

Read the full article here. And check out this video, which explains some of the distinctions:

 

Read more

TPM

In a recent issue of The Philosophers’ Magazine, John dismantles the “Definitional Objection” to same-sex marriage offered by Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, among others. From the article:

How did we end up in such a spot? Part of the problem is that ‘comprehensive union’ is a rather vague and slippery notion: suitable for greeting-card poetry, perhaps, but not the sort of thing on which to build a marriage theory.

Read the full piece here.

Read more

My take on lessons from Paula Deen and DOMA, at HuffPost:

Just as you don’t have to be throwing around the “n-word” to exhibit racism, you don’t have to be calling gays “faggots” in order to signal that they, and their love, and their families, are less worthy than others.

Read the full column here.

Read more

Why are some people so quick to latch on to bold claims about the biological origins of homosexuality? I think it’s because they believe that we need to show that we’re born gay in order to establish that our sexuality is a deep, important and relatively fixed part of who we are. But that’s simply not true.

Read the full column at HuffPost.

Read more