I actually really liked Waylon’s intro. I thought it was clever to boil it down to a simple matter of personal preference on where wee-wees can go, which is a) pretty funny and b) pretty accurate. It was more his middle, where he went through a gauntlet of biblical, historical and zoological justifications for homosexuality. I guess I find these arguments to be tiresome because they are all inconsistent for many of the same reasons anti-gay rights arguments are inconsistent. Perhaps I’m being idealistic, but I feel these arguments are premised on responding to anti-gay rights arguments, not on their capacity to make their own argument for gay rights. When he gets back down to going on the offensive, that little “click your heels” section, his point is strongest. Because it really is that simple. Overall, I read this as an editorial written by someone who knows he doesn’t need to think about this, and knows it doesn’t affect him specifically, but has figured out a simple way of thinking about it that shows just how wrong it is to be against gay rights, which is probably what most straight people need to hear. This editorial isn’t meant for us, it’s directed specifically at those who blissfully ignore the issue. Also, go Brad Pitt. Arguably my favorite quote on that page. It’s the most individualized form of activism possible. I look forward to future issues, in both senses of the word. Best, Joshua Ehrenreich > Amen, Josh.

>

I wasn’t writing for folks who already agree with me. That’s the rhetorical equivalent of patting oneself on the back, oh, how enlightened we are! I was writing it for idiots like myself who are homophobic physically but unlike myself conflate that visceral, personal homophobia with social and political spheres. If I don’t fancy the taste of tomatoes I don’t have to eat them, let alone make them illegal for others. ~ed.