Gay galumphing

What a kerfuffle among the gays. And during Pride Month, at that.

It’s a face-off between two established gay “icons”, who have made themselves household names with success in their respective fields (and all the accoutrements that go along with such success, including landing an interview in a platform with millions of subscribers) and other gay counterparts, whose hackles slowly rose as the interview unfolded.

There was Renee Salud, legendary fashion designer, and Ricky Reyes, hairstylist and salon franchisor galore, being asked about their views on LGBTQ rights. Unfortunately, the results of that interview were a mixed bag, some practical, and others, quite incendiary.

The topic of gay marriage was an immediate landmine, with Reyes offering his view that marriage is only meant for men and women. There was an invocation of God, and a prohibition against interfering with “God’s work”. Then the interview touched on the SOGIE bill, with Reyes boasting he had somehow “stopped” the bill.

Obviously still peering through the lens of a gay man who grew up in a different era, Reyes then started throwing more firebombs. He gives this advice to gay men: that they should act like women. To feel like women. To be submissive. To not act like a “modern woman.” Which probably means they should act like old-fashioned women? Hard to define, if we were to try. Possible translation: like a dalagang Pilipina?

All these inelegant views set off fireworks, with human rights group Rainbow Rights immediately snapping back at the two. The immediate reaction was rejection --a rejection of their views, and while it was never explicitly spelled out, of their very relevance.

Indeed, what use would the opinions of these two be, when it seems their definition of homosexual relationships is one between a gay man and a straight man? Very telling was Reyes’ observation that a straight male partner would always leave the gay partner, since he would always fall for a woman along the way. Thus, he tells the gay partner to simply give up, and let go. No pulling at sleeves! That gay-straight pairing was perhaps the conventional set up for the ‘60’s or ‘70’s but, hello?

Given this pessimistic perspective where a man is expected to ultimately leave the gay partner, it was perhaps logical (but still unforgivable) for Reyes not to push for gay marriage. But how would his views square against the nature of relationships nowadays, where fluidity is prevalent, and entire countries recognize the desire of two individuals of the same birth-designated sex to commit to each other? How could he deny others their ability to fight for what they believe in?

The two preach at the young, admonishing them for seeking acceptance instead of being content with being tolerated. For the two, receiving tolerance should be enough, because regular folks shouldn’t be forced to accept you. The fact that gay people are tolerated is already a victory.

Even that perhaps practical stance drew a sharp response. Detractors challenge this mindset, and proclaim that acceptance is the way to go (indeed, many essays arguing that gay peeps should aim for more than tolerance abound in the web). Toleration is passive, while acceptance is active. Toleration means there is still rejection, except that that rejection is hidden.

Perhaps the jury is still out on which mindset is best. There have always been tensions in perspectives, and while the advocates of acceptance have a harder road ahead of them, tolerance might make the path easier.

Might there still be useful lessons to be gleaned from the disastrous interview? Are their views truly anachronistic, spoken from beginnings and circumstances which may have molded them, but are no longer of any utility?

As psychological markers to situate them in a continuum of evolution, perhaps. But with the rapid advances in social discourse, corresponding legal frameworks, and worldviews, it may be time to pat the two icons slowly on the hand as we bid them goodbye.