Rating: 
Summary: Dishonest
Review: His views are clear and well-written. But then does Andrew Sullivan have any credibility left? The advocate of the sanctity of gay marriage is known to have roam the Internet looking for unprotected sex with other HIV+ men; a journalist who accepts money from pharmaceutical companies to defend them for depriving medicine to millions of third-world AIDS sufferer; a deracinated Brit who uses MacCarthyite rhetoric to accuse left-wing writers of disloyalty to America. This is a disingenuous book written by a hypocrite.
Rating: 
Summary: Very poignant
Review: Homosexuality has been been getting a lot of publicity in the last few years - and even more so in recent weeks, with the election of a gay bishop to the Episcopal church, and the subsequent discussion of gay marriage. With so much talk nowadays, it is important to be informed.This book, better than any other, clearly and thoroughly outlines the four main arguments for and against homosexuality, and critiques their strengths and weaknesses in a prose style that is both highly personal and incredibly reasoned and intelligent. The Prohibitionists are the one school that is the most decidedly anti-homosexual - seeking to either punish or "cure" gays and lesibans. The Liberationists seek freedom from social labels and conventions, but, like the Prohibitionists, do not accept the concept of homosexuality as a valid state of being - there are no real homosexuals, only homosexual acts. Sullivan sees them as well meaning, but misguided. The Conservatives believe that homosexuals are entitled to a certain amount of privacy and respect, but homosexuality is still a sin. Homosexuals do exist... but they can't help it. They still disapprove of homosexuality, just not necessarily homosexuals. The Liberals also mean well, and struggle for the rights of homosexuals, but unfortunately blanket them in their larger agenda of "helping the little people", so to speak - well meaning, but sometimes a bit patronizing. Sullivan does more than criticize, however. He also finds merit in these viewpoints. However, his major argument is that these views either need to be overcome or modified if homosexuals are ever going to have an equally accepted place in society. He also offers ways to overcome these different biases. In the place of these four prevailing positions, he argues for a politics that guarantees the rights and equality of homosexuals - without imposing tolerance. This is an incredibly articulate and brilliantly written book for anyone wishing to know the real truth about a lot of the political and social ramifications concerning homosexuality today, written by a very intelligent man. It is a book for anyone who wishes to sound intelligent and well-informed when discussing this often heated and increasingly important issue.
Rating:
Summary: To the point!
Review: I honestly believe this book is worth reading. I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in learning more about homosexuality, who they are, what they are all about aswell. Before I read this book I was totally, perse..."Homophobic". However, this book has caused me to change my view points towards homosexuals. Its a must to those who are in-need of getting a "realistic slap in the face." "thou shall not judge", said God. So why not listen, and accept our brother/sisters for who they are and not on behalf of their sexual orientation. We all have virtues and failures in our life. And this "awakening" is defenitely a virute in mine (and can be yours aswell).
Rating:
Summary: A New View
Review: If there is one issue that divides modern American society, it is homosexuality. From fiery debates over gay Boy Scouts and gays in the military to protests at church conferences where the issue is being discussed, there is clearly no consensus on the issue other than the concession that gays exist. Everything else, however, is up in the air. In "Virtually Normal," Andrew Sullivan presents four different ways of approaching the issue, and surprisingly, agrees with none of them. The first viewpoint that he presents is labeled "prohibitionist," and these are people that religiously oppose homosexuality because of stringent adherence to both Scripture and tradition. The second viewpoint is called "liberationist," and while liberationists admit that gays exist, they view homosexuality as a form of otherness that is not natural in humanity. A third viewpoint is "conservative," in which people believe that the government should not legislate anything related to gays because it would be tantamount to an endorsement of a specific belief. The final viewpoint is known as "liberal," and while Sullivan agrees with liberals in the sense that they promote gay marriage and equal rights, he does not agree with the protectionist status that liberals assign in antidiscrimination and hate crime legislation. Therefore, Sullivan is left to define his own viewpoint, and he does so masterfully. Citing references to the civil rights movement, Sullivan calls on gays and lesbians to take a stand and courageously campaign for equality without expecting protection or applause in return for doing so. He says that antidiscrimination laws and hate crime legislation create a victim status for gays that undermines the goal of being recognized as equals. He also argues that the only way to comfort questioning and troubled youth is to legalize gay marriage -- not only will it encourage monogamy and provide long-awaited equal rights, but it will also teach gay youngsters that they have a right to love and be loved by another human being. This lesson, claims Sullivan, is essential in improving the self-esteem and self-image of those that grow up attracted to the same sex because it creates a theoretical role model for guidance and encouragement. Personally, I heartily agree with Sullivan's viewpoint and I recommend "Virtually Normal" to anyone that is affected by gay and lesbian issues. It is clear that Sullivan has written a convincing argument that deserves to be heard on all sides of this vast, emotionally-charged national debate.
Rating: 
Summary: Stimulating and enjoyable, but don't forget the salt
Review: In this book, Sullivan divides and defines the political views on homosexuality into 4 views - the prohibitionists, the liberationists, the conservatives, and the liberals (the other reviewers have adequately summarized the 4 views, so I shall not add my own). He goes on to posit his view that all public (as opposed to private) discrimination against homosexuals be ended, particularly in the areas of marriage and the military.
Sullivan mercilessly dissects the 4 different views one by one, pointing out their flaws and weaknesses and internal inconsistensies, and why they are all essentially untenable. I found his essay on the liberationists (if they would allow you to label them so) is particularly poignant and even brilliant. He also has good discussions and arguments on the other views, but due to the sheer amount of arguments (and arguments based upon previous arguments), some flawed arguments have slipped in, rendering his conclusions not as convincing as it would seem to an uncritical reader.
I feel that the book would have been a great one despite the weaknesses pointed out above, if not for the completely dismal treament on the prohibitionists, which I am about to highlight.
Sullivan rightly notes that the prohibitionists are difficult to engage as they generally base their prohibitionistic views on the authority of the Bible. He goes on to show why the Bible does not really condemn homosexuality as much as it seems to.
For instance, in p.27 where he deals with the biblical passage in Leviticus 18, claiming that the "abomination" in v.22 is more clearly translated as "ritual impurity". This interpretation is from John Boswell, who is hardly recognized as an honest scholar, and happens to be gay (and Sullivan fails to mention that fact). Anyone familiar with the biblical languages or the passage in question will find this interpretation impossible.
Sullivan (from Boswell) goes on to claim that the context in Leviticus shows that there are "identical provisions against eating pork or engaging in sexual intercourse during menstruation." I looked up the passage(s) in question, and found that Sullivan forgot to mention that the immediate context is actually a command against offering one's children to Molech (in Lev. 18), and incest (Lev. 20), and bestiality (Lev. 18 & 20). Look it up for yourself.
This is not just intellectually biased. This is dishonest.
But he's not done -- there's still Romans 1 to deal with:
"26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
The book claims that the passage is not dealing with homosexuality per se, but heterosexuals who engage in homosexual behavior, against their own nature. Meaning that those who are "naturally" or born homosexuals are not condemned in this passage!
Simply ingenious, but completely warped. Are we to believe that Paul and his readers didn't know about the clear Levitical injunctions against homosexual acts? Any honest and unbiased reader without an agenda to justify homosexuality can never come to this interpretation.
Sullivan has good intentions in engaging the prohibitionist in argument, but doing so by misinterpreting their source of authority (the Bible) is poor argumentation and wishful thinking, and completely misses the point. Very disappointing.
Sullivan should have dealt with the real issue behind the prohibitionist ideal -- there is a fixed moral law set by God, and the Bible is God's revelation to man. Sullivan has failed to grasp this point, and thus completely misunderstands and misrepresents the core prohibitionist deal.
In as sense I am glad I did not give up on Virtually Normal after the dismal chapter on the prohibitionists (and rating it only 1 star), as the rest of the book was much better - thought-provoking and rather enjoyable (thus I give it a couple more stars).
My recommendation - read and enjoy the book by all means, but don't forget your pinch of salt.
Rating:
Summary: Great analysis
Review: Lucid and analytical, well written, a pleasure to
read.
Rating:
Summary: Top Notch
Review: This book is GREAT: thorough, objective, insightful, disciplined, and obviously passionately written. Sullivan is one writer who's head is set squarely on his shoulders--which is quite a welcome and refreshing find. His thinking is clear and logical and his points are well made. This is NOT another pseudo-intellectual, flakly book by someone aspiring to be the spokesperson, analyst and definer for all things gay. This is the real, good, solid thought. Good job Andrew.
Rating:
Summary: Just Read
Review: This book was very well written. It would have been nice if Sullivan could have addressed some more issues as well, but the ones he covered were broad enough to get the point across. I wish we could live in a world where all people could live together without prejudice (race, orientation, creed/religion, etc.). I wish him luck on his view. I am a Unitarian Universalist (or at least becoming one) as a result of this book. I don't believe religion has the right to say on one hand "everyone is equal" and on another "but if you don't believe this, then you'll die" (ie- go to hell). Thanks for the book. Later
|
