The problem with books "on the current state of gay affairs" is the range of issues they deal with.
This, I think, is exactly the key to the puzzle...the range of issues involved. Whether we are talking about Denneny's Propositions, isolation, and internalized homophobia ... or whether we are talking about "ghost wounds" from an entirely fresh perspective, we are talking about something that spreads and infiltrates just about every aspect of life. There is a peculiar error current among the assimilationists -- they are of the view that their sexuality is just one rather trivial aspect of a much larger whole. They think that who they wish to have sex with is irrelevant to the remainder of their existences. While I am not near clever enough to point to their exact mistake, they are nonetheless still grievously in error.
The problem with every book on the state of gay affairs is that they all get around to re-phrasing Denneny's Propositions 6 and 7. Stated as succinctly as possible: we are born into a straight world and raised to be straight; we are not straight, and among the first lessons we learn is how different we are. Taken together, those two phenomena eventually touch upon everything. Certainly I would be open to the suggestion that these two propositions are the roots of every substantial difference between gay and straight culture. I would even be willing say that it is why all faces will turn to recognize me the instant I cross the threshold of a gay bar, no matter where in the world I might travel to patronize such a bar. I do not see Propositions 6 and 7 as simple matters of opinion -- they are facts. Naturally if a person wishes to assimilate more or less fully into straight culture he is going to have to hunt down and deal with every single "ghost wound" he has received as a consequence of Proposition 7. He needs to make no other special efforts at all to assimilate -- after all, he has already been raised by straight people to be straight. He has had all the lessons anyone ever gets. His only efforts are to be directed at himself, at his own identity. He must stop being "different" and abandon every consequence of that difference.
Of course, Denneny has also written a Proposition 11:
Our political enemies are
of two kinds:
those who want us not to exist
and those who want us not to appear.
It is, however, quite rare that an assimilationist explicitely uses the word "assimilation" -- mostly they talk of "integration" instead. It would be interesting to know WHAT EXACTLY he has in mind while suggesting we need to be assimilated, and whether he does not actually confuse assimilation with integration.
Assimilation means one gives up one's differences and becomes "like everybody else" in an extent which makes for any independent obeserver to discover differences to the mainstream.
The distinction is, of course, quite important. There are also shades of completion involved in both processes. The perfect assimilation is, of course, the mythical 'cure' for what they now like to call "same-sex-attraction." I cannot speak with certainty for what Mr. Silver wants -- I haven't read his book. Of course, it is a simple matter to e-mail him. I understand he welcomes civil dialog on this issue. Were I to guess, however, I would have to say that he views the interplay of Proposition 6 and Proposition 7 as resulting in mental illness (or, if that is too strong a term, then "dysfunction"). Raised by straight people in a straight culture, he wants to live in it, to participate in the culture of his fathers. He wants his orientation to be irrelevant. I think you would term him an "assimilationist" rather than an "integrationist." Of course, it is impossible to assimilate fully without completely destroying yourself, but you can dance along the edge of a precipice without throwing yourself into the abyss -- it just requires constant care.
I cannot much blame him for this view. After all, he was raised to have it. He was raised to want all the things that he wants and to value all the things that he values. Back in the 70s Harvey Milk proposed that we must all come out of the closet. "Come out, come out, wherever you are" was the slogan. Some did; most chose to remain visible. Through the 80s and 90s the process accelerated and more and more people came out, though many still chose quiet lives in the closet. Today I am told that the majority of gay people are out. Indeed, I am told that on average they are coming out at 13 these days -- avoiding nearly every month of the years spent in hiding by their predecessors. While in the 70s gay activism was hampered by the number of people living in the closet, today gay activism is hampered by the number of out gays who are assimilationists. They have abandoned only their secretive habits and otherwise wish for nothing more than to have ordinary lives in the manner in which they were raised. Gay activism survived the closet cases of the 70s and it will survive the assimilationists of today.
One could, I suppose, spend endless hours in debate with varying shades of assimilationists in an attempt to correct their errors. I am not at all sure if what would be gained by the attempt is worth the effort. I am more interested in the problem posed by all these out teens. However shall straight families manage to raise out teenagers? The news would have me believe that 1 in 5 straight families don't even try. How well shall we presume the remaining 80% are doing? Gay politics, gay culture, and gay individuals need to act positively in this matter. We have a culture, a society. It partly arose spontaneously from our natures and our environment, and partly was a deliberate creation to serve our wants and needs.
In the 70s and 80s a number of gay authors advised us to look to our social interactions, our "families." It seems to some extent we have done so ... after all, our "social networks" are about the only aspect of gay culture that some of us are willing to admit exists.
Well then.
We have our trademarked Pride Parades, our night clubs and gay bars, the Gay Games and Outgames and the occasional gay sporting club, some really very nice erotic paintings, and a blizzard of excellent fiction.
Let us see how well gay culture manages to raise a generation of teenagers.
We have said for decades "come out, come out, wherever you are" and they have done so. What they've come out into is partly of our making and our responsibility. Now and in the future it is no longer enough to squabble over what the word 'gay' means or to point various fingers at who is working against us. In all seriousness, we know exactly what the word 'gay' means -- we breathe it. The word describes our existence and we create it's definition by being. Who is working against us? Better to ask "who is working for us?" and the answer had better be "WE ARE."
I am not at all used to the idea of gay teenagers. I'm certainly not used to the idea of gay 13-year olds. I am used to them suffering in silence and dying by the dozen before they eventually arrive in the gay world as adults. It seems the kids no longer intend to do so. It will not do to demand (as we so often do) that the straight people do something about this problem. Whatever could they possibly know about gay teens? For that matter, what have they ever known about gay adults? The only people with the power to create a social institution within gay culture is the gay people. They will not necessarily do so through organizations with cute acronyms for names. Gay culture springs from the real-life actions of a thousand ten-thousands of gay individuals, out of who we are.