Men should be defined by what they do, not who they screw.
In a landmark decision issued on 26 June 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the validity and legality of same-sex marriage in all American States with these poetic words from the ponencia (which reads almost like a love letter) of Justice Anthony Kennedy: “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” (Obergefell v. Hodges)
Quite expectedly, not everyone’s happy. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissenting opinion, characterized the Supreme Court decision as “a threat to American democracy” and a “judicial Putsch”.
Jack Malebranche will probably agree with Justice Scalia. He does not believe in same-sex marriage, just because it’s a gay thing.
Malebranche insists he’s not gay. He’s just a man, a regular guy if you will, who happens to love fucking another man. He’s not gay because, according to him, the word gay connotes effeminacy, weakness, incompleteness. And he maintains that there’s nothing effeminate weak incomplete about him. He’s masculine. All man. An androphile.
Malebranche does make valid observations. Such as this: “The idea that same-sex oriented men are not true men is perhaps the most deeply ingrained and most limiting prejudice they face.”
But his arguments suck, straddling naiveté and bigotry. Such as this: “If a man chooses the masculine path, his innate maleness is nurtured; he develops a masculine character. By choosing the gay path, he never fully develops into a man.”
Put simply, according to Malebranche: androphiles are superior, gays inferior.
Malebranche has all the right to classify himself as an androphile, if he and his ilk believe that’s what masculine men who screw masculine men should be called. But really there’s no need to put women and effeminates down to point out that masculine men are responsible self-reliant independent. Why make these values exclusive to masculine men? Effeminates and gays and women can be just as responsible self-reliant morally strong independent as masculines, or for that matter, as anybody else.
If Malebranche wants to fuck masculine men and keep his masculinity unchallenged, by all means he can go ahead. But he doesn’t have to be so self-righteous about it. His binary opposition between masculinity and effeminacy only makes his “Androphilia: A Manifesto” nothing more than a platform for a little girl who wants to whine a lot.