Comments on: Who gives a damn if Sufjan Stevens is gay? part 3

By: The Believer

The Believer — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:24:37 +0000

Thank you all for your ridiculous argument, I enjoyed reading this so much.

By: brainiac-dumdum

brainiac-dumdum — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:10:35 +0000

I think For the Widows in Paradise is about the Iraq war

By: bp

bp — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:05:08 +0000

and let’s not forget that having ‘secrets’ doesn’t necessarily mean he’s closeted–therefore, his self-comparison with j.w. gacy probably doesn’t literally mean ‘i’m a homocidal maniac’ (though i guess only time will tell…).

so, my answer to the recurring ‘who gives a damn…’ has nothing to do with to be gay or not to be, but rather: wtfuck happened to songs being treated as art? and i’m not even being post-mod relativistic here…just saying that someone with a fiction degree from the New School (Sufjan), may or may not be referring to himself every time he says the word ‘I.’ if i’m wrong about this, then i suppose he is gay…but also, that KISS still wants to rock and roll all night and that Ian Brown is indeed the Resurrection.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:34:00 +0000

wow what an incredible misinterpretation of so many lyrics

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:20:14 +0000

the song casimir pulaski day raelly can’t be used for evidence for either side of the argument as the gender of the person who he’s singing about is still at question. glad im not the only one who’s asked this question before.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:32:14 +0000

For the Widows in Paradise is sung from the point of view of Jesus. And as for Man of Metropolis, Sufjan isn’t the one singing those lines. As for the ghost of Carl Sandburg approaching his window, that is in no way gay. Carl Sandburg was a poet, not a gay stripper or anything like that.
In Holland, Sufjan wouldn’t have been in boarding school during the summertime, so way to think that through.
In Oh God Where Are You Now?, that’s not gay, it’s spiritual.

As for the rest of your “incriminating” lyrics, there’s no homosexual context behind them. You’re just an idiot.

By: Chelsea

Chelsea — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:26:21 +0000

Though I do agree that Sufjan is most likely gay, I don’t agree with a lot of the lyrics you pulled out as references to homosexuality. A lot of them have a much deeper meaning, and I’ve personally interpreted them much differently.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:23:22 +0000

Sufjan went to Hope College in Holland, MI…hardly a boarding school. Also, there is no mention of the song “Casimir Pulaski Day in which he describes his interaction with a girlfriend, who ends up dying. I do not think he is gay and if he is oh well.

By: Clara Engel

Clara Engel — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:38:46 +0000

It’s a known fact Sufjan is a practising Chrisitan, which probably makes it unlikely that he is gay.

ARE YOU KIDDING!?!? Aside from the fact that the Catholic church is run by a lot of men in dresses who like fondling boys, there are a lot of gay Christians in the world AND if you know anything about songwriting,poetry, etc etc he is using metaphor, symbolism, double meanings, etc — why can’t he love Christ AND love a man at the same time? it’s all there. harder to find evidence of his heterosexuality in his songs i bet. he’s too cute to be straight anyway. hello, cheerleading outfits on stage? he’s about as straight as morrissey.

By: Steven

Steven — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 06:19:18 +0000

Folks, Sufjan does indeed love a ‘man’ — and it’s pretty clear that man is Jesus Christ. Almost all his supposedly ‘homoerotic’ references are to Jesus. It’s a known fact Sufjan is a practising Chrisitan, which probably makes it unlikely that he is gay. Not that it matters either way. The man is a remarkable musician and human being. Full stop.