Clay Aiken | I'm Gay | Magazines | News

Clay Aiken on Coming Out and Being Gay: 'It's in the Code'

People has released some of their interview with Clay Aiken on his decision to finally tell the world he's gay.

AikencoverSaid Aiken: "It was the first decision I made as a father. I cannot raise a child to lie or to hide things. I wasn't raised that way, and I'm not going to raise a child to do that...[I hope my fans ] know that I've never intended to lie to anybody at all. ... But if they leave, I don't want them to leave hating me."

On coming out to his family: "The born-again Christian singer also reveals how he told his mother Faye he's gay four years ago. After dropping off his younger brother Brett, who was being deployed to Iraq, at Camp Lejeune, 'I started crying in the car,' Aiken remembers. 'It was dark. I was sitting there, thinking to myself. I don't know why I started thinking about it ... I just started bawling. She made me pull over the car and it just came out.' So what was his mom's reaction? 'She started crying. She was obviously somewhat stunned. But she was very supportive and very comforting.' Even now, Aiken admits, 'She still struggles with things quite a bit, but she's come a long way.'"

Said Aiken of his child: "I have no idea if he'll be gay or straight. It's not something I'll have anything to do with, or that he'll have anything to do with. It's already probably up inside the code there ... No matter what the situation you're in, if you're raised in a loving environment, that's the most important thing."

The full issue will be released on Friday. AP's report on the news, AFTER THE JUMP...

Clay's Greatest Hits - Previously on Towleroad
Clay Aiken Cries from the Closet on QVC? [tr]
Clay Aiken: People Don't Care About My Sexuality [tr]
Clay Aiken Snaps at Another Reporter Over the "Gay" Question [tr]
Kansas Church: If Clay Aiken's Gay, He Can't Sing Here [tr]
Trouble in Claynation: Battle Over Aiken's Sexuality [tr]
Homophobia on Morning TV: Rosie vs. Kelly vs. Clay [tr]
Clay on Gay: People Will Believe What They Want [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. If he is doing immoral acts then he is not a real Christian. However if he is celibate and does not do immoral things then he is living his life as a real Christian. The Bible is claerly agianst male homosexuality. Read these Bible verses: Leviticus Chapter 20 verse 13 and Romans Chapter 1 verse 27.

    Posted by: Hanna | Sep 24, 2008 12:31:35 PM


  2. Andalusian Dog, you're a hero.

    Posted by: k | Sep 24, 2008 12:35:15 PM


  3. Hanna, judge not lest ye be judged. If your shortsighted assertion is to be believed, you are not a Christian either. Move along and find something better to do.

    Posted by: k | Sep 24, 2008 12:36:39 PM


  4. What? Really? Who cares?

    Posted by: Jeff | Sep 24, 2008 12:59:37 PM


  5. Andalusian: Thank you for taking the time to write all that. I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, your sincere thoughts are surely wasted on Jason, but not to worry.... no one cares.

    (On a side note, is it really possible this asshole Jason is a different Jason than the one I physically threatened yesterday on the Obama "6% needed" post? The one with the yahoo.com address? Can there really be two asshole Jasons on this one lil blog? Lord, help us.)

    On your point, Andalusian:
    The time really is now that we must move past the same old, tired arguments in this ongoing culture war, specifically on two fronts:
    First, it's time to end the conversation once and for all re: "Do you choose to be gay, or not?". Even an educated, researched hypothesis on this point, of which we've seen many attempts, is well past the limit of relevancy at this point. It simply does not matter how it came to be, it only matters how we react to it. In other words, even if tomorrow a huge contingency of glbt people got together and said "We're gay, and we DID choose to be!", that shouldn't have any negative impact on our fight for acceptance and equality. To our foes, the argument that we chose our sexuality is married to the idea that we have therefore made a bad choice, and that's what this fight is really about. Continuing to argue about how we came to be gay only makes room for anti-gay sentiment to fester, without addressing the real problem. A "chosen" sexuality is not our enemy. After all, we can all agree that we do choose whether to be honest about our sexuality, and that's far more important.

    Secondly, we must put an end to the infighting in our community in regard to the fight for our equality. If my point above is attainable, then we must be able to fight as a unified front, gay men and lesbians, bisexual men and women, and always with our transgendered brothers and sisters, as if there is simply no difference in our plights whatsoever. This is the only way to succeed, I am convinced. We can not allow bisexuality to be defined as "chosen" because we concentrate too hard on proving gayness as "unchosen". If we fight for gay and lesbian rights from the standpoint of "we're more normal than them", our fight is hollow, shallow, and meaningless.

    Thanks for reading.

    Posted by: JeffRob | Sep 24, 2008 1:15:46 PM


  6. K- Thank you, that's very kind.

    Hanna- I just wrote a message to you about what you can do to your Bible and to write me back and let me know how she handled. I'm dying to know. However, it was uncouth, rude, and crass, and I decided that I shouldn't stoop to the level of someone who would dare go on a gay blog and write the kind of hateful filth that you just spewed. So I erased it, in the spirit of turning the other cheek. But know that the next time you come in here quoting Scripture at us, I will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

    Posted by: Andalusian Dog | Sep 24, 2008 1:22:09 PM


  7. "If we fight for gay and lesbian rights from the standpoint of "we're more normal than them", our fight is hollow, shallow, and meaningless."

    And to hell with being "normal" in the first place!

    Posted by: MAJeff | Sep 24, 2008 1:25:32 PM


  8. Jeffrob- I have no clue who this or these Jason(s) is/are.

    I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. If this fight is about whether we made a "bad choice," then our foes can argue amongst themselves, as surely that is an argument based on opinion, rather than fact. You are right: whether we choose to be gay is off point. How honest we are about our relationships and our sexuality is precisely the issue. And that honesty, at least initially, necessarily has less to do with other people than with ourselves. That is, we need to continue to probe our own feelings and attitudes toward our sexuality before we can ever think to convey to others what it means, or how it is expressed, while at the same time continuing to fight vigorously and vociferously on the basic issue that sexual expression between two or more consenting adults should never be subject to the scrutiny, and thus to systems of power and judgment, imposed by those outside our relationships.

    Posted by: Andalusian Dog | Sep 24, 2008 1:38:41 PM


  9. well, i was not a fan before, but i am now. as cathy griffin would say: suit up! put the wings on!

    Posted by: David T | Sep 24, 2008 1:53:29 PM


  10. Kathy Griffin LOVES this guy. She always said she is a big fan and if he has a concert near you, GO!!!

    Posted by: Shane | Sep 24, 2008 2:36:52 PM


  11. thank you, chien andalou.

    Posted by: J | Sep 24, 2008 3:18:37 PM


  12. All quibbling aside, Clay deserves a "Hero" citation if his gay declaration prevents one confused teenager from committing suicide. His born-again community is not known for positive gay role models - to say the least - so this should be viewed as a positive step.

    BTW, whenever someone quotes Leviticus, I picture them mumbling ABOMINATION (Lev. 11) while they stuff a bacon double cheeseburger down their throats!

    Posted by: CANChuckle | Sep 24, 2008 6:02:55 PM


  13. Andalusian Dog - you're a bigot. You write "sexual expression between two or more consenting adults should never be subject to the scrutiny" but a formal religion has tenets. It is not whatever you want it to be. Verses have context too.

    Hanna wrote nothing out of bounds, nor hateful.

    And, FYI, the next verse after "Judge not..." says, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

    The passage is about hypocrisy and making sure if you call someone out on something, in this case calling Clay to be celibate, is not a problem within yourself.

    So unless Hanna is whoring it up with same-sex partners, she's perfect in tune with that passage you pulled out of context and tried to smear her with.

    Suck it up! You're just another hateful, anti-religion bigot in the gay community who is so uncertain of his own moral compass he must lash out against someone with another viewpoint.

    I fully agree with Hanna. Clay may have traded one "lie" for another. He may be OUT but is he really the Christian example he's proclaimed for the last 5 years?

    Four years he was privately sure enough he was gay to tell family but had denied it publicly, correct his earlier claim of straightness. No wonder some fans feel lied to. Like it or not, there is a trust relationship formed between fans and 'stars' like Aiken who cultivate it for their own career advancement. It's not all about the music.

    It's entirely right, appropriate and necessary for the fan (and Christian) community to ask itself these questions and decide for itself if Clay is a self-obsessed pretender or the role model he apparently cultivated for his image.

    Seriously, with his station in life, he could've adopted one or more needy and neglected children but he selfishly brings new life into the world.

    His son will be split between his two single parents, are not making a family arrangement together, are a generation apart.

    Although a fan during Idol, I've not be caught up in the cult of personality he's fostered. This guy is a MESS.

    His albums were increasingly dodgy and the x-factor appeal he had on Idol just wasn't there. The bizarre baby thing killed any residual interest in supporting this character that I may have had.

    Posted by: queendru | Sep 24, 2008 6:06:16 PM


  14. QueenDru, this may come as a surprise to you and you alone, but you're a little confused.

    "Bigotry" would require that Andalusian was targeting and degrading the entirety of Christendom, which obviously he was not.

    You can't be a bigot against a single belief. As long as there are Christians in this world who believe God loves his gay and lesbian children just as they are, calling out the anti-gay fervor so prevalent among those who claim Christianity will not be bigotry.

    In other words, I love Christians. I just hate anything that would make you not accept my homosexuality. Your choice.

    Hanna was, of course, targeting the entire gay community, on a popular gay blog, no less. Now there's a bigot.

    Posted by: JeffRob | Sep 24, 2008 6:59:31 PM


  15. Havent been here in awhile but I see the gay militia is on the attack again. You want a ban on here St. Teresa? How about banning stupidity from the likes of offensive leftists posing as status quo gay men. Also, ban stupid polls showing men are not bisexual while totally ignoring the work of Kinsey. The extreme left is an extreme minority no matter how many aliases you can come up with to post on Towelroad.

    Posted by: Vi Agara | Sep 24, 2008 11:59:57 PM


  16. Kinsey has been essentially debunked. His poling data was fraught with all sorts of errors and the dichotomous selection bias of his "scale" leads to the completely erroneous idea that you'd have a normal distribution making bisexual the preferred orientation (not to mention all things a dichotomous scale would leave out, such as autoeroticism and asexuality). In other words, Kinsey's results cannot be supported in science because his scheme was flawed from the get-go. What he gets credit for, though, was opening up new areas of research. His popularizing successors, such as Johnson and Masters, have not really done much better scientifically, but quieter, more mundane research over the years have been able to parse out some answers, such as the probable pre-birth origins of sexual orientation in males.

    Posted by: anon | Sep 25, 2008 2:15:04 AM


  17. If expecting and demanding full equality as glbt Americans in every regard makes me part of the "gay militia", then I say Vive la Resistance!

    Posted by: JeffRob | Sep 25, 2008 10:37:54 AM


  18. According to the Bible passage from Hanna: If Clay is not celibate then he is not living and going by what the Bible says then he is NOT a real Christian. I totally agree with her. If he is not celibate do what he wants but don't say he is a Christian because he isn't one . That is like Rev.Billy Graham committing adultery. If he did then he is not a Christian either. But I have never heard any scandal on Billy moral wise and probably never will beause he woudl not do immoral things.

    Posted by: Todd | Sep 25, 2008 1:39:10 PM


  19. Jeffrob- a gay militia actually sounds kind of enticing, no? Let's start one! And many thanks for the defense on the "bigotry" comment.

    As to that "bigotry" comment: QueenDru- I've been called worse, mostly by those speaking on behalf of Christ, incidentally. You should choose words with a bit more pith and imagination than "bigot." Then again, I would expect nothing less than a lack of pith and imagination from someone so keen on rehashing verbatim millennia-old words - tarnished by human thought, constricted by human language, and distorted through multiple stages of human translation, so that whatever original impulse gave rise to those words can hardly be recognizable - as a means of defense against any criticism of the beliefs that emerge from those twisted, tortured words.

    Does that make me a bigot? Is that an indictment of all of Christianity? In fact, I'd go one step further and say that is an indictment of anyone who fails to use the critical faculties of the human brain - perhaps the greatest of God's gifts to humankind, should we all be so lucky as to have a God who exists and cares about our pipsqueak daily lives.

    Lucifer was cast out for his pride according to many theological writings within the Judeo-Christian tradition. According to certain theologians in the Islamic tradition, he was cast out for his inability to reconcile the diverging commands of God - he just couldn't think outside the box. In the Qur'an, his last words to the Divine before being cast out were "Reprieve me till the Day of Judgement." God reprieved him, demonstrating his/her/its unyielding COMPASSION. There are lessons to be learned in all this. First of which should be that you don't want to get into theological debates with me, as I know a great deal more about these matters than you, and as I fear neither pride nor hell, nor, most importantly, God.

    Posted by: Andalusian Dog | Sep 25, 2008 1:47:31 PM


  20. Two further points:

    1) It is not Hanna's, nor anyone else's, responsibility to scrutinize what Clay Aiken, or I, or you, or anyone does with a consenting sexual partner or partners. So whether your those verses have context, I find it troubling that you or Hanna believe it is your duty to scrutinize this behavior. I'm sure an all-powerful God's scrutiny should be scrutiny enough. In essence, the stance that you apparently adhere to, namely that it is the duty of humans to police sexual behavior on God's behalf, is no different from the actions of the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia or the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan or the mullahs in Iran (all those terrible Muslims whom any red-blooded American should hate, lest she or he be less-than-patriotic, said ironically) who torture and execute those who are deemed to be sexual deviants, many of whom are the weakest in their societies and are not allowed to defend themselves: single young women, teenage boys, etc. Way to go, give yourself a pat on the back.

    2) If I were Hanna, I'd be completely offended by your comment. "Whoring it up in same-sex partners?" First of all, who cares whom Hanna decides to have sex with, once again, my main point. Though she has proven herself to be representative of everything mean and hateful about Christianity (a perfectly fine religion, as religions go), I at least would still not assume to care to take note of or otherwise scrutinize HER sexual behavior, which she has every right to conduct in any way she sees fit with other consenting adults. More troublingly, however, I find it telling that you would attribute that particular word -- "whoring," and thus "whore" -- to someone who posts with a feminine name. Turns out that sexism is a form of bigotry as well. Judge not, indeed.

    Posted by: Andalusian Dog | Sep 25, 2008 2:05:09 PM


  21. As A guy who loves girl on girl action.
    I never understand why so many people hate or deny bisexual men. I mean I really,really want to know why. Alot of this stuff towards bi men is the same thing that right wing chrisians does towards the gay community. Example: RW says that no one is gay, that it's a choice, well here people says their no true bisexual man.
    RW says that very few people are gay (1% or less),here people say that about bisexual men. Im a straight male,a christian,and go to afairly conserative church, and I don't even agree with homosexual lifestyle(yes, I know I find women on women action hot), Yet I don't hate or deny bisexual men.

    Oh,yeah their is a study that does prove men can be aroused to both sex. The Henry Adams study. Were 64 men, Both homophobic and non-homophobic were showned straight,gay,and lesbians porn.
    80 percent of homophobic show arousal to gay porn,and 34 percent of non-homophobic show arousal to gay porn,however all the men in study were also aroused to lesbian porn.
    Doesn't that prove men can be aroused to both sex.

    That michael Bailey study, 3 gay men were aroused to women. 1/3rd men had no arousal.
    and men who do have arousal in the study,
    all At least a modest bisexual arousal.

    Posted by: Brian | Sep 25, 2008 8:08:41 PM


  22. oh, yeah, I've seen study that proves that no one really is gay either, That it's a choice. We shouldn't show any gay people on tv,magazine,or movies. It offensive us good people. All people are Straight, there no such thing as a Gay person. People who choose to be gay are less then 1 percent.

    What Im typing is what right wing chrisians says about the gay community(and I didn't even get nasty). To show the similarity between people who hate or deny bisexual men and right wing christians.

    Posted by: Brian | Sep 25, 2008 8:20:37 PM


  23. I don't see how the 'is male bisexuality for real' or 'it's not chosen' arguments have any bearing on the right to choose a partner of any sex or gender. Are we only interested in the rights of gay males and not (the allegedly more-likely-to-exist-than-their-male-counterpart) bisexual females or lesbians who made the active choice to be lesbian?

    As a bisexual man dating a gay transman (who was female-born), I've had people use his current gender as evidence that I'm really gay and others use his biological sex as evidence that I'm really straight.

    Similar confusion has reigned (for them, not me) when I've dated bio females and bio males. They've switched their conclusion regarding my sexual orientation around so many times in the past fifteen years, they've got to be dizzy by now. Really, 'bisexual' is the simplest explanation. Why do people have such as hard time with it?


    Posted by: Dev | Sep 28, 2008 5:38:32 PM


  24. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Towleroad Guide to the Tube #359« «