When I discovered this book, with its subtitle "Rejecting the Gay Identity," I was anxious to read it. Despite the fact that I am not at all ashamed of being homosexual, I do hold that sexuality is incidental. Who men like to fuck is tantamount to which dressings men like to pour on their Cobb salads.

Jack Malebranche, in Androphilia, is right here along with me—at least thus far. He takes it further, however, arguing that "masculine" homosexual men need not be saddled with the "stigma of effeminacy" simply because they fuck dudes. Rather than call themselves "gay," these men should identify as "androphiles" (men who appreciate masculinity). Androphilia was much more academic than I expected, and even includes a short essay arguing against same-sex marriage. Malebranche lives in Portland, so I took the opportunity to clear up a few misunderstandings.

MERCURY: I understand your stance on effeminate gay men, but how exactly do homos perpetuate the idea that they are "deficient or inferior" to straight men?

MALEBRANCHE: When I say "deficient or inferior," it should be clear that I mean deficient or inferior in the context of manhood, which is what I'm discussing. Effeminacy, in the eyes of most men—and I think the opinions of men are more relevant here than the opinions of academic feminists or soccer moms—IS deficient masculinity. What interests me, though, is the way that homosexual men internalize the idea that their masculinity is deficient, and accept it.

Naturally, same-sex marriage is not for you. But do you support any ban on other same-sex couples from "marrying" or "civil-union"ing?

I am sympathetic to some sort of legal arrangement and I voted against Measure 36. That said, I am against same-sex marriage, using the word "marriage." Marriage is a social and cultural institution, not just a legal arrangement. I don't think it's appropriate for two men to "get married." There's too much historical baggage there.