"Well no matter what as long as you are happy then I am happy..." this is actually a part of a conversation that I have with my best friend a while ago when I asked her what she think about me living a life of being truthful to myself, of understanding and accepting my sexuality. Her response to that resonates very much with the book that we are reading "The Promise of Happiness"
From what she said, I sort of have the duty for being happy cause I am given the responsibility for her happiness. That my cause of happiness will make her happy. But that conversation makes me feels that she is not happy for who I am but because of my happiness. That she does not share my cause of happiness and she just want the result of my happiness. Somehow saying that "I just want you to be happy". But I want her to be happy for me because of who I am and this not happy with the fact that she is not happy with the reason that I want her to be happy. And this I am not happy. But she is happy as I wanted to protect her happiness, as I was given the responsibility for her happiness. So I have to agree with her cause of happiness and still pursue my cause of happiness by acknowledging that she does not shared my cause of happiness.
I guess this very much show what is written by Sara Ahmed that "Happiness is not just how subjects speaks of their own desire and duty but also what they want to give and receive from others."
Furthermore I also try to see this from her point of view. I am thinking that she wanted to be happy for me cause I am going to be happy if she is happy. But at the same time she might not understand my cause of happiness, that is to live a queer life. To not fit into her script of happiness, thus she choose to seek for the similarity or the shared object of happiness. The similarity of the hetero-happy-script and the homo-happy-script. Or maybe to take the easy way out of achieving happiness, that is to ignore the object of happiness for each party and just to focus on the result of happiness.
I like what movieofmyself mentioned in the class as well about gay people having a family and children. I personally think that the constitution of family is somehow the symbol of happiness, the ultimate object of happiness, the result of love which also leads to happiness. But a family which is just a couple does not lead to happiness, it needs to build upon the object of happiness, which is the kids, the money, the house, all the privileges that assist life, that one is supposed to bring in to a family to have a happy family. But being a homosexual couple means that it is a non-reproductive family, because of this it makes up unhappy queer because reproductive nature is a heterosexual privilege. So by adopting kids somehow serve as a loop hole of giving them the privilege of obtaining happiness.
I would also like to bring in something that is mentioned by Ahmed, "There is no doubt that it is hard to separate images of the good life from the historic privileging of heterosexual conduct, as expressed in romantic love and coupledom, as well as in the idealization of domestic privacy."