Infighting: Gay Marriage
Two progressives debate marriage’s importance for the LGBT community.
By Kat Lewis and Rob Anderson
September 18-21, 2006
Day 4: Marriage Rights are Equal Rights
By Rob Anderson
September 21, 2006
Kat,
We can debate our interpretations of LGBT history, but those interpretations must be reality-based if we hope to get anywhere. Yours, unfortunately, are not.
Your claim that the post-Stonewall gay liberation movement "is generally considered to be the birth of contemporary LGBT politics" is incorrect, and you don’t have to be a polo-shirt wearing, collar-popping gay conservative to believe this. In her important introduction to queer theory, author Annamarie Jagose calls the Stonewall riots a "mythological date for the origin of the gay liberation movement" (emphasis mine). And she’s right: While pre-1969 LGBT activism was certainly more limited than post-1969 activism, the earlier movement laid the groundwork for the today’s LGBT activism. To be sure, Stonewall was an important catalyst, but it was not, as you contend, the beginning of contemporary LGBT politics.
By ignoring the pre-Stonewall LGBT movement, you run into a bit of factual trouble. You state that it "wasn’t until the second half of the 1970s, as larger gay organizations such as New York’s Gay Activists Alliance became more conservative, and their leadership increasingly white, male, and middle class, that ‘equal rights’ became part of the language of LGBT activism." If the language of equal rights only became part of LGBT activism during the mid-70s, how do you explain these pictures taken four years before Stonewall at a 1965 LGBT picket of the White House? (How many times can you find the word "equal"? I count four.) In reality, the language of equal rights was not implanted upon the LGBT movement by a careless class of rich, white men during the 1970s—it had been there all along, and is the foundation upon which the movement was built.
The same goes for same-sex marriage. While you argue that the fight for marriage equality developed separately from the radical years of gay liberation, the facts tell a different story: The push for same-sex marriage in the United States began nine months after Stonewall, on May 18, 1970, when Michael McConnell and Jack Baker were denied a marriage license in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Over the following 36 years, the importance of the battle for same-sex marriage has waxed and waned. But the fight has been a long one—and it’s one we are winning. Sure, we face the occasional setback, but as tolerance for homosexuality continues to increase and the idea of same-sex marriage becomes less extreme, the chance of same-sex marriage being legalized in our lifetime greatly increases.
These historical points are not just petty nitpicks. Understanding how the LGBT movement was built should help us understand why what we fight for today is important. If we lack this understanding, it is easy to claim boldly that the time has come to move "beyond marriage." But sometimes wisdom and persistence are more useful than dreams of revolution.
This is what I see as the main difference between your stance and mine, Kat: You believe that only one vision of the LGBT movement, yours, is the correct one. If it’s not radical, it’s not good enough. You claim to have no interest in telling "someone else how they can structure their family." But by arguing that those who wish to marry (or, as you call it, "ape heteronormative society") must stop their fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage, you are telling people how to live their lives. If you truly believe LGBT Americans should have the right to marry if they so choose, why waste your time attacking the individuals fighting for this right?
I believe the strength of the LGBT community comes from our diversity, and that we stand to gain the most from supporting each other’s fights. I also believe LGBT Americans can advance only if we, and our allies, work to create change from inside and outside "the system." We have the talent, resources, and will to fight—and win—many simultaneous battles. As I explained in my opening salvo of our debate, the fight for same-sex marriage is worthwhile and important, but I happily admit that there are many other battles worth fighting.
My position boils down to this: I believe you should have the ability to lead your life as you choose, with whomever you choose. And I will fight for your right to do so. But, in return, I expect you to fight for mine.
Day 3: Radical Love – LGBT Activist History Goes Beyond Marriage
By Kat Lewis
September 20, 2006
Rob, I am totally happy to debate LGBT activist history with you. In fact, I would belabor the point, mainly because I think it’s critically important that folks have an understanding that the present landscape of LGBT politics is certainly not the way it’s always been. The leaders of the post-Stonewall gay liberation movement, which is generally considered to be the birth of contemporary LGBT politics, were absolutely not interested in “equality.” These were activists who styled themselves after radical New Left, Black, and Third World liberation groups, and they demanded a much broader kind of change. In fact, they wanted a revolution, if you want to get technical. Gay liberationists were very much opposed to same-sex marriage, partially because of their radical feminist and Marxist commitments. It wasn’t until the second half of the 1970s, as larger gay organizations such as New York’s Gay Activists Alliance became more conservative, and their leadership increasingly white, male, and middle class, that “equal rights” became part of the language of LGBT activism. But there have always been progressive fringes of the gay movement that have carried on the tradition of queer radicalism.
When we remember the radical history of LGBT politics, we remember that there is nothing inevitable about the limited vision of progress that LGBT leaders have come to accept. I am not going to argue that LGBT people shouldn’t be allowed to choose marriage. Personally, I have reservations about centering a movement on the right to ape heteronormative society, but I’m not going to tell someone else how they can structure their family. Rather, we should not be forced to choose marriage because it presents the only viable means of living a financially stable life in this country. You rightly point out that marriage endows over 1,000 benefits and protections, and this, exactly, is the problem: an individual should not need marriage in order to access those privileges. Rather than simply expanding the number of people who can access marriage in order to get at the benefits, wouldn’t a more direct and comprehensive approach involve disregarding marriage and working to expand the number of individuals who can access those benefits, regardless of marital status? This approach goes “beyond marriage” in the sense that it looks beyond the narrow framing of current debates in order to critique our entire benefit distribution system.
You also noted that the fight for same-sex marriage and the fight for the other progressive goals we’ve discussed are related rather than opposed. In an ideal world, I’d readily concede. Unfortunately, the programmatic work of national LGBT organizations has often been at odds with the real needs of many LGBT people. The Human Rights Campaign, for instance—the country’s largest LGBT organization—is notorious for endorsing fiscally conservative politicians simply because of their support for gay marriage. The marriage section of HRC’s website contends that same sex marriage should be supported in order to help “reduce [LGBT families’] dependence on public assistance programs, such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income disability payments and food stamps.” This kind of reasoning, clearly, plays directly into the right wing’s scheme to use marriage to take up the slack from the dwindling supply of public benefits, and affirms the twisted logic that the “problem” taxpayers should be worried about is spending money on public assistance. It also tacitly affirms the right wing’s moral stance on marriage: that only certain kinds of families are legitimate and only certain relationships are worthy of legal recognition.
It is critical that progressives start recognizing these contradictions in the push for same-sex marriage. Our task is not simply to concede, as you write, that “we need marriage in addition to these other protections.” Rather, LGBT progressives must start looking at how our resources are allocated in this fight, and what ideological and material sacrifices have already been made in the name of “marriage equality.” We need to recall the expansive political imaginations of the Stonewall activists and start envisioning wholly new and diverse strategies for structuring an LGBT movement.
Day 2: Embracing the “Pro-Choice” Marriage Movement
By Rob Anderson
September 19, 2006
Kat,
Your description of the push to legalize same-sex marriage as "anti-progressive," "unacceptable," and "largely symbolic" betrays both the history of the LGBT movement and the facts about same-sex marriage. Before we can decide whether or not to move beyond same-sex marriage, we should first accurately understand how same-sex marriage fits into our history, who would benefit from it, and how.
Less than 30 years ago, LGBT Americans were considered perverted and sick in the minds of most Americans, and were criminals according to the laws of the American justice system. We were hated, misunderstood, and without the protection of the law—a dangerous position for any minority group in America. Facing overwhelming odds, brave activists began building the foundations of the LGBT movement, demanding equal treatment under the law and the freedom to live open, safe, and healthy lives as LGBT Americans. These ideals remain the foundation upon which the movement continues to fight today—in its battles to end hate crimes, stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, and secure the rights of transgender Americans.
It is this same yearning for equality that drives the push for the legalization of same-sex marriage. While LGBT Americans do not have to marry if they choose not to, they certainly should have the option. The movement to legalize same-sex marriage is a pro-choice movement; the freedom to choose how we live our lives, and with whom, is as progressive an ideal as any.
You argue that the legalization of same-sex marriage would amount to a "largely symbolic victory." The fight for same-sex marriage certainly holds symbolic value in the American culture wars, but its importance does not end there. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, marriage offers over 1,000 protections and benefits to married couples. Marriage laws guarantee a partner’s right to hospital visitations, the right to make decisions in the case of a medical emergency, and the right to inheritance without a will. Symbolic? These concerns are about as practical as they get.
Should marriage-like arrangements, such as civil unions, offer similar benefits? Of course. But that certainly doesn’t negate the need for same-sex marriage.
You also claim that LGBT activists have failed to make a connection between attacks against the LGBT community and "similar attacks on the poor, on people of color, [and] on immigrants." But attacks against same-sex marriage are attacks against these groups! Poor families and families of color would gain the most if same-sex marriage were legalized. As former Village Voice editor and columnist Richard Goldstein wrote in his essay "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage":
As things are, [poor families] may not qualify for public housing; family courts may not accept their claims of domestic abuse; hospitals can—and regularly do—dismiss their right to make medical decisions on behalf of a loved one; they lack the standing to sue for a partner’s wrongful death; they can’t count on a partner’s social security benefits.
While wealthy LGBT families can hire expensive lawyers to tiptoe around the legal system, poor families cannot. These families must rely on laws to protect them. Without guaranteed protections, their day-to-day lives become more perilous.
Furthermore, legalized same-sex marriage would also benefit the children of LGBT couples. Factor in these statistics: Thirty-four percent of lesbian and gay couples in the South are raising kids; one-third of lesbian households contain children; one-fifth of gay households contain children; and lesbians of color are more likely than white lesbians to have children. Goldstein is right when he labels same-sex marriage "a black, working-class, women’s issue."
I agree when you argue the LGBT movement should be fighting for the rights of LGBT homeless youth and seniors, for universal healthcare, and against all permutations of the religious right. But while we do that, why can’t we continue our 36-year long push for marriage equality? These battles are connected, not antithetical.
Day 1: Why Marriage Shouldn’t Be First on the “Agenda”
By Kat Lewis
September 18, 2006
When I agreed to participate in this Infighting debate, I secretly hoped I wouldn’t have to go first, since frankly, I had no idea how to start. Why not gay marriage as a main focus of the LGBT movement? The good news is a lot of explaining has already been done for me. Last month, a group of over 250 activists and academics released a comprehensive statement outlining the profound pitfalls and limitations of the current debates around same sex marriage. Entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” the piece decries the right wing “family vales” attack on virtually all nontraditional families in the U.S., regardless of sexual orientation. Making connections between LGBT, racial, and economic justice, the authors call for new and creative strategies that build alliances across issues and communities in order to respond to the conservative threat.
Centering an LGBT movement on a pro-marriage agenda means, first of all, capitulating to a paradigm of legal recognition and benefit distribution that is unacceptable and anti-progressive. While pro-marriage LGBT activists correctly decry the right wing’s attack on gay and lesbian families, they have failed to make the connection to similar attacks on the poor, on people of color, on immigrants, and on a wide range of nontraditionally configured households. The Federal Marriage Amendment, proposed by radical right wingers to constitutionally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, is only a small part of a larger “traditional values” scheme that includes promotion of hetero-marriage as a substitute for welfare assistance to single mothers, abstinence-only sex education, and anti-choice legislation.
Ironically, pro-gay marriage activists have played right into this conservative “family values” ideology, and are left demanding marital privileges that fewer and fewer of our community can access. Although you wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media portrayals of affluent, white gay people (“Will and Grace” comes to mind), LGBT people are in fact disproportionately unemployed, poor, homeless, and incarcerated—all phenomena that securing marital benefits would do very little to change. A study in San Francisco, for example, notes widespread barriers to housing and employment in LGBT communities, and places the nationwide unemployment rate of transexuals at a staggering 70 percent. As a transgender person myself, I know that gay marriage does very little to address the kinds of discrimination and structural violence faced daily by my community. For example, most U.S. residents live in areas where gender identity isn’t protected by antidiscrimination legislation, an issue with which many pro-marriage gays seem unconcerned.
In addition, close to 50 percent of homeless youth in New York City identify as LGBT, and researchers speculate that LGBT youth are also over-represented in the criminal justice system. Finally, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force writes that the vast majority of LGBT seniors live alone. What can access to a spouse’s white collar private health care benefits mean for our community when more and more of us are underemployed or jobless, homeless, or—for whatever reason—simply not in conjugal relationships? Marriage—same-sex or otherwise—should not be a prerequisite for an individual’s or family’s health and stability.
Progressive activists are increasingly pushing LGBT people to begin to imagine a broader kind of social change. Instead of fighting for limited benefits secured only through a very specific form of family arrangement, couldn’t we instead demand universal healthcare for all people, regardless of racial, sexual, or gender identity, and regardless of income or citizenship? Why have we come to accept the right wing’s presumption that there need be any connection between conjugal relationship and benefit distribution? Instead of hounding after the largely symbolic victory promised by same-sex marriage, LGBT activists should be focusing on the real needs of our community: safety from violence and discrimination, access to housing and employment, and the possibility of many diverse kinds of individual and familial self-determination.
Cartoon by Mikhaela Reid
--------
Comments
|
!
For those who are offended by the idea of “Gay Marriage”, I strongly suggest that they not read the recently published
book: “THE ARCHITECT: Karl Rove and The Master Plan For Absolute Power” by James Moore and Wayne Slater (the same authors who wrote the best selling book: “BUSH’S BRAIN”).
Bush’s supporters will not want to read that his closest political advisor and personal friend, Karl Rove, had a very close personal
relationship with his openly homosexual Stepfather.
And Bush’s supporters will not want to read that Rove is an avowed agnostic and that both Bush and Rove refer to those on the
— Kirk Muse - Sep 18, 05:01 PM - #Christian Right as wackos. “Bring out the wackos” is the common
term Bush, Rove and Jack Abramoff used to gather votes and support from the Christian Right for their causes.
Hi thanks for your thoughtful and articulate ideas. I think that the even the group of 250 people recognized that Marriage for gays is ok if you want it. You forgot that part.
The issue of Marriage Equaltiy is really for anyone who wants to marry, not just gays. While it appears that the right has narrowed the issue, by their language to only identifing it for gays, the gay community is not limitting it to gays.
IT is true that the gay community has been selective regarding how the issue is presented as there is a marketing issue. We need a population who will vote to win these elections.
Lastly, marriage is also a social right of passage issues. I personally ahve no commitment to marriage persay.. however our cultrue does. I see the need for the gay community to back marriage equality as a step in defeating the agenda of those who wish to control the country from accessing our cultrual norms, social acceptance for all and building families of our choice and personal intention.
Yes benifits should be accecessed by all and should not be discrimated by race, gender or marital status. But it is and marriage equality is a step toward this goal. IT may or may not be the most effective one, however it is the one that has been offered us to take on and the one that has imerged at the for front at this time in history.
— Jody - Sep 19, 12:40 PM - #We need not stop fighting for houseing, needs of all other parts of our community. Marriage is offering our community respect of our own love and commitment of relationship never before even talked aobut. Keeping the discussion on the table nationally has offered us greater visabiltiy then perhaps ever before in history… at least in my life time…
Lets not be so divided.. but in jopinign together we on all these issues we can build a safer place for all of us…
Thinking about the bipicture will help everyone.
—Kat, I really appreciate your article and your stance on the issue. It is very important to be optimistic and make sure not to shape all progressive arguments around the conservative one. Create a new argument entirely new
— Cassandra - Sep 20, 04:59 PM - #Dr. Lillian Faderman- who has won the Monette/Horwitz Award from the homosexual activist group Lambda Literary Foundation states: “And we continue to demand Rights, ignoring the fact that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, acting as though we are all stuck in our category forever,” she later states, “The narrow categories of identity politics are obviously deceptive.” (The Advocate, 9-5-95, p.43)
It is obvious that Dr. Faderman sees a political threat by the truth, by the fluidity of sexuality, “I must confess that I am both elated and terrified by the possibilities of ‘a bisexual moment.’ I’m elated because I truly believe that bisexuality is the natural human condition. But I’m much less happy when I think of the possibility of huge numbers of homosexuals (two-thirds of women who identify as lesbian for example) running off to explore the heterosexual side of their bisexual potential and, as a result, decimating our political ranks.” Later in the article Dr. Faderman writes, “The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct, but it has been crucial, enabling us to become a political movement and demand the rights that are do to us as a minority. What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify ‘a people’ but rather a ‘sometime behavior’?” (The Advocate, 9-5-95, p.43) Dr. John De Cecco is a homosexual Psychologist, the Director of the Center for Research and Education in Sexuality at San Francisco State University, and, the Editor of the Journal of Homosexuality. Dr. De Cecco calls himself gay but insists that such attractions are a changeable “preference” not an orientation. He explains in his book titled, If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay, that the whole born gay/ immutable characteristic idea is just “gay and lesbian politics” and is aimed at achieving what is called gay rights. (If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay, John De Cecco, pg. 17-18) Dr. Vera Whisman writes in her book, Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, “The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple (if controversial) notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, my conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist (born that way) foundation, do we have a viable politics?” (Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, By Dr. Vera Whisman; New York: Routlege, 1996 p.132) Lesbian writer Jennie Ruby admits, “I don’t think lesbians are born…I think they are made.”“…the gay rights movement has (for many good practical reasons) adopted largely an identity politics” (Off Our Backs, Oct. 1996, p.22) Jan Clausen is a lesbian author, in her book Apples and Oranges she irritably writes, “What’s got to stop is the rigging of history to make the either/or look permanent and universal. I understand why this argument may sound erotic to outsiders for whom the public assertion of a coherent, unchanging lesbian or gay identity has proved an indispensable tactic in the battle against homophobic persecution.” Jan Clausen basically said, “We know we’re lying, but, I understand, because it has been working so well!” ( ) Later in Clausen’s book Apples and Oranges she quotes the popular lesbian poet Audre Lorde who admits the lies associated with the “born gay” hoax as well when she writes, “I do not believe our wants have made all our lies holy.” Allow lesbians Lyne Harne and Elaine Miller to demonstrate their feelings regarding the “born gay” hoax: “There’s nothing natural in lesbianism, ‘it’s a positive choice,’ and a political one.” (Lambda Book Report, Oct. 1996, p.11, commenting on All the Rage: Reasserting Radical Lesbian Feminism) Yet another admission appears on page 40 of an article in the May/June, 1996 edition of the homosexual magazine “Girlfriends,” it states, “No wonder lesbians are so nervous. What makes the lesbian movement strong is the formation of a collective identity, unified behind sexual orientation as a category. If bisexuality undoes that, it kicks the lesbian movement where it really hurts: in the heart and soul of identity politics.” The National Center for Lesbian Rights is one of the homosexual activist organizations that pressure the American Psychiatric Association to reject homosexual reparative therapy. They claim that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. JoAnne Loulan was one of the lesbian psychotherapists who served on the board of directors for this organization. Loulan made hypocritical headlines on the February 18, 1997 edition of the homosexual magazine “The Advocate” because she reportedly changed her own sexual orientation when she fell in love with a man! What’s worse? Kate Kendall, the actual director of this dishonest organization, who hooted and hollered that sexual orientation was fixed, innate, and unchangeable, and commanded the American Psychiatric Association to halt all forms of homoerotic and homosexual reparative therapies for people looking to get help, actually wrote an article for Frontier Magazine arguing that sexual orientation is fluid -not fixed!!(Frontiers, 4-19-96, pg. 31) These homosexual political activists had the nerve, to go to the American Psychiatric Association and deceptively argue that homosexual reparative therapy was the dangerous equivalent of pouring bleach on a dark persons skin to try and make them lighter, but after the fact, one of these “lesbians” went right out and changed her own sexual orientation, and the other wrote an article arguing that sexuality is changeable!— Ryan Sorba - Sep 22, 01:23 AM - #Kirk and Madsen understand that the first step toward socialization is normalization, and that normalization is synonymous with desensitization. Thus, the first segment of the proposed strategy outlined a public relations campaign designed to desensitize the public to homosexuality. The following quotes exemplify the manipulative tactics Kirk and Madsen promote in “The Overhauling of Straight America.”
‘The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays…To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally we would have the straight register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream…(Kirk and Pill: 7)
The masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself…the imagery of sex should be downplayed…(ibid p.8).
…gay must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector (ibid p.8).
…make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard… (ibid p.8).
…replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt (ibid. p.10).
Hauntingly, the authors actually promote mimicking of Hitler’s “Big Lie” technique in the quote below:
Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible…” “The principal behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.” (Kirk and Madsen p. 7)
Unfortunately, this social learning principle has proven itself time and time again throughout history as various inhumane and outrageous behaviors have become common place and ordinary.
Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject (ibid, p.8)
Madsen and Pill explain their scheme in greater depth, when they write:
“Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message—of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream.” (Ibid p.8)
“Not so man years ago, all of these statements would have been unbelievably offensive to most Americans, even if they contained no reference to homosexuality, precisely because they all advocate coercive tampering with peoples most private domain, their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs (Kirk and Madsen call it ‘transforming the social values of straight America’-(ibid. p.14)) Let’s look at the mechanics of their strategy for ‘transforming’ society into what they feel would be a more acceptable form. (Lively, Pink Swastika, p.21)
The authors continue on with malice: “Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not. While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.”…the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know – this trick is so old it creaks (ibid, p.9)
…it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified (ibid. p.10)
…we intend to make anti-gays to look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types (Ibid. p. 10)
Each sign will tap patriotic sentiment; each message will drill a seemingly agreeable position into mainstream heads (Ibid p.11)
The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America…the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern [sic] ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs And convicts…Nazi concentration camps…(Ibid. p. 10)
This behavior-modification mentality, combined with the isolation of “straights” and others as groups or classes who assume the status of dehumanized targets of one sort or another continues, undisturbed in intensity:
These images (of anyone opposed to homosexual behavior) should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the “bracket technique.” For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about “those sick, abominable creatures.” While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.” (Ibid. p.13-14) “A group called Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) used this technique in an advertising campaign in the fall of 1995 against Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms and Jerry Falwell. As reported in the San Francisco Examiner, Sunday, November 12, 1995… ‘a new television ad campaign [portrays scenes of] a teenage girl contemplating suicide with a handgun, [and] a young man being beaten by a gang as his attackers shout slurs…interspersed with actual clips of the Rev. Pat Robertson and other conservatives deploring homosexuality.’ Most stations turned down the ads, but they ran in Tulsa, and Washington D.C. A print version of the ad (much less emotionally effective) was run in USA Today, November 21, 1995.— Ryan Sorba - Sep 22, 01:30 AM - #The above posts were braught to you by Ryan Sorba, and I challenge anyone to debate over the issues surrounding homosexual behavior, anyone…
— Ryan Sorba - Sep 22, 01:41 AM - #The above posts were braught to you by Ryan Sorba, and I challenge anyone to debate over the issues surrounding homosexual behavior, anyone…
— Ryan Sorba - Sep 22, 01:41 AM - #O.k., so I mispelled the word “brought.”
If you are brave enough to debate, email me at amendcali@yahoo.com
— Ryan Sorba - Sep 22, 01:44 AM - #Ryan,
Anecdotal reports from decade old popular press are not really useful as valid arguments in a debate concerning human sexual behavior. Your POV oversimplifies the complex psychological and physiological processes of human sexuality and distills the topic to a “he says/she says” emotion-based debate which really serves no purpose as the opposite POV can jog out just as many counter-arguments from the popular press.
— Ron Erkert - Sep 22, 05:53 PM - #Letter 1 : “Bush’s supporters will not want to read that his closest political advisor and personal friend, Karl Rove, had a very close personal
relationship with his openly homosexual Stepfather. And Bush’s supporters will not want to read that Rove is an avowed agnostic and that both Bush and Rove refer to those on the
Christian Right as wackos.”
Typical ramblings of someone ignorant of the world views AND political savvy.
2) “The issue of Marriage Equaltiy is really for anyone who wants to marry, not just gays.”
Yes, I want equal rights to marry a goat – or a three year old. Do you want equal rights – or religious marriage?
3) “It is very important to be optimistic and make sure not to shape all progressive arguments around the conservative one. Create a new argument entirely new.”
Yes, tell us how. Oh, and since when cant you be gay and conservative?
4) “Loulan made hypocritical headlines on the February 18, 1997 edition of the homosexual magazine “The Advocate” because she reportedly changed her own sexual orientation when she fell in love with a man!”
Thats called freedom – something lost when you choose a single side to an issue. Wisdom is understanding that people have honest opposition to your lifestlye.
5) “The principal behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”
Yes, kissing the same sex AND snake handling both arent a big deal if you are exposed enough.
6-8) “The above posts were braught to you by Ryan Sorba, and I challenge anyone to debate over the issues surrounding homosexual behavior, anyone…
Proof that queens shouldn’t argue.
9) Wow – well thought out.
OK, so my question is …
— Billy Lassiter - Sep 23, 01:14 AM - #do you want equal rights?
or do you want acceptance?
This sounds like a bitch fest which is what is wrong with the gay community. I am hetero and this stuff kills me. You want equal rights – then ask for that. You want to try to adopt Christian ideals into the gay community (ie marriage) then good luck. It wont happen. Hey, I look at porn knowing that it will never be accepted. Is it right? Well guess what – someone else gets to judge that. I never understand the gay community – all the drama and no focus on the real issue. Pick a battle and work on making progress instead of conservative bashing and drama queen bitching. Its old.
This is probably irrelevant at this point, but….
Billy,
In answer to your questions: yes and yes (you do not have to agree with another’s lifestyle; however, you should accept it as an individual’s Right and Freedom).
All citizens of the United States should have Equal Rights regardless of individual differences and choice of lifestyle.
However, you err with regards to marriage. There are two different forms of marriage. Religious marriage is a covenant between two people, restrictions may be applied in accordance to religious dogma.
Civil marriage is a legal contract between two people and should be extended to all citizens regardless of individual differences. Religious ceremonies are not a requirement of Civil marriage.
Most members of the GLBT communities do not care about Religious Marriage Equality. They do, however, desire Civil Marriage Equality and all the rights, priviledges, and responsibilities that pertain thereto.
As the U.S. is a secular nation with a separation of State and Church, and built on the principle of Equality, the Law should be blind to individual differences.
And, contrary to popular belief, Marriage Equality will not lead to cross-species marriage or the million other examples trotted out. Animals and dead people cannot give legal consent.
WRT porn being immoral, that is based upon your lifestyle choice. Not everyone finds porn to be morally repugnant.
Religious morals are a lifestyle choice that apply only to those who subscribe to that particular religion. Civil Rights are not subject to religious morals, Christian or otherwise.
— Ron Erkert - Nov 16, 09:54 PM - #I would like to get more specific info on the study that was done in San Francisco about transexuals and unemployment rates.Can you assist me with where to find that data?
— Daisy - Dec 6, 12:35 PM - #