Gay Patriot Header Image

Chad on GLAAD–how Gay Leaders Divide Us

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:37 am - January 12, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America,Gay PC Silliness,General

In a piece a little less restrained than my posts (here and here) on the topic, Chad at Cake or Death? weighs in with his thoughts on GLAAD’s rush to judgment when Today film critic Gene Shalit called Jake Gyllenhaal’s character a “sexual predator.” When his openly gay son heard of the brouhaha, he faulted GLAAD for his defaming his father. Given the speed with which some gay activists to take on any with whom they disagree, Chad writes:

No longer are we looking for mere acceptance. You not only have to tolerate us, but you must like us, love us, watch us do what we do, praise us, and generally fellate our egos until we’ve had enough and decide to roll over to go to sleep. If you don’t? You’re a bigot.

While I don’t agree with everything in Chad’s piece, I agree with his conclusion that gay organizations today “continually divide the population, fighting for the little things by highlighting our differences instead of fighting for the larger ones by illustrating our similarities.” As I’ve said before about another of Chad’s posts, just read the whole thing for a taste of his wit and wisdom.

Share

38 Comments

  1. It just seems like more of the same to me. People continue to blast most or all gays, or gay leadership, based on the opinions of one or two people. Some people said a straight person not seeing BBM meant they were a bigot, so this is twisted into being the fault of all gays.

    Gays do not all think alike, talk alike, act alike. I thought conservative gay websites, of all sites, would notice this, but instead they would rather paint the gay community with as broad a stroke as possible.

    Comment by Carl — January 12, 2006 @ 1:04 am - January 12, 2006

  2. Yep. And until the gay community starts showing me that I should be using a smaller brush, I will continue to do so.

    Comment by Chad — January 12, 2006 @ 1:27 am - January 12, 2006

  3. -And until the gay community starts showing me that I should be using a smaller brush, I will continue to do so.-

    That’s a no-win situation for the gay community, because they are not some huge collective. People in the gay community are always going to do something you disagree with, or I disagree with.

    If you want to be in a state of permanent frustration with the gay community (which is such a vague term), then that will be very easy to do. If I were you I would just accept that you’re never going to be fully satisfied, as no one will be, and try to deal with some of the real problems gays face today. I don’t think arguing about a movie review is one of them.

    Comment by Carl — January 12, 2006 @ 1:42 am - January 12, 2006

  4. People in the gay community are always going to do something you disagree with, or I disagree with.

    This isn’t a question of one or two people doing things with which I disagree. This is a question of large national groups putting themselves in front of the media and claiming to represent “all gays”.

    Case in point:

    If I were you I would just accept that you’re never going to be fully satisfied, as no one will be, and try to deal with some of the real problems gays face today. I don’t think arguing about a movie review is one of them.

    Tell that to GLAAD, NGLTF, and whoever else they got engaged in their little Shalit snit-fit.

    This has nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with GLAAD and other organizations inventing work for themselves or worse, like HRC, subcontracting gays out as mindless drones to support abortion and other “progressive” causes so that the Democratic lobbyists who run it and staff it can get rich payouts and cocktail party invites.

    As long as people refuse to speak out against these groups and their whoring of gay rights to support every lunatic moonbat cause under the sun, I WILL refer to them as the “gay community”, thank you very much.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2006 @ 2:10 am - January 12, 2006

  5. Tell that to GLAAD, NGLTF, and whoever else they got engaged in their little Shalit snit-fit. –

    NGLTF had nothing to do with Shalit, as I recall. GLAAD is an organization devoted to watching the media. They saw a film reviewer on a major TV show refer to a gay man as a sexual predator. They complained. Shalit contacted them and mended fences. This lasted over the span of a week. Perhaps GLAAD overreacted, but is this really an example of the failures of the gay community?

    -This isn’t a question of one or two people doing things with which I disagree. This is a question of large national groups putting themselves in front of the media and claiming to represent “all gays”.-

    But some of what Chad complained about, like the idea that gays are going around saying if you don’t like Brokeback Mountain you’re a bigot, had nothing to do with HRC or any other national organizations.

    If people object to these organizations, OK. I think HRC is archaic. I think GLAAD is a waste of time. But can we at least criticize them for what they actually do and put them in some context, instead of trying to tie everything into one huge clump?

    Why do we always need to worry about the worst parts of our community? Why can’t we also talk about helping gays in Islamic countries (something that the gay left ignores)? Why can’t we talk about how to work on defeating bans on gay adoption? You yourself have blogged on that, NDT.

    Why can’t we be more proactive? That’s my real point here. Let’s not just bitch and moan. Let’s find solutions. If we’re worried about people assuming that the gay community is one narrow base, let’s show them that isn’t true.

    Comment by Carl — January 12, 2006 @ 2:20 am - January 12, 2006

  6. Here’s one thing we can focus on. The AFA is threatening to boycott Ford again, and 42 other “family” leaders co-signed the letter.

    http://365gay.com/Newscon06/01/011106ford.htm

    http://www.afa.net/fordletter.asp

    Ford should know that we have their backs.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=ford+contact+information&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

    Comment by Carl — January 12, 2006 @ 2:25 am - January 12, 2006

  7. People continue to blast most or all gays, or gay leadership, based on the opinions of one or two people.

    But this isn’t just applicable to gays, it happens with any group-when somebody claims the microphone for a group, and says something, the words will be associated with the group, whether or not some or the majority agree with what was said.

    I think half the problem with issues of gay rights is that all the sides talk past each other and are way to quick to just call those who don’t agree with them names, rather than try to listen to what the other side is saying.

    Comment by Just Me — January 12, 2006 @ 7:31 am - January 12, 2006

  8. Although I was against GLAAD going overboard regarding Shalit’s comment, I can understand people being offended by what he said. Instead of demanding an apology, GLAAD could have made the point that although there are gay predators in real life and in movies, that it is hard to fathom how anyone could come to the conclusion that Jack was a predator, and don’t want people to get the impression that all people in gay relationships are predators, or something to that effect. Anyway, it looks like everyone made nice, even if the whole thing was lame. Further, this is only a blip with the problem with the gay community.

    I get Chad and GPW’s point that, in general, HRC and other organizations sometimes do divide the community and/or hurt the community in general with many of their strategies. And there are definitely instances where the voice of these organizations is a minority opinion within the gay community.

    Part of the problem is there is a diversity of opinions within the gay community. This is partly a good thing, because in many ways, the gay community mirrors the whole community. But that does lead to some conflicts. These organizations are then criticized by some by working for the larger ones, because that is moving too fast, insulting voters, or whatever. And then they are also criticized for paying attention to the smaller issues as well. We could go on with the criticisms of these organizations, which are deserved in many cases.

    The other problem is exposure. Who is out there in the gay community trying to advance gay rights? In many cases, the so called moonbats. Why is that? We have to ask why they have the power that they do. A big part of the reason is that they are the ones that are willing to be out and open, and willing to effect change within the gay community. And since they tend to be liberals, a lot of other liberal ideas tend to get blended in when they don’t necessarily belong. So where are the moderate or conservative gay groups? Yes, there are the Log Cabin Republicans, and that’s a start. But what about the Republicans (and moderate Democrats) that are semi-open and closeted? Oh yes, their sexuality doesn’t matter. First, it seems to matter to the straight ones who parade their wives and children during campaigns and whatnot. But it does matter, because exposure will help in two ways. It will moderate the gay community somewhat, which is what GPW’s post is addressing. But it will also help stop religious conservatives who try to marginalize the gay community, by claiming that all gays are either wackos, or closet cases who keep their gayness nice and quiet like good boys, so no one thinks there are too many of them.

    Another problem in the gay community is the way that we have to beat up on each other, or at least try to outclass each other, more so than other groups. Not sure why that is, but it could be because that most of us were beat up upon (physically or otherwise, directly or indirectly) by the straight population. So in many cases, we see the pretty ones have to outclass the not so pretty ones, the rich and powerful ones have to outclass the middle class and poor ones, the liberals/Democrats have to outclass the conservative/Republicans. And on this site, many times I also see the latter is the other way around.

    So lots of problems and issues here. The bad news is despite all of this, we deserve equality and don’t have it yet. The good news is that at least gay rights are advancing, and it looks like they will continue, even if at a slower rate than it should be.

    Anyway, this is just my perception on how things are, and anything I said may, of course, be incorrect. Further, some of my thoughts were jumbled and I found it hard to convey some of them.

    Comment by Pat — January 12, 2006 @ 9:24 am - January 12, 2006

  9. For starters, Carl… I’m not on about GLAAD alone. I think that’s fairly obvious. And I am curious to know of your take on the gay community.

    In my experience (through personal interactions and what I see and read in the news) 95% of gays are liberal. I would venture to say that the same percentage applies to those in the ranks of gay organizations. You say, “Gays do not all think alike, talk alike, act alike.” Not all, no. Most? I think it’s fairly safe to say yes. 95% is more than enough for a broader brush….

    If we’re worried about people assuming that the gay community is one narrow base, let’s show them that isn’t true.

    I agree with you whole-heartedly on this one Carl. However, in order to do that, we need to stop enabling these organizations. As long as they feel that they speak for us, they will continue to push their own agendas in our name. And the community in turn provides them with support. It’s a vicious cycle.

    Ideally, free thinking gays should go about doing what they can to change public opinion. I think that by doing so, we can render these groups irrelevant and start working towards a more inclusive society.

    Comment by Chad — January 12, 2006 @ 9:50 am - January 12, 2006

  10. But some of what Chad complained about, like the idea that gays are going around saying if you don’t like Brokeback Mountain you’re a bigot, had nothing to do with HRC or any other national organizations.

    That was GLAAD’s entire point in shrieking. It had EVERYTHING to do with national organizations saying this.

    So where are the moderate or conservative gay groups? Yes, there are the Log Cabin Republicans, and that’s a start. But what about the Republicans (and moderate Democrats) that are semi-open and closeted? Oh yes, their sexuality doesn’t matter. First, it seems to matter to the straight ones who parade their wives and children during campaigns and whatnot. But it does matter, because exposure will help in two ways. It will moderate the gay community somewhat, which is what GPW’s post is addressing. But it will also help stop religious conservatives who try to marginalize the gay community, by claiming that all gays are either wackos, or closet cases who keep their gayness nice and quiet like good boys, so no one thinks there are too many of them.

    I have reached the point, Pat, where my answer to this kind of plea for “exposure” from gay groups is very simple: FUCK YOU.

    I am sick, completely sick, of idiots who have cultivated the moonbats for millenia suddenly figuring out that these morons they’ve kept on their speed-dial because “they’ll show up for the rallies” are the ones that actually give credulity to the antigay right’s claims that gays are all pedophile drug-using abortion-pushing militant atheists.

    Furthermore, what is their solution? To demand that gays like myself who do fit in, who aren’t wildly outside the mainstream, and have spent years cultivating relationships with gays and straights alike based on dialogue, commonality and trust for the purpose of advancing gay rights come to their rallies so we can be paraded before the cameras and hide the frothing moonbats. This, after HRC, NGLTF, their staffers, and their toadies have spent years verbally abusing us, calling us “self-loathing”, “Jewish Nazis”, and other hate-filled statements, PLUS siccing their moonbats like John Aravosis and Mike Rogers on us to harass our friends, our bosses, and our families, as well as try to get us fired from our jobs.

    You think I’m exaggerating? Mike Rogers is a former NGLTF staffer who regularly communicates and coordinates with current NGLTF staff. BOTH Rogers and Aravosis bragged during their outing campaigns that paid staffers of both HRC and LCR were helping them.

    Both Aravosis and Rogers said they continue to collect information from their network of sources, which include employees of the Human Rights Campaign and Log Cabin Republicans, and plan on outing more staffers and members.

    So in short, these organizations want us to dig them out of the mess that they themselves created when they’ve spent years trying to destroy us.

    I say they’ve made it clear for years that they don’t want our help and that they consider us loathsome, vile beasts whose very appearance corrupts gay rights; we should continue to take them at their word.

    Then, once the moonbats drag them down into the abyss of irrelevance with them, we start over.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 12, 2006 @ 11:25 am - January 12, 2006

  11. In my experience (through personal interactions and what I see and read in the news) 95% of gays are liberal.-

    From my experience, about 50-60% of the gays I have known were liberal. I know liberal gays, sure. I also know a gay man who voted for President Bush and who wanted to go protest because he thought Jeb Bush wasn’t doing enough to help Terri Schiavo live (before anyone tells me that isn’t fair, I’m not making an opinion on Jeb Bush, I’m just giving you my friend’s opinion). And I know many gay men who are conservative but deeply closeted. As Pat mentions above — if people want to see more balanced perspective within the gay community leadership, then more balanced, moderate gays need to come out. A lot of the same gay men who blast “liberal” organizations should realize that what amounts to constantly denigrating and complaining about the gay community just unwittingly encourage moderate or conservative gay men to stay closeted. When these men look at the media coverage of gays, they will only hear the worst. They need to know that it doesn’t have to be that way. That’s why I think we need to move beyond “fill in the blank gay organization is enslaved by liberal moonbats/Democrats” and try to encourage new ideas and new approaches.

    Many of the gay men I know are apolitical. When I asked one acquaintance what he thought of Rick Santorum, he said he had only heard a few details. So when Santorum was speaking in the Senate, I called the acquaintance and asked him to turn on CSPAN. I asked him what he thought and his response was: “That guy has a really hot ass.”

    If 95% of gays seem liberal that’s because these are the people who frequently came out and who organized. They inherited what the generation of gays before them built. If people want to change that, then they need to get more moderate and conservative gays to come out, to donate money, to donate their knowledge and experience.

    -And I am curious to know of your take on the gay community.-

    I talked about that a bit in an earlier thread.

    http://gaypatriot.net/2006/01/09/peter-shalit-faults-glaad-for-defaming-his-father

    Reply 13.

    Comment by Carl — January 12, 2006 @ 11:45 am - January 12, 2006

  12. -That was GLAAD’s entire point in shrieking. It had EVERYTHING to do with national organizations saying this.-

    GLAAD criticized a film review which referred to a gay man as a sexual predator. They never said everyone had to like the film. I think that may have even been the only review they commented on – the movie got negative or mediocre reviews from Time, from Washington Post, etc. Did GLAAD call them bigots?

    Comment by Carl — January 12, 2006 @ 11:47 am - January 12, 2006

  13. Groups like GLAAD should be viewed as mouthpieces for the people who donate the most money to them, same as any other interest group. To think that they are interested in representing the full range of gay opinions and lifestyles, they reflect the views of an elite and rather extreme set of wealthy donors.

    I don’t think the obligation lies with GLAAD to change. I think the obligation lies with everybody else to educate people about the real nature of groups like GLAAD (and MoveOn, and NARAL, and HRC, and NGLTF, and PETA, and AFA, and so on…)

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2006 @ 11:50 am - January 12, 2006

  14. “Who is out there in the gay community trying to advance gay rights? In many cases, the so called moonbats. ”

    It is a specific personality type. These people are Puritanical Utopians. They can crusade for all kinds of improvement in society, like Abolition, or to depose a king or to get child labor laws in place, but they can also be really destructive, The same Cromwell who gave Englisg democracy that first spoank on the butt was also a genocidal monster in Ireland, and acting out of exactly the sem principles. Remember that the Nazis promised and expected to lift German society into a new age.

    “This has nothing to do with gay rights and everything to do with GLAAD and other organizations inventing work for themselves or worse, like ”

    And then there is that – success in the crusade ends up having to be consolidated, protected and mananegd. And guess who is in place to do all that.

    Comment by Jim — January 12, 2006 @ 11:55 am - January 12, 2006

  15. I will NEVER support Republicans – UNTIL they COMPLETELY DIS-ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES from the Religious Fundies!

    Comment by JRC — January 12, 2006 @ 12:15 pm - January 12, 2006

  16. “Who is out there in the gay community trying to advance gay rights? In many cases, the so called moonbats. ”

    I don’t think that’s necessarily true. When a need for social change is recognized, if the need is genuine, it is embraced by a broad range of people. When the big issues are resolved, the sane and reasonable people go back to work. What’s left behind are the extremist flakes, who need to perpetuate their relevance by manufacturing an endless stream of ‘grievances’ (e.g. Jesse Jackson) and pushing extremist policy goals that alienate the mainstream (e.g. reparations).

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2006 @ 12:17 pm - January 12, 2006

  17. Thanks for that JRC. Excellent job in contributing to the debate.

    Comment by Chad — January 12, 2006 @ 12:17 pm - January 12, 2006

  18. Whats the point of debating you? Gay people should be Liberal…we of ALL people should be the last to “Judge Others” …..Sorry but I’d rather support “Gay Groups” which I do – HRC and GLAAD – sure, do I wish they would concentrate more on JUST Gay oriented subjects – yes. BUt as MLK said – NO ONE is FREE til WE ARE ALL FREE!

    Comment by JRC — January 12, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - January 12, 2006

  19. #15 — And why should they do that? JRC. Why should Republicans screw over the very people who carry them to power? Is that going to change the mind of enough left-wing lunatics to make up for the complete disaffection of 40 million Christian evangelicals?

    Has the left given Bush any credit whatsoever for implementing broad swaths of their domestic agenda, e.g. massive increases in education spending, the continuation of Clinton environmental policies, politically correct border control, and a massive expansion of the MediCare entitlement? No, they still call him Hitler and call for his impeachment.

    You say — “I will NEVER support Republicans – UNTIL they COMPLETELY DIS-ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES from the Religious Fundies!” — but the truth is, you and the rest of your ilk wouldn’t support them anyway. So, why in the Hell should they give you anything?

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - January 12, 2006

  20. Suggestion, JRC. Why don’t you instead concentrate on making the Democrats reject confiscatory and punishing tax policies, initiate social security reform so I’m not having 12.6% of my income confiscated every year to pay into a system that will be bankrupt before I am at retirement age, and support the strong and necessary defense of America. Because independents like myself would be much more likely to support Democrats if they ditched their radicalism than far-left whackjobs are to ever support Republicans.

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - January 12, 2006

  21. Has the left given Bush any credit whatsoever for implementing broad swaths of their domestic agenda, e.g. massive increases in education spending, the continuation of Clinton environmental policies, politically correct border control, and a massive expansion of the MediCare entitlement? No, they still call him Hitler and call for his impeachment.

    You’re kidding right? LOL Increase in education…sorry $40B budget cut – part is in education/student loads. Repubs want to build a $200M wall across our couthern borders, the War will wind up costing $2 Trillion – when that money could have been spent HELPING PEOPLE HERE, you know ….40M + without health Ins., Poverty, Homelessness, the Forgotten Katrina victims debacle, OUR nations Infrustructure bridges, roads….I’d rather our nation go into debt helping OUR NATION then on a war started under false pretence…2000+ dead soldiers, over 15K seriously mamed…and Bush’s policy – CUT vet benefits??? Waaaa? Send soldiers into battle WITHOUT proper equipment! Ease the DODT policy – during BUSH”s war to USE Gay People….but when it’s all over if it ever is… “Bye Bye” you’re gay we don’t want you!! Sorry I don’t care what party the president is: ANY President that Truly wants to add DISCRIMINATION into the VERY DOCUMENT THAT DEFINES OUR NATION against a certain segment of the population has a screw loose. According to a recent report the President was quoted / over-heard calling the Constitution a “God Dammed Peice of Paper” — does he have to actually kill someone on live TV for you not to agree with him?

    Comment by JRC — January 12, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - January 12, 2006

  22. #21 — Thanks for completely proving my point.

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2006 @ 12:36 pm - January 12, 2006

  23. Hey V the K – why don’t you just kiss Bush’s ass on live TV and get it over with ?

    Comment by JRC — January 12, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - January 12, 2006

  24. JRC — I, alone, have given Bush more criticism on spending, on border neglect, and on other domestic policy issues than you and all the other house lefties combined have ever made of Democrat politicians.

    Comment by V the K — January 12, 2006 @ 12:44 pm - January 12, 2006

  25. we of ALL people should be the last to “Judge Others”

    I’m sorry, but I choked on my chicken (…Philly sub. My lunch) when I read that.

    Your right JRC…. when’s the last time any gay person has EVER judged someone else….?

    :::plays Twilight Zone theme:::

    Comment by Chad — January 12, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - January 12, 2006

  26. I have reached the point, Pat, where my answer to this kind of plea for “exposure” from gay groups is very simple: FUCK YOU.

    Okay, NDT, that’s fine, and I see your frustration is justified. But what about the substance of my request, as opposed to the solution you say that the current gay groups use. And I wasn’t necessarily saying that conservatives join in with he the moonbats, but start their own. I understand many, like you and others, have been doing grassroots work and succeeded somewhat. But yet it’s still those organizations that supposedly still speak for gay people. As long as many conservative gays in power stay in the closet or only semi-open, much of what you are saying will not change.

    Comment by Pat — January 12, 2006 @ 2:19 pm - January 12, 2006

  27. Pat, you bring up a valid point.

    However, after years of looking at the issue, my conclusion is this: HRC and the other gay organizations are not, because of the entrenched interests that control them and the addiction of their business models to moonbat money, ever going to change.

    Given that, I have two options:

    — Continue my work on an individual basis, occasionally allying with groups with similar, but not conflicting, interests (i.e. LCR)

    — Create a group for the specific purpose of providing an “alternate voice” to HRC

    Given that I already have contacts with various groups, both political and corporate, who ask my opinions on these matters, I am providing an alternate voice, so that’s not a concern. It might be magnified if I formed a separate group, but I think I would lose the personal touch that seems to work best in these situations.

    Also, forming an alternative group would give HRC a real enemy, which is the last thing they need; they need to continue to have to dream up reasons for their existence, because that’s what drives them into the hysterics that push them farther and farther towards irrelevancy. As more and more gays are turned off by their antics, more and more gays can be turned on to community-level activism and the kind of work that I do.

    To summarize, Pat, forming another group would be akin to putting together an army to storm the fortress of a pampered, spoiled royal family — lots of smoke, lots of flame, and lots of casualties. I prefer to eliminate them by letting them bleed their subjects dry for nothing, having those subjects grow disgusted with them and leave, and waiting for them to turn on each other.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2006 @ 12:48 pm - January 13, 2006

  28. NDT, your strategy may work, and it will probably happen the way you say. But I still think it would be better if moderate and conservative gays in positions of power would come out, instead of using the “my sexuality doesn’t matter even though it matters to almost every other straight counterpart” excuse.

    Comment by Pat — January 13, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - January 13, 2006

  29. But I still think it would be better if moderate and conservative gays in positions of power would come out, instead of using the “my sexuality doesn’t matter even though it matters to almost every other straight counterpart” excuse.

    Um, if I’m any example, we’re not exactly hiding.

    And even if we were, we can think of one excellent reason why; HRC and other gay groups have made it clear that the “acceptable” gays are pedophile drug-using abortion-pushing militant atheists, and that WE are “self-loathing Jewish Nazis”, for whom it is perfectly legitimate for gay groups and their attack dogs to harass our friends, our bosses, and our families, as well as try to get us fired from our jobs.

    The conditions are simple. If they want us around, purge the namecallers, the attack dogs, and the pedophile drug-using abortion-pushing militant atheists. But as long as they’re there, we won’t be.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 13, 2006 @ 4:46 pm - January 13, 2006

  30. Purge the namecallers, the attack dogs, and the pedophile drug-using abortion-pushing militant atheists.

    But if it weren’t for the namecallers, the attack dogs, and the pedophile drug-using abortion-pushing militant atheists, no gay people would have any rights!

    Comment by Gaylord McGay — January 13, 2006 @ 6:49 pm - January 13, 2006

  31. But if it weren’t for the namecallers, the attack dogs, and the pedophile drug-using abortion-pushing militant atheists, no gay people would have any rights!

    I would not go that far …

    Name Callers, Attack Dogs, etc. what I would call frictional processes. Recalling the Second Law of Thermodynamics, friction is wasted energy (I’ll eliminate the explanation of the 2nd law for brevity 🙂 Friction also causes a lot of damage. A lot of these groups seem to ‘turn-off’ rational people who see the confrontation in these groups and not the discussion of rights, what is best for everyone, etc.

    Taking a less frictional approach (i.e. rational discussion, showing how your goals in life are everyone’s goals, etc), events may be slower, but there is less wasted energy and less damage overall.

    Comment by Wendy — January 13, 2006 @ 8:10 pm - January 13, 2006

  32. Taking a less frictional approach (i.e. rational discussion, showing how your goals in life are everyone’s goals, etc), events may be slower, but there is less wasted energy and less damage overall.

    Absolutely. There is certainly a time and a place for some friction, but overall keeping the debate rational and free of name calling, bomb throwing, and attacks will get one a lot closer to goals without energizing the other side. Making a rational case requires a lot more patience, but in the end I think it garners stronger results.

    Comment by Just Me — January 13, 2006 @ 10:50 pm - January 13, 2006

  33. NDT, my understanding is that there are officials pretty high up in the Republican Party that are gay, but are in the closet or semi-open. Some were wrongly outed, while some have been open to a point. The RNC Chair has not disclosed his sexuality, saying that it is irrelevant or whatever, so one can make their own conclusions. But, for whatever reason, this information isn’t out to most Americans. So most Americans think that except for a couple of renegade Republicans, all gays are drag queens, gym bunnies, HRC loudmouths, or good boy closet cases who will stay nice and quiet and not disrupt anyone’s comfort zone by having the temerity to ask for rights deserved. What I don’t understand is why this exposure should be contingent on HRC’s leadership’s behavior and/or waiting for HRC to want gay moderates/conservatives.

    Comment by Pat — January 13, 2006 @ 11:08 pm - January 13, 2006

  34. But, for whatever reason, this information isn’t out to most Americans.

    Oh, it’s out there. It’s just that most Americans could care less about it. What they also don’t understand is how a community that spends so much time screaming, “sexual orientation is irrelevant, right to privacy” can expend so much time, effort, and money on sneaking around and trying to expose the sexual orientation of others.

    So most Americans think that except for a couple of renegade Republicans, all gays are drag queens, gym bunnies, HRC loudmouths, or good boy closet cases who will stay nice and quiet and not disrupt anyone’s comfort zone by having the temerity to ask for rights deserved. What I don’t understand is why this exposure should be contingent on HRC’s leadership’s behavior and/or waiting for HRC to want gay moderates/conservatives.

    Because, Pat, that is what HRC has told everyone gays are, and anyone who falls outside those fences isn’t. Remember? You can’t be gay and vote Republican. You can’t be gay and support restrictions on abortion. You can’t be gay and not support Lambda trying to get people off for soliciting sex in public restrooms. You can’t be gay and blame someone other than the drug companies marketing Viagra for the spread of AIDS. And, as I am fond of saying, anyone who says otherwise is a “self-loathing Jewish Nazi”, for whom it is perfectly legitimate for gay groups and their attack dogs to harass their friends, their bosses, and thier families, as well as try to get them fired from their jobs.

    Furthermore, it is more than obvious that HRC, et al., despite their pleas for outreach, have no intention of backing it up with tangible action or any moderation in THEIR viewpoints whatsoever. For instance, at the same time they are asking gay moderates and conservatives to come out and show how “mainstream” gays are, they are screaming that gays must oppose Samuel Alito’s confirmation because he may not support the dubious “right” to unlimited infanticide or their weird argument that, while an American father doesn’t have the legal right to prevent his unborn child, even if he’s married to the woman, from being aborted, an American judge should rule that the Chinese one who isn’t married to the woman involved does.

    Frankly put, gay groups like HRC are like cults — they are led by cynical manipulators who prey on the fears and desires of other people to advance themselves. Like most cults, what will have to happen for them to finally be broken is enough stupid decisions that it triggers an immense internal rebellion or them killing themselves off.

    In short, they have no desire to moderate their views, and I have no desire to see them do it when their failure to do so will lead to their demise.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 14, 2006 @ 12:19 pm - January 14, 2006

  35. NDT, I don’t disagree what you say about the HRC. And I also agree about the hypocrisy of those who out others. But that still doesn’t explain, or in my opinion, excuse those in power who could help show that the gay community is more than what HRC says it is.

    As for people caring about whether or not a celebrity or politician is gay, you may be right about that. My experience has been the opposite. Any time I have a conversation with a straight person, and the subject comes up, they are interested to hear about it. But they are also questioning it at the same time, because they’ve never heard of it from TV news, or the newspapers. So one way or another, there isn’t the exposure, and everyone goes on thinking that the gay community is the way the HRC says it is. Ironically, I think the religious conservatives, even the ones that know better, like it that way.

    Comment by Pat — January 15, 2006 @ 8:03 am - January 15, 2006

  36. Frankly put, gay groups like HRC are like cults — they are led by cynical manipulators who prey on the fears and desires of other people to advance themselves. Like most cults, what will have to happen for them to finally be broken is enough stupid decisions that it triggers an immense internal rebellion or them killing themselves off.

    It is a conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

    Comment by PeaceOut — January 15, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - January 15, 2006

  37. But that still doesn’t explain, or in my opinion, excuse those in power who could help show that the gay community is more than what HRC says it is.

    And to be honest, Pat, a lot of us already do.

    The bulk of the work of “gay rights” is not done by impassioned speeches at a microphone, or by celebrity appearances, or by media portrayals. It’s done in the day to day grind of work, life, and home with other people. Sharon Stone, bless her heart, as I blogged, pointed this out clearly — that we need to be the “local heroes” who do what’s right.

    This is antithetical to HRC and others, who operate with an almost paranoid view of normal people, and who have been far too successful in spreading the propaganda that we need “people in power” to effect change. To which I say, no…..you need to go to the people who PUT people in power to effect change.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 16, 2006 @ 10:33 am - January 16, 2006

  38. Amazing post; keep it up!

    Comment by picture of zoroastrianism — March 13, 2006 @ 6:21 pm - March 13, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.