In my original (and only posting) on the upcoming effort to get 200 gay and lesbian families to the front of the line at Monday’s annual White House Egg Roll, I expressed this concern:
Hear me now, or hear me later… I see nothing but disaster for this effort. You and I both know which gay activists are going to show up to crash the gates. They won’t be ones America will be comfortable seeing on their nightly news. I wonder who will clean up the mess of used condoms being thrown with plastic Easter eggs? (Editor’s note: The example of used condoms was a reference to the tactics of groups like ACT-UP during their demonstrations in the 1980s)
I still have great reservations that this will have any benefit, but I think I’ve changed my mind about the intent. I have been in correspondence with the Family Pride Coalition in the past couple of days. I noticed in their original push to get gays and lesbians to line up for tickets they made the following statement: “Family Pride will be hosting a pre-Easter Egg Roll gathering on Monday morning where we will give out T-shirts to everyone participating. The T-shirts will have a non-political message about our families but will clearly identify us as LGBT parents and families.”
I thought, “yeah right.” I’ve seen enough rainbow flags at ANSWER (Communist) anti-American rallies disguised as anti-war rallies to be very skeptical. So I sent the following email:
Hello. I would like to inform my readers what precisely your T-Shirts will say. The ambiguous “non political statement” isn’t good enough. I think people who stand in line deserve to know if they will be wearing a shirt bashing the President, the US Military and/or this nation. If history of gay groups’ protests are any guide, you can understand my concern. Thanks for your prompt reply.
Someone at FamilyPride replied:
We are not handing out t-shirts for this event anymore. We decided that it would look like too much of a protest and that is not what this is about. We’ve decided to hand out rainbow-colored leis to our families as a unifying symbol instead.
So I’m willing to celebrate this idea with my original reservations still bothering me. But this does seem like a constructive way to reach out to Americans. Imagine a gay and lesbian couple connecting with a big-wig GOP contributor on the White House lawn. I’ve been at enough Republican events to know that most conservatives don’t give a crap about gay people. Perhaps I was wrong in sounding the alarm. But I am going to pay attention to what happens this Monday.
If you are in the DC area and would like more information on this event, please visit the Family Pride Coalition’s website.
**UPDATE: Boozhy actually agrees with my initial position on the Egg Roll. He is now an “uber conservative” gay. LOL**
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Bruce, your reservations are well founded. I had the same reaction to the news that gay activist where planning to crash the WH egg roll. I, like you, will be keeping a skeptical eye on this for as you and I well know some folks are not above pimping their children in order to make an inane anti war/Bush/ Republican political point.
Toning it down is a move in the right direction, but at the end of the day, they’re still trying to politicize a children’s event, which is just reprehensible.
Identity politics, again. Rainbow leis. SIG.
Not too different from protesters waving Mexican flags instead of US flags. Why not red, white and blue leis?
Even without a political motive Monday’s effort to draw attention to gay and lesbian families seems completely narcissistic. I think the general public would respond better to a long-term understated and humble approach. The in-your-face “look at me!” instant gratification approach is a real turn off. I’m gay and very uncomfortable with this whole thing. In a time when all are aware of great danger and hardship for so many people around the world Monday’s self-indulgence, by comparison, wreaks of spoiled brat behavior. I’d rather see American gay and lesbian families organizing to raise money to help save the lives of hungry children in Darfur and other places. Honorable actions are far more powerful than multiple rainbow-colored leis at a White House egg roll for God’s sake.
I’ve been at enough Republican events to know that most conservatives don’t give a crap about gay people. Perhaps I was wrong in sounding the alarm. But I am going to pay attention to what happens this Monday.
You LCR crack me up….”Most Conservatives don’t give a crap about gays/lesbians..”??? Waaaaa? Funny, they seem to give a crap when they USE US along with thier BIBLES and FAMILY VALUES BS when Election time comes…don’t ya think? I think it’s a POSITIVE THING that Gay families attend this Event. If you saw the special on Rosie O’Donnells Cruise….you would be moved that Gay Parents make GREAT PARENTS….and NONE of thier children are ACCIDENTS…..they actually WANT TO BE PARENTS! IT’S ABOUT TIME AMERICA SAW GAYS/LESBIANS AS PEOPLE/FAMILIES…..like anyone all people go through phases of life….and as you age…you mellow and settle down on the outside and inside – JUST LIKE Hets!
Does anyone else see it odd that they find it necessary to even wear leis? Won’t others get the picture when seeing two guys or two women together with their child (children)? This “in-your-face” attitude is not going to get us anywhere. A big question I have is how many gay couples are going to “borrow” a child from a family member or friend simply to get into this event.
For those gay and lesbian couples WITH THEIR OWN children who attend to simply enjoy the day without the need to wear the lei, these are the ones I respect.
Barry, don’t be presumptuous. There may be single lesbian mothers among the crowd. Or there may be lesbian mothers who are members of couples for which only one was in a position to attend.
Regarding the outcry against “identity politics,” I find it amazing that some apparently are unable to fathom the fact that it was those who were against equal rights for gay people that were the ones who initially engaged in “identity politics.” Just as those who were against equal rights for women, blacks, catholics, jews and so forth, were the ones who were initially engaged in “identity politics.”
Thanks raj… point taken about the single parents; I wasn’t thinking about them when I wrote my message. But as far as those who are there as couples, the leis aren’t necessary if they are truly there for their children to experience the egg roll.
Odd to see “conservatives” divided and upset about an all-American family gathering. The usual sad tired, criticisms about being to much “in the face” or being”militant” are at times being bandied about. Whatever.
They should all just stay at home then and watch TV. I recommend renting Dr. Seuss’s “Horton Hears a Who!”.
The main problem with the “don’t be too militant” complaints is the same one I have with complaining too much about lawsuits.
If gays and lesbians don’t at least do something, then they let the other side drive the agenda. Right now those in the GOP that are radically anti-gay can stand around their GOP peers and say every nasty thing about gay and lesbian families their nasty little minds can come up with. And there is nothing and no one present to challenge that view. Because gays and lesbians won’t even take part in the conversation, at least not openly.
Post Easter-Egg Roll, perhaps the next time one of those radicals starts off on a rant, the person listening to it will think, “You know, I met that nice lesbian couple and their kids last Monday and they certainly didn’t seem to be the Anti-Christ to me.”
Visibility is important.
Post Easter-Egg Roll, perhaps the next time one of those radicals starts off on a rant, the person listening to it will think, “You know, I met that nice lesbian couple and their kids last Monday and they certainly didn’t seem to be the Anti-Christ to me.”
Sure — if they choose to meet them.
However, what these activists are doing is ensuring that, if you don’t really want to talk to gay people or are uncomfortable around them, it’s easy to figure out who to avoid.
Personally, I find this whole concept reprehensible; parents are dragging their children to an event and forcing them to dress differently than others and parade so Mommie and Mommie can make a political statement. For as much as these people hate Fred Phelps, they seem to have no problem copying his practices.
Conversations like the ones you want, Patrick, will only happen when gay people start being people first and gays second. You shouldn’t have to go to an egg roll and wear funny clothes “for the good of the cause”; you should go because you want to and wear what you want.
Hahahahhahahah…You people are amazing. Exactly what kind of demonstration WOULD you approve of, if not families rolling Easter eggs? I’ll venture that not one of you has written a complaint about the pro-life’s use of children to tote around posters of fetuses. And what about those awful African Americans sending their children off to the white schoools where they were called names and abused. Do you think Americans became sympathetic to people who would use their CHILDREN to demonstrate to the world the hatred amid which those same children were bound to grow up?
Oh, I know. This is different.
What is it, exactly, about raving leftists and all caps? Do they slobber all over their screens when they TYPE IN ALL CAPS? Do they feel that, unlike anyone else, it doesn’t make them look like juvenile twits?
Exactly what kind of demonstration WOULD you approve of, if not families rolling Easter eggs?
How about doing it without the leis?
Oh, that’s right — then we’d look just like everyone else and the focus would be on the egg rolling, not on advancing our political message.
God forbid.
As for the rest of your charges, actually it is different. A pro-life rally is an event that exists solely to advertise a given issue. You expect people to be making ideological stands at those.
However, the White House egg rolling is an egg rolling, not an ideological rally. Carrying out demonstrations at it is akin to Fred Phelps demonstrating at funerals; a perversion of a public event put on for a wholly different reason to advance one’s ideology.
In addition, what you are doing, NitPick, is hiding behind rainbow leis, instead of mingling with everyone else like the normal, everyday people you want to be treated like. The leis are put there because you can’t STAND to not be different and to make a scene. In addition, the leis make it MORE likely that something bad will happen, and you and yours intend to jump on that fact to prove how “victimized” you are.
This event is just like NBC’s deliberate actions; it’s meant to provoke a confrontation so that gay families can show how “victimized” they are.
To summarize, if you and your fellow activists want to be treated like everyone else, take off the f*cking leis. But you can’t do that, because it doesn’t a) draw attention to YOU and b) because you want to pick a fight so you can complain about being “victimized”.
Cowards.
In 1953, Mamie Eisenhower asked why black children were looking through the gates at the white children rolling eggs inside, and the following year she insisted that blacks be included. I wonder if the First Lady considerend putting the Black families in white face so that the event wouldn’t be politicized?
Let me explain a very simple concept to you, Richard.
You can tell black children apart from white children by simple visual inspection.
You cannot tell children of gay parents apart from children of heterosexual parents by simple visual inspection.
What you and your fellow “activists” are doing is to demand that you be treated like everyone else, then going out of your way to make clear you are NOT like everyone else.
If you don’t want the children of gay parents to be treated any differently, why do you insist on singling them out?
Because this is about slapping the Bush administration in the face and making a public spectacle. You can’t STAND not being the center of attention and you can’t STAND just sitting back and letting the kids roll eggs just like every other kid. You have to do something to MAKE yourself stand out and create a scene to reinforce your “persecuted victim” status, even though you wouldn’t have been kept out of the egg roll anyway.
This is all about being deliberately provocative and creating problems. Are you interested in actually doing the egg roll? Or would you and your fellow “queer activists” not bother with it if there weren’t TV cameras there and if you couldn’t make scenes?
And there is nothing and no one present to challenge that view.
Does there have to be someone wearing a rainbow wig and a T-shirt that says FAG in huge letters to reassure you that someone is there to “challenge that view”?
Does anyone else see it odd that they find it necessary to even wear leis?
I suppose having different colored hankies in different pockets was rejected.
NDT says:
You are I think a bit ignorant about the event. Wearing leis will be one of the milder Easter costumes seen. Are you telling me you have no grasp of the sheer horror that is an easter day parade get-up?
Besides, this is Washington DC. Do you think there will be no casual lobbying going on by other interest groups including the GOP at the event?
Gay and Lesbian families have every damn right to be there. So what if you don’t like what they are wearing or saying. Are you going to tell the straight people what they should be wearing too? You are being ridiculous. If a conservative Hassidic Jew shows up in full regalia are you going to accuse them of having a political agenda? What about the enormous display of Christian crosses that will be sure to accompany the event? Isn’t that pushing religion down peoples throats? Of course not. The only people getting worked up about this are anti-gay people and those that are afraid of them.
Further, do you suppose the other families will be wearing items identifying who or what they are? I suppose they could wear a nice Arnold J. Rimmer H, for Hetero, on their foreheads.
Gryph, have you ever been to or seen pictures of the event? The vast majority of people in it look like they’re headed to church.
This is an Easter egg roll on the White House lawn. A certain level of decorum is a given.
Do you think there will be no casual lobbying going on by other interest groups including the GOP at the event?
There’s a big difference between “casual lobbying” and “let’s all get dressed up in the same outrageous outfits so we can draw the attention of the camera and hold a political rally”.
If a conservative Hassidic Jew shows up in full regalia are you going to accuse them of having a political agenda?
Hasidic Jews are required by their religious beliefs to wear the clothes that they do. Are you now claiming that glbts are REQUIRED to wear rainbow leis and force their children to do the same?
What about the enormous display of Christian crosses that will be sure to accompany the event? Isn’t that pushing religion down peoples throats?
Then don’t go. Hold your own egg roll. But then again, since that’s related to the Christian holiday of Easter, doesn’t THAT count as “pushing religion” as well?
Gay and Lesbian families have every damn right to be there.
Nobody’s said they can’t be there. Nobody’s said they can’t engage in casual lobbying. But they have to follow the same rules as everyone else, and they’re not prepared to do it.
North Dallas Thirty — April 14, 2006 @ 5:17 pm – April 14, 2006
You can tell black children apart from white children by simple visual inspection.
Apparently it passed over your head that the issue being discussed here is not the race or sexual orientation of the children, it is the sexual orientation of the parent(s).
Ye gads, you’re as dumb here as you were at IndeGayForum.
Gryph pisses himself again:
Gay and Lesbian families have every damn right to be there.
Can you name one person here who’s saying they don’t?
You are being ridiculous. If a conservative Hassidic Jew shows up in full regalia are you going to accuse them of having a political agenda?
Now who’s being ridiculous? Better yet, who’s being a hysterical ass?
What about the enormous display of Christian crosses that will be sure to accompany the event? Isn’t that pushing religion down peoples throats? Of course not.
I wondered how long it would take a lib to piss and moan about wearing crosses. Of course not. People do tend to wear crosses everyday. People don’t tend to wear rainbow leis. One is being used to attract attention. The other isn’t.
The only people getting worked up about this are anti-gay people and those that are afraid of them.
The only people who are getting worked up about this are the people who have no problem bastardizing a family fun event by drawing attention to them.
Why wear a lei, Patrick? Why?
Apparently it passed over your head that the issue being discussed here is not the race or sexual orientation of the children, it is the sexual orientation of the parent(s).
Actually, you merely didn’t read the next sentence.
You cannot tell children of gay parents apart from children of heterosexual parents by simple visual inspection.
That makes it clear that I am talking about the sexual orientation of the parents.
Now go run away like you always do when confronted with proof of your idiocy.
It still just gets back to egocentric, agendized adults trying to take an event for children and instead making it all about them.
Are gay men capable of debates without pejoratives? Discuss among yourselves.
Touche, Richard. 🙂
Children should not be turned into political pawns.
Wearing t-shirts, leis, or whatever to make sure other notice you are gay parents at a children’s event does just that.
If a gay couple wants to go, sign up, and go as parents who want to see their kid have a fun time at the egg roll, not because you want people to notice you and who you have sex with.
LOL…Somebody needs to submit this thread to the Hall of Fame of the Outer Limits of Inanity in Public Discourse.
Wow, NDT, ya really think this is intentionally provocative? Gah. Yes it is. Let’s imagine one of these children grown up, looking at pictures of herself, at the White House Easter Egg Roll with her same-gender parents. Do you actually think she is going to look back in shame and criticize her parents for “politicizing” her? This is the kind of silly abstraction of a person who has no experience in such things. I feel quite sure — having read endless texts of the children of civil rights workers — that they will look back with pride and, I imagine considerable amusement, especially at people liek you frothing at the mouth that it jes ain’t rite.
Your effort to slither out of your implications by saying this is about the sexual orientation of the parents and not that of the children is embarassing — as if the children won’t suffer because of bigotry directed at their parents. I thought it was well understood that in a movement that is about the freedom to love whom you choose, we all suffer when the state presumes to regulate love — not just between the primary partners but among family members and the members of the culture at large.
Which reminds me: Whhat about the people who organized PFLAG, put together demonstrations and took their children out into the open with them? Or do you assume a certain age of consent here? Or are the parents wrong to do this because they do not suffer the same prejudice that their children will.
I have never read such silliness.
I feel quite sure — having read endless texts of the children of civil rights workers — that they will look back with pride and, I imagine considerable amusement, especially at people liek you frothing at the mouth that it jes ain’t rite.
One critical difference.
The children of civil-rights workers, especially black ones, did not have to go separate themselves from the crowd deliberately — their skin color did it for them. Their goal was for the crowd to look past their skin color.
On the other hand, we have the children in this case, whose parents are deliberately separating them from the crowd and TRYING to make them look different so that the crowd focuses on their differences, evidently in the hope of provoking nasty behavior.
The former WERE discriminated against. The latter are trying to play victims for the cameras.
I thought it was well understood that in a movement that is about the freedom to love whom you choose, we all suffer when the state presumes to regulate love — not just between the primary partners but among family members and the members of the culture at large.
Don’t make me laugh.
Do you realize who’s leading this movement? The partner of Cheryl Jacques, who, as the head of HRC, called support the campaigns of homophobic bigots and FMA supporters “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. What makes it even funnier is that they dropped tens of millions in support of these politicians and their campaigns supporting and endorsing such measures while spending relative pennies fighting them.
So in short, we don’t believe a word you and yours say when you whine about “regulating love”; you’ve already shown you’ll PROMOTE and SUPPORT it when a Democrat endorses it.
That’s why we don’t believe for one minute this stunt is about anything other than crass politics.
Gay people in America are some of the luckiest and freest people in the world.
Why wear a lei, Patrick? Why?
For the same reason Harry Hay once told me he liked to wear his large gaudy necklaces. They are pretty and I like pretty things.
___________________
There is a profile of the group that is sponsoring this event. The group is 27 years old and it has learned a few things. It also has been working almost entirely at the grassroots level on a state-by-state basis. In short, this group does a great deal of what NDT and others are constantly complaining that HRC doesn’t do. Yet you would think they were describing the gay anti-Christ with their pillorying of this group.
The problem is obviously not the group itself, it’s that they have the words “gay” and “lesbian” in their title.
Something NDT seems to refuse to recognize is, oddly enough, that gays and lesbians are not a minority group similar to race. We are inherently different from straight people, but unless we take action in some way to identify ourselves, we are invisible in the general population. And if you are invisible then who cares? You are an unmentionable in our society, an untouchable caste.
Once again, unless we make ourselves visible in some way, then all you get to listen too are anti-gay bigots telling everyone how horrible we are. You CANNOT make any movement forward WHATSOEVER unless you deal with this basic fact.
A gay or lesbian person can go absolutely nowhere in our Country or our society without inherently making a political statement of some kind by our mere presence. Whether we are “discreet” or not. There simply is no choice in this.
You don’t like it? Too Bad. You (or I for that matter) don’t get to make the rules on this. So DEAL WITH IT or go hide your heads back under the covers and get the fuck out of everyone else’s way.
We are inherently different from straight people, but unless we take action in some way to identify ourselves, we are invisible in the general population. And if you are invisible then who cares?
That alone should tell you something. But do continue.
Once again, unless we make ourselves visible in some way, then all you get to listen too are anti-gay bigots telling everyone how horrible we are. You CANNOT make any movement forward WHATSOEVER unless you deal with this basic fact.
Gryph, I find it interesting that you haven’t commented on my blogpost of yesterday dealing with this exact issue.
Quite frankly, I think because you’re the poster child for it.
Look at what you are writing. “All you get to listen to are anti-gay bigots”. Do you honestly, HONESTLY believe that the only thing you hear in this world is antigay bigotry?
What you and yours refuse to answer is why you have to make public spectacles of yourself. The reason is simple; you think everyone in the world is Jerry Falwell, and it’s your way of pissing in their faces. You LOVE being the aggrieved victim; you’re frankly ADDICTED to it.
You know what? If you weren’t wearing those leis, you could walk right up to the gate with your kids, walk through, do the egg roll, and walk out, and no one would likely give a damn. In other words, you’d be treated just like any other family at the egg roll.
And you can’t handle that. It would destroy your entire ideology, your entire fundraising structure, your entire control mechanism over gay people to not be victimized.
So you put on those leis to DELIBERATELY provoke conflict and DELIBERATELY make a public spectacle. Then you can get your daily victim fix while mugging for the camera.
You call this “progress”? Especially when you and Familypride.org go around endorsing homophobes who want to strip you of the family rights you claim you want and calling them “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”?
Discrimination: When a heterosexual female tries to use the restroom at a local NYC drag-queen establishment known as LIPS only to find one door labeled ‘The Men’s Room’ and the other labeled “The Other Room’.
you right wing idiots are inept of seeing any picture, let alone a big one. wake up before it’s too late.
This might come as a shock to some of you but I manged to spend my days interacting with straight folks witout having to wear a badge or funny outfit.
rightiswrong said…
“you right wing idiots are inept of seeing any picture, let alone a big one. wake up before it’s too late.”
Do you have anything, you know, in the way of an argument to contribute, or are sweeping generalizations the absolute best you’re capable of?
I’d say the latter, given that your previous gems reveal an almost funny “we’re not gonna make it…we’re all gonna DIE” victim mentality.
I’m humbled by your clearly superior intellect.
Eric in Hollywood
I’m afraid I have to agree with you right-wingers on this one.
It’s fine to be a gay couple and bring your child to the Easter Egg Roll – but leave the lei’s, signs, t-shirts, and most importantly the politics at home.
You don’t like it? Too Bad. You (or I for that matter) don’t get to make the rules on this. So DEAL WITH IT or go hide your heads back under the covers and get the fuck out of everyone else’s way.
In other words, shut up and never criticize the gay left.
Hey V, you need to reword that.
It’s “shut up and never criticize the left (period).”
Just a suggestion.
E in H
Yeah, I really wouldn’t feel it appropriate for ANY group trying to make the Easter egg roll all about themselves with protests or symbolic statements or the like. Give politics a rest for the day. There’s nothing wrong with gay groups wanting to call attention to themselves with goofy leis or whatever some other time… (well, maybe tactically wrong, but I’m not sure I’m qualified to decide that) but I have to agree with those that say taking over this event is a little self-centered, given that nobody’s actually being excluded from just going and having fun. And the “everybody else is going to do it” argument about “casual lobbying” just doesn’t cut it. Do you want to be just another interest group? Personally I think being seen that way has been a barrier to acceptance so far. You get people(like my dad, I’m sorry to say) grumbling about “agendas” as if they are being conspired against.
I think more generally that the dilemma with identity politics is that you can’t be both mainstream and “special.” Each comes with the price of giving up the others. As has been well put, that means the attention and the validation of victim status, for example, is part of that tradeoff.
As if it weren’t enough that these rainbow-lei people won’t be trying their best to embarrass the whole community, we have idiots like this at Ohio State.
#42 — Maybe those Buckeye profs can get together with the prof from Northern Kentucky U whose feelings were so offended by a pro-life display that she and her students went out and ripped it up.
I think I understand a bit better why the left is making common cause with radical Islamists. They both despise other people’s freedom of speech. (As does Gryph, apparently.)
Might I point out that mild PDAs between mom and dad — such as hand-holding and cheek-kisses — are perfectly acceptable at family events such as Easter Egg Rolls, and that similar displays between mom and mama or dad and papa should be more than adequate for Gay Visibility, without the need for special apparel or rainbow accessories.
NDT, who cares if it’s about “crass politics” — whatever the hell that is. It’s about people showing up in a family situation, identifying as gay and saying, we are everywhere, we are like you, we have the same values generally, and when you speak hatefully of gay people, you may be speaking of people sitting next to you.
I really don’t understand your rabid insistence that gay people remain invivisble.
I’m sure someone could argue that your far less than classy nudie pics I recall seeing on your site sometime back give fags a bad rep. Shame on you.
You might consider lightening up about 10,000 lbs. The man who started this thread panicked and left his own site when he was outed publicly. He should have by now learned that to be out and proud enhances, not diminishes your life. Anyone parenting children with a gay partner knows this thread is just absolutely insane — a very sad coommentary on the extremes to which people will go to create a rhetorical screen to aavoid rocking event the tiniest boats.
What Gryph said: “go hide your heads back under the covers and get the fuck out of everyone else’s way.”
My accurate interpretation: “Shut up and never criticize the gay left.”
Now, Gryph comes back whining and calling me a liar. (Kind of funny considering he previously boasted that he never read other people’s comments. Was that a lie Gryphie?) If he holds true to form, his next move will be to throw a little tantrum and accuse people of name-calling.
4: By any chance, did those “in your face” negroes make you uncomfortable during the civil rights movement?
Dear Comment by liberal,
They werent called “in your face” negroes, they were dismissed as “upity”. The objective is visible inclusion. All the arguments here are about methodology.
=
If that’s so, there’s no reason to wear rainbow leis and demand special victim status.
Love of God and country, patriotism, life, and individual liberty and resonsibility, above group membership?
No. Not generally. Not even in the same galaxy.
Oh my god, the political fallout has just been horrible — HORRIBLE, as reported in the WaPo today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/15/AR2006041501045_pf.html
It appears that people in the militrary are far more tolerant than NDT and his thinkalikes.
No NPJ they weren’t more tolerant, they made the exact same argument being made here-that the egg roll should be about the families/kids and not politicized.
Children are not and should not be political pawns.
Although I did get a laugh out of the woman who didn’t want to have to explain homosexuality to her four year old. All you have to say is that some men like men and some women like women-not like you have to go into any more details-not like a 4 year wants or expects to get a lesson in the mechanics of homosexual sex.
It’s about people showing up in a family situation, identifying as gay and saying, we are everywhere, we are like you, we have the same values generally, and when you speak hatefully of gay people, you may be speaking of people sitting next to you.
But we’re not the same, because our sexual orientation requires us to wear rainbow leis and glow-in-the-dark bracelets, then camp out en masse to get tickets. You can’t be gay if you don’t totally agree with this and if you don’t do as you’re told or “get the fuck out of the way”.
Explain that to me.
I really don’t understand your rabid insistence that gay people remain invivisble.
And herein lies the problem.
I don’t insist that gay people remain invisible because, as Throbert McGee pointed out above, we won’t be invisible in doing the everyday things of life. You think people won’t notice that, instead of a guy and gal, that kid has two guys or two gals s/he is following? You think people won’t notice low-level PDA between the two? We’re not by any means invisible if we do the ordinary things.
However, what seems to be happening is that gays have to make public spectacles of themselves or risk being “invisible”. Again, see above– unless I dress up like an idiot to draw attention to myself, I’m not really gay and I’m impeding progress. Brilliant.
Now, I think the second part of your comment deserves its own statement:
The man who started this thread panicked and left his own site when he was outed publicly. He should have by now learned that to be out and proud enhances, not diminishes your life.
You need a history lesson.
GayPatriot was already out — to his family, his coworkers, and others — when he started this site. He chose to remain anonymous because of concerns about what the people he was speaking out against would do to him and his associates.
Based on what happened, his concerns were justified.
Read all the links in that blogpost; there you see the face of “gay activists”.
Calling employers trying to get people fired.
Calling friends and misrepresenting themselves as acting on behalf of police to frighten and intimidate.
Calling others and misrepresenting themselves as journalists to try to get information.
Forcing the shutdown of the blog sites of people who disagree with what they’re doing.
It’s all there. And GP has more.
So, NitPick, I’m not “lightening up”. “Gay activists” have already proven to me that they will attempt to destroy lives of even other out gay people if said out gay people don’t conform to their worldview. Furthermore, this particular set has already demonstrated that they don’t have any trouble with their families being stripped of rights if Democrats do it.
You tell me why I should keep quiet as these hatemongers attempt to use MY sexual orientation as an excuse for their pathetic and moronic behavior, especially since I know they’d do their best to destroy my career and harass my friends, just like they tried to do with GayPatriot.
By any chance, did those “in your face” negroes make you uncomfortable during the civil rights movement?
For some reason, they didn’t have to wear outlandish and inappropriate outfits to get attention. Nor did they have to directly pick fights to be victimized.
What no liberal here has answered is why it’s REQUIRED that gay people make public spectacles of themselves.
Well, the Gay easter egg roll has come and gone. The rainbow lei induced hysteria imagined by this bunch of self-hating weasels failed to materialize. No toddlers screaming in terror. No genteel southern belles fainting with the vapors. No pie in the First Lady’s face. No unseemly spectacle at all.
You sound disappointed, Donny.
On the contrary, I’m proud that these brave families made themselves visible while at the same time respecting the dignity of the day and place. I knew they would, you assumed they wouldn’t. Who would make a scene on Easter in front of their own children on the White House lawn? That’s lunacy, and yet you assumed that these gay people would do it. You – a gay person – assume that other gay people are mad, disrespectful lunatics. Why do you do that? Explain it to me. I don’t get it. Why do you assume that gay people are bad, when you yourself are gay?
Donny said…
“Why do you assume that gay people are bad, when you yourself are gay?”
And here we have a perfect example of the left’s inability to comprehend anything they read.
Donny, sweetie…try reading the original post and comments again. This time, however, take the liberal plank out of your eye, will ya?
Sheesh.
Eric in Hollywood
Who would make a scene on Easter in front of their own children on the White House lawn?
The same kind of people who would throw used condoms.
The same kind of people who would break into a Catholic Church during Mass to profane the altar and the sacrament.
The same kind of people who would do the things I mentioned above.
Let’s hear these “brave families” denounce that first, instead of whining about how they’re “unfairly judged”.
And let’s hear YOU denounce it first, before you start bitching about us not giving other gays the benefit of the doubt.
For Eric, I can read just fine. There is an assumption running through this thread as follows: 1. These gay parents only care about themselves, 2. Their only motivation is to make a self-indulgent scene to make themselves feel relevant, 3. They don’t care about their own children or anybody else’s children and are using their own children as politcal pawns, 4. They don’t care about Easter or the White House, and 5. They only want to embarrase the President.
All of those assumptions are now demonstrably false. My question to you is: why would you assume and ascribe those low-down motives to a bunch of well-meaning gay parents? I don’t get it. Seriously, I want to know. Why do you assume and ascribe (falsely) bad motives to gay people when you yourself are gay? It’s a valid question. And the answer isn’t “you’re a liberal.”
North Dallas: I can assure you that none of the gay parents ever engaged in the freaky rude behavior that you speak of. You’re assumption that all gay people throw used condons and break into churches is wildly false. Do you really think that people who have enough love in them to not only form a monogamous same-sex bond but also to love and raise children are people who would throw used condoms? You’re making baseless, wild accusations against your own kind. Why do you do that? Explain.
There is an assumption running through this thread as follows: 1. These gay parents only care about themselves, 2. Their only motivation is to make a self-indulgent scene to make themselves feel relevant, 3. They don’t care about their own children or anybody else’s children and are using their own children as politcal pawns, 4. They don’t care about Easter or the White House, and 5. They only want to embarrase the President.
I think we can tell 1 through 3 by the fact that they lined up en masse and insanely insisted that everyone wear rainbow leis to identify themselves.
Of course, what you casually ignore is that, before GayPatriot blew the whistle on them, they were all going to wear T-shirts with slogans on them. That makes 4 and 5 also obviously true.
Maybe you should explain, Donny, why they were going to do that, right up until the time they were found out and exposed. Better yet, maybe you should explain why they couldn’t just walk right in the gate without having to wear the leis and jewelry.
They’re pissed at us. I’ve gotten nasty emails from them already questioning my sexuality. They wanted a protest, and because we wouldn’t let them, they didn’t get to “make a statement”.
That’s also why I have ZERO trouble believing they’re more than capable of “freaky rude” behavior; I’ve seen it myself.
#55 North Dallas Thirty — April 16, 2006 @ 2:50 pm – April 16, 2006
What no liberal here has answered is why it’s REQUIRED that gay people make public spectacles of themselves.
This is a joke, right? I haven’t seen anyone suggest that it is REQUIRED that anyone do anything.
Your continual kvetching (also known as “bitching and moaning”) about this issue here, and the same-sex marriage issue over at IndeGayForum, reminds me of
(a) Older Negroes, who, during the black civil rights movement, bemoaned the fact that younger Negroes were fighting for civil rights–initially primarily through the courts. Why were they bemoaning that? Because they had reached an accommodation with the status quo, and the younger Negroes were threatening both the status quo and their accommodation with it; and
(b) Older gay people who, during the early days of the gay civil rights movement–primarily the 1970s, but also the 1950s and 1960s–bemoaned the fact that younger gay people were fighting for civil rights. For the same reason–they had reached an accommodation with the status quo, and the younger gay people were threatening both the status quo and their accommodation with it.
Your continual kvetching is why I said that you were dumb. And your comment that I quoted above is merely more evidence of it.
I would have perfered pins, something more conspicious, instead of leis. However, nothing is going to happen at this event. Living in DC, they have been hyping this Easter egg roll for weeks now, talking about the gay familes intent to show up. But not a damn thing is going to happen that will be newsworthy, except the faux news that they have been hyping all week about the gays showing up with their kids. Big deal.
Mark my words, it’ll be such a non-event, it won’t even make the evening news.
Then demonstrate that they are false.
#67 rightwingprof — April 17, 2006 @ 7:51 am – April 17, 2006
>>>>All of those assumptions are now demonstrably false
Then demonstrate that they are false.
Those who assert that the assumptions are true, should provide evidence that they are true.
I note that very few people around here provide any evidence that their assertions have anything to do with reality. Is that typical of self-described “conservatives”?
raj whined…
“I note that very few people around here provide any evidence that their assertions have anything to do with reality.”
Here’s an assertion…
You’re a twit.
Want me to show my work? Fine.
Try avoiding this site for a week. If you can do that, then I’ll publically admit I was wrong.
We got a deal here, tiger, or what?
Eric in Hollywood
This is a joke, right? I haven’t seen anyone suggest that it is REQUIRED that anyone do anything.
And yet, when somebody dares speak up against it, you and yours start on the “Uncle Tom” and “oreo” rhetoric, comparing us to “older Negroes”.
Aside from being howlingly amusing, that’s an insult to blacks everywhere, who were denied entrance no matter what they did.
I don’t particularly care, because I know for what you and your fellow “proud queens” stand:
That night, standing there waiting for the light to change, I was spun around by a sudden outburst of shrieking, screaming and hollering. The gay teens had circled around one of their own, a tiny black queen, perhaps 14 years old, while she climbed up onto a parked car, stood on its hood, affixed an suction-cupped dildo to the windshield and began fucking herself on it. Her audience went apoplectic, their screaming echoed up and down the narrow canyon of storefronts and apartments. A boy, himself no older than 15, caught me looking and shouted, “What the fuck you lookin’ at faggot? Ain’t you never seen no queen take a dick before?”
Ignoring the damage to the car being made by the queen’s heels, ignoring the sex act being performed in the middle of the street, ignoring the screaming and shouting, I stupidly mentioned the worst thing I could have. “Don’t you kids have school tomorrow?” In an instant, half of the them had encircled me. I backed down the sidewalk towards my building’s door, as they threatened to “cut me” and “fuck me up.” When I knew I could make it, I turned and ran for my door, their hooting laughter bouncing down the sidewalk behind me.
Not to mention what I outlined above, where “proud queers” try to shut down other peoples’ blogs, harass their employers, and make threatening phone calls to their friends.
Meanwhile, Raj, you and your fellow “proud gays” that call banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when Democrats do it, repeatedly, are nothing but hypocrites on the gay marriage issue.
You can insult me all you want. But you and your fellow liberal queers who abuse MY rights so that you can fuck on windshields, harass honest and hardworking gay people who happen to disagree with you, and who shovel millions of dollars to homophobic Democrats, deserve every beating you get.
#69 HollywoodNeoCon — April 17, 2006 @ 11:23 am – April 17, 2006
Try avoiding this site for a week. If you can do that, then I’ll publically admit I was wrong.
Aside from the fact that I don’t really give a tinkers’ damn whether or not you publicly admit that you were wrong–why should I?–why should I avoid this site? So that like minded persons can have a knitting circle or Kaffeeklatsch? Hey, if that’s what you all want, I’m sure that gaypatriot can accommodate you by having his ISP require registration to comment. Other sites do. Of course, if he here does require registration, that would be an admission that he only wants a narrow set of viewpoints to be posted here.
Nope, not narrow…
Just absent the bile and bitterness you hold up as “truth.”
Nice try, though.
Of course, if he here does require registration, that would be an admission that he only wants a narrow set of viewpoints to be posted here.
So now you’re saying that every site that requires registration wants only a narrow set of viewpoints.
Go wage your jihad on Daily Kos, then.
The Easter Egg roll was on the news. I don’t remember which channel I was flipping past. They mentioned that gay and lesbian families had also attended and were wearing rainbow lais but the video just showed kids. That was all they said.
re: registration. Ick. When I click through to a new website and see something I want to comment on and it asks for a registration I just leave. I’m sure I’d register here if necessary but judging by my own behavior it would seem that registration for a particular blog just reenforces the same old group of commenters.
the only protesters present yesterday were “christians” shouting anti-gay hubris at the event.
and as far as using children as political props, let’s not forget the religious right using a five year old child to try and get the very brain-dead terri schiavo a water bottle. disgusting.
And amazingly enough, who wants to bet those protestors wouldn’t have been there if professional gay “victims” hadn’t baited them to come?
and as far as using children as political props, let’s not forget the religious right using a five year old child to try and get the very brain-dead terri schiavo a water bottle. disgusting.
Well you won’t find me defending this either. I have said it already, grown ups should not use their chidren as political pawns. I don’t like it when the right does it, and I don’t like it when the left does it.
On the other hand, if anyone has the right to raise their children in their ideologies, it’s parents. It bugs me more when schools do it.
Not to say I agree with getting a child to carry water to Terri Schiavo, but if you truely believed that someone was being murdered, what would you be willing to do?
I realize this is a complete tangent to anything here but I think sometimes that, particularly when it comes to right to life or something like Schiavo, that people like to pretend that it’s about something else other than keeping murder from happening… since they think it’s obvious that Schiavo is very brain-dead that it must be similarly obvious to everyone, and that since it’s *obvious* that a fetus is not a human that it must be obvious to everyone, so it’s not about life it’s about some political or ideological agenda… in the case of abortion, obviously it’s just a round about way to do violence to women. This simply isn’t true.
Say they’re wrong, but not that their motivation is anything but what they say it is.
Has anyone determined if families of same-sex couples were barred from previous Easter Egg Rolls at the White House? Was there anything special about this particular Easter Egg Roll that it became a must-do for gay families?
I’m always suspicious of those who make comments about not being to visible or not drawing attention to one’s self. It’s quite likely that they would not have the freedom to be openly gay and run a weblog and do many of the other things they do if those who fought for respect and protections from discrimination hadn’t been visible.
Should black parents have left their kids at home when they went out to participate in public events during the civil rights era to avoid making their kids “political pawns?” Could it be that their parents wanted them to see and learn what the world is like? Are kids to be protected from all negative aspects of life?
NDT seems to want to pretend that same-sex individuals and couples aren’t the victims of discrimination, aren’t legislated against, aren’t demonized by religious and social conservatives, and only have to show up as themselves for everything to be OK. His preference here seems to be that we should all remain low-key, bring no special attention to ourselves, and assimilate into the heterosexist cultural mainstream.
While I don’t throw my own child into volatile situations where I want to make a political statement, I also don’t keep him from seeing what the world is really like. And the world is not a warm, kind and gentle place for gay people. Perhaps the whole point of the Easter Egg Roll is to get people who have the privilege of ignoring the discrimination against gay families because it’s not their situation to take notice and to get them talking. And looking beyond the dubious strategy of rainbow leis, perhaps they can begin to identify with the essential sameness of being a parent and wanting the best possible life for your child, regardless of the parent’s sexual orientation.
Children of gay parents suffer from the discrimination and oppression against their parents’ sexuality. Any parent wanting to create a world better for their children than the one they grew up in has no choice but to try to change public opinion and ultimately the laws and cultural structures that impose that discrimination.
Keep in mind that the parents didn’t adopt for themselves the distinction, the otherness, of being “gay” parents. This is imposed on them by our culture, that seeks to point out otherness. Oddly, we’re forced to play on our otherness at times to point out that we’re not really other, not in the ways that count.
As to one of NDT’s pet peeves, no politician, Republican or Democrat, deserves our financial support (or support of any other kind) if they join in legislation that discriminates. Clinton sold us out, as did John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others, so as not to appear too extreme. Let’s get rid of all the spineless, pandering politicians of any and every stripe and get some with integrity and backbone – if that’s even possible in a politician.
Has anyone determined if families of same-sex couples were barred from previous Easter Egg Rolls at the White House?
The answer is no.
Indeed, the idea to go this year was because some gay families went last year and had a great time.
Amazingly enough, the were treated like everyone else, weren’t paraded before the media, weren’t subjected to protestors, and were able to focus on having a good time with their families — and indeed DID.
That was in spite of the fact that gays are the victims of discrimination, are legislated against, and are demonized by religious and social conservatives; plus, gays perceive that “the world is not a warm, kind and gentle place for gay people”. That was also despite the fact that they were no doubt noticed and recognized as gay because, as you put it, our culture “seeks to point out otherness”.
So what was the difference between this year and last?
Gays decided it wasn’t good enough to be like everyone else.
This is the problem, Les:
Keep in mind that the parents didn’t adopt for themselves the distinction, the otherness, of being “gay” parents.
Oh yes they did.
THEY were the ones who chose to deliberately dress differently to emphasize the fact that they were “different”.
THEY were the ones who sent out press releases to publicize their lineup and be “different”.
THEY were the ones who deliberately sought out media attention to show how “different” they were.
The previous year, they did none of this, and they were treated just like normal families.
Oddly, we’re forced to play on our otherness at times to point out that we’re not really other, not in the ways that count.
Unfortunately, Les, at the egg roll, when we DIDN’T play on our otherness, we were treated just like everyone else. When we DID play on it, we were treated differently.
There’s no “odd” about it; that’s just a sign of how “gay activists” have brainwashed gays into thinking that you’re not “doing enough for the cause” if you’re not a) suffering and b) making a public spectacle. We’ve become the lavender equivalent of flagellants, walking around looking for someone to beat us so we can bleed and be validated. It’s not good enough to simply show up and act like any other family; now we have to do all sorts of abnormal things so that the cameras will focus on how “normal” we are.
The problem is….all that is seen is the abnormal.
Thanks, North Dallas, for answering my questions. I see that you could not, however, resist taking my words out of context and twisting them to your own purposes.
First, I can’t believe you’re so naive or biased or blind to think that if all gay people had to do was go on with their own lives as if there were no obstacles to their achieving equity in our society that everything would be all right. That’s hardly giving equal status to a person, to tell them you’re fine and we accept you as long as you act just like us – us here being the heterosexual majority, and in most cases white and Christian and middle class or better as well. Just be invisible, don’t “flaunt” your sexuality, and we’ll all be OK. OK, that is, until we don’t want you around. Then we can go ahead and beat the shit out of you. Because we suffered from gay panic, or just hate queers. Yeah, and it’s OK to serve in the military and die for your country as long as you never admit that you love someone (of the same sex) or even suggest that’s your inclination. Because if we find out, no matter how distinguished your career, we’ll kick your ass all the way back to Albuquerque, or whatever pissant town you came from. That is of course if we don’t bash your brains in first. Wait, you say, serving in the military isn’t about sexuality. It’s about patriotism and service to your country. True, but why is then that hetero soldiers aren’t drummed out when they talk about the girl (or boy) or wife (or husband) back home, or dance with girls (or men) at a club? It would be different if all admissions or demonstrations involving ones affectional or sexual orientation were and could be eliminated, but that isn’t the case. Only a select group is chastised, and cast out.
Second, let’s look past the Easter Egg Roll to the larger reality, which is something that you seem reluctant to do. Statistically speaking, if we’re going to measure the demographics, and divide the population up by one distinguishing characteristic or another, everyone is going to end up in one minority or another. Say what you want, but those of us who are gay did not elect to have the spotlight shone on our sexuality and distinguished as a minority because of that. As such, we did not, as all minorities, because they lack the power do not, define our own otherness. Blacks may be a minority because of their skin color, but they weren’t the ones who decided that they were the “other” in our society. So please don’t isolate my general statement about otherness to make a statement against the parents who adopted the strategy of wearing leis to the Easter Egg Roll to raise their visibility. And history will also bear out the truth that it’s any society’s others that tarred and feathered as the source of that society’s ills when insecurity and fear strike – how else would you explain away the claims by some and the private beliefs of more that gays caused God to punish America with 9/11, terrorists, hurricanes, rising oil prices, the destruction of the American family, the decline in culture, HIV/AIDS, and just about every other ill plaguing man today?
Second, why is it that you can’t get over the choice of some, not all, to politicize an event? Real-life politics are everywhere. Did George Bush have to don a flight suit and land on an aircraft carrier and play at being a soldier to prematurely congratulate the troops after the fall of Bhagdad? Oh, you might say, he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. So why didn’t he act like the Commander-in-Chief and accept responsibility in the chain of command for the abuses of soldiers under his ultimate command at Abu Ghraib? No, instead we’ll just scapegoat a few poorly paid, under-trained low-level soldiers and let them take the blame. So some gay parents did a little grandstanding to get some extra press to bring some focus to the fact that nowhere in this country is the marriage of two persons of the same sex fully legal and benefitting from the same rights and privileges as any two heterosexuals, no matter how casually connected, who marry. And because many of the rights and privileges gained through marriage directly benefit or protect children, denying marriage to same-sex couples does hurt their children. Maybe wearing leis is tacky, but maybe a couple of people were able to discover that gay parents have the same concerns and want the same good lives for their children as heterosexual parents.
Your rant against them has all the earmarks of a person of privilege who fears that he will be grouped together with a group of which he disapproves and thus lose out on his privilege. Do you cringe at gay pride parades and fear that the heterosexual mainstream will decide that all gays must be like those who march? Isn’t that a lot like a teenager being embarrassed to be seen with his parents? Those bad gays, just like those uppity Negroes in the civil rights movement, will just spoil it for the rest of us, right? Grow up and grow beyond your over-identification with the idea that we’ll all be painted with the same broad brush. If anything, this is an argument for greater visibility of all gays, in all facets of life, to get across the message that we’re just as diverse and just as individual as other groups or the population as a whole.
Show me a time and place when an oppressed minority kept quiet, blended in, acted just like everyone else, hid their difference, didn’t speak up or act out against the messages of hate directed at them, and succeeded in changing things for the better, while still maintaining their unique identity? Before we can truly assimilate, we have to be fully invested, equal members of the group.
Show me a time and place when an oppressed minority kept quiet, blended in, acted just like everyone else, hid their difference, didn’t speak up or act out against the messages of hate directed at them, and succeeded in changing things for the better, while still maintaining their unique identity?
Asian-Americans.
In comparison to other minorities, they suffered as much and said far less. Yet today, their economic, educational, and other opportunities and metrics are on a par with, or even exceed, those of the white majority, while far more vocal and “activist” minority groups languish double-digits behind.
The reason? They played the game instead of wasting time demanding special treatment.
Now, for your paragraph starting with this:
First, I can’t believe you’re so naive or biased or blind to think that if all gay people had to do was go on with their own lives as if there were no obstacles to their achieving equity in our society that everything would be all right.
As the rest of that paragraph shows, you seem to think that heterosexuals want to shoot us, beat us, kick us out of the military, and so forth. Some do, but the vast majority don’t.
Next up:
Say what you want, but those of us who are gay did not elect to have the spotlight shone on our sexuality and distinguished as a minority because of that. As such, we did not, as all minorities, because they lack the power do not, define our own otherness.
Says the man wearing a garish lei, glow-in-the-dark bracelets, brandishing his similarly-attired children for the TV cameras — and saying he has to do so because he’s gay.
If you don’t want to be defined as “other”, then why do you make it so easy?
So why didn’t he act like the Commander-in-Chief and accept responsibility in the chain of command for the abuses of soldiers under his ultimate command at Abu Ghraib? No, instead we’ll just scapegoat a few poorly paid, under-trained low-level soldiers and let them take the blame.
Because they were there and they committed the crimes.
Are you a manager, Les? If one of your employees embezzles from the company, will you go to prison for them? If one of your children shoplifts or murders someone, will you pay the penalty instead? After all, YOU’RE responsible for their actions, aren’t you? If you had paid them better, or trained them better, or taught them better, this wouldn’t have happened, right?
Your rant against them has all the earmarks of a person of privilege who fears that he will be grouped together with a group of which he disapproves and thus lose out on his privilege. Do you cringe at gay pride parades and fear that the heterosexual mainstream will decide that all gays must be like those who march? Isn’t that a lot like a teenager being embarrassed to be seen with his parents?
I don’t have to FEAR it; it’s already happened, and it keeps happening.
As for your statement, are you wrong to be against NAMBLA, inasmuch as they claim “gay rights” as their excuse and validation for pedophilia? Are you wrong to be against Queers for Palestine, inasmuch as they claim “gay rights” as their excuse for supporting terrorists and anti-Semites? Would you be wrong to oppose this sort of activity? Why don’t you embrace THEM — or, as you put it, why don’t you “grow up and grow beyond your over-identification with the idea that we’ll all be painted with the same broad brush”.
In short, I don’t believe your “diversity” speech, inasmuch as you certainly won’t allow certain bits of “diversity” to rear their head publicly without “rants” against them.
Sorry for the delay in responding to your very disturbing post, NDT, but life got in the way.
It’s hardly a surprise that you would suggest the so-called “model minority,” Asian Americans. As if Asian whericans were all of a kind and could be lumped together as such. You claim they “played the game.” What game is that? Adopting the look and feel of the predominant, white, middle-class, Christian culture? Asian Americans, as a group, still earn less than their white counterparts in the same jobs, are underrepresented in politics, and fall behind in many other measures. This is particularly true if you separate out Thais, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, and other groups from Asia and South Asia from Japanese and Chinese ethnicities.
What disturbs me most in your argument is that you seem to suggest that Asian Americans are no longer subject to discrimination and racism, and that for anyone to be accepted and succeed, they have to “play the game.” Be homegenous. Endorse the mainstream culture.
By this measure, blacks and other people of color, especially those of darker skin, will never be white enough. Play the game, don’t express your ethnicity, be white, be European, be just like the people with the power.
Except that this strategy doesn’t work. If Americans of Japanese descent had not struggled for them, they would not have received reparations for their internment (and loss of virtually everything they owned) during World War II. Many European Jews were about as maninstream as you could get in Europe in the 30’s and 40’s but that didn’t stop the Nazis from rounding them up and executing them in grotesque numbers.
Achieving equality and equal treatment isn’t about “playing the game.” It’s about insisting that you are equally worthy of respect and dignity and equal treatment, regardless of your individual differences. And please don’t go extremist on me, as you did in your last post, invoking NAMBLA, etc. I recognize that for a society to prosper, its members have to maintain reasonable agreement on common values. There is a difference, however, in reaching consensus on what is to be valued and in forcing your values down everyone’s throat as the only acceptable model.
Since you brought up NAMBLA (akin to those against same-sex marriage suggesting that people will be marrying their pets as soon as we let two people of the same sex marry), the answer is no, I don’t think it’s wrong to be against any group that uses unfair advantage and power to impress its will on a group of lesser or no power. No, I don’t think it’s wrong to be against a group that endorses a model that is almost universally recognized as deviant and exploitative. I don’t think NAMBLA represents what it means to be gay any more than pedophiles who target children of the opposite sex represent heterosexuals. Does your grouping of parents wearing rainbow leis at a public event to bring attention to the fact that their opportunity to participate in an institution (marriage) is denied them, and the benefits thereof are denied to them and their children, with men who would march about with boys on leashes as their sexual pets, really make any sense?
Regarding your apologia for Bush, I am in fact a manager and I do take responsibility for the actions of those I manage, especially if I am handling a customer’s complaint. An employee who steals is acting for his or her individual benefit, and this is not an extension of her/his function as an employee. A soldier, supposedly trained by his/her superiors, who in turn are responsible to their commander-in-chief, acting for and representing their country’s government, and committing acts of torture or prisoner abuse is not an individual indulging their personal self-interest. Perhaps you’re familiar with the phrase chain of command? Donald Rumsfeld, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and George Bush ARE responsible for what goes on in the field and ARE accountable to the American public, and even the world, for the actions of our soldiers. Adolf Hitler, to select an extreme example, did not have to personally throw the switch to turn on the gas to be posthumously held responsible for wartime attrocities and crimes against humanity.
And, as a parent, I DO expect to be held responsible for the actions of my child, even if he may still be individually punished. If he were to be caught shoplifting, I would expect to make reparations to the shop owner, and this would not absolve him of personal responsibility.
In closing, because I’ve gone on far too long as it is, I find it interesting that you did not respond to my suggestion that you speak as someone of privilege fearing the loss of that privilege by being painted by the same brush as paints the group you disdain. I see nothing in your rhetoric that alters my conclusion. You desire as much as possible to remain invisible so that you can continue to enjoy your privileges, your sense of self as being distinct from and not represented by uppity, outrageous, flaming, attention-grabbing gays. Which only speaks to a case of self-hatred. Because the reality is that you are distinct from them, by your choice, through your actions. This does not mean, however, that they shouldn’t act as they do, that they should chose your model, your mode of behavior.
Your crack against my “diversity” speech is correct to the extent that I will rant against bigots, racists, rigid assimilationists, and those of all intolerant stripes, on either side of the debate.