Gay Activists Becoming the Haters
Perhaps, one reason so many gay activists warmed to the recent Academy-Award winning movie Milk was that it hearkened back to a day when gay people were truly victims. In the 1970s, those who were open about their sexuality, endured regular ridicule and suffered significant social marginalization. The police did not investigate gay bashings, even when they were fatal. More often than not, elected officials, particularly at the local level, did not respond to our concerns.
Times have changed greatly in the thirty years since Harvey Milk’s election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in large part due to the activism he inspired by his example.
Sometimes it seems, gay activists act as if the world hasn’t changed since Milk’s day, as if we remain victims, lacking “rights.” As the situation improves for us, many of those activists have now become the haters. And the heads of the gay organizations who eagerly rush (and, in many* cases, rightfully so) to denounce anti-gay bigotry, all but ignore the hatred emerging on their side.
This is not something that is new this year, or even this decade, but something we’ve been witnessing at least since the 1990s, but it has become particularly manifest in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8.
In a piece in the most recent Weekly Standard, painter and cultural commentator Maureen Mullarkey recounts what happened when the San Francisco Chronicle “published the names and home addresses of everyone who donated money in support of California’s Proposition 8 marriage initiative.” She was one such donor.
She was called a “vampire,” accused of hatred and denying love, labeled as representing “the most despicable type of artist and human being. I do hope that you feel the financial pain your actions will bring.”
On gay marriage, alas, such rhetoric has more often than not replaced civil discourse. And all too often, the self-appointed leaders of our community remain silent as the vitriol increases, ignoring how it damages efforts to continue the social progress we have since Harvey Milk first rose to prominence.
No, the heads of the gay organizations are not responsible for this hateful rhetoric, but it is striking that they do not denounce it. If they did, they would make a stand for more civil discourse on the controversial issue of state recognition of same-sex marriage. And help continue the progress that begin when bold leaders like Harvey Milk first stepped forward to counter anti-gay attitudes.
———-
*I say, “in many cases,” because sometimes they define as hatred something which is merely a difference of opinion.
87 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
And did the Chronicle’s public harrassment of citizens do anything for their circulation?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 12, 2009 @ 5:06 pm - March 12, 2009
It was wrong to call her a vampire. Vampires have better taste.
I encourage more strident and more bellicose rhetoric. These people are dangerous, and they will stop at nothing.
The Neville Chamberlain period of gay activism is over. It’s time for the Winston Churchill period. We will fight them in the churches. We will fight them in the schools. We will fight them in the courts.
I’m not saying you should break the law. But calling a spade a spade does NOT make you a “hater”. Even so, our hatred of these “people” is justified. Their writings on gays are comparable to the numerous age-old blood libels against Jews, and we know what those libels caused: pogroms, inquisitions (which her church instigated), and The Holocaust.
Comment by Attmay — March 12, 2009 @ 5:12 pm - March 12, 2009
I’m not sure what you’re complaining about, exactly. People send nasty e-mails to each other, welcome to the internet. I haven’t seen anybody on the gay marriage side of things do anything I thought was too outrageous in the context of modern American politics. Opponents, meanwhile, have been hysterically insisting that gay marriage would automatically legalize beastiality and child-rape.
Comment by Levi — March 12, 2009 @ 5:19 pm - March 12, 2009
Concise and insightful, GPW, and I’m guessing you will get some hate mail over it.
Um, I believe that makes them responsible for it. They should denounce it in such a way that no gays can fail to notice; in such a way that the hatred become declasse in the communities they serve and fund-raise their dollars from.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2009 @ 5:22 pm - March 12, 2009
Nuts!
(Bastogne pun intended)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2009 @ 5:32 pm - March 12, 2009
Attmay, you’ve called for armed revolt on this blog,
Now you say you’re not advocating the breaking of the law? you’re right ‘These people aare dangerous, they will stop at nothing.’ Now stop looking in the mirror, and join the rest of us in civil discourse.
Nice to know Levi condones anthrax scares and saying that Mormons would be stealing lesbian’s toasters and power tools.
“I haven’t seen anybody on the gay marriage side of things do anything I thought was too outrageous in the context of modern American politics.” *arches eyebrow.*
Comment by The Livewire — March 12, 2009 @ 5:33 pm - March 12, 2009
…said 1917 apologists for the Bolsheviks, 1920s apologists for Mussolini, 1930s apologists for Hitler, 1950s apologists for Castro and Che, 1970s apologists for Khomeini, 21st-century apologists for Chavez…
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - March 12, 2009
Sorry, Attmay, your hatred is not justified. You lump together all opponents of gay marriage as haters. Some are truly nutsos. Others believe gender difference is essential to the definition of marriage.
Um, Levi, do you ever read my posts? This is not a complaint, but an observation and a suggestion to heads of gay organizations to denounce such hateful rhetoric. It wouldn’t take much for them to do so. All they need say is that these people do not speak for them and make a plea for civil discourse of gay marriage.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 12, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - March 12, 2009
Um, Levi, do you ever read my posts? This is not a complaint, but an observation and a suggestion to heads of gay organizations to denounce such hateful rhetoric. It wouldn’t take much for them to do so. All they need say is that these people do not speak for them and make a plea for civil discourse of gay marriage.
For about the hundredth time, I do read your posts, and yes, I would call this a complaint. You’re complaining about ‘hateful rhetoric,’ are you not? You’re trying to get somedody to something about the all this ‘hateful rhetoric,’ right? How is that not a complaint? Calling someone a vampire and wishing financial ruin upon them isn’t my idea of hateful rhetoric anyway. Again, welcome to the internet.
As for the need for civil discourse of gay marriage, I’m not sure what you can reasonably expect when you keep establishing rules for how gay marriage advocates advocate for gay marriage. You’ve insisted that they shouldn’t use the courts or the legislature and that their only real option is to convince their opponents in a social setting of the merits of gay marriage. ‘Give up on the legal process and just try to convince a bunch of fundamentalists that everything they know is wrong.’ That’s bad advice, if you ask me. These super-stubborn opponents take part in their fair share of ‘hateful rhetoric’ as well, or are you not bothered when some religious nut says that gay marriage is a slippery slope to banging your siblings?
Comment by Levi — March 12, 2009 @ 6:13 pm - March 12, 2009
It’s not a complaint, Levi, whatever you may call it.
Your concluding paragraph makes clear you don’t read my posts. I have said time and time again that they should pursue gay marriage through legislatures (see e.g., this search for some examples), except in cases where ballot measures prevent them from doing so.
And yes, I am bothered that gay marriage opponents use that silly slippery slope argument. It would be nice if gay marriage advocates could counter them by showing why they’re wrong. Just check the suggestion I offer on just how they can do that at the conclusion of my most recent post.
Finally, I’ve long established what I mean by civil discourse on gay marriage by pointing to a specific chapter in a specific book. So, if you’d read my posts, you’d know what I “reasonably expect.”
Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 12, 2009 @ 6:26 pm - March 12, 2009
*I saw in many cases because sometimes they define as hatred what is merely a difference of opinion.
I keep finding things wrong with this post.
I certainly wouldn’t call it hatred, but insisting that a historically oppressed minority should be denied something they want that harms no one because of some bizarre interpretation of an ancient religious text is something a bit stronger than ‘merely a difference of opinion.’ Most people that oppose gay marriage didn’t have the freedom to choose that opinion, but rather had it drilled into their heads since birth. It gets pretty hateful at times, but to quote some old book, ‘they know not what they do.’
Comment by Levi — March 12, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - March 12, 2009
I think the invective directed at Mullarkey is contemptible and does qualify as unreasoned, irrational “hating”. That said I think her entire position, while not hating, is unreasoned and irrational. (I think it was ILC who criticized me for not reading all of the links contained in a post by Bruce. Okay, this time I followed the link and read the entire thing…) Towards the end, she offers this explanation, “affirming the time-honored definition” of marriage:
Certainly there is room for disagreement, but the idea that an “institution” comes from nature is conceptually flawed. Institutions are not formed by nature; they are formed by societies, whether through political or religious means. If nature has anything to say about the relations between men and women, it’s that men are predisposed to have sex with as many women as possible — not quite the “traditional definition of marriage”. It is a great thing about marriage that we’ve established a social framework wherein sexual partners are discouraged from flouncing about from mate to mate. It’s a great thing, but the institution comes from society to counter a natural tendency. To say “marriage” comes from nature makes no sense; it is in response to, not arising out of.
Maybe I’m taking her use of the term “nature” too literally, but… If you want to say you’re against same-sex marriage because that’s how God wants it to be, fine, say it. If you want to say the natural “order” of things is for men to have sex with women, fine, say that. But don’t dress up the debate about a social and religious institution as having a universal truth rooted in biology.
Do I “hate” her for it? No. I just think she’s wrong. And while I’m not all that distraught that HRC and GLAAD aren’t up in arms over the hate mail, I do worry what it means for the future of political discourse in this country if, anytime you donate to a politically controversial cause, you’re going to get deluged with hate mail, invective, and threats against your financial well-being. That can easily go both ways.
Comment by CR — March 12, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - March 12, 2009
It’s not a complaint, Levi, whatever you may call it.
Don’t get so defensive dude, this is the internet and we’re talking politics. You complain a lot. I complain a lot. Everyone else that is doing this complains a lot. I didn’t mean it as a knock, just so you know.
Your concluding paragraph makes clear you don’t read my posts. I have said time and time again that they should pursue gay marriage through legislatures (see e.g., this search for some examples), except in cases where ballot measures prevent them from doing so.
And yes, I am bothered that gay marriage opponents use that silly slippery slope argument. It would be nice if gay marriage advocates could counter them by showing why they’re wrong. Just check the suggestion I offer on just how they can do that at the conclusion of my most recent post.
Finally, I’ve long established what I mean by civil discourse on gay marriage by pointing to a specific chapter in a specific book. So, if you’d read my posts, you’d know what I “reasonably expect.â€
Look, I read all the posts I comment on, and most of the previous comments, too. My estimation of your position isn’t incorrect, if that’s how you’re describing it. You don’t think gays should go through the courts, and you think the legislative options are exhausted, so gays’ only option is win the social argument, i.e., win another popular vote. I disagree, and further think that you’re putting your loyalty to your party ahead of the issue. Anyone that really cares about changing anything in the United States knows that the legal process is your best and many times only option to do so. I can’t think of any reason why anyone would not want to use the legal system unless they were a blind ideologue making excuses for their party, to be frank.
Finally, on the last part, where you think its incumbent on the gay community to try to convince opponents of gay marriage that their unions wouldn’t result in a total collapse of all societal norms… that just blows me away. That’s absolutely ridiculous on a number of levels, and if I was the easily offended type, I’d be insanely offended, and I’m not even gay. That’s something that has to be responded to? That’s holding up something so simple as two people getting married? People like that are gone, as far as I’m concerned. Those are the kinds of people that our kind of legal system was designed to protect the rest of us against.
Comment by Levi — March 12, 2009 @ 7:07 pm - March 12, 2009
Levi, while I agree with most of what you said, I do disagree with this. It was one of the biggest sources of fights between my husband and myself. (Yes, “husband”, as in Massachusetts married.) Although he was willing to take advantage of it, he hated the idea that equal marriage was being forced through the courts. Much like GPW, he felt it should happen through the legislature and the voters. The logic went that only through engaging people in the debate and allowing them to feel their voices had been heard will it ever be resolved. He cites the abortion debate as an example — forcing it through the courts did not solve the debate, it only shoved it the side where it festered. That said, my husband strongly believes in same-sex marriage, he votes Democratic 95% of the time (we both voted for a Republican for city council here in DC), and has plenty of criticisms to heap on the GOP and the Religious Right. He is certainly not an apologist for them. But he does have a principled and reasoned stand against using the courts and preferring to use the democratic process. (That said, we both agree ballot initiatives are absurd.)
Comment by CR — March 12, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - March 12, 2009
PS, I happen to disagree with him and I -do- feel the courts play an important role in protecting minorities against mob rule, but I do think people can have a very principled and legitimate difference of opinion on the matter.
Comment by CR — March 12, 2009 @ 7:21 pm - March 12, 2009
CR,
It’s very likely true that marriage is grounded in our biology. In fact, the concepts of civilization and society themselves are most likely grounded in our biology. It isn’t like monogamy is a characteristic of humans and humans alone. Most animals have traceable mating patterns, there are other primates that organize into monogamous relationships, there are other mammals, there are birds, reptiles, fish, etc. The institutions you’re talking about that derive from societies through ‘political or religious means,’ are themselves sprung from our biological inclination to organize social groups. Human beings have been around for 100,000 years, our ancestors date back 5 million years, and we likely started pairing off even before that. It’s only in the past few thousand years that people actually started naming it.
Comment by Levi — March 12, 2009 @ 7:22 pm - March 12, 2009
Levi, while I agree with most of what you said, I do disagree with this. It was one of the biggest sources of fights between my husband and myself. (Yes, “husbandâ€, as in Massachusetts married.) Although he was willing to take advantage of it, he hated the idea that equal marriage was being forced through the courts. Much like GPW, he felt it should happen through the legislature and the voters. The logic went that only through engaging people in the debate and allowing them to feel their voices had been heard will it ever be resolved. He cites the abortion debate as an example — forcing it through the courts did not solve the debate, it only shoved it the side where it festered. That said, my husband strongly believes in same-sex marriage, he votes Democratic 95% of the time (we both voted for a Republican for city council here in DC), and has plenty of criticisms to heap on the GOP and the Religious Right. He is certainly not an apologist for them. But he does have a principled and reasoned stand against using the courts and preferring to use the democratic process. (That said, we both agree ballot initiatives are absurd.)
I mean everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course. I just think that’s a weak plan that plays specifically to gay marriage opponents’ strengths.
Also, and I’ll probably lose you here, but your Roe v. Wade example doesn’t really work for me. I don’t think very highly of the similarly heavily-influenced religious argument against abortion, either. But that’s another thread.
Comment by Levi — March 12, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - March 12, 2009
A psychological drive to form social groups is very different than the rules and structures that arise out of those groups. The “traditional” idea (or “time honored” as the author said) of marriage is not universal. Other societies and cultures have developed multi-partner marriages to accommodate that drive. The idea that we are naturally wired to bond in permanent pairings is, no disrespect intended, a very female-centric view. Studies have pretty consistently shown that men have a biological drive to impregnate as many women as possible. Women have the opposite drive and as a society we have collectively determined that it is better for groups. But to say it is true for both men and women, that we have a biological or natural compulsion to engage in life-long, monogamous relationships is bunk, IMO. If you can show me anything that says otherwise, even a Wikipedia article, I’ll gladly eat my… hat? shoes? Whatever.
(That’s not a challenge but a sincere invitation; I’m happy to be educated as long as the “snark” is kept on a leash.) But I’m sorry, maybe it’s my educational wiring as a sociologist that I place an emphasis on the role of social institutions, but I just don’t buy it. You can see it in certain animals, yes (e.g., penguins) but I think it’s different with human males, and I think that’s where the argument that “marriage” is from nature breaks down.
Comment by CR — March 12, 2009 @ 7:42 pm - March 12, 2009
Also, and I’ll probably lose you here, but your Roe v. Wade example doesn’t really work for me.
I know and, just to be clear, it’s not my argument, it’s my husbands. I don’t agree with it either. I just know he is strongly in favor of same-sex marriage, but is also strongly against getting it through the courts. (And… he hates most republicans, conservatives and bible-thumpers, so I know he’s not an apologist or “self-hating” fag.)
Comment by CR — March 12, 2009 @ 7:44 pm - March 12, 2009
Dan-
GREAT post. I see it didn’t take long for some of our own resident haters to join with their usual spew.
They can’t even see their own hatred. Amazing!
On a less serious note, *I* would love to be called a vampire!!
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — March 12, 2009 @ 9:32 pm - March 12, 2009
You’d have to shut your mouth and open your eyes and ears now and then.
Fixed it for ya.
I’m guessing whatever friends you have, you obtained via the court system?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 12, 2009 @ 10:24 pm - March 12, 2009
#6: I only said armed revolt if it was necessary. Right now I don’t see a need for an armed revolt. If it can be obtained without it, that would be good.
But every attempt to point out to the “Christians” using facts and evidence why they are wrong has been met with rebuttals from the “la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you” method of debate. Besides, they make up their own “facts” to suit their purposes anyway (i.e. Paul Cameron).
And as for the “time-honored tradition” of heterosexual “marriage”? It hasn’t changed one bit from the beginning of time, if the world began in 1967.
Everything Levi has said has been right; it’s ironic that he’s not even gay.
Should black people have tried to reason with Klansmen as to why they deserved the right to use the same public property and services as whites? Should a Jew try to reason with a Nazi as to why he shouldn’t be frogmarched to the gas chamber? They can try, they would have facts on their side, but they won’t listen. That’s why they’re haters. They are the ones who declared jihad against gay EVERYTHING. And we’re expected to pussyfoot around while they wage war on our lives? Like hell we will.
“Mullarkey” is an appropriate name for this hypocritical harridan. And her paintings are butt-fugly. I crap prettier color schemes than she paints.
#7: Stay classy, TGC, comparing us to supporters of totalitarian dictatorships. I, for one, felt nothing but schadenfreude when I heard of Hugo Chavez’s financial woes. I will feel the same schadenfreude if California heterosexuals lose their marriage rights.
Comment by Attmay — March 12, 2009 @ 10:51 pm - March 12, 2009
LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 13, 2009 @ 12:59 am - March 13, 2009
And there you have it folks. The reason for the whole controversy in a nutshell: “VALIDATE ME!!!!!”
Actually, I’ve seen her artwork and it’s quite good.
Well then, I’m sure you will provide us with your real name and real home address for publication labeling you an enemy of traditional marriage.
Of course Levi sees nothing “outrageous in the context of modern American politics” — liberals show no evidence of having any moral standards when it comes to achieving their desired political ends.
Comment by American Elephant — March 13, 2009 @ 3:37 am - March 13, 2009
Except your premise is a lie. Nowhere near 53% of Californians are fundamentalist Christians, yet 53% of Californians passed prop 8.
Anyone who really cares about the United States or the right of the people to govern themselves knows that “changing” things through the judicial process is as undemocratic, oligarchical and antithetical to our nation’s principles as can be. The patently silly constitutional arguments for gay marriage have been tried and rejected all the way to the supreme court.
The very idea behind gay activists court cases is that the people do not have a right to create laws or institutions that recognize that heterosexuality reproduces society and homosexuality cannot. That the constitution somehow requires the law be blind to scientific fact.
Here’s a reason for you: self-governance. But thank you for admitting that the constitution and self governance are the concern solely of “blind ideologues” of the Republican party.
Comment by American Elephant — March 13, 2009 @ 4:53 am - March 13, 2009
filtered
Comment by American Elephant — March 13, 2009 @ 4:54 am - March 13, 2009
Fixed it for ya.
Stay classy, asshole.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 13, 2009 @ 5:08 am - March 13, 2009
Oh, you’re such a f***ing oppressed little wuss. There’s folks out there tortured and killed for being gay and you are whining because “nobody likes you”. So you’re comparing YOUR plight to blacks and Jews????
Sweet Jesus! Have you no shame? What kind of spoiled little b***h are you? I wish somebody would treat you thus so you could get a slight hint of how good you really have it.
That’s what gays need. More Paris Hilton types.
[GP Ed. Note - This comment has been edited due to violation of community terms of conduct.]
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 13, 2009 @ 5:30 am - March 13, 2009
Hate, from the left wing or right wing, is never right. When did it become standard policy to Hate in American politics? Civil discourse, sometimes Un-Civil discourse, but Hate? Until we get rid of that visceral emotion from this debate how are we going to deal with the real emotions that hetrosexuals have on the issue of homosexuality? Attmay said “Even so, our hatred of these “people†is justified. ” Cite me one school of philosophy/theology where this is advocated. You give yourself away by calling those who disagree with you “people” in quotation marks, it is the first step to dehumanizing them. Gobbels did the same thing with gays. Oh, and let’s all remember they were the National Socialist Workers Party, no right wing group. As a matter of fact the far right were their first political victims. OK, refocus. You can justify your hate all you want Attmay, but only to yourself. Expressing your hatred while discussing an issue whose central bond is love is, well, at best counterproductive.
Step off soapbox.
Back to lurking mode.
Comment by John F in Indy — March 13, 2009 @ 8:42 am - March 13, 2009
Orson Scott Card urges Mormons not to sink to the level of the gay haters.
Comment by V the K — March 13, 2009 @ 9:24 am - March 13, 2009
i have to agree with levi. gpw seems to put his loyalty to his party above logical thinking on the gay marriage issue. excuses, excuses.
i can only imagine the cognitive dissonance going on in that little mind of yours, gpw.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 13, 2009 @ 9:33 am - March 13, 2009
To explain a couple comments:
At #23, I said “LOL” – To be clear: it responds to TGC #21, his excellent retort about lefties who want to use courts for everything, “I’m guessing whatever friends you have, you obtained via the court system?” It was not a response to Attmay #22.
And #7 was mine and not TGC’s. Attmay at #22 misattributed it to TGC. I used sarcasm to needle a comment of Levi’s at #3. Levi professed his ignorance of the outrageous and toxic tactics being used by some who profess to be in favor of gay marriage. In so doing, Levi gave them a kind of moral cover (the kind that might say, “I don’t see that they’ve done anything outrageous and neither should you, so don’t”). It reminded me of those in history (and in the present) who have apologized for totalitarian dictatorships, and I made that point. I stand by the point. To be clear: I believe Attmay, when he says he opposes totalitarian dictatorships. I also find that Attmay’s own approach on this subject – the subject of gay marriage – hateful, and disturbingly reminiscent of the tactics of those who support totalitarian dictatorships. It for Attmay to someday resolve the contradiction; I merely point it out.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 13, 2009 @ 10:25 am - March 13, 2009
Welcome back to the blog bob,
I thought maybe you had gotten tired of being curb stomped and left to lick your wounds. We’ve missed your innane babblings, incessent hatred, and attempts at clever snark. It’s a shame that you can’t see the points Dan has made. And it’s sad that you’re so blind in your hatred you can’t addres his points.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 13, 2009 @ 11:10 am - March 13, 2009
Gotta’ say it. Levi in #11 instructs:
I’m thinking of the man-goat group here. (A thousand other combinations are waiting in the wings.)
An oppressed minority should never, ever, uhuh: not even once, be kept from what it “wants.”
Levi’s moral relevance can not be complete until the Judeo-Christian ethic is banned, burned, flushed and made criminal.
To Levi, it is all so clear. A regular Ward Churchill of Gaydom.
Comment by heliotrope — March 13, 2009 @ 11:39 am - March 13, 2009
Their writings on gays are comparable to the numerous age-old blood libels against Jews, and we know what those libels caused: pogroms, inquisitions (which her church instigated), and The Holocaust.
And the girl cries ‘Wolf!’
Anyone who believes that evil exists as exemplified by the Holocaust wouldn’t do its victims the ultimate injustice by comparing it to a denying of the marriage privilege. False comparisons and false alarms are the anti-Semite’s best friend.
Comment by Ignatius — March 13, 2009 @ 12:43 pm - March 13, 2009
No one compared the denial of legal marriage to the Holocaust. Try carefully reading “Their writings on gays are comparable to the numerous age-old blood libels against Jews”. That is a true statement though it’s popular on here to deny any such thing. The propaganda that flows from some on the right against gays is just as vile as that which has been spread against whoever the favorite “danger to civilization” of the day was. Gays are responsible for weather disasters, financial ruin, diseases which threaten the survival of the human race, are out to destroy all religion, to tear down the USA, to “convert” all the children and on and on and on. What is so totally beyond the comprehension of most on here is that it is exactly that kind of rhetoric and blind hatred that CAN lead to far worse things, AS IT HAS in the past, and not just to the Jews. NO ONE says it’s happening now and NO ONE is belittling the Holocaust and NO ONE is saying that life for gays in the USA is anything like that in the Middle East and in some of the African countries. And we have to KEEP IT THAT WAY. If y’all think that what some of the spoiled brat protesters are doing can be called hate then you have NEVER seen true hate. And only someone like TGC would wish that you do.
Comment by a different Dave — March 13, 2009 @ 2:34 pm - March 13, 2009
The propaganda that flows from some on the right against gays is just as vile as that which has been spread against whoever the favorite “danger to civilization†of the day was.
You mean like when gays are accused of irresponsibly and/or deliberately spreading the AIDS virus? Oh, wait that one’s true. (Google “barebacking” “bug-chasing” and “gift-giving.”)
You mean like when gays are accused of having exhibitions of depraved sexual acts on public streets? Oh, wait, that one’s true. (Google “Folsom Street Fair” or “Southern Decadence.”)
You mean like when gay activists are accused of demanding that homosexuality be part of the curriculum at public schools? Oh, wait, that one’s also true.
You mean the libels about older gay men being on the prowl for young boys? I guess Democrat Representative Gerry Studds and Portland Mayor Sam Adams proved that one right. And the failure of the community to condemn them shows it’s not such a big deal. (At least not when a Democrat does it.)
So, what are the “blood libels” against the gays that you’re talking about? Because, from what I can tell, it doesn’t seem like the conservative right needs to make up anything.
Comment by V the K — March 13, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - March 13, 2009
No, Mary. Attmay was saying that there’s no point in trying to convince folks that gays aren’t that bad and offensively used the Holocaust and the Civil Rights struggle as examples. Try “carefully reading”.
I merely pointed out that there’s not organized, systematic oppression of gays going on anywhere near a similar level. I also believe that if anybody believes they have it bad, they need to see or experience the fact that many people have it far worse.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 13, 2009 @ 3:56 pm - March 13, 2009
Whether it’s time for Neville Chamberlain or Winston Churchill, I don’t know. They’re both dead, as are their enemies. What it is time for is a little pragmatism.
The vote was close, much closer than it was last time. That’s the issue the activists need to keep in mind. The momentum is on the side of gay rights. Full marriage rights are (almost) inevitable. When, not if. But I’m betting if there was another vote today, it would lose by a wider margin. Why? Because of the over-the-top response to the last loss.
Want to keep this train on the tracks until it gets to the station? Than clean up the rhetoric, dialog instead of threaten, convince instead of yell and scream. But above all be reasonable and decent because that is how you need people to see you if you want to win. Reasonable and decent, regular folks who just want to marry their lovers.
Comment by tim maguire — March 13, 2009 @ 4:12 pm - March 13, 2009
Gay and straights are different. Gay relationships and straight relationships are different. I’m not sure why gays have to appropriate the term “marriage” in order to be equal–will they appropriate the term “breeder” as well? I don’t support gay marriage–I support same-sex covenants. I believe that homosexuals can be separate but better.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 13, 2009 @ 5:38 pm - March 13, 2009
i can only imagine the cognitive dissonance going on in that little mind of yours, gpw.
I do so love it when liberals inadvertently prove GPW’s point simply by opening their mouths.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2009 @ 5:39 pm - March 13, 2009
NO ONE says it’s happening now and NO ONE is belittling the Holocaust and NO ONE is saying that life for gays in the USA is anything like that in the Middle East and in some of the African countries. And we have to KEEP IT THAT WAY.
So, adDave, you’re saying that the need of you and your fellow liberal gays to mail white powder to churches, vandalize them, attack religious people, and get people who make political contributions that you don’t like fired from their jobs has nothing to do with what they’re actually doing, but with your fear of what they might do in the future if you didn’t attack them this way in the present.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2009 @ 5:43 pm - March 13, 2009
Hey, hysterical “different” Dave…. the liberals have been telling me since 1981 that there are “gay concentration camps” on the verge of completion in Idaho.
So your side IS equating gay rights with the Holocaust — and has been for quite some time.
What is equally worse is well-dressed gays in WEHO suggesting their plight is as bad as blacks in the 1950s & 60s.
Ughhhhh.
Comment by GayPatriot — March 13, 2009 @ 6:06 pm - March 13, 2009
What is equally worse is well-dressed gays in WEHO suggesting their plight is as bad as blacks in the 1950s & 60s.
Or when those same well-dressed gays start screaming “n****r” at black people for voting for Proposition 8.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2009 @ 6:33 pm - March 13, 2009
let’s sum up NDT’s arguments on just about every post:
some gay people do bad things, so all gay people are bad.
there. now you don’t need to post anymore.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 14, 2009 @ 1:42 pm - March 14, 2009
Here’s a better summary of NDT and my posts: People who identify as gay don’t have any ability for self-criticism. They are so sure that they are a victim of everyone else’s homophobia that they don’t have to look at the numbers of gays spreading AIDS, using drugs, exploiting youth, etc. Anyone who offers a new paradigm for homosexuality–i.e. same-sex covenants based on lifelong sexual exclusivity–is considered self-loathing and dangerous.
I think that about covers it.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 14, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - March 14, 2009
dude, you totally miss the point. of course there are gay people doing bad things, and we should criticize those bad things. the problem is when you conflate the actions of some to an entire group of people and then try to base your arguments for denying rights to said group of people on that basis.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 14, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - March 14, 2009
It’s not gay people who do bad things–it’s an entire gay culture in which the majority do bad things and call them good things. I am not attacking individual gays–I am attacking gay culture. To say that gay culture doesn’t promote, encourage, and subsidize multiple partners, unsafe sex, drugs, subversion, public indecency, etc. is like saying DailyKos is a conservative website because there might be a handful there who voted for Hillary. I don’t identify as gay because I am not part of a culture who promotes the listed behaviors, nor do I want to stand by and tacitly endorse those behaviors. I am AGAINST multiple partners, unsafe sex, drugs, subversion, public indecency, etc. AGAINST! NOT FOR! AGAINST! and I am not going to support a subculture who actively promotes those things anymore than I am going to give money to DailyKos.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 14, 2009 @ 6:21 pm - March 14, 2009
first of all, ashpenaz, i’m not sure of the kinds of people with whom you associate, but the gay people i know tend to be thoughtful, kind, monogamous, well-educated people. i’m not sure how you came about with the idea of what constitutes the “majority” of gay culture in your mind, but i assure you it’s not based in reality.
secondly, what exactly is “gay culture”? if you’re talking about things like manhunt and gay pride parades, i think you’re missing an obvious point in your evaluation. of course, gay people should not be identified solely by their sexuality. they are ordinary people just like everyone else. but when we categorize a group of people by their sexuality, i don’t think we should find it surprising that sexuality is a strong aspect of that observable identity. in other words, when you see the gay guys dancing on top of a parade float in thongs, this scene happens to be the more visible aspect of gay life because it is explicitly “gay” and sexual. however, when your gay neighbors down the street organize a canned food drive or volunteer at the special olympics, no one identifies their sexuality in that context. they are just people volunteering. you only observe the sexuality when its overt, like in a parade. there are plenty of dating sites out there, for both gays and straights, but no one would ever characterize all straight people as “promiscuous” if he or she stumbled upon a straight dating site that promoted sexual flings, right? i think this notion results in an over-sexualization of gay people in society. gay people are, by definition, defined by their sexuality and are thus always seen through that lens. there are plenty of dating sites out there, for both gays and straights, but no one would ever characterize all straight people as “promiscuous” if he or she stumbled upon a straight dating site, right? [disclaimer: i'm not saying there aren't plenty of promiscuous gays out there, nor am i condoning that lifestyle. i'm merely making the point that by virtue of being identified by our sexuality, gay people are perceived differently than other groups.]
i’m almost amused by this fictional notion of a “gay community”. yes, there are groups out there such as HRC and PFLAG that have an agenda; there are gay bars and gay clubs and gay neighborhoods in most major cities. but for the most part, there is no real “gay community” or “gay culture”. there is no email that goes out on thursday nights to all gay people in the tri-state area. gay people come from all different backgrounds, have all different political perspectives (as we can see from this site), and live their lives in very different ways. you are doing us all a disservice by lumping all gays together.
and one last thing: whether you identify yourself as “gay” or not is sort of beside the point. if you are a guy and you’re attracted to other guys, you are gay. period. sexual orientation is defined by your attractions and the sex/gender of the people with whom you fall in love, not on your behavior or your lifestyle.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 14, 2009 @ 7:33 pm - March 14, 2009
pardon the repeated sentences in that post.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 14, 2009 @ 7:35 pm - March 14, 2009
bob,
Five gays are relaxing at a table have some drinks. A straight guy sits down with them. Nothing changes. Everything is as it was before the straight guy showed up. That is because there is no gay culture.
Gays congregate with gays because there is no gay culture. It is one of the real mysteries of life.
Comment by heliotrope — March 14, 2009 @ 8:43 pm - March 14, 2009
Yikes. heliotrope, I hate to contradict you, especially when you are expressing confidence in gay men, but… going by statistical probabilities, the 5 gay guys were probably exchanging a lot of very stupid sexual-innuendo comments, as well as incredibly stupid political comments. When the straight guy showed up they felt self-conscious and went on better behavior – “straightened themselves up a bit”, you might say.
Of course there are exceptions. I recently had a delightful brunch with 3 very smart, well-mannered gay gentlemen – from this blog. You would have enjoyed the conversation and felt at home. The sexual-innuendo comments were rare, and only about Andrew Sullivan, and the political comments were smart
But again, I’m talking about 4 gents (counting myself) from this blog.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 14, 2009 @ 9:02 pm - March 14, 2009
(P.S. to be clear: those 1 or 2 sexual-innuendo comments were *making fun* of Andrew Sullivan; I don’t believe any of us like him)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 14, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - March 14, 2009
i’m sorry, heliotrope, were you attempting to make a point?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 14, 2009 @ 9:10 pm - March 14, 2009
There is a gay culture. There is a gay culture. There is a gay culture. There is a gay culture. There is a gay culture. There is a gay culture. There is a gay culture.
Really.
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 14, 2009 @ 11:54 pm - March 14, 2009
that’s what i thought.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 15, 2009 @ 8:50 am - March 15, 2009
#49 Excellent bob, wasted on here, but excellent.
Ashpenaz, you should know that it matters little who you associate with or how you live your life. In the eyes of our opponents you are still an “abomination”. NDT’s mentor Larbabera says simply “MSM=Disease”. In an article in the most recent Charisma magazine there is an article explaining how two lesbians who share a house but are not sexual and sleep in different rooms are still “sinners”.
GP, if you look at history, Germany is not the only country that isolated a segment of it’s citizens in camps, and the Jews are not the only people who have faced genocide. I personally do not believe that there are such camps being built for LGBT people in the US but please, don’t try and claim that this country is above such a thing.
Comment by a different Dave — March 15, 2009 @ 11:05 am - March 15, 2009
ILC, thank GOD you chimed in. I was beginning to think I was yelling down a man hole. (Is that an innuendo?) Cheese and crackers, if five straights are sitting at a table and their gay work mate shows up, there is one subject that gets avoided.
Comment by heliotrope — March 15, 2009 @ 9:12 pm - March 15, 2009
Did you notice that bob has decided to call me stupid rather than address the points. Why is that? Must be the way gays treat nasty bigots. But I don’t think so. Gays are like a Whitman’s Sampler, they come in all varieties. Its just the cream puffs who go all nutzoid.
Comment by heliotrope — March 15, 2009 @ 9:16 pm - March 15, 2009
um, heliotrope…did you notice that you completely avoided addressing the points in the earlier post?
pot. meet. kettle.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 15, 2009 @ 9:38 pm - March 15, 2009
and for the record, i didn’t call you stupid anywhere in this post.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 15, 2009 @ 9:39 pm - March 15, 2009
bob, my apologies
When someone in my realm makes a comment like this there is a tacit understanding that a superior intellect has called the person a dolt.
I guess that, for the umpteenth time, I am not attuned to the nuance of your sophistication. It might be a straight vs. gay thing. Who knows?
Comment by heliotrope — March 15, 2009 @ 10:05 pm - March 15, 2009
So I was at the lunch table with 5 straight workmates, and the subject of Guitar Hero came up. Guitar Hero is a video game for kids where they pretend to be the guitarist in famous rock and roll songs. With a big cheery smile, I said they should make a gay version, called Broadway Musical Hero. Everybody cracked up.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2009 @ 10:05 pm - March 15, 2009
that’s actually a pretty good one, ilc.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 15, 2009 @ 10:23 pm - March 15, 2009
ILC, glad you at ease with your mates. Unfortunately, bob takes your point as a “gay smackdown.”
Look, I am not a “welcome” voice on Gay Patriot. If most of you feel that bob has the reins, I will gladly retire. The point is that talking strictly among yourselves is two dimensional at best.
I have just learned that Yale law has blessed bob. As a long time lecturer in that institution, I am not entirely surprised that bob is an alum or something less. Some folks never really try to understand other points of view. They gird their loins and charge off in all directions just to preserve their sense of infallibility. Unfortunately, logic (and rhetoric) does not work that way. But clapping your hands over your ears and talking louder is often the only resort. (John Edwards is living proof of that philosophy.)
Seriously, I don’t find a lot of straight posters here and I have tried to be clear and scholarly in my observations. From time to time I have dropped an insult or two, but I am not here to convert, win or be an obstruction. It is your call. I will mosey on if I have misjudged the core of the posters.
And, this is not some phony plea for approval. Bandwidth comes at a price. If I am an unnecessary expense, I will gladly hit the happy trails. Instapundit brought me here and I am sure there are other sites I will enjoy equally.
I truly admire the openness of the contributions of so many of you. thelittleletterpeople here are like littleletterpeople across the net: petulant, self absorbed and juvenile.
bob will call the above a cry for a pity party. I am sincere. bob does not blow my skirt up in the least. I have met hundreds of bobs who can not see themselves as others see them. They only see Adonis. I cringe when gays can’t balance their humanity with their personal gay agenda. Try being “mixed” for a whole bunch of years.
Comment by heliotrope — March 15, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - March 15, 2009
how did you get “gay smackdown” from “that’s actually a pretty good one”?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 15, 2009 @ 10:56 pm - March 15, 2009
i think you might be rivaling NDT for your incessant need to put words in other peoples’ mouths.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 15, 2009 @ 11:03 pm - March 15, 2009
heliotrope, are you kidding? We love reading you! Stay, stay, stay!
That means you add an important element of variety, or a “different” perspective, shall we say. And there are some straight commentors. I think The Livewire has said he is straight, and many other commentors.
I hope you understand that I’m just injecting a bit of levity in the thread. Sorry if it obfuscates your argument at all.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 15, 2009 @ 11:04 pm - March 15, 2009
Unfortunately, boob has been caught in another one of his lies.
boob claims he has never namecalled or insulted heliotrope, but starting in this thread, he refers to heliotrope as “dense”, says his statements are “mindless”, and directly calls heliotrope a “moron”.
Boob is a liar and a bigot who is obviously used to using his sexual orientation to escape the consequences of his behavior. Treat accordingly.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 16, 2009 @ 1:43 am - March 16, 2009
actually what i said was i had not called him stupid in that particular thread. read much?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 16, 2009 @ 6:38 am - March 16, 2009
but thanks for proving my point in #66.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 16, 2009 @ 6:39 am - March 16, 2009
and i’d still like to know how i was calling for a “gay smackdown” after i told ilc that his joke was actually pretty funny.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 16, 2009 @ 6:41 am - March 16, 2009
and do tell…if i’m not out of the closet, how exactly do i use my sexual orientation to “escape the consequences of [my] behavior.” ???
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 16, 2009 @ 6:42 am - March 16, 2009
Via, who gave bob a drool resistant keyboard?
“I didn’t insult him in this thread.” Yup, thats’ going to garner as much respect as “I didn’t hit my wife today, officer.”
heliotrope, I do hope your post was sarcasm. While I’d like to reclaim the ‘token straight guy’ status on the blog, I’m happy with the ‘token straight D/s guy.’
ILC, that was funny, I’ll be sharing that with friends who are big guitar hero fans.
bob, Re your disclaimer. I, heck most people, don’t ‘define you by being gay’. Indeed, anyone reading these comments should be able to see there’s no ‘gay definition’.
As to ‘gay culture’ isn’t such a thing artifical? By that I mean a recent construct or perceived ways and mores, not gays-as-klingons-artifical.
Comment by The Livewire — March 16, 2009 @ 7:12 am - March 16, 2009
Heliotrope, your voice is very welcome and appreciated here! I certainly hope you aren’t going anywhere.
Comment by American Elephant — March 16, 2009 @ 7:41 am - March 16, 2009
By the way, I happen to be a Jew. I used the Holocaust comparison knowing full well that gays were among the victims of the Holocaust. But the Nazis didn’t start with gas chambers. They started small and worked their way up to that.
I am a heterophobe and I’m proud. Is there any reason for me not to fear “straight” “people”?
Comment by Attmay, a proud heterophobe — March 16, 2009 @ 11:23 am - March 16, 2009
Thanks for the kind words, and I apologize for threatening to pick up my marbles. You folks have a compelling site and your interchange is enlightening and lively. I got too much bob on too many threads going at one time. As a rule, I don’t try to poke sticks at snakes. I am not much inclined to hiss back.
I greatly admire the pioneer gays who have earned their respect in general society and maintain their conservative values. It is so easy to jump on the liberal bandwagon and demand respect at the point of the government gun loaded with “hate crime” bullets.
Should my son come home with a gay partner, that would be another interesting chapter in my life and we would all proceed to grow and learn together. Should my son tell me he had to fend off a gay advance at work, I would caution him to keep things in perspective and to keep an even keel.
As I read the littleletterpeople, I have come to realize that some gay liberals will twist and turn what they wrote and what others wrote all the while positioning themselves to unleash invective while claiming perfect alignment with the stars.
Some seem to think they can raise their standing by perching on an ever higher pile of hippo poop.
Comment by heliotrope — March 16, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - March 16, 2009
Attmay,
Besides the fact that you’re here because of ‘em?
Though I will give you credit. in your drama you actually use ‘phobe’ correctly. As in phobia, an irrational unreasoning fear.
As opposed to ‘homophobia’ n. any position I disagree with.
Comment by The Livewire — March 16, 2009 @ 1:44 pm - March 16, 2009
Here’s a clue for you, Attmay: they’re actually not out to get you. Here’s another: if they don’t grant you a State marriage license, well, (1) it’s not actually a denial of your rights, and (2) it needn’t have any negative impact on your life. Plus, they can be cute, furry and cuddly.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 16, 2009 @ 2:20 pm - March 16, 2009
#79 Can we leave furries out of this? *squick*
Comment by The Livewire — March 16, 2009 @ 2:39 pm - March 16, 2009
how exactly did we twist your words, heliotrope? last i recall, you were the one who accused me of creating a “gay smackdown” when i agreed with another poster that his joke (poking fun at gays) was funny.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 16, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - March 16, 2009
livewire said: “I didn’t insult him in this thread.†Yup, thats’ going to garner as much respect as “I didn’t hit my wife today, officer.â€
so my greatest sins are calling heliotrope, in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner, a “moron” and pointing out that his attempt to make a point was unsuccessful. I’ve been called just about every name in the book, including being called a “snake” and being accused of standing on a pile of hippo poo…just in helio’s last post alone. you can’t make this up, folks. NDT has called me every name under the sun, accusing me of, just off the top of my head, promiscuity, spreading disease, condoning taking children to sex fairs, etc. if you all take your blinders off and go back and actually read all the posts, you’ll see that of the invective offenders on this site, i’m not too high on the list.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 16, 2009 @ 6:36 pm - March 16, 2009
You’re not high on anyone’s list bob.
In fact, your most defining argument is to babble nonsense, declair yourself the winner, then say that anyone who can’t understand your enlightened wisdom is an idiot.
I got over those ‘debate tactics’ in the 4th grade, thank you.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 16, 2009 @ 8:11 pm - March 16, 2009
i generally reserve calling someone an “idiot” or some comparable noun for when he demonstrates a complete and utter inability to actually read arguments and respond intelligently. having a difference of opinion is fine; not even trying to understand the other side, putting words in the other side’s mouth, and throwing ad hominem attacks don’t advance the argument. case in point: NDT.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 16, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - March 16, 2009
oh, and it’s “declare” not declair.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 16, 2009 @ 10:17 pm - March 16, 2009
And again, unable to make a point or justify his stupidity, bob resorts to attacking spelling errors.
By the way, it’s “The_Livewire” not livewire, bob.
Comment by The Livewire — March 17, 2009 @ 7:54 am - March 17, 2009
livewire: i’ve made countless substantive comments in this post and others. the fact that you don’t agree with me doesn’t mean i don’t offer anything to the conversation.
as for the ad hominem, please look at your comment in #83. how did that offer a substantive argument?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 17, 2009 @ 6:21 pm - March 17, 2009