First published at 365gay.com on October 29, 2007
It wasn't the first time an audience defied expectations. This time it was in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. I was there with Glenn Stanton, my "debate buddy" from Focus on the Family, to discuss same-sex marriage. The only thing we knew about Rhinelander before arriving was that its number one cause of death is bar-room brawls-or so we had been told by several Wisconsinites, who warned us of the small town's "redneck" reputation.
"Bar-room brawls?" Glenn joked. "I suppose that has heterosexuality written all over it."
"Oh, we gays have them too," I responded. "We just call them 'hissy-fits.'"
Unlike most of our university debates, the Rhinelander event was advertised primarily to local residents, rather than students, and when we arrived we noticed lots of gray hair in the audience. An older crowd in a redneck town-Glenn's territory. I braced myself.
Then the Q&A began, and one audience member after another attacked Glenn. I kept waiting for a critical question directed at me. Nothing.
After about an hour of Glenn's getting grilled while I fielded softballs, I turned to him and announced, "Well, Glenn, this has been exactly the right-wing audience we expected in rural Wisconsin!" The audience howled with laughter.
"Are you sure they didn't bus you guys in from Madison?" Glenn quipped back. I could tell that he was weary and that he appreciated the lighthearted moment.
The following week we debated again in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the same thing happened. I found myself wanting to stand up and shout, "This is the deep South, people. You're supposed to be on HIS SIDE!"
It's not that I'm complaining. I do these debates to convince people. Not to convince Glenn (although I'd like to think my time with him has had a positive effect). And not to convince ideologues, who have made up their minds and won't budge no matter what. I do them to convince the fence sitters-folks who show up curious about the issue, eager to listen, willing to engage arguments. So when people agree with me, I should be happy, and I am.
But…
But there are plenty of people who don't agree with me. One merely has to look at voting patterns to realize this. Last November, Wisconsin voters passed an anti-gay marriage amendment 59-41%-and much of that majority came from more liberal towns than Rhinelander. Even college students are far from unanimous in supporting marriage equality. Which means that opponents are either not showing up, or not speaking up, at our debate events. Either way, I miss the opportunity to engage them.
Such engagement would have two potential benefits. First, it might help convince the opponents themselves-even if slowly and gradually. Second, it might help convince the fence-sitters who are watching, since they would receive "the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error" (in the words of the great liberal theorist John Stuart Mill). The more we confront the opposition head-on, the more obvious their fallacies become. That's why I'm willing to travel the country with someone from Focus on the Family addressing the same bad arguments over and over again.
It was the hope for such engagement that led me to interrupt the Q&A in Baton Rouge to plead for some audience opposition. "Any critical questions for me? Please?" I asked no fewer than three times. It felt like announcing "last call" at the bar: "Last call…last call for traditionalists…" Finally, a woman took me up on my challenge-sort of:
"I'm a religious conservative," she began gently. "And I appreciate your kindness to Glenn and to us. But I haven't spoken up because I feel a lot of hostility from the audience. I think more of us would show up and speak up if we didn't feel like we would automatically be shouted down." She didn't offer any question-just that observation.
I was both impressed and surprised-impressed by her courage in speaking against the (immediate) tide, and surprised that she found the audience hostile. I could recall no anger or viciousness from the various questioners. But since they were on my side, perhaps I simply failed to notice.
Her remarks spotlighted an important distinction: it's one thing to silence your opponents; it's quite another to convince them. And sometimes-perhaps often-silencing is done at the expense of convincing.
The social pressure that makes certain views "taboo" has its uses. But political reality indicates that it's not yet time to halt the conversation over same-sex marriage-certainly not in Rhinelander or Baton Rouge. Strange as it sounds, we may sometimes need to work at making people more comfortable-not less-in voicing their opposition to us.
Corvino, John
{ 94 comments }
Oh boo fucking hoo. It is NOT our job or our interest to coddle our opponents just because the social climate is turning against them.
And why should we even be expected to? Would ANY other group of any kind be expected to coddle its opponents like this article suggests?
If they can’t stand the heat then they can get out fo the kitchen.
I’d like to see some stats on barroom brawls, because in my experience there are far fewer of them — call them what you will — in gay bars.
I very much agree that it is counterproductive for us to use the shorthand of charging bigotry, since that just shuts down conversations that we are better off encouraging. On the other hand, when you bend over backwards and SSM opponents still react the same way (as the woman did in your example), it suggests that the only way we could avoid offending many SSM opponents is by either disappearing or agreeing with them. The bottom line is, their position is unreasonable.
But at this point I think that if we are going to go after anyone it is the supposed moderates who make weaselly excuses. I will cite as an example someone I actually like, Barack Obama. His persistence in talking as if the word “marriage” is the exclusive property of religious groups is blatantly false, since we are talking about CIVIL marriage. He is not advocating that the word “marriage” be removed from the civil law, which he should do to be logically consistent. Given how bright the guy is, it is much likelier that he is pandering than that he doesn’t understand.
I applaud your efforts, but I think what’s really going on here is that people are embarrassed to admit in public forums that they are bigots. It’s not so different with racial prejudice, except to the extent that (almost) nobody is going to get up anymore and say, “my belief is that blacks and white should be treated differently,” whereas you can be sure that some significant percentage (if perhaps not a majority) would vote that way if given the opportunity to do behind a closed curtain. It’s no different with regard to gay marriage, except that we’re a few decades behind the civil rights curve.
I think what truly vexes and annoys me is those who have any objections to what gay people say or try to communicate, behave as if they haven’t already controlled the debate for a long, long time. It’s not about being shouted down, so much as not knowing when to relinquish the floor so someone else can have a turn.
Over and over again, some straight folks feel perfectly fine in arguing with a gay person over whether it’s a choice, lecturing on how gay people should and can avoid problems or that being celibate is preferable. That anyone straight would argue as if THEY know better than a gay person what it is or is like is stupid, if not bigoted.
That is enough to set my teeth right on edge. My challenge begins there. And I remind the straight folks that them arguing with a gay person the typical way that occurs, is like a man arguing with a woman that HE knows better than a woman does what cramps and pregnancy is like and where and how women should live.
But for THE most arrogant and knuckleheaded of straight folks, that’s usually enough to make them see how ignorant they are. And ONLY gay people can teach them what needs to be known.
Straight folks have used and taken over long enough, giving someone else the opportunity to testify and prove their case is about good manners and learning to accept that their side, lives and whatever, are NOT the only ones that ever existed.
Straight folks are not qualified to claim they know more about gay people than gay people do. That’s not calling them a bigot to point that out.
Nor is reminding them that dominion over another human’s life isn’t their call either and their isn’t a thing in the world in evidence to make them think otherwise.
Well, look at race relations. There’s definitely been a lot of silencing of whites on race, bigoted and otherwise, for decades. But they’ve gotten in their licks in other ways. There’s still racial estrangement, still racial segregation, and it hurts blacks more than whites because people are not allowed to talk about it. The minute they do so, they’re decried as racists or race traitors. Look at what happened to Bill Cosby.
Things are still a heck of a lot better for African Americans than they were 50 years ago, but there’s a lot less hope because there’s very little movement on the major league problems.
Right now, we’re experiencing something of a backlash against gay political causes well before we’ve won a widespread social recognition of our equality. The political stakes are a lot lower, but the social stakes are high. This is a delicate time for us.
I think it’s very important to keep communication and engagement open with the mavericks–the stubborn moderates who have an unsettling habit of pissing us off but are sometimes firmly on our side. There are a few of them out there, and it’s they who most of all need to be made more comfortable, because they epitomise this country’s diversity and independence. We need to have them say their thing out in the open instead of underground.
I wonder if the woman in Baton Rouge had heard from her minister or some other religious authority that she would be “persecuted” for her opinion about same-sex marriage. Spokespeople for Evangelical Christianity regularly use this charge to fertilize the “us” against “them” aspects of almost any discussion of any social issue. Funny, I have never heard of a single incident where a Christian who spoke his or her mind opposing same-sex marriage at a public forum was subsequently followed by a gang of gay hoodlums, beaten up, and left for dead. Instilling this kind of fear is a powerful tactic for, well, keeping people afraid of something and reinforcing the idea that same-sex marriage is a threat to all marriages everywhere.
I’ve found that most opponents of same-sex marriage equality don’t have a rational argument. When this is pointed out to them, they cite their “deeply held beliefs” and become very offended when you point out that their personal beliefs are fine as governors of their own lives, but not fine as governors of the lives of always.
Then, invariably, the “persecution syndrome” that revbelair pointed out kicks in. “You’re persecuting me by disagreeing with me or not accepting my deeply held but factually baseless opinion as equal to a rationally derived viewpoint” becomes the battle cry.
In the end, it often becomes all about them. And those are the “hopeless” ones.
So don’t shout opponents down — debate them, convince them. But if they’re intractible bigots with little hope of seeing the light, further “dialogue” is a waste of time.
I appreciate your kindness to Glenn and to us. But I haven?t spoken up because I feel a lot of hostility from the audience. I think more of us would show up and speak up if we didn?t feel like we would automatically be shouted down.
Persecution complex kicking in again. Anyone who doesn’t agree with her irrational position is “hostile,” and anyone who doesn’t agree with her is “shouting her down.”
The hilarious thing is that religious conservatives are masters at shouting down others. Whoever heard of a “pluralist debate” on religious values — such as debates on the roles of gay and lesbian people within religious mysticism?
Hell no! The preacher/pope said this is how it is, and it will thus be this way, and that’s it! No debate! Shut up and sit down, heretic!
They don’t even see the irony in their statements.
The really sad thing is that we willingly yield so much ground to the bigots who hide behind religion.
Little-realized and less appreciated fact: We can beat them on their own ground. ON. THEIR. OWN. GROUND. There are an increasing number of gay and gay-friendly evangelical Christians. The six passages of Scripture anti-gay Christians clobber us with are being inconsistently interpreted — even by their own standards.
We don’t need to be liberals. We don’t need to “take the Bible allegorically.” We don’t need to simply ignore the parts we don’t like.
We’ve got ‘em. An evangelical Christian gay (like me) can take any one of ‘em head-to-head and toe-to-toe. We can beat ‘em like red-headed stepchildren.
The time for retreating and conceding needs to end. Now’s the time to stand our ground and fight. And this is the stand we must take, whether each of us personally believes or not. It’s the battleground that must be won.
Bring ‘em on.
?Oh, we gays have them too,? I responded. ?We just call them ?hissy-fits.??
==============
Corvino, thanks a lot. In one sentence, you managed to tell a lie and feed a stereotype. I don’t go to gay bars anymore, but I did go to them for a long time. In small towns, medium-sized cities, and big cities. The only fight I ever saw was the time some gay bashers beat a kid up on the way in.
Why do “independent gays” hate themselves and other gay people so much?
why should opponents of same sex marriage bother to come out? They won. They got an amendment. It’s over. And if a Republican wins the white house in 2008 and elects 1 more conservative to the sCOTUS, there will never be any point in talking about same sex marriage.
Gay republicans: idiots
I think the responses to Corvino’s article are much more realistic than whatever Corvino has concluded and presented to us. Bravo on that.
Rosendall for example, observed:
“…the only way we could avoid offending many SSM opponents is by either disappearing or agreeing with them. The bottom line is, their position is unreasonable.” “…if we are going to go after anyone it is the supposed moderates who make weaselly excuses.”
It’s certainly comparable to us having a “debate” over whether mixed marriages should be legal, or whether divorcees should get a second bite at the apple after they turned their backs on God and broke their vows. (For better or worse, right? Till death do us part, right?) Such couples in either circumstance, (and I could think of many more) would be aghast and offended at my suggestion to pull out a table and microphone to discuss the merits of “allowing” them to marry. The idea is just patently offensive, and either you get that or you don’t.
So, as Rosendall said, it’s much more productive to shore up the base and keep the fire to the feet of the moderates who actually have power to turn the country one way or another, rather than trying to convice some guy in Rinelander to wave his wand and grant you the right to marry. He doesn’t have a wand, Mr. Corvino. He’s just one guy in a crowd, and eventually he’ll follow whichever way the culture of the country moves, after you’ve moved it with political and legal advances. The only reason things feel so hard now is because the evangelicals have organized and done most of the actual culture-shifting the last 10 years or so, which in one respect is encouraging because it proves it CAN be done.
We’re like a cat in a cracked doorway, sitting on our ass, subject to someone propping it open all the way or slamming it shut and leaving us outside in the cold. We’re in that uncomfortable in-between space. That’s why The Right is pushing so hard and being so noisy – they know it and they know they haven’t yet won. It’s up to us to shore up that door.
So shore it up, people. Don’t feel falsely comfortable in that doorway – thinking things are pretty good, a great job, family who sorta doesn’t mind you’re gay, friends who are amused by you,…the wind in your fur, purring away. Because that damn door is going to slam shut right on your tail. Then where will you be.
Marriage’s rights. Employment rights. Housing rights.
First the rights, then the respect comes afterwards. It doesn’t work the other way around.
It’s certainly comparable to us having a “debate” over whether mixed marriages should be legal, or whether divorcees should get a second bite at the apple after they turned their backs on God and broke their vows. (For better or worse, right? Till death do us part, right?) Such couples in either circumstance, (and I could think of many more) would be aghast and offended at my suggestion to pull out a table and microphone to discuss the merits of “allowing” them to marry. The idea is just patently offensive, and either you get that or you don’t.
I gotta play devil’s advocate and suggest things might still be better right now if we did have serious debate over those things, because a frightening number of people still still believe that and still act on it. Mixed racial couples especially still get snideness and social discrimination from their own families and friends. And there’s still wiggle room over things like no-fault divorce, custody, alimony, and things like that.
And then look at things affirmative action, police brutality, college campus racism, things on which everyone knows the “correct” answer, but which many mainstream Americans (and I’m one of them) think the African American community is nutso about. This fear contributes directly to unfair policies and indirectly to continued discrimination.
I also think the idea that the gay community is 100% right about any cause we believe in and wouldn’t ourselves benefit from the input and disagreement of others is pretty arrogant. The debate is not over about gay marriage and it is not our right to declare it over as long as the idea continues to offend people. Social change is a big deal. We have to prove that we are governing not only ourselves and our allies, but those who disagree with us.
John Corvino often remarks that he hopes he has some impact on Glenn Stanton in their debates, but the very idea of debating someone means you have to make sure you’re not going overboard and are advocating something that has a decent chance of making sense to other people. You can’t do that without listening.
Jorge, nobody said the “gay community” was 100 percent right about everything. I’m simply talking about all Americans having equal rights, which includes marriage rights. There’s no need to discredit or minimize the importance of marriage rights by suggesting it’s part of a gay agenda that’s running roughshod over people.
I get it, you don’t want to offend anyone. You don’t want to be part of an embarrassing minority group. You’re on the reasonable side, aren’t you? I hear you purring in the doorway.
Look, if we have to wait until gay rights no longer offends anyone before we claim those rights,…then it’s already over. It’s the same for any other discriminated group in this country, so why should we be any different? If you’re waiting to be loved then good luck.
I’m proud of any step forward we take. When those gay Easter-egg-rollers showed up on the National Mall along with straight parents, and everyone was offended, and my local news interviewed the offended parents…I’m real glad they didn’t conclude, “oh well let’s pack up and go home because they don’t like us.” No, their children meant more to them than that. Their lives meant more than that.
“It’s well known that reality has a strong liberal bias.” – Stephen Colbert.
Just because they can’t come up with anything persuasive to say doesn’t mean we’re silencing them. We’re not shouting them down – we’re winning all the debates on the merits.
But the persecution complex is the dearest of all neuroses to the hearts of American fundamentalists. So they will continue to believe that we should pretend their arguments make any sense at all, because otherwise we’re “silencing” them.
It’s the same with the “Intelligent Design” theorists. Their theory isn’t a real scientific theory at all, but unless we pretend that it is, they will scream that they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.
I don’t really get the point of this article. Are you saying that we should beg homophobes to be more open in their hate of us, because that will somehow cause more communication?
They may not be open with virulent homophobia at these college forums, but believe me, I’ve seen and heard plenty of gay hate in public places.
Making people feel more “comfortable” in expressing their hate of us simply makes them feel even more justified. They will hate us and persecute us whether they do so openly or not. Begging them to openly hate us won’t somehow change their opinions.
I get it, you don’t want to offend anyone. You don’t want to be part of an embarrassing minority group. You’re on the reasonable side, aren’t you? I hear you purring in the doorway.
If I didn’t want to offend anyone and was afraid of being part of an embarassing minority group, I wouldn’t have made a post like that on a gay website.
I’m not suggesting anyone should “wait” until no one is offended by gay rights before advocating for them. That’s silencing ourselves. I’m for removing the silence–everyone speaks.
Jorge,
The question is who is responsible for their “silence” in forums like this. Is it really us shouting them down, or is it their own failure to show up with a real argument?
It is not my responsibility to pretend my opponent’s argument is defensible – when it’s clearly not – by backing off on my own.
Coach Steve Spurrier used to get flak for “running up the score” on opponents – not backing off when the game was already won – and he would respond “It is our job to score points. It is the other team’s job to stop us.”
This isn’t peewee mercy-rule football. If they feel “shouted down”, all they have to do is shout louder…. and if they sound like bigotted a-holes calling for a theocracy when they do, that is not my problem.
I’ve seen enough silencing on racial issues to believe there’s a danger of it here, and I think that danger should be taken very seriously as something that can harm us and the entire nation.
I’ve also experienced a few attempts at silencing on gay issues, mostly from professors upholding the liberal line on heterosexism and gay marriage. Since I’m not liberal I do have a habit of pointing out there are reasonable positions on gay issues that are not liberal and liberal positions that are not reasonable.
Misguided notions of “rationality” are themselves a tool for silencing–look at how dissenters on global warming and evolution are treated.
So I believe silencing of reasonable opinions exists.
I don’t think much of the views of the religious right. Question is, do they feel their views are equal to ours? If they do, I see no reason why they wouldn’t express them unless they felt intimidated.
Jorge,
In a class, the professor has power over the students, and therefore a “shouting down” might occur where the student fears for his grade and therefore toes whatever line the professor is upholding, to mix my metaphors.
What power was wielded over these forum-goers? What did they fear?
It seems to me that the fear of being seen being wrong, which allows for the “shouting down” of people who are wrong, is a healthy thing.
… In other words, which idea of the anti-gays/religious right do you believe we are not taking seriously enough?
Is it the idea that their religious dogma should influence public policy?
Or is it the idea that Paul Cameron is a real scientist?
Maybe it’s the idea that gay people are sad, sick individuals who need help.
Or is it the one where kids of gay parents grow up all twisted and abused?
Please, do tell us which idea of theirs has merit.
I’m all for removing the silence and letting everyone speak, but do it in an environment which has certain assumptions, which is basic equal rights for everyone. Anything else is certainly up for debate, but basic rights are not. And I don’t feel that is a particularly liberal idea, it’s an american idea.
From what I’ve seen, if anyone is getting shouted down it’s the people who speak up for the broad concept of equality and dignity for all. Rosa Parks, God bless her heart, stood at a podium a few years ago, accepting an honor, and tried to say something important – something about everyone deserving of the same rights – black, white, gay, straight. But believe it or not they ushered the elderly woman off the stage. Why? Because it’s just not a priority for a lot of people, and it still makes people uncomfortable.
Winning requires controlling the narrative. There’s a lot of work yet to be done on that. If anything, I think these little Rhinelander debates are more of a finger to the wind exercise more than they are an actual tool to change society. And that’s if everyone shows up, which they don’t. People often vote with their feet. You won’t even see them.
We should be having a national conversation, not a debate, and it should be in the government’s interest to promote the public weal, to facilitate equality, because people forget it’s just as much for the nation as it is for the minority group. It advances us forward and honors the constitution.
Any “debate” format which is limited to a question like “should gays marry,” is too adversarial and sets up simple responses in the form of biased, fear-based opinions. We need to always maintain an educating atmosphere.
Karen, the fear they felt was one of being out-talked and out-numbered. They had a strong view which was opposite of most of the other audience members, and felt that competition, that hostility. But that’s exactly what I’m saying. The forum is all wrong. People come with these very strong opinions and want to vent them. But it’s sure hurtful to hear someone vent that you are not deserving of basic rights.
It’s better to have them come to an event where they are encouraged to instead share experiences and have other audience members and panel members respond and relate to that. That’s how learning occurs. That way, they can express their fears or even past negative interaction with gays in a productive way, and not an attacking, judgemental way. The end result will be understanding, not a conclusion, yes gays should marry or no gays shouldn’t.
It’s a bit dispiriting that some of these posts are so nasty and contemptuous toward Jorge (“self-hating”). After all, he’s an activist who has devoted a huge amount of time and effort trying to advance the goals that these posters support.
It takes a lot more courage and dedication to appear before public forums that are potentially hostile, and to share the floor with an articulate opponent, than it does to post militant anonymous messages on a gay forum.
Quite apart from questions of strategy, Jorge was simply being a decent human being reacting to the conservative woman. For heaven’s sake– can’t people show a tiny bit of sensitivity? Many (if not most) people find it intimidating to express dissenting views in a crowd of people who disagree with them. Jorge was just showing ordinary sensitivity in identifying with her issue, and frustration that he didn’t get a chance to persuade opponents.
By the way, the woman, judging from her statement, seems like a decent enough person. I believe that most people who vote against same-sex marriage are not bad people, and needn’t be pushed away by demonizing them. Sure, there are scoundrels in the anti-gay movement, and nasty people. If you think there aren’t equally horrible people in all camps– grow up. But most people in all camps genuinely believe they are trying to do the right thing. That understanding should be the starting point for any education/propaganda.
As an aside to the pessimist, who believes that a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court would doom same-sex marriage: Massachusetts legislated gay marriage, and several states have legislated civil unions, without any assistance from the Supreme Court. By the way, nearly all states abolished anti-sodomy laws without any assistance from the Supreme Court, mostly through the legislatures. And unlike the case with abortion, where SCOTUS’s Roe v Wade has been followed by 35 years of bitter political struggle, sodomy laws became a dead issue the minute they were repealed.
It does seem like local and state action are the way to go, in the current political atmosphere in any case. A few of the Republican candidates, BTW, are openly gay-friendly, though of course their position on same-sex marriage is identical to that of the Democratic candidates: they’re agin’ it. Let’s be honest– whether Obama or Giuliani, nobody is going to risk losing a presidential election on this issue. Unless you’re willing to run a third or fourth-party candidate on this single issue, you may as well get used to that.
Samantha,
And all I’m saying is that if these people do want to vent that I am not deserving of basic rights in a public place, they should not expect me not to argue with them because they feel “outnumbered” and “outtalked” by decent people.
We can’t have a conversation with them, because any conversation that starts with that basic assumption of equal rights for all automatically disqualifies them. An “educating atmosphere”? They’re trying to “educate” me that I am an abomination and that my family is second-class (at best)! I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to listen to their drivel being packaged up as “education” – Try Exodus! You can change! Children will suffer! Bah.
As for these opponents of my civil rights being decent people…
I hear the Phelps are very nice when they aren’t talking about “fags”.
Barry,
It’s presumptuous of you to assume that those of us who do NOT feel sorry for outtalked, outnumbered bigots are not also activists.
I’m just not really clear on what it is we are supposed to do for these people to make them more comfortable saying hateful things to us. Pretend that they’re not hateful? Pretend that they make sense?
Why, if we must do this for these people, are we not obligated to do the same for, say, white supremacists?
Karen,
It wasn’t at all presumptuous of me to complain about people were being unfairly hostile to Jorge, who is clearly putting himself on the line, and is trying to engage opponents, rather than preaching to the choir, a much easier and safer task. I’ve taken part in enough demos, including in the bad old days, to know that it doesn’t take much courage at all to participate in a gay march in America; nor does it take any courage whatsoever to deliver the gay party line to a friendly audience. What Jorge has been trying to do has earned my respect and I give him a lot of slack; if it hasn’t earned yours, well you can’t please everyone.
I also don’t understand why people don’t sign their full name, especially if they are going to criticize someone who appears in public and signs his articles with his name. That seems impolite to me, although I suppose it’s become a convention.
At least some studies find that people are more polite when they sign their full real name.
Talk about presumptuous, though: I think you are being more than presumptuous to call that woman a bigot. You don’t know her; the only thing you know is what Jorge told us: that she thanked him for being polite with the audience and with his opponent, and that she was intimidated in expressing her views, in front of what she sensed was a hostile audience toward the other side. For you to assume she was going to say “hateful things” may say more about yourself than about her.
I’m old enough to have discovered, a long time ago, that there is no lack of mean-spirited or ignorant bigots in every political camp, and CERTAINLY in every religious or ideological camp, including most definitely the gay activist world. On the other hand, most of the ordinary people in any political camp have more or less the same motives in making political choices: they vote with their own gang (family, subculture, profession), or to protect their economic interest, or to advance what they believe is the side of the angels. Only a minority are motivated by hatred. And there are plenty of people who are willing to listen to the other side and engage in conversation. Oddly, some people in this thread are actually proud that they are not willing to listen.
Oops– I keep saying Jorge instead of John. I was confused by the poster by that name.
I’m also confused about Corvino’s message. From what I understand, he’s basically stating that antigay people are being silenced, but by what exactly? What is causing the intimidation? Is it a mob of people from the other side of the debate threatening to break their legs if they speak, or is it the shame associated with being considered an antigay bigot within society? If it’s the latter, would this also mean that we should encourage racists to speak openly in a debate on racial affairs? Some bigots do openly state comments, without intimidation, so how come they’re not silenced?
Sorry Corvino, but nothing really prevents some antigay douche bag to exercise his right to free speech. That many don’t due to shame is their own decision and not due to some explicit or implicit coercion. This ‘silencing’ mechanism based on shame is quite similar to the Invisible Hand guiding free markets. If some douche bag merchant can’t keep up with the market (general attitudes on gay issues), nothing prevents him from trying to change market trends (better arguments which is a dead end IMO) or tanking down his business. Of course he knows that if he can’t change the market to his advantage, he should either close shop (shut up) or change business policy (wisen up). In the end, market prevails.
Wait, does that analogy makes any sense?
The following week we debated again in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the same thing happened. I found myself wanting to stand up and shout, ?This is the deep South, people. You?re supposed to be on HIS SIDE!?
That’s insulting a lot of gay and gay friendly southerners. Not everyone from the south is a redneck.
I disagree, Barry. It takes a LOT of courage to walk out in the open in a gay pride march. I’ve never done it. It takes a lot of courage to come out to your family, to people at work, to get involved with gay organizations, to put that sticker on your car. It all makes you identified and a target. It makes you vulnerable. Honestly, a formal, professionally-organized forum seems much safer to me by comparison. And John seems to enjoy his sessions with Glenn, easily joking with him and even playing along with the “hissy fit” stereotype. So I think you’re unfairly portraying all this, as well as the responses to the article, which you describe as “militant” for some reason.
I respect what John’s doing, and I’m glad he’s sharing it with us in the blog. However, I reserve the right to suggest better formats to reach people, as I’ve done in my previous post.
What bothers me in some of these responses, though, as in yours Barry, is stuff like this:
“there is no lack of mean-spirited or ignorant bigots in every political camp, and certainly in every religious or ideological camp, including most definitely the gay activist world.”
and this:
“Sure, there are scoundrels in the anti-gay movement, and nasty people. If you think there aren’t equally horrible people in all camps– grow up.”
Sorry, I’m not as experienced as all of you,…but I find it odd that I find this recurring theme in other threads as well – the idea that we we’re bad people too, so we should chill.
I just don’t recall anyone in the NAACP, anyone in the civil rights movement talk about how intolerant and militant blacks are, while they try to move their people forward and win the right to vote and go to the same schools.
I don’t know. It’s like, there’s a LOT of gay people out there who seem to have escaped from the gay pit of hell or something. You can tell from the postings.
Barry,
I don’t generally post my last name because it’s unsafe to do so, especially for women.
I have done plenty of polite engagement with the opponent, and have several ‘conversions’ to show for it. That’s why it’s presumptuous of you to imply that all I do is preach to choirs and march in parades.
There are two options here: either there are non-bigotted reasons to oppose civil marriage equality, or the woman is a bigot. In my countless conversations, I’ve never encountered one that didn’t come back around to bigotry in the end, under the cold light of logic.
Again, I’m not sure what you want us to do. Of course it would be unproductive to simply shout her down whenever she speaks her mind, but that’s not what happened here. She didn’t speak at all.
Why? She was ‘intimidated’ in a forum that was expressly set up for the purpose of civilized discussion of the matter. What was she afraid of? Her arguments being decimated? It’s not our responsibility to pretend her arguments aren’t weak. Being seen as a bigot? It’s not our responsibility to pretend that her position against civil marriage equality isn’t offensive.
I’m not going to back off and be like, “Well, maybe you’ve got a point” when she doesn’t. I’m going to listen to what she has to say, respond based on reason and American principles, and I’m going to win the debate because I happen to be on the side of justice and equality. But I can’t do any of that if she doesn’t speak. So she doesn’t say anything, and then she plays the persecution card and says she never got a chance. And you’re more than willing to play along and lecture us on how we shouldn’t silence her, when she’s the one silencing herself!
Karen,
I suppose I’m ignorant, so I naively ask, what dangers do women or men face when they use their real names on a blog? (I’m not talking about addresses, phone numbers, or even email addresses.) Of course, if someone is closeted, I understand and respect that.
It’s nice that you can politely talk with opponents of gay marriage, and that you understand that can yield results. In that case, I continue not to understand why you and so many others seemed ticked off by John’s attitude.
Samantha,
There have always been leaders in ANY rights movement, and certainly the African-American civil rights movement, who self-consciously sought opportunities to reach out to the “other side,” to try to understand their genuine concerns and interests, and even to tailor their campaigns in order to reach as many of the “other” as possible.
Martin Luther King is the obvious example, but so were the earlier leaders of the NAACP. King NEVER demonized or even disrespected Southern whites, or even the segregationist majority, and he NEVER assumed that they were necessarily his enemies. This stand was not only admirable and principled, and not only wonderful PR, but it turned out he was right in his estimation of southern whites. Thanks in part to King’s Christian and peaceful rhetoric, most of them eventually went along with desegregation peacefully–in many other times and places, such revolutionary change would have resulted in massive violence (which DID take place during Reconstruction, of course).
As for narrow-minded bigots: for the vast majority of people I’ve ever met, or read about, or seen on TV, I have found that you can rarely assume that a person is good or bad, tolerant or narrow-minded, informed or ignorant, thoughtful or irrational, based on what political movement they belong to or how they vote. There’s a full range of such types in every milieu and in every camp.
Anyone over the age of 15 who thinks that “my people are smarter, better informed, morally superior, and have a monopoly on right and wrong” is part of the problem.
Humility and civil discourse is not a trivial thing; it’s the main thing, especially for minorities. For Jews in Europe during WWII, such advice would not have been helpful. But if it made sense for Martin Luther King in the South in the 1950s, I don’t see why it doesn’t make sense for gay and lesbian Americans in 2007.
Barry
Karen, you made some good points. And btw I’m not sure why we’re being asked to include our last names, either. It’s an odd request.
In regards to bigots, the comfort zone is very small for them, that’s why Fox news was created, and Rush Limbaugh radio and other similar outlets flourished to respond to conservative fears and frustrations. They want to hear only the news and opinion which fits into their narrow views. And although the ratings for Fox News has dropped, they were very popular for quite a long time.
I think there are a certain number of folks who are not bigots, who are a bit on the conservative side and aren’t sure about the gay marriage thing, who we could have a civil conversation with. But most self-described “religious conservatives” are not open-minded enough for that, and don’t think that gays have any inherant, god-given rights. They think that if gays have rights, it would be at the discretion of people like them, and they’re not likely to bestow those kinds of rights when in their gut they don’t agree with them.
Barry, you think King built his campaign based on humility? In the face of raw oppression and violence, he embraced bigots and told his followers to quiet down because they’re being too militant by expressing even an OPINION that they should be free? Southeners “went along” with desegregation peacefully? Do you remember George Wallace’s “segregation forever!” speech? Nobody went along with anything. They were forced to accept desegregation because the black community stubbornly insisted on their rights and the federal government supported that effort. Black power and black rights are based on keeping your head up high and not turning your back on naked, racial hatred. They chased that hatred back into the dark sewers from whence it came. They didn’t compromise one inch on their rights. They didn’t sell themselves short or act out of fear. They demanded their rights, non-violently (most of them), and let the chips fall where they may.
Here’s a quote from King:
“When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.”
I’m not even saying be radical. I’m saying let’s just keep our heads up, not sell off the farm, and have a little faith in each other.
How the American public feels is being made evident at the ballot box; because they have that, they are not going to waste effort or time going to “debates” in which their religious and political beliefs are mocked and they are stereotyped as “narrow-minded”.
Karen: I’ve only witnessed a handful of examples of silencing when it comes to homosexuality–as I have said, I don’t think it’s as bad as with race yet. But what else can people be afraid of, you ask? How about the gay card? Being labeled a bigot can be very damaging to one’s reputation, rather draining to fight off, and baseless more often than not. Shutting up in public and speaking in private is the smart thing to do.
… In other words, which idea of the anti-gays/religious right do you believe we are not taking seriously enough?
Is it the idea that their religious dogma should influence public policy?
That’s a good start. The difference between right and wrong is pretty fundamental to public policy.
Maybe it’s the idea that gay people are sad, sick individuals who need help.
The sad part’s right.
Then there’s the whole “nature” thing. So far the only thing we have proven in this regard is… gays exist.
Or is it the one where kids of gay parents grow up all twisted and abused?
How about the idea that straight parents are natural and gay parents are just a substitute for the real thing?
Oops– I keep saying Jorge instead of John. I was confused by the poster by that name.
I did do a couple of months of volunteer work and meet with two local politicians, but I wouldn’t consider myself an activist
-jaw drops-
I’m sorry, Jorge, I was unaware that I am a sad person! How lovely that you know what it’s like to be me better than I do! Can you come over and tell me how I feel every day??
I am not sad. I am angry, but not because I am gay. I’m angry because I’m tired of being told that I’m doing immoral, terrible things when I’m not.
We live in a secular, religiously plural society, Jorge. It’s not my opinion – religious dogma really *doesn’t* belong in public policy. Right and wrong do, of course, but where the nutjobs get off track is believing that their religion can be considered the general arbiter of right and wrong, when that is not what we have agreed upon as a society.
Also, do please tell me who ARE the natural parents of the children my partner and I planned together, conceived in my body via donor sperm like any number of infertile straight couples, carried and anticipated for nine months, gave birth to, took home, and began raising? Clearly it couldn’t be my partner and me, right? Because we’re gay, so we’re substitutes for their real parents. That’s terrible! Who shall I return them to?
Detect some sarcasm? That’s because WE ARE OUR CHILDREN’S REAL PARENTS.
If the label didn’t fit so well, Jorge, it wouldn’t be so hard to get off. If they don’t want to be labelled bigots, all they have to do is come up with a rational explanation for their beliefs. It’s not *my fault* there is no such thing.
We don’t give Mormons a pass on their “dark skin” issue just because it is a “religious belief” of theirs that God cursed black people and made them dark, lazy, and mischeivous. That is bigotry! As is the Christian “religious belief” that gay people don’t deserve sex lives because God said so.
ND30,
Of course it’s easier on them to avoid confrontation about the injustice of putting their private religious beliefs into public policy action – that’s not something they should be proud of.
I have no obligation to go along with beliefs they have that have no basis in our shared reality, which is what they want me to do. Your right to swing your fist stops at my face, and your right to believe in fairies stops where you start trying to make ME do what they say.
What these people are doing is conflating “not agreeing to abide by the demands of their fairy king” with “persecuting them for believing in said fairy king.” Oh, I think their beliefs are stupid alright, but I recognize that I have no more proof that there is NO fairy king than they do that there IS. The problem is, these people are pretending that the rules that go along with their beliefs include me in their scope – and while some of them do (since they make sense in our shared reality – no murdering allowed!) others don’t (no taking the Lord’s name in vain!) So they are free to avoid same-sex love like the plague, but they are NOT free to punish me in any way, shape, or form for not doing the same.
Certainly gay people cannot be generalized as being sad, nor are gay parents not the real parents.
Anyway, as a minority group, we’re a little unique in that we’ve experienced multiple levels of society. What I mean is that black, hispanic, handicapped, straight women, whatever…they’ve been what they’ve been and nothing shifts (except for the handicapped come to think of it). However with us, we’re often unaware of being gay as children and many of us don’t shed the self-denial until our 30′s. Prior to that, we are what everyone else in our “village” is – we belong to a particular class, a particular ethnic group, and may carry certain sexist or slightly predjudice inclinations with us from that experience.
So maybe that’s what I’m hearing in some of these posts, that the gay person identifies with the anti-gay (for lack of a better word) person because they know what it’s like, for example, to be called racist if they’re white, when they feel in their heart they’re not racist.
I grew up in a Catholic Italian home. But not strictly Catholic. Which meant: lots of food and family, you could gamble and drink, but you couldn’t be a drunk, a slut, a divorcee, or marry a black man. Cheating was frowned upon. The men were family men, worked hard and taught the children respect. The women worked very hard too, yet knew how to have a good time and no one was stuffy. Oddly, no one was gay, and no one had an abortion, or spoke of such things. Heterosexuality ruled and fags were routinely called fags. Lesbians were not spoken about simply because they didn’t exist! Yet, we did play the card game “old maid” and played the pencil and string game with all the girls to predict how many children they would have after they married. The message of course was, find a good man.
So growing up, I had to sort of teach myself about the real world. I realized that blacks and gays were ok, jews were not all rich, and the divorcee down the street wasn’t a slut after all…lol. But it took time.
As a straight white female it wasn’t so bad living in this society. I got pulled over, cops often let me go – that sort of thing. Then God did a funny thing, he made me gay. I learned that I too could be part of a minority and be frowned upon, forgotten, or discriminated. I had a new place in society, a new perspective and I learned a lot. I learned a lot more about life than if I had stayed straight, I think. Even now I’m still learning, because I didn’t used to understand gay men, I just didn’t get them. And I certainly couldn’t picture them raising kids. But then I made it a point to learn more, and shed some of my ignorance and assumptions. I realize now that gay men have great lives, have great sex and are very strong people.
No, the day you look in the mirror and see you’re gay, you don’t automatically turn into Mother Teresa or Mahatma Ghandi. We’re still human and flawed. But the gay experience should teach you a LOT, and change you. It makes you more honest. It makes you more tolerant. It makes you face yourself and if you do it right, allows you to love not only yourself but love another person completely and unselfishly. When you do find that love, it’s so special because it’s not anything obligatory like perhaps with our parents. What can be more deliberate than going out and expressing love with a person you’re not “supposed” to love or make a home with? It is SUCH a conscious decision, it is such a complete experience.
So, no we’re never perfect, but if you’re gay I expect you to have learned a few things along the way. I expect you to try to make the world a better place, to make it easier for the next generation of people like us, to learn to love yourself for Gods sake, and to not oppress other people because of rigidness, fear, or old habits.
Of course it’s easier on them to avoid confrontation about the injustice of putting their private religious beliefs into public policy action – that’s not something they should be proud of.
It’s actually more on the order of refusing to play in a rigged poker game — especially when you don’t have to do so, since in this country, you cannot ban people from exercising their voting rights based on their religious beliefs.
And just as I would not expect you to attend a Fred Phelps church service, I don’t expect people to attend “debates” in which the whole point is to mock them and their “fairy king” as “stupid” and claim that you have to do that because of “gay rights”.
-sigh-
ND30, do you actually believe that it’s ok to vote against the rights of others based on your religious beliefs?
I know that I can’t physically stop them from doing that, just as I can’t physically stop them from voting for someone who supports torture, but let’s not pretend that they are not perpetrating an injustice.
No one forced this woman to attend that debate, did they? Nor was the “whole point” to “mock them” and their fairy king. This is exactly the problem: Christians conflate “not agreeing to frame the debate in a Christian context” with “mocking”.
You’re right, they don’t want to come to these debates, and that’s understandable. But the poker game is not ‘rigged’ – the reason that they couldn’t possibly win in that debate is not that we somehow changed the rules of debating and logic and persuasion so that they couldn’t.
They’re just not coming with a full deck of cards – a rational argument – and then they’re crying when they don’t win and refusing to play with anyone who doesn’t hobble themselves in the same way. Like I said, that’s not something that they should be proud of.
And though I can’t ban people from exercising the right to vote, I can point out that my civil rights do not belong on the ballot in the first place. That’s why we have a constitution. There are certain things for which the majority does NOT rule – chief among these things are the civil rights of all citizens.
My civil rights do not belong on the ballot in the first place. That’s why we have a constitution. There are certain things for which the majority does not rule.
This is the core of the issue.
ND30, do you actually believe that it’s ok to vote against the rights of others based on your religious beliefs?
I think that the principle of being allowed to vote how you see fit supersedes everything else, given that that IS a constitutional right — and the highest one enshrined in our Constitution.
Meanwhile, logic and rationality is this. Our society does not allow you to marry whatever you love. Our laws do not discriminate, inasmuch as everyone is restricted to marrying someone of the opposite sex. Your desire to have sex with someone is not grounds to be married to them. Arguing that marriage is a “constitutional right” means that legally it cannot be denied to ANYONE.
And finally, I think Christians are not by any means required to give you any more respect than you do them when you mock their beliefs and their religion. Since you can namecall and bash them, I think they are perfectly justified in namecalling and bashing you.
I never said they don’t have the right to call me names, ND30. No one is “required” to give anyone respect, just their rights.
Regardless, when did I just call them “names”? I compared their God to a fairy king, because there is just as much evidence for one as the other. I’m also accusing them of not being able to keep up in an arena of rational discourse – that’s not mere namecalling. They’re more than welcome to prove me wrong by showing up with a persuasive argument that is not based in bigotry. I will not stop calling it bigotry during these discussions just because it hurts their widdle feelings. I certainly have to defend myself against their charges of all sorts of nastiness – and I’m fine with that, because they’re wrong and I can prove it.
As far as whether I “bash” them, I have never struck anyone in my life, ever (except for my brother, and he had it coming)… so… um, no.
“I think that the principle of being allowed to vote how you see fit supersedes everything else, given that that IS a constitutional right — and the highest one enshrined in our Constitution.”
Mmmm… nope. I can’t vote to put you in jail for no reason, no matter HOW many friends I have. Take a civics class.
Meanwhile, voting IS a constitutional right, and yet minors and inanimate objects and animals still can’t do it. So you’re completely wrong about it not legally being able to deny it to “anyone”. Oh, I’m sorry, is telling you that you’re wrong the same thing as calling you names?
“Our laws do not discriminate.”
Except that they do. All else being equal, if I were male, I could marry my partner. This is a clear-cut case of sex discrimination.
Not only that, but as a gay person, I am de facto prevented from marrying anyone at all, just as a straight person would be de facto prevented from marrying anyone at all in bizarro-world where only gay marriage was legal. Marrying a man would be an undue burden on me, since it would require either a) a sexless marriage or b) sex that I can not desire.
A rhetorical question:
Who would be treated more nastily and “silenced” faster — an openly gay man showing up at an Evangelical meeting who argues in favor of marriage equality for LGBT people; or an anti-gay marriage evangelical who shows up at a “marriage forum” to discuss the issue?
Second rhetorical question — which of the two arguers in the so-called “hostile environment” will play the victim card to all and sundry and complain of being “silenced and censored?”
I guarantee, the answer to the second question is not the same as the answer to the first.
I’m sorry, Jorge, I was unaware that I am a sad person!
Well the fact that you aren’t among the proportion of us who committed suicide in high school probably helps.
It’s not my opinion – religious dogma really *doesn’t* belong in public policy.
I strongly disagree. I don’t think it should be forced into public policy, but in any democratic society, it deserves the same fair hearing and examination as all other ideas, because they are no more and no less likely than other ideas to be right.
Also, do please tell me who ARE the natural parents of the children my partner and I planned together, conceived in my body via donor sperm like any number of infertile straight couples…
I was referring to the idea believed by most Americans that children do better with a mother and a father than in other parenting arraingements. Otherwise (and there are many versions of the following question; this is mine) why haven’t we evolved so that two men or two women can produce a baby naturally?
That is bigotry! As is the Christian “religious belief” that gay people don’t deserve sex lives because God said so.
Well that’s only true if God really didn’t say so. The way I see it, if God actually said something (and I do believe God makes His will known), that’s almost a deus ex machina on any moral question. I suppose that’s true by definition. The only way you can argue against God is with another religion or saying something else God said is more important.
Secularism and pluralism kinda do that, but not so well if most religions say the same thing. Which on homosexuality, of course, they do, most religions in this country do.
Or one man alone, or one woman alone, and so on, to be fair about the parenting question.
The lovely thing about fundamentalism is that if you lose the argument on merit – on the constitution or whatever, then you can just pull religion out of your back pocket and claim that God says you’re right. (That makes you a crusader, not a citizen).
Actually it’s pretty funny, because the last few posts have contained all the sad, sorry, cliche arguments against the gay existance. For example, that we didn’t evolve that way, or it’s not natural, that it’s really all about “sex” (unlike straight marriage), or that gays are miserable and suicidal. Did I leave anything out?
Actually I was going to tackle the misinformation about the constitutional question, but Karen already responded, which, I expect to go unrebutted. That’s what usually happens in these kinds of threads,…the claims are thrown out there, just to see what sticks.
In regards to the reproductive and evolutionary questions, why haven’t we evolved so that two women can produce a baby?
Well, number 1, we are close to doing that. After examining the dna of female eggs, science has determined that it’s probably possible. And if someone can place the dna in an environment in which a baby can grow without sperm, why would that be at all possible if human design excluded it? There are many species that in fact reproduce asexually.
Number 2, sexual reproduction is the best way to populate an advanced species because of the genetic diversity. So you’re starting the process with two animals in this case, not just one. When you have one animal who has a womb who can produce offspring, and needs another animal to contribute genetic material, there has to be a mechanism of delivery. That mechanism makes the other animal male. So call it what you want. Nature doesn’t see “men and women,” they only see male and female. But that begs yet another question (in your method of thinking)…if diversity in the gene pool is good for the species, then why didn’t God give us wings so that we could reproduce with other farther-away tribes? Why didn’t we evolve to run really fast, fly, hold our breath long periods of time like whales so that we can travel underwater to other shores?
Number 3, sexual reproduction has nothing to do with marriage. There is no marriage in nature. We didn’t get here because of marriage. We got here because females of the primate group we belonged to, mated with a variety of males and had offspring. Even in social groups with structure, females routinely went aside to mate with lesser males, further circumventing the 1 male/1 female rule. This provided a chance for the female to choose the father of her offspring, as well as enable the genes of weaker males to enter the gene pool. My, my…you would think that would be a “bad” thing. Yet, here we are, products of that system.
That brings us back to marriage. If it has nothing to do with evolution, what is it for? Well, it’s a social arrangement. It was a way to address ownership of property, of women and children, and to pass inheritance. It was also a way to officially regulate coupling for the perceived benefit of the social group. For example, jews only marrying other jews, or royals marrying only other royals. I think even today, in tribal areas of the middle east, it’s common to marry cousins or half-brothers because they don’t trust strangers. When you think about it, marriage is kinda “against” nature and evolution.
However, I’m not arguing for or against marriage. I’m saying that in the modern world, civil monogamous marriage has come to be the standard, and there are tax breaks and numerous other benefits for married couples, which all tax-paying citizens have a right to. In fact, there was NOTHING saying same-sex couples could not marry. That’s why when gay couples started getting marriage licenses, the fundies freaked out and had to create a flurry of special county, state and federal laws to suddenly make it illegal.
The ironic thing is, the rights we demand are not “special,” but the law they pass to obstruct them certainly are.
Mmmm… nope. I can’t vote to put you in jail for no reason, no matter HOW many friends I have.
Sure you can. You just have to do a lot of amending.
Meanwhile, voting IS a constitutional right, and yet minors and inanimate objects and animals still can’t do it.
Of course — because the Constitution itself outlines those restrictions (of age, citizen, etc.)
Now, please cite where marriage is provided as an unlimited right in the Constitution.
All else being equal, if I were male, I could marry my partner. This is a clear-cut case of sex discrimination.
Nope.
You see, neither a male or a female can marry someone of the same sex. If a male could, but a female couldn’t, THEN you would have a case.
Meanwhile, your argument is that you should be allowed to marry anything to which you are sexually attracted, and you claim this is a Constitutional right. Therefore, any restrictions on marrying whomever or whatever to which you are sexually attracted are unconstitutional, by your logic.
Comments on this entry are closed.