With a MLK Day hat tip to Gay Patriot West, here's another interesting take on gay culture, by way of a conservative gay student at Stanford responding to the assertion that acceptance of homosexuality will open the floodgates to sexual anarchy (e.g., polygamy and bestiality).
Writing in the conservative Stanford Review, Yishai Kabaker notes that gays are not politically and ideological monolithic (as social conservatives like to assert), but also advises:
"if the LGBT community wants to eliminate the irrational fear of opening the deviant sex floodgates...., it should vigorously show that it desires the responsibilities of marriage along with the rights."
Many might say it's not our responsibility to prove we're worthy of legal equality, and there's truth to that. But in the real world, pragmatism sometimes requires demonstrations of human dignity in the face of irrational bigotry, not just turning to the courts for judicial solutions. Dr. King, I believe (though quite skilled at pursuing judicial remedies), also understood that.
10 Comments for “Countering Bigotry.”
posted by Harke the Apostle on
Yishai Kabaker’s article was not so bad, but I feel he is barking up against the wrong tree.
People who do not have any respect for gay rights, cannot be persuaded otherwise by gay groups denouncing polygamy or bestiality.
posted by alex on
The arguments about polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc… seems to be fear mongering with the intent by some to divert the conversation from a position that will (eventually) fail.
The question we need to ask ourselves is are we going to let the tactic work?
posted by Randy on
And the gay community is doing exactly what this article suggests we do. But apparently, that’s not enough. I guess each and every gay man must sign a pledge in blood that he will never, ever engage in sex with another man for the rest of his life. Then do we get our rights?
Sheesh — it seems to be a theme on this board that the real reason gays don’t have any rights is because we are pigs that are incapable of mature thought or any sort of monogomous behavior. And so no matter how many articles about gay couples that tied the know and seem to be happy and monogomous are printed, it just isn’t enough!
No. Apparently, we have to close down every single gay bar in America, and bathhouse, and every chat room on every website must be shut down, and we can’t even cruise in a park — and even that probably won’t be enough to satisfy anyone. There will still be some goal post yet beyond that we have to pass through before we ‘deserve’ our rights.
posted by robinsgarret on
Will “heterosexual” men be forced to sign the pledge as well as men married to women seem to make up more than their fair share of chat room, bathhouse and gay bar space?
posted by alex on
Will “heterosexual” men be forced to sign the pledge as well as men married to women seem to make up more than their fair share of chat room, bathhouse and gay bar space?
Of course not, since heterosexual men are inherently monogomous, morally upstanding, and beyond reproach. There is no reason for them to pledge anything.
posted by Bobby on
“homosexuality will open the floodgates to sexual anarchy (e.g., polygamy and bestiality).”
—Just like we have limits on who can drive a car, buy a gun and form a corporation, I’m sure marriage will always have limits about who can enter the institution, so if it was open to gays, other groups would be denied entry. I wish my fellow conservatives understood that.
posted by Fitz on
Im afraid the argument concerning polygamy or (more properly) polyamory is all to real.
Mr. Miller lumps this possibility in with “beastality” and diminishes it importance.
Onew could (and is perpared to) list hundreds of law review articles, news reports, websites, confrences, statements and so on of extremely influencial voices that regard this movement as progressive and worthy of adoption.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The post simply illustrates the fallacy of those who continue to argue for government’s control of our own personal relationships. Kabaker’s entire argument is “we think you’re probably immoral, and in order to gain our permission to live your life, you should prove to us that our preconceived notions about you are incorrect.”
The proper response for all gay people is to reply with “how we live (or don’t live) is none of your business, and government has no proper role in determining the consensual relationships of any adult — gay, straight, monogamous, Christian, promiscuous, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, Satanist or otherwise.” That’s the only argument that will win the so-called “culture war” — which is precisely why the left and right, warring against each other for personal power, hate the idea so much. They don’t want to relinquish their control over individuals’ personal lives, replete with their sanctimonious and hypocritical judgments using standards they’re loath to keep themselves.
posted by grendel on
NE Libbie —
This position seems to have serious practical difficulties. (and I may be guilty of hijacking the thread here, if so I apologize a bit, but hey this doesn’t seem like a lively thread anyway)
First difficulty — what do you do with the property of those who die intestate? If laws don’t decide where it goes, who does? If law do, how do you write the laws to avoid giving official sanction to some relationships but not others?
there are more, but that’s a good place to start
posted by Craig2 on
Insofar as polyamory goes, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that it’s anything more than a lifestyle choice. Polyamorists have no human rights organisations of their own.
The lesbian magazine Curve has a fascinating article on Utah lesbians and feminists and their resistance to attempts to equate
polygamy and same sex marriage, given that schismatic fundamentalist ‘Mormons’ in Utah and elsewhere are often virulently homophobic and anti-feminist. Which is their right to free speech in a democratic society, but examples of that homophobia could be used to defend same-sex marriage or civil unions as monogamous ones.
Craig2
Wellington,
New Zealand