IGF contributing author David Link has just completed a four-round debate about same-sex marriage at a new website called PublicSquare.net. One interesting argument came up in the final round, when he asked his opponent, Mary Jo Anderson, whether she actually believed homosexual people exist, and she said, candidly, that the answer was No. Comments link, this kind of thinking underlies much of the debate on the fringes of the other side, and
"it goes right to the heart of what kind of conversation such people are engaged in. They are not so much having a debate as an intervention, doing their very best to convince those of us who are homosexual that we are wrong about ourselves."
He also notes, pertinently, of his opponent that:
"Her citations to Michaelangelo Signorile and Judith Levine and the signers of the Beyond Marriage manifesto suggest she may wish she were having this debate with them rather than me. For the record, I find their arguments every bit as problematic as she does, which is why I have never either made such arguments or in any way endorsed them. I will stand side by side with Anderson when it comes to opposing polygamy or the imposition of some "queer value system," whose parameters I can't even begin to imagine. I'm here to argue for the equal rights the Constitution of my country promises and not much more. I don't want to change the family; I want to make sure lesbians and gay men who come after me will not have it used against them the way it is now being used.
Again and again, gays not on the left have to wage a two-pronged struggle: against anti-gay rightwingers who would deny us fundamental human rights, and against activists on the antinomian-chic "queer" left whose views of socially engineered, government-decreed "liberation" actually do suggest the nightmare nihilism that the right otherwise equates with basic equality for gay people.
12 Comments for “An Illuminating Debate.”
posted by Carl on
So what you seem to be saying is that you wish all gays spoke and thought alike. Unfortunately, that will never happen. Just as conservatives or racial minorities do not all speak and think alike.
Even if we did all think and act alike, the right would still take us out of context, or just hire someone to say what they want to hear.
The other problem, as always, is that many gays not on the left seem to spend more time saying they’re not on the left and being defensive than really working on any productive policy.
posted by dc on
Carl, I agree with you statement about right wing gays.
Also, I would like to add that I think the heterosexual right’s ignorance of gays will be their downfall. If you want to comment on and oppose a group of people you need to understand their arguments, beliefs, feelings, anxieties, and culture in order to get a true perspective of who the people on the other side are. The right has not done this with gays; most on the right seem to know very little about how gay people actually are/how they actually think. I think that considering all that gay people have been through and struggled against we are in a good place at this point in history (anti-gay sentiment has not stoped several states from recognizing civil unions and one from recognizing gay marriage). Also, younger people are far more excepting of gays even if they disagree with gay marriage. So looking at that I think that the anti-gay right is definently on the loosing side of the gay issue…gay people have come so far in the past 20/30 years. Their ignorance and bigotry towards gays will only hurt them.
posted by Randy on
The far right just wants all us gays to go away. If we went back into the closet, they would be quite happy. Their biggest fear is that they or, worse, their children, will ‘catch gay,’ which is why they oppose any positive statements about gays in school curriculums.
posted by Kevin on
Oh please…there is nothing unique about this to gays. This is a hallmark of political debate in the 21st Century…trying to discredit the moderate opposition’s viewpoint by attaching it with the most extreme elements possible. The neocons do it by constantly suggesting anyone who questions the Bush administration’s handling of the war hates America and wants the terrorists to win. Anyone who is concerned about global warming is a socialist who wants to cripple the US economy. Anyone who wants equality in marriage rights for gays also wants polygamy and required S&M education for 3rd graders.
These kinds of “discussions” are for the chattering classes on cable news scream shows, that most of us interested in honest discussion have long ago abandoned.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
Agreed, Kevin. I sometimes wonder if most gay activists would rather publicly debate a hotheaded rightwinger than a more moderate person. I never seem to catch a broadcast of an encounter with the latter, only the former. Is it because moderates never show up or because they’re never invited?
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Greg, I think your last question is essentially the truth. I read, listen to debates…and inevitably the extreme right doesn’t invite gay people to the conversation, except to shout over them.
And in the case of a gay forum, the more conservatives don’t show up.
The conversation regarding gay lives is hijacked by straight people.
They’ll deconstruct gay lives with little participation of a gay person, or worse yet…the straight people will lecture a gay person about themselves.
I’ve told straight people that there is no reason for me to go to them about gay people, and they don’t care to hear about gay people FROM gay people.
So this is why the situations is left as David Link says.
I don’t care what religion you belong to, what political party, what culture you come from.
Gay and lesbian life is inextricable from every day tasks, goals and competent completion.
In California, the gay and lesbian representatives up in Sacramento, are extreme in their liberal politics regarding illegal aliens, criminal justice and socialist policies.
It IS as if they have an ‘anything free, no boundaries’ attitude, and they lose ALL credibility with those moderate towards things specific to gays and lesbians.
The only people brought together in forums in broad mediums tend to be the two extremes instead of somewhere in the middle.
It makes those things that concern gay people most accutely, get lost in the rush with other groups to compete for rights, instead of dealing with things that DO require regulation, such as illegal immigration for example.
These are vastly separate issues, but since it’s about minorities, or a group with minority status, than it’s lumped together.
Frustrating as hell, and I’ve had a horrible time supporting candidates or political leaders who are gay marriage supportive, but at the same time prefer unworkable socialist policies (universal welfare and healthcare), to open borders (no illegal alien ever cheated, they are just hard up), regardless of the damage that’s done
as opposed to no damage done if and when gay people can marry legally.
Without distinguishing the issues, or the policies to address them, every thing is a mess.
posted by Great Lakes Gay on
I sometimes wonder if most gay activists would rather publicly debate a hotheaded rightwinger than a more moderate person.
On television and radio it’s the extremists (Right & Left Wingnuts) that get invited because they make for rating grabbing broadcasts.
We, the public, want to see grand battles not informed conversations. Another result of news being made into “infotainment.”
posted by kittynboi on
“”The conversation regarding gay lives is hijacked by straight people.
They’ll deconstruct gay lives with little participation of a gay person, or worse yet…the straight people will lecture a gay person about themselves.
“”
I’ve noticed this in many places, including on the left. Not only are gays often excluded from discussions about gay issues, but the people doing the talking come across as if it would never even occur to them to invite a non-hetero to the discussion. They act as if gay issues impact heterosexuals primarily and everything else is secondary.
posted by Eric on
Why don’t anyone think of the CHILDREN?
/kidding
Anyway, what is their motivation for inviting actual discussion? If they did that, they would have to admit we have a valid view point worthy of time and consideration. They don’t.
It’s a simple smear campaign.
posted by Nathan on
“If you want to comment on and oppose a group of people you need to understand their arguments, beliefs, feelings, anxieties, and culture in order to get a true perspective of who the people on the other side are. The right has not done this with gays.”
The opposite is also true — gays haven’t done this with the right. Gay commentators are quite happy to brand the right as nutty (and that’s when they are being polite).
Is it only fear of the different that propels the right? Is it only based on their view of the Bible (as contradictory and hypocritical as that can get)? Or is there more going on? And the big question: How do we counter their core issue? I suspect few gays really know what that is?
From what I’ve learned so far the right’s refusal to acknowledge gays is a part of a vision of national holiness. God has a special purpose for America but God won’t bring it about until America has been cleansed of all unrighteousness. At the top of the list of things needing cleansing are child sacrifice (abortion) and sodomy (gays). It is this view that prompted Falwell to blame the 9-11 attacks on gays and abortionists. Those attacks were seen as evidence that America was not clean enough for God’s purpose; God is warning us.
Did you know that? Can you tell if I’m correct? Do you know how this fits into (or doesn’t) the real message of Christ?
Alas, I don’t yet know how to counter such a strange vision.
posted by Fitz on
?Again and again, gays not on the left have to wage a two-pronged struggle: against anti-gay right-wingers who would deny us fundamental human rights, and against activists on the antinomian-chic “queer” left whose views of socially engineered, government-decreed “liberation” actually do suggest the nightmare nihilism that the right otherwise equates with basic equality for gay people.?
No doubt, I don?t doubt your sincerity.
But that hardly changes the fact that the bulk of the cultural left does think all family forms are inherently equal. Those groups with this mindset (like the ALI) are FAR more powerful than the handful of ?conservative? gay activists for marriage, and that they are in positions of power and influence to use same sex ?marriage? to further their agenda of family ?diversity?.
Its also a fact that changing the definition of marriage for a few ?conservative? minded gays will STILL reinforce the notion that the institution is malleable. That the new two person criteria it produces is far more arbitrary and unprincipled than the current kinship format. And that calling the entire purpose of the institution of marriage into question through same-sex ?marriage? justifies a whole myriad of possible innovations that don?t serve the common good.
posted by Fitz on
Sorry, {more cogent this way}
?Again and again, gays not on the left have to wage a two-pronged struggle: against anti-gay right-wingers who would deny us fundamental human rights, and against activists on the antinomian-chic “queer” left whose views of socially engineered, government-decreed “liberation” actually do suggest the nightmare nihilism that the right otherwise equates with basic equality for gay people.?
No doubt, I don?t doubt your sincerity.
But that hardly changes the fact that the bulk of the cultural left does think all family forms are inherently equal. Those groups with this mindset (like the ALI) are FAR more powerful than the handful of ?conservative? gay activists for marriage, and that they are in positions of power and influence to use same sex ?marriage? to further their agenda of family ?diversity?.
Its also a fact that changing the definition of marriage for a few ?conservative? minded gays will STILL reinforce the notion that the institution is malleable. That the new two person criteria it produces is far more arbitrary and unprincipled than the current kinship format. And that calling the entire purpose of the institution of marriage into question through same-sex ?marriage? justifies a whole myriad of possible innovations that don?t serve the common good.