Summer for many of us is a time to find respite, perhaps by heading to the beach to stick our toes in the sand and watch the waves roll in. The problems still facing us in the United States-new ballot initiatives to fight, constitutional liberties under assault, anti-immigrant demagoguery that hampers asylum efforts-can wait a few weeks. Vacation can also give us a fresh perspective. A quick survey of what is happening around the world reminds us that the struggle to which we will return is global.
On July 19, Russian gay activists led by Nikolai Alexeyev were planning to picket the Iranian embassy in Moscow on the third anniversary of the hanging of two gay youth in Iran, as they had done the previous two years. But on July 14, Moscow authorities banned the demonstration. Moscow's gay rights marches in recent years have been met with violence by skinhead gangs under the placid gaze of police.
On May 29, a Turkish court ordered the GLBT group Lambda Istanbul shut down, claiming that it violated penal code and constitutional provisions on morals and the family. On June 4, three gay activists from Sexual Minorities Uganda were arrested in Kampala for staging a peaceful protest at an AIDS conference. On July 5 in Hungary, hundreds of right-wing counter-demonstrators attacked the Budapest gay pride parade, throwing rocks, eggs, feces and Molotov cocktails at marchers and the police.
Even where our rights are significantly more advanced, the struggle continues. On July 10, British human rights activist Peter Tatchell reported that a London tribunal had ruled that an Islington registrar was within her rights in refusing to perform same-sex civil partnerships as being against her religion. This contrasts with the action of some county clerks in California, who avoided performing gay wedding ceremonies by declaring they would no longer perform any weddings.
After a lengthy activist campaign, Tehran-born Seyed Madhi Kazemi, whom British authorities sought to deport to Iran despite his lover Parham having been put to death there, recently won "leave to remain." Yet gay asylum seekers from Syria and Azerbaijan still face deportation from Scotland and Wales. The group GayAsylumUK continues petitioning Prime Minister Gordon Brown to "stop deporting gays and lesbians to countries where they may be imprisoned, tortured or executed because of their sexuality." Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has been heavily criticized for saying there is no danger in Iran for gay people who are "discreet."
On July 1, after extensive lobbying by the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights, the Swedish Migration Board decided that people who live openly regarding their gayness in Iran should receive asylum. On the other hand, a woman told a Toronto forum in June that many Latin American lesbian and transgender women have been denied asylum in Canada despite having been tortured and raped in their home countries.
International solidarity efforts are hampered by the gay movement's wide variations in its stages of development from region to region. Perhaps our most powerful organizing tool is the Internet, whose power is understood by repressive regimes. A bill pending in the Iranian parliament would impose the death penalty on bloggers who "promote corruption, prostitution or apostasy." One thing we can do is press Western corporations to stop aiding and abetting such repression.
The greatest work of changing minds and hearts is close to home, where family bonds often remain strong despite intolerance and threats of violence. Religious fundamentalisms are a significant factor, such as in Nigeria where Christian prelates justify anti-gay rhetoric by citing fear of losing adherents to Islam. Harsh anti-gay laws dating from the colonial era are another factor, spreading poison long after the countries that imposed them have reformed their own laws.
The rejection of such malign influences suggests a way of turning the tables on arguments from tradition. Gay people in former colonies can point out that, far from homosexuality being a European vice, homophobia is the malign import. European Parliament member and former Polish foreign minister and Solidarity leader Bronislaw Geremek took a similar tack when he declared, "Homophobia is not part of Polish tradition." Geremek died on July 13, but his words still echo. Thus, ironically, an enlightened nationalism may help us as we slowly build our global network of support and hope, link by link.
53 Comments for “A Long Way from Safe”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I received a private message from a reader this morning objecting to my reference to “anti-immigrant demagoguery.” The reader distinguished between legal and illegal immigrants and said that concerns about the latter were legitimate and not demagoguery. Here is what I said in reply, for those interested:
As a matter of fact, I don’t treat these issues monolithically, and I recognize shades of gray. But that is more than the likes of Lou Dobbs at CNN and O’Reilly and Hannity on Fox News, who ARE demagogues on this as on other issues. I cannot stop a space-limited column to give a detailed explanation of a passing reference, but that does not invalidate the passing reference. The existence of legitimate concerns about illegal
immigration, and of reasonable people holding those concerns, does not
change the fact that the loudest voices on the subject have been outrageously demagogic. One trick O’Reilly has used, for example, is to cherry-pick unrepresentative cases of illegals committing crimes (which is to say, beyond their being here) and then falsely
generalizing about the entire group. The same demagoguery is done using disease. (Speaking of which, Congress has just repealed the HIV immigration ban, which was put in place in 1993 as a knee-jerk reaction that was counterproductive and cruel, as well as hypocritical considering the number of Americans who had no qualms about infecting others on their sex vacations to third-world countries.)
But the greater point is that far more has been made over the illegal
immigration question than makes sense based on the issue itself, and it reeks of xenophobia and scapegoating, notwithstanding your distinction
between legal and illegal. It is those who so loudly and vehemently pound the issue on the cable channels whose motives I question more than those who respond. But I don’t think the demagogues are appealing to the better angels of people’s nature.
There wouldn’t be so many people crossing the border illegally if there weren’t jobs waiting for them on this side. The fact is that those people are a de facto part of our economy, eagerly used by American companies as a source of cheap labor. In the case of migrant farm workers, if they were not available the crops would go unharvested. I don’t think it is fair to exploit such people and then treat them as criminals. The vast majority of them are NOT criminals as most people mean the term, and are contributing more to our economy than they take from it.
All the anti-illegal-immigrant rhetoric does nothing to remove the 12 million or so illegals from the country, nor is that remotely practical. It would be vastly expensive, ugly and cruel, and would do more harm than good. I support reform, but it should be based on a more balanced view, a recognition that the people in question are God’s children (as I believe McCain recently said), rather than an impulse to demonize someone for political purposes. That may not be your purpose, but surely you can see that it IS the purpose of people like Dobbs and O’Reilly. If the issue cannot be separated from that kind of ugliness, I won’t support it. One of the finest people I know is a fellow from El Salvador who was illegal originally, but who spent many thousands of dollars over a ten-year period to win permanent residency; if he had lost that case, only his youngest child would have been allowed to stay in the U.S., but that would not have been practical so the whole family would have had to leave, despite America being the only county both children ever knew. Blaming that on the father doesn’t remove the misery. I was in the courtroom the day he won his case, and returned home with him as he gave the news to his family; only someone
with a heart of stone could fail to be moved by that joyous scene. That was
about ten years ago. I know lots of people like him, and they seem to love
this country more and have a better work ethic than a great many people who
were born here.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I would think that gays would be more sensitive to the plight of undocumented workers. Are the laws against sodomy fair? Are the laws banning marriage and adoption fair? Maybe the laws which create “illegal” immigrants are also unfair. Maybe it’s not the people who need to be deported–it’s the laws which need to be changed.
When you talk about the hanging of two “gay” youths in Iran, you are really talking about two pedophiles and rapists. I’m not for the death penalty, but I really resent child rapists being used as martyrs for gay rights.
Urban gays always claim that their Buddhism is more tolerant and spiritual than the Lutheranism of we flyover gays. I hope this shows them that Buddha was nastier about gays than Jesus.
I would also argue that Islam is not against sodomy, per se, as there is a long tradition of that. It is against men with effeminate behavior. Two masculine men having sex is not considered gay in that culture.
posted by DUMP on
James: “When you talk about the hanging of two “gay” youths in Iran, you are really talking about two pedophiles and rapists.”
Umm, you are wrong (incredibly wrong) here. Are you sure you aren’t a member of the Iranian caliphate?
“I hope this shows them that Buddha was nastier about gays than Jesus.”
Hehe, I’m sorry…but that is perhaps the most imbecilic thing you have written on these boards. Please, educate us on what Jesus and the Siddhārtha Gautama had to say about homosexuality. As a life-long student of both men, I’m very intrigued about your claim. You are quite the conundrum, James…I honestly don’t know if you are a strange internet joke or a seriously deranged person. Are you currently taking any psychotropic medication?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
DUMP is right. Some activists, such as Scott long of HRW, have swallowed whole the Iranian government’s cover story about the two hanged teens having been pedophiles. British gay rights activists Peter Tatchell and Simon Forbes have written a lot about this. Here’s one link:
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/iranstatemurder.htm
One of that barbaric things about this is the way Iran hangs people, not by dropping them through the floor and snapping their necks (which causes a quick death) but by the slower and more agonizing method of having the weight of their bodies on the rope gradually strangle them. And these were teenagers, not adults.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’ve always felt that using Matthew Shepard as a martyr for homosexuality was sort of like using Natalie Holloway as a martyr for heterosexuality. Both were people who made unwise choices about a one-night stand–I’m sure those who killed Natalie Holloway held her heterosexuality in just as much contempt as those who killed Shepard held his homosexuality in contempt. But who cares if it’s a drunk woman who gets raped, right? Gays don’t think that’s a real hate crime. And I bet there aren’t many gays who cry when an undocumented worker gets lynched in Texas and dies a slow, agonizing death, dying of thirst in the back of a van. At least I haven’t see that banner flying in the Pride parade. Take a map of the world to your local gay bar and ask them to point to Darfur.
Buddha required celibacy of his true adherents. Jesus allowed people to get married. I believe, as do some other Christian scholars, that Jesus’ welcome of eunuchs into the Kingdom was a welcoming of gays. See the book The Children Are Free for more info.
I am against the death penalty.
posted by DUMP on
*shrugs* So celibacy is how the Siddhārtha was “nasty” to gays? OK, thanks for clearing that up. You really don’t know anything about Buddhism or Christianity…do you?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ashpenaz suggests that Natalie Holloway was killed because of her sexual orientation, the same as Matthew Shepard, and that gays are hypocrites for not making as big a deal over her apparent murder (her body has not been found) as they did over Shepard’s.
There are a few logical fallacies here. First, there was clear evidence tht Shepard was murdered specifically because of hatred based on his sexual orientation. If anyone here watches Greta Van Susteren slavishly, please feel free to weigh in, but I am not aware of any evidence having been cited, or suspicion raised, that Ms. Holloway was targeted out of hatred for her based on her being heterosexual. This sort of assertion is popular with some people, who seem to think it shows how clever they are, but the merest scratch reveals it to be vapor.
As to gays having made a big deal about Shepard’s murder a decade ago, that is true, although even then there were dissenting voices (including Andrew Sullivan). The initial reaction after the murder was more an emotional outpouring, though HRC certainly exploited it. The longer-term rhetoric based on that murder, specifically the assertion that the murder showed the need for a federal hate crime law, was facially illogical given the fact that the culprits were quickly apprehended, charged, tried, and convicted of his murder. But gays did not monolithically embrace HRC’s fundraising strategy. And in any case, citing one murder as a flashpoint around which to organize on some policy issue hardly carries any kind of obligation to raise every other murder in the same way. Choosing what to emphasize and organize around is essential in order to get anything done, and inherently involves choosing not to emphasize other things. That necessary choice and focus does not suggest indifference to other concerns. If I have a thousand dollars and use it to feed a hundred hungry people, I may be spending it wisely or not, effectively or not, but my doing so hardly constitutes a slap at all the hungry people that I wasn’t able to help.
There is a separate dispute over whether hate crime laws are appropriate. Over the years I have become more skeptical about such laws, but not because I think that all crimes are hate crimes as some glibly suggest. If a gay person is attacked specifically because he is gay, and the evidence shows this; or if a black person is attacked specifically because he is black, and the evidence shows that–how in the world does that justify the conclusion that an attack by one straight person against another must also be bias-related? Crimes against sexual or racial minorities should certainly not be classified automatically as bias-related without specific evidence.
Let me be clear: I said I am skeptical of such laws, and I mean it. Just because there is evidence of bias in a particular assault or murder does not necessarily mean that, as a matter of public policy, we should file charges or exact penalties differently for that crime than for the same acts absent evidence of bias. There are good-faith (meaning non-bigoted) reasons to oppose hate crime laws as a matter of policy. But that does not justify pretending that some populations are not specifically targeted by some people out of bias. In other words, it is silly and dishonest to dispute that hate crimes occur, or to claim that all crimes are hate crimes. Some violent crimes reveal not hatred but depraved indifference to human life, which is a bad thing indeed but a different bad thing. All bad things are not the same. We have little hope of crafting sound public policy on matters where we are motivate by ideology to refuse even to notice differences for which there is clear evidence.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I doubt if the guys who killed Matthew Shepard thought much about him being gay. For guys like that, every guy who doesn’t chew tobacco is gay. It wasn’t a militant hate crime. They didn’t think “We are going to kill a homosexual as an example.” They thought, “We’re going to beat this guy up, rob him, and have some fun.”
Shepard’s sexuality had as much to do with his death as Holloway’s had with hers–i.e., they both were drunk and horny and picked the wrong people. Men who rape and kill women hate women, but no one calls it a hate crime. I bet they even called her contemptible names. Men who rape and kill men hate men–the names they call their victims are not the source of their hate.
There are gays who want to overturn society. There are gays who flamboyantly attack tradition. I suspect that the laws in Africa and Islamic countries are not so much about private sodomy but about public, anti-society behavior. Because homosexuals seem to want to destroy the social contract, they are seen as dangerous. If they were simply law-abiding, tax-paying citizens with private sex lives, I doubt that the government would care. But because gays are so in-your-face, so we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it, they are seen as enemies of the state.
So, one could ask whether gays are bringing their victimization on themselves with their outrageous, exotic behavior. One could also ask whether it is worth standing by them if they are going to continue in counterproductive behavior which causes the government to come down on them.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Pride parades and Stonewall just don’t work–here, in Iran, in Israel, or anywhere. How many states and how many countries have to have a backlash before the gay community gets it? And how many ordinary gays have to suffer and die because of the behavior of the “fabulous” and “outrageous” before we catch on and separate ourselves from them?
posted by Rocco on
“Because homosexuals seem to want to destroy the social contract, they are seen as dangerous. If they were simply law-abiding, tax-paying citizens with private sex lives, I doubt that the government would care. But because gays are so in-your-face, so we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it, they are seen as enemies of the state.”
Hogwash. You “doubt” this, you “suspect” that, based on no hard evidence. It is obvious that you have no concept of what it is to be gay under a totalitarian, genocidal regime like Iran’s or for example many Eastern European countries until quite recently. A friend of mine, a gay Romanian who fled the country in the 1990s, drafted a report for an NGO about the situation of gays in that country. The police would hunt down people based on any rumor of their being gay, and torture them in police stations until they gave up the names of other gay people.. then those people would be tortured, etc.
Hamas in Palestine has issued ultimatums to men over 30 simply because they are unmarried, saying that if they aren’t married to a woman in six months Hamas will slaughter them (in the same of the morals religion of peace, of course).
This is the reality for gays in many pre-modern societies.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ashpenaz wrote, “I doubt if the guys who killed Matthew Shepard thought much about him being gay.”
You doubt? There is no doubt about the point at all. It was well in evidence. They abducted him under the ruse of a gay pick-up. To question such a well-known fact suggests you are not a serious person.
“Because homosexuals seem to want to destroy the social contract, they are seen as dangerous.”
Destroy the social contract? What the hell are you talking about? Destroy it in what way? Since when does “social contract” mean suppressing sexual minorities? In what way does loving my partner threaten anyone? This is about intolerance pure and simple, and it is reprehensible for Ash to defend it.
“… how many countries have to have a backlash before the gay community gets it?”
Get what, Ash? Get it that gays should disappear? Not live our lives? Not fight for our right to exist? I’m familiar with the phenomenon of blaming the victim, but this is ridiculous. Perhaps you haven’t noticed the progress the gay movement has made in the past several decades despite a constant backlash. “counterproductive behavior”? So you simply declare that anyone who is arrested or attacked must have done something to deserve it? This is not just defamation, it is deranged. How dare you trivialize and so lightly dismiss such brutal repression by blaming the victims.
“And how many ordinary gays have to suffer and die because of the behavior of the ‘fabulous’ and ‘outrageous’ before we catch on and separate ourselves from them?”
First, the evidence is overwhelming that Ash’s characterization is false. It is also founded on a double standard, since any manifestation of homosexuality whatsoever (not just in-your-face exhibitionism, but ANY MANIFESTATION WHATSOEVER) is defined as outrageous. Please explain to me, Ask, how it could possibly be justified for some government to bust someone’s door down who is suspected of being gay? How could what someone does in the privacy of his home be an affront to public sensibilities? Whether you like it or not, Ash, we have a right to exist. To defend and advance our fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness requires that we stand up and be counted. It requires that we challenge injustice. “Backlash” is just another word for intolerance. Entrenched injustice cannot be expected to vanish without a struggle. The only alternative to that struggle is to smother ourselves.
Ash, that you can so blithely dismiss the suffering of so many people is beneath contempt.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Most gay activism doesn’t have to do with having private sex lives, it has to do with being “transgressive” and “queer” and “subversive.” Shouting these words in a traditional, premodern society is going to seem threatening and is counterproductive. If wearing thongs and a Gwen Stefani wig while riding a float shaped like a penis doesn’t work in America, which is a modern democracy, it’s not going to work in a premodern society.
Gays frequently say we’ve always been here, and they point to various historical figures and groups which represent gays through time. Here’s something to note–the gays they mention didn’t try to subvert society. They all had roles within that society. When you look at gay history, you don’t find purge after attack after massacre–you find gays guarding the harem, carrying the shields, writing the poetry, teaching the children, and nursing the sick. This is because the gay gene is not a transgressive gene.
Stonewall made gays think that activism had to be subversion. Now that the bad seed of Stonewall has taken root throughout the world, gays are seen as a threat to society rather than a part of society. If gays would throw out the Pride parades and build on our true history as a needed part of society, then we wouldn’t be creating these problems for ourselves. And by we, I mean you. I just want to get married and adopt children. And build a good home for Mrs. Whiskerpuff.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ash, your slanders, aside from being screamingly illogical, verge on complicity with the murder of gays. Actually, no, they don’t verge–you directly and sweepingly excuse ALL anti-gay oppression throughout the world as being in all cases the fault of those oppressed.
“Most gay activism doesn’t have to do with having private sex lives, it has to do with being ‘transgressive’ and ‘queer;’ and ‘subversive.'”
This does not reflect my life or my activism, nor does it reflect most of the activism being conducted in statehouses across the country by members of the Equality Federation. Once again, Ash, you don’t know what you are talking about.
It is not only counter-factual but delusional to suggest that gay people were better off before Stonewall and would be better off if we policed our community to make sure that none of us offended anyone’s sensibilities. I just read a set of old news stories from 1901 and 1902, thanks to DC’s Rainbow History Project, describing how two men’s lives were destroyed simply because of their intimate relationship–which, BTW, was conducted in their own home and not on a streetcorner.
Your statement, “I just want to get married and adopt children,” is eye-stretching coming as it does after your libels against the entire gay rights movement. How in the world do you imagine that we could have the prospect of civil marriage equality if we had remained invisible and placed avoidance of offense ahead of our own rights? What a damned fool.
posted by Jimbo on
Mr. Rosendall, you are wasting your time discussing this (or any other issue) with Ash. Throughout this comments section of the website, he has displayed numerous instances of self-loathing, delusional & borderline psychotic behavior. In short, you’re trying to talk some sense to a certifiable fruitcake. You’re talking to a wall. Ignore him. I might also ask that this website banish further comments from this guy. Other websites ban certain people, so I think it’s high time that Independent Gay Forum show this Ash guy the door.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Jimbo, I’m afraid you’re right.
posted by Pat on
I disagree Richard, regarding banning Ashpenaz. Granted, his views are way out there, offensive (like on this thread) and mindboggling, but they do appear to be his views. It’s not a bad thing seeing what’s out there. But he hasn’t been hostile to anyone here, and as far as I can tell, has abided by the rules here, certainly more than some other posters here. But it’s blogmasters’ call.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Wow–the Rainbow History Project. There’s nothing biased in that, is there? I wonder why gay activists are so unwilling to look at peer-reviewed, academic, scholarly histories? Maybe because the facts simply don’t support the victimization model of gay history.
Let me know if I’m exiled to the nearest reparative therapy clinic or re-education camp so I can learn to love Stonewall. What color is my triangle?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Ash, you evidently know nothing about the Rainbow History Project other than its name. You therefore do not know enough to be casting aspersions. As a matter of fact, their volunteers have labored extensively to gather and preserve historical material, including oral histories, that otherwise would be lost. How that is even conceivably blameworthy I cannot fathom. Only someone like you who is determined to be relentlessly contemptuous toward anything and anyone gay could manage it.
As to your second paragraph: I merely agreed with Jimbo that maybe a minimal level of honesty and respect should be required of people who post messages on these boards. Maybe in the world of your psychopathology that merits a comparison to the Holocaust, but most people in the wider world have a better sense of decency.
posted by Henry Lockman on
Back to Iran. There has been a discussion on this going on with Richard Rosendall on another list. And I want to share some points about the report which he holds up as “evidence,” which I think are important.
So there are some questions Richard might want to think about,
1) What experience do Peter Tatchell and Simon Forbes have on doing human rights research and documentation in other countries, or in Iran? Are they Farsi speakers or who in their organizations is capable of Farsi communication?
2) What is their “agenda”? Who have they worked with on Iranian politics? For instance, despite what Simon Forbes says, Outrage seems to have a history of defending the NCRI, which is hated and feared among many Iranians at home and abroad. and that definitely suggests a certain political kind of “slant” to Outrage.
2) I think we ought to ask about the methodology of such a report and how it compares to the methodology of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and other highly reputable organizations. So how was the research done? How many people were interviewed and how were they identified? how was their credibility evaluated? I think if you look at the work of any real human rights organization you will find statements about methodology that explain these things, but all such statemenhts seem to be very deliberately left off here!
4) If you look at the footnotes I don’t see much in the way of sources or evidence for any of their sweeping generalizations–very little at all, in fact, all through the report. There is no evidence given at all for the claim that people executed for being gay are charged with other crimes.
5) FOr just one among many such examples, for instance we are told that “According to Iranian informants, two, or possibly three, gay men were executed in prison in the city of Khoramabad without any publicity in the early part of 2005. [” The footnote says that this is from “5] E-mail from Iran to Outrage! 05th August 2005.” So is this one email from one “informant,” or are their really “informants,” as they claim? How do they know the email was from Iran and how could they confirm that it was creible? And it would be important to know whether the “informant” said he had direct knowledge or evidence about this case, or was just repeating rumors he had heard. A real human rights organization would tell us this, which would not endanger the confidentiality of the informant! On the list I am referring to, RIchard has been very strong in expresssing skepticism when someone claimed he had himself been tortured. So I would surely expect him to be every bit as skeptical when a “report” claims that someone else said something that somebody, we don’t know who, thought might be true. (I think you will find, RIchard, that the claims made here aboutt his particular case have been completely discredited.
5) And in terms of the Mashad case, did these people actually communicate4 directly with anyone who said they had direct knowledge of the case? Or did they just get their information at second hand from somebody in San Francisco or Las Vegas, which is what I gather? If the latter, it seems there has been a lot of lying about sources here.As someone who has followed all the twists and turns of this with interest I do not see the evidence here.
5) There are plenty of groups who have an axe to grind about Iran, and I don’t think Human RIghts Watch and Amnesty International can be the only ones, can they? In fact I think those organizations have less of a reputation for having an axe to grind than Outrage does. Meanwhile, naybe this article by two Iranian-born queer activists will also be of interest. It is at http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Roshan-Shemirani15.htm . They are critical of the Persian Gay and Lesbian Association, which is the main voice for LGBT Iranians outside Iran. But you might want to remember that the Persian Gay and LEsbian Association also has refused to endorse the kind of claims that Richard makes!
posted by leo on
Ash?
I have a good memory. You told us a while back about how you spent 20 years in reparative therapy, 20 years. Who exiled you to that fate then? It certainly wasn’t Richard.
posted by leo on
Wow. I guess we’ve changed the subject.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Here is what I am trying to say about the article: Yes, there is persecution of gays in foreign countries. I believe that because of Stonewall and the Pride movement which followed, being gay is seen as transgressive. Gay history shows that gayness, far from being transgressive, has played a role in upholding society. The decision of the gay community to present itself as transgressive and subversive has caused a backlash not only here in the US, but even more in less advanced countries. Therefore, gays are, to some degree, responsible for the persecution they bring on themselves. A return to earlier paradigms of homosexuality–my favorite being the nineteenth century–is the best way to end persecution.
Discuss.
posted by David Skidmore on
Of course being gay is seen as transgressive. Duh! That’s why gay people are murdered and bashed, why homosexuality has been made illegal in dozens of countries and (until recently) dozens of US states. But get this into your head, gays are never responsible for their persecution. Only a pathetic, self-loathing queen could possibly think that. Or perhaps a spokesperson for Focus on the Family and the like.
To say such a think is like saying 9/11 victims brought their deaths on themselves for being American. Or rape victims are somehow responsible for their plight.
And if your ideal “paradigm” of homosexuality is the nineteenth century then I suggest you move to an Amish community. The rest of us are quite happy with the 21st.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Now Ash is repeating himself/herself/itself, and “Henry Lockman” has stopped by. I tried looking him up, but all I came up with was an Upton Sinclair novel called Samuel the Seeker. A book like that is sufficiently obscure to be a good source of pseudonyms; toward the end of the book the police chief of Lockmanville says to Samuel, ?Don?t you get gay with me!? which seemed a good line for a social constructionist, Scott Long type to seize upon. Anyway, as it happens I have some real work to do (to use a favorite phrase of Scott’s) and since my activism is unpaid and I must do it on my off time, I will let Peter and Simon speak for themselves. Here, however, is a link to the report that Scott the Gatekeeper finds so objectionable:
http://www.petertatchell.net/international/iranstatemurder.htm
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Ashpenaz, I can’t believe you are THAT disconnected, or are you just playing contrarian to liven up this situation?
Meek and mild doesn’t save anyone from a head bashing or cruel misinformation. Indeed, Ash…some heterosexuals, like white supremacists…take such non confrontational behavior AS DUE.
The ideal homosexual is the one who doesn’t challenge, argue or complain. And urgent happenings like the shooting of Lawrence King, the domestic violence and illegal abandonment by their parents FORCES OUR HAND into action, anger and passion.
Gays and lesbians are already accessing due process of law, hold peaceful and legal rallies and demonstrations, commit to their studies despite threats of assault or expulsion AND respond to violence with studied and considered NON VIOLENCE.
And STILL the anti gay complain and take offense at someone getting emotional about losing their job, educational life or VERY life!
W…T…F?
Self determination is in our DNA, we are genetically presdisposed to freedom and intellectual curiosity and ferocity.
I’m reminded of that Paul Lawrence Dunbar poem: “We Wear the Mask” it is highly appropriate to the gay experience too, Ash.
Read it and you’ll see.
Gay folks have been more than patient, more than fair in EVERY response no matter the outrage against one of their own.
And since the anti gay won’t do right, no matter what. It’s quite fair to warn them.
The loving mothers of dead gay kids like Matt Shepard have also been beyond civilized and caring in their son’s name and memory.
But the next loving father of a threatened gay child might just bring a gun to the party…
And I’ll just sit back and let what ever will happen that way, happen. We tried the civil, fair and legal way…and got shit for it…so now it’s like this: ” you should have done right when you had the chance, you got fair warning”
posted by Jorge on
As someone who watches Bill O’Reilly almost every day, I can’t let the demagoguery comment about him go unanswered.
O’Reilly has used, for example, is to cherry-pick unrepresentative cases of illegals committing crimes (which is to say, beyond their being here) and then falsely generalizing about the entire group.
I agree with the first part, but Bill O’Reilly DOES NOT generalize the crimes committed by some illegal immigrants to the entire group of illegal immigrants. O’Reilly repeatedly expresses an understanding that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people trying to make an honest living. This does not prevent him from being against sanctuary cities and from believing that current immigration policies fail to protect Americans from a subsection of illegal immigrants who are violent criminals. He has in my mind a radical streak on the issue, but he is more than fair in limiting it to criminals.
But the greater point is that far more has been made over the illegal
immigration question than makes sense based on the issue itself, and it reeks of xenophobia and scapegoating, notwithstanding your distinction
between legal and illegal. It is those who so loudly and vehemently pound the issue on the cable channels whose motives I question more than those who respond. But I don’t think the demagogues are appealing to the better angels of people’s nature.
Personally I think there’s more to it than just post-9/11 jitters and racism.
If the pundits are calling for illegal immigrants to be deported or otherwise not receive amnesty, I can’t imagine how that goal can be realized in a nice-nice way without any tension at all. Those raids and deportations that have been publicized recently do not come across as nice and fun stories. At the very least, people who agree with those you identify as demagogues are going to marginalize illegal immigrants and voice their opinion that they are not welcome here, making it more uncomfortable for them to be here even if deportation isn’t a practical policy. To me that’s calling people to battle in the name of a cause. That is not the same as appealing to people’s base natures.
posted by Henry Lockman on
I think Richard is a little paranoid, and certainly he wants to avoid responding to my arguments or answering any questions. I have never read of Upton Sinclair, and I am not a “type,” and this is my name.
If you want unbiased accounts of the Iran story, I don’t think Richard’s sources are the place to turn. Try reading Richard Kim’s article which exposes a lot of the mistakes and distortions.
It’s at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050815/kim
Finally, there is an excellent article by Matthew Waites that analyses the whole controversy. It is called “Analyisng Sexualities in the Shadow of War: Islam in Iran, the West and the Work of Reimagining Human Rights.” It appeared in Sexualities journal this spring and it cuts through the rhetoric, including Richard’s, very well.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Actually, O’Reilly talks out of both sides of his mouth. But I saw him making the false generalization (or appearing to) while he was screaming at (of all people) Geraldo Rivera, who on this occasion was comparatively the voice of reason.
On some occasions I have seen O’Reilly state that this is a secular country and that we therefore have to tolerate different religious views, while at other times he rails against secularism.
posted by DUMP on
Henry, thanks for the link…I have to admit that I hadn’t read that piece although I was aware of the controversy. What I find interesting is that Kim admits in the article that he doesn’t know the truth. The article is from 2005…a little less then one month after the executions took place. How much more do we know now then we knew then? Research shows nothing more then what Kim reported back in 2005. For now, no one knows more then what the Iranian government reported. Why would you believe them? It seems to be a VERY ODD issue to suddenly find sympathy for the Iranian government. So, please, why should we believe what the Iranians have to say about the executions? Does it not bother you that the two young men were tortured before their execution? Is this really the cause you want to champion? What does your support of Iran’s actions say about yourself, Henry Lockman (who “has never read of Upton Sinclair?”)* I know that, as a matter of principal, I tend to not throw my lot in with murderous Islamotards who relish in long and torturous execution parties. Although us fags can brighten-up any occasion, I would just as rather the Iranians not be allowed to joyously rip asunder tender young horny queer youths…Hell, if they piss the Iranians off so much might as well send them to Baltimore. A couple of plane tickets is a lot less messy then a public dismemberment.
*What sort of a thing is that to say? Did you mean that you’ve never heard of Upton Sinclair or that you’ve never read Upton Sinclair. Either way, the fact that you would proudly proclaim it on a public forum makes your opinions…eh, well…a little shaky. Get to a library, you silly-billy.
posted by Jorge on
I’ll cede any argument that’s based on the O’Reilly vs. Geraldo scream-fest. Geraldo is more even-tempered. That doesn’t mean Geraldo’s positions more reasonable.
On some occasions I have seen O’Reilly state that this is a secular country and that we therefore have to tolerate different religious views, while at other times he rails against secularism.
Yes, he does do things like that a lot of times. You say he talks out of both sides of his mouth. I think it’s that he weighs both sides, does a costs-benefits analysis, then takes his position (usually around center-right) and runs with it. Sometimes he defines the limits of his position. He wrote in one of his books something to the effect that totalitarian governments get things done, but the costs are always horrific. It’s a rather suspicious statement to me. Then look at how severe he is toward governments that are incompetent and governments that are totalitarian.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Destroy the social contract? What the hell are you talking about? Destroy it in what way?
Try the Beyond Marriage statement, for starters — which, among other things, insists that marriage is not important and that identical recognition should be given to sibling pairs and, delicately put, “households with more than one conjugal partner”.
Or how about this?
Raising the age of consent is a veiled attempt to assert conservative moral values on youth, queer and youth-led groups told Senators today.
The Senate’s legal affairs committee is studying a Harper government bill that would raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. It will almost certainly pass ? no political party has opposed it ? but queer and youth-led groups came out Feb 22 to insist on their sexual freedom.
The proposed changes will have a disproportionate impact on gays, said Richard Hudler of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario.
“My first lover was 17 years older than me. And this is common [among gay people],” he said.
Or maybe this?
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off……
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
Or perhaps this:
Eric Erbelding and his husband, Michael Peck, both 44, see each other only every other weekend because Mr. Peck works in Pittsburgh. So, Mr. Erbelding said, ?Our rule is you can play around because, you know, you have to be practical.?
Mr. Erbelding, a decorative painter in Boston, said: ?I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn?t mean anything.?
Or even this — which remember, was written off by the person in question as nothing but “homophobia and sexism”.
In short, we have people arguing that they can take children dressed as sex slaves to sex fairs, have sex with teenagers less than half their age, have promiscuous sex outside marriage, demand legal recognition of poly relationships, and make hire/fire/promotion decisions based on someone’s responsiveness to their sexual advances — all because they are gay or lesbian.
And where do we see the public condemnation of this behavior by other gay and lesbian people or organizations? Indeed, NGLTF, just to name one, endorsed and supported the Beyond Marriage manifesto.
posted by DUMP on
Great job on another classic cut-and-paste, ND30. You sure are a valuable member of the IGF community…always on hand to derail a thread with your particular brand of idiotic and redundant postings. Don’t you get tired of constantly vomiting up the same mindless internet links to irrelevant articles? I have never seen you be a positive contributor to a thread. Why must you punish the people here who actually LIKE discussion? You have your own little corner of the internet in the form of your anemic and misbegotten blog, can’t you go play there and let the adults talk? We don’t really need your constant braying and sputtering, your one point that gays are evil and should be thrown in gulags has been repeated on literally hundreds of postings here. If you can’t contribute in some meaningful way, why don’t you just go away.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, DUMP, you provide an excellent example of my point.
I put forth examples of gay and lesbian people taking children dressed as sex slaves to sex fairs, having sex with teenagers less than half their age, having promiscuous sex outside marriage, demanding legal recognition of poly relationships, and making hire/fire/promotion decisions based on someone’s responsiveness to their sexual advances — all justified by these people on the grounds that they can do so because they are gay or lesbian.
But instead of getting mad at them, you get mad at me.
One would think you might be more upset at those who use their sexual orientation as an excuse for irresponsible and criminal behavior than you would those who point it out and make it clear that that is unacceptable.
Unless, of course, you actually agree with the people perpetrating such behavior.
posted by DUMP on
A completely mindless response, as usual. Your postings here are just as backwards as Dan Savage’s “Every Child Deserves A Mother And Father” articles. Extreme outliers have nothing to do with the big picture. Your thinking is so stunted and backwards that you can’t even have a conversation without backsliding into tired rhetoric and straw-man arguments. What does your comment have to do with the article this thread is attached to? The answer is…NOTHING. You have nothing to add to the discussion other then your repetitive anti-gay diatribes. You have the intellectual capacity of a child. And, frankly, some cranky slut fag from San Francisco has no business talking down to other queers…most of us actually have honest relationships built on trust and love. If you weren’t such a seething and bitter queen you might know what it was like to have a loving relationship. Enjoy the bathhouse this weekend, you diseased garbage heap.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 writes, “And where do we see the public condemnation of this behavior by other gay and lesbian people or organizations?”
Here on IGF, for one. I wrote a scathing critique of the Beyond Marriage manifesto two summers ago, and it was reprinted by IGF. 14 years ago I wrote an article taking apart NAMBLA, and it was run in several gay newspapers; this was in advance of successful efforts (in which I took part) to expel NAMBLA and other pedophile groups from the International Lesbian and Gay Association. I have written numerous pieces strongly critical of the gay left (several of which were published by David Horowitz on Front Page Magazine), and specifically slamming gay leftists who romanticize the Palestinians and demonize Israel. Other IGF contributors have done similarly.
I wonder, ND, why you find it necessary to blame gay people generally for the actions of some, while you fail to give credit to the gay community for efforts that go in a more conservative direction. Possibly the two most prominent political efforts undertaken in recent years by large numbers of gay advocates are the push to allow gay people to serve openly in the military, and the push for civil marriage equality. (The Beyond Marriage silliness was in reaction to the latter.) Wanting to serve our country and to seal our mutual commitment with another person in marriage–those sure look conservative to me. It’s a little disingenuous to make a big deal about the Folsom Street Fair (I for one haven’t even visited SF for 22 years) while ignoring something that far more gay people are involved in.
Personally, I have gone to great lengths over the past seven years to preserve and cultivate my relationship with my foreign partner, despite the legal and financial barriers. Thousands of other gay Americans have done the same. We don’t need lectures from you, ND30. As a matter of fact, the sound of my Patrick’s laughter over a bad cell phone connection is worth a thousand bilious postings by you.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Hey DUMP, how about staying on the thread’s topic at least ONCE in a while, ok? The thread was about the ongoing concern of RJR’s toward adverse conditions afflicting our gaybrethern around the globe… not your personal penchant for laboriously boring all with those ancient axes to grind against NDXXX and others. Yo, bro, you gotta grow.
On topic, I think RJR raises a fair and considerate point about being mindful of those conditions abroad while gays in America are sunbathing at the sea front.
But I just wonder, when it comes to Iran’s or Russia’s or Indonesia’s brutal and homocidal treatment of gays, why doesn’t the gayLeft just take a page from the BarryO Foreign Policy Workbook… to wit: why don’t gayLeft groups just sit down with Iranian leaders (and others) and “talk”. I mean they had the chance to do it without personal exposure to arrest when Iran’s president came to the uber-liberal Columbia U this past summer. Why not go there and pursue the pretty words of concern represented in this thread?
Shouldn’t they be willing, as BarryO clearly is, to meet with our enemies (wait, can we nations enemies anymore in this BraveNewWorld of BarryO?) and talk… appease… find common ground. Who knows, maybe we can get them to use a more humane method of hanging? (Sarcasm on high)
Somehow, in that context, the silliness of the notion that we just have to sit down with enemies and talk, appease, find common ground becomes apparent when applied to our peculiar set of gay issues, eh?
Don’t get me wrong… the plight of gays abroad in totalatarian countries is dire. I’d like to see more done to address the issue like creating safe harbors in liberal, progressive countries with the infrastructure and culture to help those folks… but it seems that one of the first steps should be for our nat’l gay leaders to drawup an agenda, grab a plane and go help in 3-4 of the worst countries first. Maybe the UN can provide protection and promise them security in Iran, NKorea, Libya, Rwanda, the Sudan, or that hotbed the liberals loved a few years ago Zimbabwe? Hey, maybe they can start in the new Paris of South America –Caracas, Venezuela– I hear the leader there loves liberals from America who will just spit on their own Nation.
Then they can come back and tell us about the red badge of courage they’ve earned (finally) fighting for gay civil rights and basic human rights that they take for granted in the US.
Hey RJR, care to just sit down and take a meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni? If that can’t be arranged, how about going over as a HumanShield for Gays and protesting in those countries until you get that meeting? If not that, maybe one of the gayLeft’s leaders can make it for you?
You won’t be doing foreign policy for the US… just helping out those gays in-country and proving that BarryO’s “talk, appease, work it baby” approach to our Nation’s enemies (in this case, the enemies of gay progress) can really, truly work. It’s Hope. It’s Change.
Nawh, It’s Pretty Words Without Consequence.
posted by DUMP on
Moo: “Hey DUMP, how about staying on the thread’s topic at least ONCE in a while, ok? The thread was about the ongoing concern of RJR’s toward adverse conditions afflicting our gaybrethern around the globe…”
Please see my previous (and on topic!) comments in this thread. It would be a lot easier to stay on topic if brain-dead morons like you and ND30 could refrain from lying and trolling. Congratulations on being proven to be a lying and treasonous cretin! See you in next thread, Matt!!
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
MM, if my record as a writer and activist provides a reasonable basis for concluding that I am a silly, tyrant-appeasing leftist, then let me be duly castigated for it. But since that is plainly far from being the case, I wonder what you expect to gain by such dishonesty.
As to Obama, does his proposal for Afghanistan sound like unilateral disarmament to you? If Obama were as naive as you insist on pretending, he would deserve to be slammed for it. Talking to bad guys is quite plainly not the same as surrendering to them. Tell me: in any aspect of your life do you regard the mere act of talking to people as automatically constituting surrender? Of course not. This endlessly repeated GOP talking point is especially pathetic when one surveys the wreckage caused by George W. Bush’s policy of only talking to our friends. One comforting prospect of a McCain presidency is that, when he ordered American forces to cross the border from Iraq into Pakistan, they might at least pause briefly to ask what the hell he was talking about.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Here on IGF, for one. I wrote a scathing critique of the Beyond Marriage manifesto two summers ago, and it was reprinted by IGF.
Indeed you did; it was an admirable job of complaining, not that what they were advocating was wrong, but that their timing for doing it was all off.
Meanwhile, I notice you seemingly can’t find the words to explain why gay and lesbian people like Eric Erbelding and Michael Peck can define “mutual commitment” as a license to play musical beds because, as we know, gay men are “pigs” who can’t be expected to be sexually responsible.
14 years ago I wrote an article taking apart NAMBLA, and it was run in several gay newspapers; this was in advance of successful efforts (in which I took part) to expel NAMBLA and other pedophile groups from the International Lesbian and Gay Association.
Which, as I recall, only happened a) after NAMBLA had already been accepted as a member for years, seemingly without any complaints and with the support of such gay luminaries as Harry Hay, and b) when it was finally made clear to the gay community that the inclusion of NAMBLA, never a problem for the gay community before, would be when trying to get UN consultative status.
Meanwhile, I notice you seemingly can’t find the words to explain why gay and lesbian organizations are insisting that sex with fourteen-year-old children is normal, that having sex with children seventeen years younger than you are is “common” in the gay community, and why dressing up children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs in which naked and partially-clad adults masturbate, simulate sex, and actually have sex in front of them is an “educational experience” that you have to be “close-minded” to oppose.
Moving forward:
Wanting to serve our country and to seal our mutual commitment with another person in marriage–those sure look conservative to me.
Well, as we’ve already seen, that “mutual commitment” apparently does not extend to giving up promiscuity and apparently covers more than two people.
As far as “serve our country” goes, given the gay and lesbian support of politicians who want to abolish the military, who consider the military to be “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, and the fact that gay politicians themselves openly denigrate and spit upon the military, why should anyone believe that?
What people have figured out, Richard, is that your entire schtick is driven by PR. You didn’t care about NAMBLA until it became an embarrassment. You were upset by Beyond Marriage, not because of what they were saying, but because their timing was off. You claim to support commitment and military service, but in action do nothing about rampant promiscuity and antimilitary bigotry in the name of sexual orientation.
That’s why you don’t get credit for going in a more conservative direction; never once have you decided to do it yourself.
Also, because the gay community makes it clear how they feel about those of a more conservative worldview:
You have the intellectual capacity of a child. And, frankly, some cranky slut fag from San Francisco has no business talking down to other queers…most of us actually have honest relationships built on trust and love. If you weren’t such a seething and bitter queen you might know what it was like to have a loving relationship. Enjoy the bathhouse this weekend, you diseased garbage heap.
That last also makes your whine about “your Patrick” look even more hypocritical. Why should society care one whit about your relationships when you and your fellow gay liberals are so intensely hateful toward everyone else’s?
posted by DUMP on
NotreDame45: “Also, because the gay community makes it clear how they feel about those of a more conservative worldview…”
You are quite wrong here, my retarded little friend. Far from being negative towards conservatives (seeing as how that is how I define myself), I have nothing but respect for them. You are not a conservative. You are a troll…a self-hating queer who lives in San Francisco. You are not a conservative, but you do fit in quite well with the current GOP…congratulations! Now go pick up your meds before you devolve into dementia (how anyone could tell the difference is beyond me.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, DUMP, your need to criticize and condemn those who criticize the irresponsible and foolish behavior of other gays rather than those irresponsible and foolish gays makes my point.
Especially the contradiction that comes from a) your asking for respect and honest dialogue as you continue to make such statements about those who disagree with you and b) Richard’s whining about “bilious postings” while letting your words go unchallenged.
posted by Henry Lockman on
As a “newbie” to this site, this is such sophisticated and intelligent conversation. Wow!
If all of you devoted the energy you spend insulting others and yourseelves to really changing just one thing in the world you don’t like, you would … well, have less to be angry about. But I think you like the anger so much you couldn’t stand the accomplishment.
posted by DUMP on
NancyDrew69: “your asking for respect…”
Sorry, you are wrong again. I’ve never asked for respect, I know this forum is the last place to find that. The only thing I’ve asked for is you and your type (defeatist and miserabilist crypto-fags) to please refrain from lying. I know, fat chance…some people (YOU, basically) are incapable of telling the truth. It is sad, how you seem to pour so much emotion into a machine while neglecting your real human needs. Maybe if you weren’t such an awful person you could find someone to love. Would you be happy then? Probably not…some people (YOU, specifically) seem to relish being miserable. Congratulations, you beautiful little snowflake!
posted by Richjard (the other one) on
I really do not know how a person can make the claim that “most” gay people and or activists are seeking to be ‘transgressive’ or ‘queer’. Perhaps some one is getting their opinions about gay people from certain elements of the mass media. Pity that.
Religious fundamentalists — Christian or Muslim — tend to be very much opposed to feminism and gay rights. They tend to hate religious and political dissident.
How they happen to express their oppoisiton depends on what type of political-socio-economic institutions they live under.
Furthermore, their were many government sponored and non-governmental verbal and physical attacks against people for being gay or transgender or simply being accused of being gay or transgender.
Most gay people in history (notable or not), often had to pretend to be heterosexual or else their career, life and liberty would vanish. Sometimes members of the elite were able to ‘get away with’ more stuff, but the homophobia and transphobia was very, very real.
Although, most people — gay or straight — know very little about gay history and not all of the gay historians are always too accurate.
Stonewall, which was not even the first example of gay people fighting back against State opppression, was more of sign that “average” LGBT people would become more involved in the human rights movement.
Before Stonewall, say just in the US, few gays knew that a gay rights movement existed and ever fewer wanted anything to do with it.
Yet, starting off very slowly in the 1970s more LGBT people of different cultural, socio-economic and political backgrounds begin to come out and work to change laws and opinions.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Did anyone notice how DUMP is sounding more and more like Charles Wilson these days?
DUMP offers: “You are quite wrong here, my retarded little friend. Far from being negative towards conservatives (seeing as how that is how I define myself), I have nothing but respect for them. You are not a conservative. You are a troll…a self-hating queer who lives in San Francisco. You are not a conservative, but you do fit in quite well with the current GOP…congratulations! Now go pick up your meds before you devolve into dementia (how anyone could tell the difference is beyond me.)”
Charles Wilson offered: “You are more stupid than retarded and that’s a compliment. lol. I do not hate conservatives or republicans or Democrats or independents. I hate retards. You see I am a conservative Democrat and retarded trolls like you are a menance to every gay since you support the Chumpy Bush administration and they hate gays.”
Hmmmmm. I wonder.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
RJR, I sense that you think personal attacks on moderate gays is the proper way to conduct a fair, level civil debate on today’s pressing social issues.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
For the record, RichardJ, you’re the one who offered that while gays are slipping their toesy-toes into the ocean at the beach, we need to remember things aren’t safe for gays in many countries.
I fail to see why, when you gently nudge IGF readers to remember the plight of gays in foreign lands, whilst on holiday no less, you think it wrong for readers to draw an analogy to your lofty, pretty empty words to those of your hero and our new gay mascot, BarryO.
BarryO continues to point out that he will meet unconditionally with America’s enemies who help arm terrorists aimed on hurting Americans… namely Iran’s prez, Syria’s prez, NKorea’s dictator and Venezula’s “constitutionally elected” presidente for life. He is willing to do it; gayLefties think it’s a stroke of courage under fire… why not apply it to YOU now that you’ve spent those pretty words absent conviction or consequence?
I think it a grand plan. Why not let you, who is tsk-tsk’ing on the plight of gays in foreign land to get off that writer’s butt and just go talk, go appease, go find some common ground with the same people your hero BarryO is gladly and willingly and readily set to meet without pre-conditions as soon as he’s elected? Oh wait, he’s got that joint chiefs meeting on the first day… oh wait, the flip has flopped… that’s now been postponed by BarryO.
But you can still go; still be decisive. I mean, that seems fair. Frankly, it seems a just charge for you given the gayLeft’s tendency to spout off with pretty words before considering the consequence of such actions.
Heck, be a HumanShield for gays. I’m sure George Soros has some money if you can’t pay the airfare.
Of course, you won’t. That’s why I took issue with your pretty words. Like I do with BarryO’s pretty, inconsequential vapid words. As a self-described “activist”, RichardJ, you know that conviction sometimes calls us to act. As a gay father of two, I know conviction doesn’t come easy… and we shouldn’t let pretty words hide cowardice.
Well, here’s a perfect solution to your pretty words about the plight of foreign gays… go fight for them. Dash any concern for personal safety and go fight for them in their own country and get those foreign leaders to talk… if you’re willing to spit on our Nation, I hear Chavez and Citgo will pay for your hotel.
Go talk, go appease, go find common ground… otherwise, drop the personal attacks on moderate gays at IGF who don’t care to drink your gayLeft gayDemocrat kool aid, ok?
posted by David Skidmore on
I don’t think most gay people intend to be transgressive but the reality is, if you want to be openly gay in some countries you will be treated as transgressive, as upsetting the social order and you will be killed for it – including in some of America’s client states such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan.
Even in the US, some of the desires of gay people – such as the right to marry a partner of choice – is considered transgressive. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t have DOMA.
Most of us want a quiet life and do want to fit in. But the reality is that simply being homosexual means we face challenges that entail upsetting the status quo.
posted by RIchard on
Yeah, America has indeed made tremendous progress in terms of the social and legal treatment of LGBT people.
Yet, never forget that it is limited progress tied up with alot of other factors.
The social-legal progress probably benifits, mostly, white, urban, highly educated, upper middle class professional the most. These are also the people more likely to be “out”.
For a lot of LGBT people, the positive social-legal change impacts their lives in a much less felt manner. These people are also less likely to be out.
America is probably a decade or more behind many other developed, industrial, liberal democratic nations when it comes to gay rights.
We are probably ahead of most nations — who are developing, poor, and or not interested in liberal democratic norms.
Yet, how gay people are treated in these types of nations depends on numerous factors.
I am not sure how this gets into Senator Obama’s foreign policy, or what people think it is.
People who believe that we can avoid talking to bad people, do not have a realistic understanding of how the world works.
Talking to certain people should not really be too controversial — we do it all the time secretly — its more about how that conversation occurs and what happens when it ends.
In the grand scheme of things, a presidential candidate or president is not going to care too much about the human rights abuses of gays, unless most voters care about it.
Little to knowing is said — in the mainstream media — about the plight of gay people in, say, Iraq. What is said is often not terribly too accurate.
The fact that gay Americans find it better to use the plight of gay people in other nations as an accuse to engage in rather petty, partisan attacks and grandstanding illustrates this point.
If the so-called ‘gay left’ or ‘gay right’ really cared about the international plight of LGBT people, then we see a very different belief system being promoted in the community.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard whines: “I am not sure how this gets into Senator Obama’s foreign policy, or what people think it is.”
Richard, you need to learn to read for comprehension, not for self-validation.
In a nutshell, it goes like this:
1) RJR opines lofty, empty pretty words about the unfair treatment of gays in foreign lands;
2) I suggest that’s sort of, kind of like his mascot’s (BarryO) act of projecting a foreign policy that is based on the notion we should just talk with our enemies and all the terrorists… unconditionally… and, just like BarryO did with French, appease them into loving us;
3) therefore, if it’s a good natl policy for BarryO and America, why not have gayLefties just meet with and talk to the leaders of Iran, NKorea, Russia, Venezula, Syria and elsewhere and get some progress for gays in those lands?
There, made it clear for you in three steps… although I doubt your gayDemocrat blinders will allow you to see Richard.
As for your charge here: “The fact that gay Americans find it better to use the plight of gay people in other nations as an accuse (sic) to engage in rather petty, partisan attacks and grandstanding illustrates this point.”
I don’t think BarryO thinks his “just meet, just talk, just appease our enemies” is petty –but you’re right, it might be grandstanding on his part… stupidly so.
posted by Pat on
I don’t think BarryO thinks his “just meet, just talk, just appease our enemies” is petty –but you’re right, it might be grandstanding on his part… stupidly so.
MichiganMatt, I don’t think your characterization of Obama’s position here has been substantiated. But you may be proved correct. I am more troubled by McCain’s continuing the appeasement policy of al Qaeda by the Bush Administration.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, I doubt that you are a DailyKos reader, but when did the Bush Administration EVER try to appease terrorists?
I mean, the BushAdmin gets blasted by the old guard of Clinton-Do-Nothing crowd (like Maddie Albright, stuff-ur-pants Sandy Berger, Dick Holbrooke, Bill Richardson, Tony Lake and some of the others to name but a few of the Do-Nothing Crowd in Clinton’s Administration) for making too many enemies in the world… for declaring too many govts to be in support of terrorists.
This isn’t one of those silly conspiracy theory thingies that guys like DUMP love to propagate… whereby Bush is secertly in league with binLaden to hike oil prices in the MiddleEast and bring greater numbers to binLaden’s camp by protraying him as Free World Enemy #1?
posted by Pat on
MichiganMatt, it’s not like that at all. I doubt that Bush has had secret contact with bin Laden or any of those other clowns and appeased a la Chamberlain. It’s my contention that the last few presidents have been ineffective against terrorism, because they still treat it like it’s a conventional war and/or a kiddie schoolyard fight. And now I hear people play asinine opposite games with the terrorists, “oh, the terrorists say they want A, so that means we must not do A to defeat the terrorists.”
Bush appeased the terrorists when he decided to enter the war with Iraq (yes, with help of the Democrats) under grossly false pretenses and/or incompetent intelligence. It took focus away from the job in Afghanistan, and now we see what a morass that is turning into now. But, more importantly, the terrorists are having a field day in Iraq. I don’t think we could have handed anything better in a silver platter when the Bush Administration decided to invade Iraq. Sure, we have killed a lot of scum there, and that’s fine. But there are so many more to take their place. And even when a terrorist leader or deputy is killed, that simply means a promotion over there. We’re playing the game under their terms. They don’t mind that thousands of their fellow terrorists are being killed and tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are being killed as a result of the invasion. Since they don’t value life, including their own, we don’t have a chance of defeating terrorism on their terms.
Unfortunately, we’ve put ourselves in a no-win situation in Iraq. If we “win” the war in Iraq, we’ve created a climate that will be a boon for recruitment of terrorists. If we “lose” the war in Iraq, same thing. Because of the schoolyard mentality, Bush (who I’m sure now realizes what a stupid mistake he made), or more likely his successor will get out of Iraq when we “won.” But that’s no more than dressing up a pig. The terrorists found the weakness, and they found another reason to hate America even more, and now the WOT will be even harder to win.
We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, and let the terrorists think whatever they want (it doesn’t matter, because they feel they’ve won no matter what), and then we need to show the world we really mean business in fighting terrorism, instead of repeating failed strategies.
Anyway, as Chamberlain gave Hitler exactly what he wanted, Bush gave Al Qaeda what they wanted and more.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Phwww, thanks for that clarification Pat. I thought we were headed down the senseless stupidity of some claim that Bush had a backroom deal with binLaden to attack on 9-11 just so that oil prices would be hiked and Bush’s supposed BigOil buddies could rake in the moolah.
I don’t agree with your analysis of conditions on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor in your assessment of the future in having stable, pro-West states operating in the heart of radical Islam… but that’s ok.
posted by Pat on
I don’t agree with your analysis of conditions on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor in your assessment of the future in having stable, pro-West states operating in the heart of radical Islam… but that’s ok.
Future, yes. Near future (say within 50 years), very doubtful.