Here's a good example of the sanctimonious extremism with which too many gay-rights advocates are shooting themselves in the foot.
In a recent blog post about Supreme Court mentionee Leah Ward Sears, I noted that she has recently joined the Institute for American Values, "which some have characterized as anti-gay, though it's not."
In reply, a commenter says that if you oppose gay marriage-as David Blankenhorn, IAV's president, does-you're anti-gay. In fact, you're just one step shy of "burning gays in the street".
So let's think about this. Blankenhorn favors federal civil unions if coupled with religious-liberty protections. He has repeatedly affirmed "the equal dignity of homosexual love," for instance here and here. He says IAV takes no institutional position on gay marriage.
As for same-sex parenting, his position is that all family structures are not alike and that it's best for children to be raised by their biological mother and father-but he also thinks same-sex adoptions should be allowed.
I recently did a radio talk show with a Family Research Council representative who not only denied the equal dignity of homosexual love but asserted that "homosexual relationships are on balance harmful to the people who engage in them and society as a whole." That's anti-gay. But Blankenhorn's positions, agree or disagree, are compassionate, reasonable, and shared by millions of reasonable people whose goodwill we need.
If we tell those reasonable people that they are the equivalent of gay-burners, or even of FRC, we not only flunk Basic Moral Distinctions 101, we effectively tell them they might as well sign up with the other side.
Some of them just might.
17 Comments for “How to Lose Friends and Not Influence People”
posted by Mike in Houston on
I read the comment, and it was a question to you: what is the demarcation line for when someone can be labeled as “anti-gay”. The commenter did not say IAV’s Blankenhorn’s views were ‘one step shy’ — he asked what more does Blankenhorn have do to get a judgement from you? Where is the magic line.
While I agree that to some people — maybe even the blog commenter you cite — are too quick to say the line has been crossed, you, on the other hand, have a near-Broder-esque willingness to let the softer bigotry slide.
posted by Bobby on
Gays are too spoiled nowadays, if they could go back to the 70s and 80s they would see real vicious homophobia instead of mere disagreements. Why treat Blankenhorn like she’s Anita Bryant? Acting like that is only going to win us enemies.
posted by BobN on
OoooOOOoooo… a poster on an internet thread said something almost mean to Mr. Rauch’s boyfriend…er… debate colleague.
Quick! Someone, summon the authorities!!
y a w n
A more pertinent discussion of shooting oneself in the foot might be had about the hysteria of certain folks on this site vis-a-vis libruls.
posted by bls on
Amen. (I come over here once every three months or so and say “Amen” to something you write, since you’re pretty much the only columnist on this blog I can stand reading at this point.)
I’d also like to echo the last sentence of BobN’s post: this column could easily be turned around and aimed at many commenters on this site in re: their screaming hysteria over “the left.” (And no, I’m not a “liberal”; I’m a centrist Democrat on most issues – and the screaming on this site doesn’t do much to earn the goodwill of people like me, either. I think a general damping-down of the culture wars might be in order, on every side.)
posted by Bobby on
So if we don’t scream about the left, who does? If you haven’t noticed, virtually all the media is dominated by the left, progressive is THE thing to be, do you really think Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow is going to scream if the left is unfair?
posted by Jorge on
If we tell those reasonable people that they are the equivalent of gay-burners, or even of FRC, we not only flunk Basic Moral Distinctions 101, we effectively tell them they might as well sign up with the other side.
Some of them just might.
Paging Carrie Prejean! Paging! Paging!
posted by TS on
Blankenhorn’s position on marriage is illogical, just like my dear friend Amanda’s. I don’t care; I am so grateful to know they accept the equal dignity of homosexual love, which is so obvious to me. Not wanting to allow gay relationships to be called marrages is a hesitation, a last hurrah of uncertainty about whether gay relationships and straight relationships can really be the same. I’ve never been a straight person from a traditionalist background, but I imagine such a person would harbor a lot of uncertainty on that point. For them (a lopsided majority over us) to be accepting of what they should fear and hate is an example of a bright spot in human nature.
I wish the institution of marriage were expanded to include homosexual love and partnership. I will continue to zealously argue that it should happen. But I would also join Jonathan Rauch in asking my allies to think critically and devote their resources to helping people understand instead of belittling those who refuse to say their magic words.
posted by John Howard on
Though I don’t the Rauch/Blankenhorn compromise for the same reasons that David Blankenhorn doesn’t like it (it implies that the only objections to civil same-sex marriage are religious, and it doesn’t protect marriage, and religions teach respect for civil authority, not “exemptions” from it), I do like what David Blankenhorn said about a child’s right to not be born from same-sex parents:
I just wish he stressed this a bit more. He should strengthen that statement and join the PCBE’s call for a federal law that prohibits all other ways of conceiving a child.
Then that should become the basis for a compromise that extends federal recognition to state Civil Unions that are defined as marriage minus conception rights.
Jonathan, did David Blankenhorn ever mention his concerns about same-sex conception to you? I think my proposal has a much higher chance of getting through Congress because it preserves marriage and so it doesn’t require making religions into outlaws – they’d have to respect CU’s as civil law but would not have to consider them marriages because they wouldn’t be.
And I do appreciate your willingness to see that not all opponents of same-sex marriage are anti-gay. My proposal for equal protections and federal recognition of Civil Unions and recognition of the justice and respect and support due to gay people, and the fact that my goal is stopping all genetic engineering and brave new world exploitation by labs, and my concurrence that love makes a family, not biology, hopefully affords me and my proposal the same measure of respect and willingness to consider my proposal.
What do you think of The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, Jonathan? Do you think equal conception rights are more important than equal protections?
posted by Bobby on
Would federal civil unions include immigration, tax benefits, and all the rights of marriage? If so, gays should take it, then in a few years they can sue and get full marriage. That’s what happened in Holland.
posted by TS on
John Howard- I would be somewhat more impressed by your sheer tenacity, in the face of being completely ignored, to fight for what you believe in, if it weren’t so clear to me that the depth of this conviction must be the result of some kind of psychological disorder.
Your issue is a non-issue to basically everyone. Our real enemies hate us because they think what we do is gross and thus we should be punished. Our frenemies still think its gross but are at least somewhat rational in their moral judgments. And our friends are hopeful that one day, technology and social change will make it possible for us to have a variety of options for building families of our own.
I appreciate your rigorous concern for bioethics. Careful consideration of the consequences of our decisions is indeed important as we tumble into the unknowable future. But you are the only person I have ever encountered who is so obsessively worried about the possibility that people will abuse biotech capabilites we might potentially have in the future. There is nothing inherently superior, morally or otherwise, about the “biologically natural” conception and birthing process. Nature settled upon it, and “artifice” is just one of the many conplex diversions nature is currently exploring. I think the possibility of retooling an egg into a sperm or vice versa while leaving the genetic material unchanged is actually particularly harmless and worth exploring. It would of course need to be carefully tested to make sure it is not harmful; I am completely in favor of punishing reckless efforts to develop this technology that are harmful. I can understand any concern about genetic engineering of human traits: it could change society in unforseen ways and would only be acceptable under the severest of caution. But merely changing the function of eggs and sperm cells while keeping the haploid to diploid system as normal could allow same-sex couples to procreate, which might be great to prevent being outbred by fundamentalist Muslims. Anyway, that’s not the point. I totally reject the notion that this issue has anything whatsoever to do with LGBT activism. You are crazy to keep bringing it up and it shouldn’t suprise you that nobody cares.
posted by John Howard on
So, you think that same-sex couples using genetically modified eggs and sperm to create babies together is less controversial than the things they do in bed together? You really think all those groups that fight same-sex marriage and the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism are going to be perfectly fine with making babies from same-sex parents?
And just as you think that your application of genetic modification is more ethical than the people who want to use it to improve their children’s stature and abilities, they think that theirs is more ethical. But you never hear them arguing, because they both know that they are in the same boat, and will sink or swim together. We can’t justify allowing one but prohibiting the other, both of them cross the easily-drawn line of unmodified reproduction, both of them are needless and risky, both of them are simply demanded by the people that want to try them, and their argument is simply that we have to let them do what they want.
Jonathan, if the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise were going before Congress right now, would you urge that it be passed, or urge that it be rejected? Remember, it would give same-sex couples all the rights and protections of marriage and make it possible and easy to pass Civil Unions in almost all 50 states (since they wouldn’t have the sine non qua essential right of marriage, they’d be acceptable to the laws and Amendments that proscribe civil unions that are substantially similar to marriage). All you would give up is the right to conceive with a same-sex partner (which you can’t deny TS is demanding, he says so right here), and accepting that a man and a woman in marriage have a right that same-sex couples don’t. Prove that you are a good faith participant in these marriage debates, and address the question I ask you.
posted by Bobby on
John Howard, why do you fight for your issue here? Why not fight at The Huffington Post or the Daily Kost, those websites have far more commenters than indegayforum, you might generate more interest there.
“You really think all those groups that fight same-sex marriage and the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism are going to be perfectly fine with making babies from same-sex parents?”
—Transgenderism is a bad example, most people don’t understand it yet sex change operations are legal in most countries, even Iran! I don’t see any state in the US passing laws against transgender people. They have banned gay adoptions, they fight against gay-inclusive curriculums in schools, gays are banned from the military, but transgendered people for are left alone for the most part as long as they can pass.
Genetic modification will be accepted because most Americans are vain people. They want everyone to be thin and pretty, they want to live forever, they worry about losing their hair, they buy pills online to increase the size of their penises, old men take viagra.
You think in that environment most people are going to care about biological ethics?
Think about this, a lot of women are becoming single-mothers by choice, they simply get tired of waiting for a man so they go to a sperm bank and choose from a list of candidates. Sperm banks themselves won’t take your genes unless you’re a lawyer, doctor, good looking, non-smoker, or fit their ideal criteria. And if those women could find a way to get pregnant for less money, without using sperm, they will take it.
When it comes to science, the question isn’t why but why not? Just like bodybuilders will continue taking illegal steroids, just like professional athletes will do whatever it takes to win, individuals will put their ethics aside if it serves their purpose. It’s a brave new world and it’s only gonna get worse.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Johnathan Rauch said “In reply, a commenter says that if you oppose gay marriage?as David Blankenhorn does?you’re anti-gay….I recently did a radio talk show with a Family Research Council representative who not only denied the equal dignity of homosexual love but asserted that “homosexual relationships are on balance harmful to the people who engage in them and society as a whole.” That’s anti-gay.”.
Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan…they’re both anti-gay – its just a matter of degree. In the same way that a serial killer and someone who steals a car are both criminals the “Family” “Reasearch” Council representative and Blankenhorn are both anti-gay. You cannot oppose equal rights for gays to any degree and not be anti-gay just like you cannot break a law and not be a criminal. Try thinking of these things as a continuum rather than as black and white categories – that’s much more realisic.
posted by SD on
http://www.man1forman1.blogspot.com/
http://www.man1forman1.blogspot.com/
http://www.man1forman1.blogspot.com/
posted by Not a Skinflute Fag Like You! on
A fag went to the Gay Fag Ass Butt Sex Anal/Oral Jolly Pride All-Male-Jizz-Fest (and Feast) Parade in New York. He met a smokin’ hot dude and wanted to plunge his dick into his shitty asshole, so he invited the other gay faggot to a Broadway show. During the intermission, they engaged in gay blowjobs: One dude sucked the other until jizz bust from the others? nuts and splatted all inside the mouth of the other, temporarily choking the receiving fag. After coughing and spitting up cum, they finished watching the play, shoved dildos up their asses, gave a hobo a teabag, and climbed into a pool together at a shitty ass bathhouse in Queens. One of these faggy blokes plunged his pecker in the other’s poo tube, unknowing that the other had a severe case of the gay shits and ended up with diarrhea in his urethra. So he picked out what he could with a coffee stirrer, then took a black piss afterwards to remove what remained in his dick of the other’s tar-like stool. While waiting, the runny ass fag got blown off by the pool filter system, but felt let down because the filter was not the same as having a dude’s teeth and gums nestled around his fuck stick. Finally, the buttfucker with the poo penis returned to suck the sack of his partner. Then ol? nasty ass Bruce McAIDS came by the pool, stood on the diving board, whipped out his dong, and began jacking his cock off until a slimy gay goo came (no pun intended) out of his salty semen stick and fell into the pool, floating on the water to be precise. One of the lifeguards, Cumguzzaly O?Neil, told Bruce that it was not polite to masturbate in the poolhouse without offering some of the other occupants a chance to eat the jism ? just wasting it in the water was not proper queer etiquette. So Cumguzzaly took a net, retrieved the floating ejaculate, pulled it in, and grasped it with his palm. He then went on break, bought himself a KlonDYKE Bar, and wiped the cock oil on top as a topping. ?Cum has a lot of calories,? he said, ?but tomorrow?s my birthday, so I deserve a special sloppy treat.? Hearing of this from across the building (gays have good hearing ? look it up), the two bum-blasters from the pride parade decided to offer their gay genitals, butt (including anus, cheeks, crack, and fecal remains), mouth, pubic hair, hands, and ear canal to Cumguzzaly to help him celebrate his 29th birthday, which was the annual commemoration of the only time he ever saw a vagina. (He threw up ten minutes after birth, as he couldn?t stand the look of pussy and vowed right then and there to only go for guys.) At the birthday party, the cake frosting was made out of whipped sperm, while the rest of the ejaculate (prosthetic fluid, etc.) went into the batter for the rest of the cake. Other than ejaculate by-products, the rest of the cake was what might be served at a typical birthday party. It contained flour, water, eggs, sugar, salt, baking powder, corn syrup, Hershey?s cocoa, and M&M?s. But unfortunately, the hygiene was lax at the fag-run bakery where the cake was made. You see, the gay baker who made the cake didn?t wash his hands after anal fisting his boyfriend Craig, so there ended up being E coli in the cake. When the fags ate of the gay cake after blowing out the phallus candles, they got sick and went to the hospital. Although they were OK in a few days, it was a really shitty way to spend a fag birthday ? in a hospital bed instead of in a guy?s poopy butt.
posted by John Howard on
Priya, I think it is very anti-gay to try to fit gay people into the hetero norm of conceiving children together. I think it ought to be recognized as very insulting to be told that unless people can procreate with someone of their same sex, they are unequal, that gay people thus need technological assistance to have full dignity as equal human beings. That’s anti gay. In contrast, I think it is more pro-gay to recognize that people just cannot procreate with someone of their same sex, and then to celebrate that fact with the full range of diverse lifestyles that emerge from being different in that way. That’s like what is supposed to be gay about being gay. Pushing conception rights and technology on gay people is very anti-gay, if you ask me. And therefore, since marriage is conception rights and should remain so, marriage is anti-gay as well, because it can’t just be ignored – if it is allowed, it is forced on people as an option that everyone must consider.
OTOH, Civil Unions are more of an option that people ought to be able to take advantage of, to gain security and commitment in a way that benefits both the couple and society. It might be a little anti-gay to have that option too, but I think it is a beneficial anti-gay option to have, and one that people deserve to be able to take advantage of if they want to.
posted by Bobby on
“Priya, I think it is very anti-gay to try to fit gay people into the hetero norm of conceiving children together.”
—If that’s your standard, gays can forget about relationships, forget about same-sex marriage, forget about adoption and forget about serving in the military. They should just move into a bathhouse and have sex 10 times a day.
I’m not against ideas developed in the hetero community if they work for me.