The central deception fabricated against us in the SFMM ad, "They Said" is that while we promised we wouldn't push same-sex marriage on schoolchildren, we can't be trusted. Last time we deceived only adults, but this time it will be the children who will "suffer."
The use of children in modern American political campaigns to terrify parents about homosexuals dates back to Anita Bryant's campaign in the 1970s to withdraw gay rights in Dade County, Florida, though it has a more ancient pedigree. It is another example of adapting a malevolent prejudicial notion used to slander a different minority: Jews. It is the gay Blood Libel, though without claiming we actually kill children.
As Jon Rauch explains, the concern is not, in fact, with school curriculum; it is about gay marriage as a reality in the broader world today. But it goes further than that. Children don't know about the law governing marriage. Any same-sex couples, whether married, united in a civil union or simply living together with no legal rights present the same problem - children observe the world and ask questions.
It is unrealistic to believe children can be protected from television, movies, books, magazines, and the gay parents of their soccer teammates. School curriculum is formalized, and thus seems to be where anti-gay parents can exercise control. The use of the verb "push" four times in a 30-second ad inflames the sense that parents who want gays to remain in the closet have lost the upper hand.
What those parents really want is to prohibit any discussion of gay couples, period; and that has nothing to do with marriage or school curriculum and everything to do with gays abandoning the closet and being honest about themselves in the world at large.
The existing curriculum reflects the earlier world they are comfortable with, which is not neutral to sexual orientation. Children are regularly taught that princes can marry princesses, which is no more than a simple reaffirmation of heterosexual love and affection. Homosexuals are simply left out - they do not exist.
If that is all children learn, then they are, in fact, learning a kind of bias in their most formative years. This has never been intentional, since the vast majority of all children are heterosexual, and are learning about themselves. But they are also learning about the broader world, and what it includes. If they are prevented from learning that a prince (so inclined) can marry another prince (who is also so inclined) then they are learning that princes cannot marry other princes.
More to the point, those children who are, or may be gay, are learning something far more perverse about themselves - they are learning that the world does not include them. Again, this is not intentional, but as any adult homosexual can testify, it is as real as anything can be.
Invisibility always works against homosexuals who are, after all, seeking their place in the public world. When the debate is about children, that invisibility gets submerged in a non-sexual environment that, nevertheless, has very strong elements of future, developing sexuality running through it. Whether it's in the curriculum or not, children see heterosexuality everywhere. That is as it should be, since heterosexuals are everywhere. It would be preposterous to pretend that could ever change.
But it is wrong to prohibit - or think that anyone could prohibit - children from knowing that some people, and potentially some of them, will not be heterosexual. In public schools, or in any other forum, such discussions must be age appropriate, though. What teachers discuss in a second grade class is very different from classroom debates in high school.
But school districts are not running amok if some of them make a conscious, public decision to include books like King and King as one book among the thousands children will have access to. That book was turned into a wedge in California, where it was invoked to make it seem schools were "teaching" homosexuality. The book is subject to similar abuse now in Maine.
The fear this ad exploits is no more than that - an inchoate fear. It is an anxiety about homosexuality itself. But like all fears about minorities, it refuses to accept that it is not universal. That is the truth the ads for No on 1 so successfully express. As between these two messages, and these two strategies, I am proud to be associated with the one that depends, for its success, on appealing to what is best in our nature.
35 Comments for “Anatomy of a Slur (Part 2)”
posted by Jorge on
I agree with you and Rauch that the “problem” is society and not the school curriculum.
For example: masturbation is not taught about in public schools. If you even phrase that statement wrong you get fired even by Democratic presidents. I’ve always thought it ridiculous that the textbooks I read didn’t even mention it.
One of my only memories from grade school is my kindergarten teacher getting a package from Robert T. (same last name), and saying nothing about it, or overhearing about him every so often. It was like something naughty and secret had happened: oooooh, that’s her husband! And we have people saying marriage shouldn’t be taught in schools.
My junior high school biology teacher was very explicit in eliciting from us that there is such a thing as Creationism before he started the Evolution lesson.
These are all things that exist. Kids ask questions, and teachers answer them.
It’s already almost too late, anyway. Soon youth culture will finally become indifferent to homosexuality. And then the false debate over teaching homosexuality in schools will be moot.
posted by TS on
Nice to see someone attacking this argument head on, rather than attempting to recast it as misinformation, which a) it isn’t and b) always sounds like a coverup. And nicely done. If you send your kinds to public school, they will encounter every kind of civically functional perspective and way of life. If you send your kid into a public library, they will encounter books with ideas they already know and accept or reject, and ideas they’ve never encountered before. If you wish to prevent this, become Amish.
posted by Debrah on
Please.
Cease drawing comparisons to being Jewish.
Being “gay” has nothing to do with being Jewish.
The piggy-backing onto discrimination—perceived, concocted, or real—of other “minorities” is also a gross misstep.
Moreover, the vast anti-gay sentiment inside the black community would seem to provide another reason to avoid such strange analogies.
posted by Debrah on
” Homosexuals are simply left out ? they do not exist.”
***************************
Is this really offered up with a straight (no pun intended) face?
No other group works for a brand of “specialness” with such fervor. I know of almost nowhere in this country where gays are not represented.
Even in the most remote places, recognition is the order of the day.
One cannot be treated “like everyone else” and demand “specialness” simultaneously.
Incessant logorrhea to the contrary, this is what is demanded.
No prude, I.
But how many other “groups” demand school curricula recognize their lifestyle…..even as they support and promote urgently raw porno sites along with serious commentary?
Hetero porno abounds; however, most logical people do not partake of such sites openly and then delude themselves into thinking others won’t have doubts about the veracity of their supposed objective to simply be “normal couples”.
On this very site, a contributor advises to “pee and wash your tube”.
Bizarrely provocative, that.
posted by Kiro on
Debrah– what “specialness” are gay couples requesting, exactly?
posted by Debrah on
Hi “Kiro”–
Where to begin?
That same-sex lovers even entertain “marriage” as a concept leaves the word inside the throes of Procrustean’s bed.
Civil unions cover all necessary financial constructs–for both gay and hetero couples.
But of course, “marriage” is so romantic!
Then I would implore gay couples to act that way. The casual exhibition of twinks and their trigger-ready poop-shoot chasers as well as the raunchy discourse on sites such as YouTube gives anti-gay forces all the ammunition they will ever need to say—“Don’t teach this as a way of life to our children!”
Yet “adult” gay men support such sites openly as “normal”.
As someone who has deliberately avoided childbirth for selfish reasons, I do not come to this argument with religious or “traditional” baggage.
Simply one of reality.
Don’t wallow in the muck and expect people not to take notice.
The argument is philosophically an imposture.
More must be done to distinguish yourselves from the muck in order to win such a debate.
One truly has to be “special” in order to embrace such existing contrasts in behavior.
posted by David Link on
Deborah:
Do you feel you have to “distinguish” yourself from heterosexual “muck” (and anyone with access to Google can find an endless number of examples)? Why should lesbians and gay men be vaguely held accountable for the excesses that some who share their sexual orientation engage in, while heterosexuals get a pass? If anyone’s getting anything special in this deal, it’s heterosexuals.
posted by Debrah on
David–
I don’t feel that anyone “has to” do anything.
Heterosexuals certainly don’t get a pass. And they do not receive kudos and held up as anything but emotionally-arrested, sex-starved jack-offs when they choose to publicly subscribe to or participate in such endeavors.
Most “adult” professionals at least have the good sense to engage in anonymity.
Don’t pull the old “Google” schtick. Indeed, you can get anything there you want.
You also have available to everyone who “wants” and “what”.
When you are touting an agenda such as gay marriage and gay adoption, it might be a good idea to have also come out publicly against people like the former high-level Duke administrator Frank Lombard and the case of admitted child molestation.
There’s always a pattern of silence.
All we heard was the chirping of crickets and self-serving obfuscation.
The media would have eaten a hetero man alive—with good reason.
Interestingly, this very site links to “Gay Tube”……..as serious discussion of “gay marriage” abounds.
No one knows more than I the price to be paid for going against the flow. Just decide what you’re really vying for and conduct yourself accordingly.
Otherwise, observers might get the idea that one is looking for a condition-free “specialness”.
posted by esurience on
Debrah:
I’m going to assume you’re a child rapist until you denounce every child rapist that ever lived. Go!
David:
It seems the link to “Gay Tube” under the Blog roll is indeed a pornographic site. I’m assuming that’s just an accident since the other sites look okay.
posted by Debrah on
Esurience–
Oh, but I do! I do!
I denounce them everyone! (She breathlessly assures)
()))))))) Avoidance and obfuscation conquering (((((((()
posted by esurience on
Debrah:
I was hoping for a more specific denunciation of child rapists so I could judge your sincerity. Your response seemed a little bit sarcastic. And I find it very suspicious that it took you FIVE postings on this message board before you denounced child rapists. What were you waiting so long for? Did you change your mind about child rape between post 4 and 5? It seems just a little too convenient that you didn’t bother denouncing child rape until you were asked specifically about it. What were you trying to avoid, what do you have to hide?
But anyway, since you’ve come here with an anti-gay agenda, I’m going to assume you’re in the same lot with the perpetrators of recent hate crimes, such as this one just yesterday:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/10/26/gay-man-fighting-for-his-life-after-suspected-homophobic-attack-on-liverpool-s-stanley-street-100252-25016306/
And since you’re a woman, can you denounce your fellow woman who recently lured a man to his death: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091026/NEWS0107/310230069/Cops++Woman+lured+man+to+death
posted by Debrah on
Esurience–
You’re free to assume anything you wish.
That’s what people do when they need to avoid a topic which is integral to any issue.
You can spend an eternity depositing links to atrocious cases and I will say in response to all of them:
If it is admitted or proven that an individual has committed a crime, then the full-force of justice should apply.
You’ll frustrate yourself because I don’t, and have never had, a “group” or “club” or political party, or religion for which I will sacrifice reality and self-respect.
Flamers with an agenda flame.
Happy roasting!
posted by esurience on
Debrah:
I haven’t found much of substance in your writing to respond to, so excuse me for getting side-tracked by your side-tracking. If you increase your signal-to-noise ratio we might have a more productive conversation. I’ll try to start it by responding to a few things:
But how many other “groups” demand school curricula recognize their lifestyle
Pretty much every “group”. I remember learning about Hannakuh in first grade, despite there being only one Jewish girl in the class, and Jewish people comprise only about 2% of the US population, less than the gay population.
I also remember learning about the African-American civil rights movement in junior high school, despite the fact that there were only about 5 black kids in a school of over 200 people.
Gay people are a part of society whether you like it or not. There are gay kids in school, gay parents raising kids, etc etc… And we are a group that is, whether you like it or not, fighting for equal treatment under the law. That makes us part of the fabric of society, of current events, and of history.
It doesn’t harm a child to learn that there are families out there that look different than their own. I think this helps to raise good citizens.
posted by Debrah on
“I haven’t found much of substance in your writing to respond to…..”
********************************
Self-actualization and projection are wonderful things, no?
You’ve brought in just about every peripheral issue and platitude in existence in order to avoid the issues raised.
Reasonable people should welcome a school curriculum that teaches kids about all aspects of life.
This was nothing close to anything I even mentioned.
Please get over the faded idea that gay culture is some exotic topic that needs to be endlessly explained…….without first modifying, even slightly, that which prevents your agenda from being more palatable……thereby playing into the hands of your most rabid detractors.
Who is not already aware that “gay people are part of society”?
“It doesn’t harm a child to learn that there are families out there that look different than their own. I think this helps to raise good citizens.”
*****************************
Agreed.
posted by esurience on
without first modifying, even slightly, that which prevents your agenda from being more palatable……thereby playing into the hands of your most rabid detractors.
What is it that you would like to see modified that you think is within my power to modify?
It looks like indegayforum.org already took down the “Gay Tube” link you pointed out. What else? And why should whether or not I am treated equally under the law be contingent on other people’s behavior?
posted by Debrah on
“What is it that you would like to see modified that you think is within my power to modify?”
******************************
Oh, dear Esurience, to be dictator for a day!
Seriously, you nor I have the power to change the behavior of others…..even if we wanted.
You are to be commended for supporting the idea that the aforementioned link might engender a negative vibe and chip away at the legitimacy of this blog; however, I would be remiss if I didn’t wonder aloud—“Who the hell signed off on the idea of such a link in the first place on a serious forum like IGF?”
My only issue—grand as it may be—is the endless contradiction with regard to expressing sexuality.
In the straight world, raw and raunchy adolescent behavior is most often cast to the edge.
It would seem to be much more acceptable and embraced by the “respectable” in the gay world.
If this is untrue, perhaps working to bring perception and reality closer together would be a valuable quest.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Cease drawing comparisons to being Jewish.
Being “gay” has nothing to do with being Jewish.
Debrah, although I mostly agree with what you’ve been saying, there IS one respect in which homosexuality and Jewishness are somewhat similar to each other, but for the most part dissimilar to being black or Asian in a mostly-white society: in America, at least, Jews and homosexuals both had the choice of trying to totally assimilate and blending in with the majority, OR of openly wearing their differentness on their sleeves.
But I’m just being a bit pedantic, because in most other ways, being Jewish and being gay are obviously very different experiences (well, apart from both groups having “disproportionate” influence on Broadway…), and the invocation of the “blood libel” was quite over the top. (Surely a better analogy would’ve been “Gypsies steal children and raise them as their own”!)
posted by Throbert McGee on
[raw and raunchy adolescent behavior] would seem to be much more acceptable and embraced by the “respectable” in the gay world.
Debrah, can you hypothesize WHY this is the case? (I’m a 38-year-old man who prefers to identify as “happily homosexual, but not gay,” and I have my own theories on the adolescent behaviors of many “gay men.” However, I’d like to hear your take first before I explain why I think this happens.)
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
You’re SO above average.
You have two things going for you right out-of-the-gate:
One, you mostly agree with what I’ve said.
Two, you’re obviously in possession of over-the-top intelligence and objectivity.
Provided that the guy is fairly attractive, a brilliant mind is one of life’s most potent aphrodisiacs.
You should remember that.
No, I want to read your thoughts on this most significant topic first.
(I was about to go wash my hair, but I’ll wait with bated breath for your analysis.)
“Jews and homosexuals both had the choice of trying to totally assimilate and blending in with the majority, OR of openly wearing their differentness on their sleeves.”—Very good!
posted by Throbert McGee on
Okay, Debrah — here’s my theory:
(A) Let’s agree that most adults, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, get a bit nostalgic for their teenage years from time to time, and who can blame them? It’s great to be young and exploding with energy and newly found independence while your parents are footing the bills!
(B) While it’s now a “Next on Oprah!” cliche for teenagers — and even teens from the most conservative family backgrounds — to come out of the closet and identify as homosexual while still in high school, this is a very new phenomenon. I’m 38, went to high school in the relatively “blue state” suburbs of Northern Virginia, and I came out to my Republican-leaning, military/Catholic parents when I was a senior in college — and it all worked out fine, but it’s not something that I would’ve dreamt of doing 4 or 5 years earlier, when I was in high school. As a result, I missed out on some of the normal fun teen stuff, including dating and the Prom — I wasn’t interested in doing that with girls, and the idea of being openly homo and having a boyfriend was pretty much sci-fi to me. So if I were a different kind of person, I might well be tempted, as a guy pushing 40, to try and live the adolescence that I was “cheated out of” the first time around — with casual dating, and mooning over every new guy that comes along, and measuring “long-term committed” relationships in monthaversaries, like high schoolers “going steady,” AND being generally a hell-raiser who’s always on the lookout for opportunities to épater le bourgeois. Rebels 4ever!! Woooooo!
(C) As a demographic group, gay men are much less likely to have the burdens of fatherhood that tend to forcibly rein in the party-hardy urges of young heterosexual husbands.
(D) Finally, menz be different than wimmenz, and when men are left to their own devices without female meddling, they sometimes indulge in gross adolescent behavior, whether the men are hetero or homo. The difference is that hetero guys have to return to their womenfolk at some point, while the homos just keep egging each other on…
posted by Throbert McGee on
Following up on my previous comment to Debrah: It is to be hoped that point (B) will diminish as a factor now that more young people are coming out while still in high school, so that they have an opportunity to work through the teenage-hormone-angst bullshit as open homosexuals, in the company of their heterosexual peers.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
Your (B) and (C) at 9:17 PM are nothing short of stellar.
The average gay man has no idea—nor does he bother to imagine—the work and daily responsibilities he does not have compared to the average hetero man.
In many respects, unless he’s a high-powered David Geffen type, he lives an endless ME, ME, ME existence.
I think a lot of young people, no matter their gender or sexual orientation, delay a degree of social development in high school. Most of the time it’s for the better.
Especially if the kid has a talent or a sport in which they excel.
Many of us waited to get a little wild at university.
“The difference is that hetero guys have to return to their womenfolk at some point, while the homos just keep egging each other on…”
***************************************
Uh, I’m afraid “egging each other on” doesn’t quite cover it.
Some of those “videos” would gag a maggot……(and I’m supposed to be a very sensual little dame).
It’s difficult to understand how anyone can “get off” with such grotesque displays.
posted by TS on
Folks, I would suggest we ignore this “Debrah.” I would never so coldly suggest someone be ignored in real life, but on the internet it’s different. “Debrah” is somebody’s persona, a very melodramatic invented character. Maybe Debrah says things her puppeteer is too afraid to say, maybe her comments are simply rhetorical stink bombs lobbed into our yard for her puppeteer’s amusement. As fun, albeit stupid, as internet games are, I come to this site to read intelligent articles and responses. “Feeding the troll” refers to what happens when you give Debrah’s puppeteer what e wants: attention. You get more of the same intrusive and unfunny antics as the troll hopes for another morsel.
posted by Debrah on
“I would never so coldly suggest” that someone conveys himself to be so discomforted from his own insularity that intelligent people should ignore him, but this is quite different.
Poor, rude, and nonplussed “TS”.
Issuing, pseudonymously I might add, a call for someone to be “ignored”.
LOL!!!
“TS” will be crestfallen to learn that there are at least two or three people who show up here who have actually met me, and know what this individual has just conveyed to be an unadulterated falsehood.
Witnessing such a bumbling attempt reminds one of a story line which is a cross between the backwoods high school cheerleader “getting the word out” about the “new girl” who threatens…..and some roly-poly seasoned pitch from Pat Robertson and the religious right.
Buck up! It’s a big world out there.
But you’ll remain ignorant if you merely stay inside your insular comfort zone.
Pity, that.
posted by Jorge on
I share TS’s sentiments.
Is this posting really that boring that we have to feed the troll and not the topic? I’m appalled. She made her point. No one here agrees with her. Done!
posted by Debrah on
Jorge–
You represent Exhibit A as to why some of you guys never achieve your agenda.
A cynical person might get the impression that all some of you want to do is complain and show how many facets of the obnoxious prism you can display to the public.
And then have the gall to wonder why some might question the veracity of your objectives.
Trying to defend having a link like “Gay Tube” on a website pushing supposedly serious goals and displayed to the public at large will leave some of you twisted like a pretzel.
Caustic people like you “love your lovin’, but not like you love your freedom”.
One can be as nasty and as raunchy as one can afford to be.
How much can you afford?
Most people in society have to pay a heavy price for such choices.
Why should gay men be any different?
You totally destroy your credibility.
posted by TS on
Folks, please don’t feed the troll. (in case anyone only reads the bottom of the forum. I’d appreciate it. -TS
posted by Patrick on
“My only issue—grand as it may be—is the endless contradiction with regard to expressing sexuality.
In the straight world, raw and raunchy adolescent behavior is most often cast to the edge.
It would seem to be much more acceptable and embraced by the “respectable” in the gay world.
If this is untrue, perhaps working to bring perception and reality closer together would be a valuable quest”………
Writes the pompous “lady” with the TITS link on her web page.
posted by Debrah on
Hi Patrick!
Yes, and they’re real….as luck would have it.
Not strap-ons or pasties.
Erotica at its best.
Some of those porno video pimps might learn a thing or two.
As an esteemed NY photographer opined about that iPhoto “tits” shot—“An erotic work of art!”
Perhaps you can do something similar on this blog. Just don’t gross out the viewers with porn.
There’s a little Massachusetts…cum….New Hampshire redneck bodybuilder who is all the rage now—Scott Herman, I think is his name. Not many brains, but a very nice man it would seem.
Why not use a tasteful shot of him?
Thanks for referencing my most valued chest diamonds!
posted by Patrick on
Oh boy!!!! As long as some nameless “esteemed” NY photographer called that real (I would hope they are otherwise you deserve a refund) nasty rack with the gawd awfull, overly veiny niples “An erotic work of art” then they must be! hahahahaha! I’m soooooooooo “impressed”. Not as much, it seems, as you are though. Over all I rate them I3(too many obvious flaws) Plus you shouldn’t have to prop them up. I suppose if you didn’t, though, they would compete with your vage. O.o
posted by David Link on
All right, everyone, can we close this one down? I’ve got another post up with a completely different topic that y’all can ignore.
posted by TS on
LOL. I actually did, too.
posted by Debrah on
David–
A wise and measured man you are.
Since this is an “independently” nuanced forum, I was saddened to see a few of your very regular commenters attempt to intimidate another with invention.
Is this the usual method of operation? You must know that many come here and do not agree with what is put forth, but perhaps choose to perch in the wings.
Intelligent and open minds can usually entertainment disagreement without descending into dungeon-level rhetoric as we have seen above.
Some gay men must really hold seething hatred for heterosexual women. A bit shocking once you get beyond being embarrassed for their behavior.
If I wanted to use “body parts” and respond to such trash in kind, I think you know where things would lead. This is why most avoid such people.
There was a column some time ago in the LA Times which relayed evidence found that the brains of gay men are very similar to the brains of heterosexual women.
Such displays as the one above would provide no evidence to refute this finding, certainly. I’m guessing that “debate” is not the forté of many who show up here. Not even humor will provide a balm for ranting fishwives.
Lastly, in your leisure I would implore you to explain……very……slowly…….to your readers the vast difference between a personal and self-indulgent blog and a blog that plays host to issues that affect myriad people like this one.
Quite distinct categories.
As with erotica vs. pornography.
Perhaps then feverish detractors, who obviously need glasses, can view the world around them and respond in such a way that does not play into the most negative stereotypes of being “gay”.
posted by Throbert McGee on
@ Jorge | October 27, 2009, 8:19am
No one here agrees with [Debrah].
Kiss my chopped-liver-flavored ass, Jorge.
posted by Raycol on
David Link?s column stated ?If they [children] are prevented from learning that a prince (so inclined) can marry another prince (who is also so inclined) then they are learning that princes cannot marry other princes?. Readers may be interested in seeing ?A Gay Fairy Tale?, in which a prince does marry another prince, at http://www.gaysandslaves.org.