I have a new article in The Advocate making an argument that a lot of gay folks will disagree with. The “nut graf”:
We—gay Americans and our straight allies—have won the central argument for gay rights. As a result, we must change. Much of what the gay rights movement has taken for granted until now, and much that has worked for us in the past, is now wrong and will hurt us. The turn we now need to execute will be the hardest maneuver the movement has ever had to make, because it will require us to deliberately leave room for homophobia in American society. We need to allow some discrimination and relinquish the “zero tolerance” mind-set.
Check it out. And some of the comments frame the debate very nicely. Here’s Rob:
Does ANYBODY think for ONE SECOND that blacks, or jews, or women would shy away from standing up to people who only partially saw them as equal?! Hell no. They all have zero tolerance and relentlessly stamp out even the smallest ember of hate or bigotry.
Replies Bill:
I’m certainly all for getting equal rights as quickly as possible, but I don’t see the advantage in frightening those who tentatively support us into some sort of backlash. … Nobody likes to be threatened or bullied, and straight people are no exception. If we’re really beyond the tipping point, let’s not make the mistake of alienating those who support us with unwarranted hostility.
IMHO, this is the most important debate the gay-rights movement needs to have. What do you think?
73 Comments for “The Emerging Gay Majority”
posted by Philip on
I think what you are saying is that gay people have to get beyond the point of judging someone based on their sexual orientation and instead judge them on the content of their character.
But you need to get to where a high degree of comfort with who you are and have a community of ‘gay positive’ straight frieds to counteract the negativity you grew up with.
Only when you feel safe and know that there are many straight people that accept you as you are that you can let go of the mistrust that you feel has protected you for so many years.
I am not saying that there aren’t straight people that aren’t negative about gay people. I am saying that once you know there are many more straight people that accept you just as you are than the relatively tiny minority that don’t that you can see straight as just people; some good, some bad.
And only then can you forgive which allows you to heal and once you no longer jurt you can let go of the anger.
posted by Philip on
I always leave something off.
My above post was meant to show it’s a process and I think every oppressed group goes through similar stages.
I am also an ethnic minority. I know angry people who are angry about things that happened in their poast; decades ago.
And I know people that had much worse things done to them and they have forgiven and gotten on with their lives.
Notice I didn’t say forget. I said forgive. Their anger was eating them alive and forgiving allowed them to let go of the anger and start healing.
I think anger serves it purpose but when things get better actually starts to becomes counter-productive.
What I am saying is that it;s not only the majority that stereotypes. When things change, you need to accept the acceptance.
posted by Carl on
“The turn we now need to execute will be the hardest maneuver the movement has ever had to make, because it will require us to deliberately leave room for homophobia in American society. We need to allow some discrimination and relinquish the “zero tolerance” mind-set.”
Haven’t gays done this for years? How many times have friends or family or co-workers made quasi or blatantly homophobic remarks, and gays stayed quiet, because you don’t want to cause a scene or have people ostracize you? How many times have gays casually lied about their identity in order to avoid hostility?
This is still a common part of American life. Almost any time someone speaks up about homophobia they are likely to hear “PC” or “agenda”.
I think that all gays and lesbians should try to have moral standards and not allow themselves to fall into a lot of the trashiness of today’s life, but I think this should be done for their own well-being, not because it will make any different with ending homophobia. If anything, homophobes are even more successful at terrifying people about the idea that we want to be normal, we want to share their religion, we want to marry and have children. A lot of people out there are more comfortable tolerating what might be seen as a negative view of a gay man than they would be tolerating two married men, happy, settled, wanting to be a part of the community, raise kids, go to church.
posted by Jorge on
Paradoxical but true: We need to give our opponents the time and space they need to let us win.
For some reason, this statement made me very sad.
Our history is full of surrender terms that do this… or don’t. There are still people alive today who were segregationists. I wonder what happened to them? Can they all truly be living in the darkness of their dead ideology?
So perhaps it is well to look at the difference between goals and dreams. I think the American public has a right to know what the endgame of the gay community is.
Otherwise I agreed with almost all of the article. As for the debate, there are already hints that it is being held publicly, and that’s always a good thing. History records the great debate between W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington, a debate that still reverberates today within the black community. We have, in turn, our Mike Rogers’s and our Tammy Bruces, our HRCs and our GOProuds.
There are important eyes on each and every one of us. Best we live the change we want to see in this country.
posted by Matt on
Mr. Rauch, I respect your opinion, but I think this essay shows the effects of working and moving for too long in circles that are not reflective of the country as a whole. I think there’s a telling slip in your essay, in the second-to-last paragraph, where you write “as gays become a a majority…” I assume you mean “As gays and our allies,” but were simply addled by too much time in D.C. and Manhattan. Even then, I don’t buy it.
You seem to have seized on that Gallup poll data point because it allows you to make the case you want to make anyway. But it’s a pretty weak one to pick. There have been a couple of polls which have purportedly shown that a majority of Americans support gay marriage; do you believe them? I don’t. What’s actually happened when people have voted, or when the prospect of things actually changing has occurred? Never mind California and Maine – what about the crushing margins of of anti-gay state constitutional amendments? What about the fact that even now we can’t seem to get DADT repealed?
Maybe ten years from now, your piece will accurately reflect where we are. But right now, it’s a bit much. It reminds me of the argument that gets made that pursuing gay marriage through the courts at all is a bad strategy. Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy has written what I think is a convincing argument that the court strategy for equal marriage rights has been, on net, a winner. Link: http://volokh.com/posts/1226989317.shtml
This strategy, where we “let” the other side “let us win,” counts on inertia carrying us over the threshold. But right now we do not have equality, except in a few parts of the country. You may like the way things are in those parts right now, but your strategy will result in the rest of the country being left behind.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Mr Rausch, tossing your arms in the air and simultaneously declaring victory and surrender seems like a fool’s response to the vast work that remains on gay civil rights.
In many states, we still can’t adopt openly as a couple. In many states, we can’t enjoy the fruits of marriage. In many states, we can’t even hold hands in public outside the safety of our gay ghetto without fear of public humiliation and physical threat. We still are failing our gay youth and providing them a safe, welcoming environment –and, no, I don’t mean welcoming in the kind of “Twink Days” are half-off at the local strip bar.
I think the single biggest issue before our community today is for gays to examine if the gay-Democrat-liberal alliance has helped or hurt us and if placing all our eggs in leaders from that political spectrum really serves the gay community as well as the gay leaders’ press releases tell us.
Nope, tossing up your arms and yelling surrender and victory at the same time isn’t the biggest issue –it isn’t even the “next” issue.
What we ought to be doing is asking the question if, for instance, DADT repeal is even an issue we ought to be dealing with… is gay marriage by any means the only way to achieve parity… are there other, more pressing issues for gays to advance.
Get out a bit more, Mr Rausch. Your elite lifestyle is skewing an accurate perception of what matters to real gays living a real life. Unlimited pink cosmo 3-for-1’s at the local Democrat Party fundraiser isn’t reality for most gays. You need to get out more.
posted by BobN on
What do you think?
Well, I almost skipped reading the thing when I hit the second sentence:
Rauch is, as usual, attacking a caricature of the gay-rights movement. The real “much” of what we have done is normal political activity, supporting candidates, advancing laws, etc. I hardly think we need to give that up.
If he’s talking about boycotts, I think we should stop our as soon as the “pro-family” groups dismantle their extremely broad boycott networks. Our piddling boycotts are nothing compared to theirs.
And I’ll make room for homophobia in society as soon as society makes room for racial discrimination and religious bias. I actually mean that. If the Catholic Church wants to be able to fire gay employees like gardeners, for example, I say fine. We just change the laws so they can also fire Jewish gardeners. If they want to extend “religious freedom” like that to the individual business owner, then I, should I choose, should have the right to fire an evangelical Christian.
America has answered all these questions for other minorities. I see no need for us to give in if they don’t.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
With pleasure.
And now that you’ve admitted that you’re an antireligious bigot who will fire someone for no better reason than their religious beliefs, you should be allowed to be publicly attacked and smeared as such.
posted by Bucky on
Actually, NDT, BobN didn’t say that he WOULD fire an evangelical Christian. Just that he should have the right to do so if evangelical Christians have a legal right to fire him for being gay.
He didn’t “admit that [he was] an antireligious bigot.”
You just showed us all what a fool you are.
And now we can pubicly attack and smear you as such.
Yee Ha!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, but you see, Bucky, BobN has stated that anyone who opposes nondiscrimination laws does so because they want to discriminate.
When BobN and the gay and lesbian community state that it is perfectly acceptable to oppose nondiscrimination laws and that doing so dies not automatically make you a bigot, then your logic would stand. But since he has stated that opposing nondiscrimination laws makes you a bigot, he can have his own logic applied.
posted by Jorge on
And I’ll make room for homophobia in society as soon as society makes room for racial discrimination and religious bias.
1) Might not be a bad idea. I get a little sick of the special treatment wars myself.
2) There is a difference between homosexuality and blackness. Also between homosexuality and Quakerism. You won’t find any intrinsic rights on the basis of sexual orientation anywhere in the Constitution. With the exception of a limited political movement, there is no grand tradition proclaiming gay and straight people equal. no constitutional amendments or wars on our behalf. It’s all “and me too!” activism. Therefore what you are calling for is either hollow, or something that will require a revolution. Try to start one.
posted by Bucky on
Jorge:
“You won’t find any intrinsic rights on the basis of sexual orientation anywhere in the Constitution.”
Kinda right … but not at all.
Last time I checked, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (the two founding doucuments of our nation) didn’t mention faggots at all. It wasn’t “all men are created equal except homos and darkies.” Only black people were singled out. We queer folk got a complete pass. As long as we were white male propery owners, we were IN! So while they didn’t single us out specifically, they also didn’t single out the Irish or Italians or Spanish or French. Just white male property owners.
Everyone else could suck it.
And then we had the Civil War and the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th require that all states requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people.
That’s ALL PEOPLE. Not all people except for cocksuckers and taco munchers. ALL PEOPLE. The writers of that amendment didn’t specify which people. They specified ALL people.
Yes they were most likely thinking about black people at the time. But they had the wisdom to write a Constitution amendment that was broad enough to cover ALL people.
So screw you with your “no intrinsic rights in the Constitution.”
And for the record, homos have been fighting for this country from the very beginning. We have spilled our queer blood for this country. We helped start a revolution way back when and win a Civil War all those years ago, and protected our fellow citizens in every conflict since this country was founded.
You ass.
On one final note, you are right when you say there is a difference between homosexuality and Quakerism. One chooses to be a Quaker. One doesn’t choose to be homosexual. Of all the legally and constitutionally protected classes, religion is the only one that is actually a choice. (Okay, a person’s sex is these days a choice to some degree.)
posted by Jorge on
Kinda right … but not at all.
Thank you. I am well aware of it.
But you had to go and mention the 14th Amendment and prove my point: only in the 14th Amendment do we receive any acknowledgement or protection, and it’s implicit, not explicit like for blacks and women.
Given the absolute power of the 14th Amendment, you might win your point that everyone is equal legally (I know a weak argument when I make one). But culturally, morally, no dice, no precedent. And that’s why we are getting backlashes like the movement to remove citizenship for the children of illegal aliens (based on the 14th Amendment) and the marriage backlash.
Idiot.
One chooses to be a Quaker. One doesn’t choose to be homosexual.
Oh, I don’t agree with that at all. Homosexuality is a label like any other. Either you accept it or you reject it, and you choose to live your life as you will. And just as people are born gay and one cannot choose who one is attracted to, people tend to be born into and raised a certain religion. I doubt one can choose whether or not he actually hears and feels the presence of God in his life, and how he feels it. It’s just people can be educated that homosexuality and God exist, and either acknowledge or deny them.
A rather bare bones treatment of the religion question, but I’ll stand by it. The strongest rebuttal–that religions teach certain moral precepts that one can affirm or reject–also applies very strongly to an acknowledgement of one’s homosexuality.
posted by BobN on
Try to start one.
No way. I’m not starting it. I think it’s a bad idea. I just think that if THEY are going to argue that we be treated unequally, it should go both ways.
They’ve already started that particular revolution. Look at cases like the Christian Legal Society. It’s all about group rights over individual religious liberty.
posted by AndrewW on
Maybe, as a community, we are finally getting to the point of not romanticizing being a “minority” and actually want to create a majority. Two-thirds of America will support our equality if we stop being the victim and start being the victor.
If we want to WIN, we should educate, enlighten and enroll our fellow citizens. If we want to “fight,” they we just continue to alienate our supporters. Demanding is over. Asking works.
posted by Carl on
The biggest problem is a lot of people may not hate us but they don’t care very much either. That means they will be fine with voting for anti-gay legislation, or voting in politicians who are virulently homophobic.
posted by Bucky on
I can appreciate Rauch’s point of view. And agree with it to a point.
Personally, I have long since given up trying to change the mind of every last bigot. Hate me if you want. No matter.
What I demand, however, is equality before the LAW.
And I loved BobN’s point that we will be happy to make way for legalized homophobia if they are willing to legalize my desire to have nothing to do with evangelical Christians.
Mr. Rauch, two thoughts for you on your original article. It is easy for you to talk about the gay rights movement having achieved its goal now because a majority of people are supportive. But then you live on one of the liberal coasts. Easy when you live in DC or NY or Boston or LA to think that gays have already achieved most of what they want. Move to Oklahoma or Texas or Alabama. You’ll soon be singing a different song.
The other thing is that in your original article you speak of a pastry shop kerfuluffle and say that it shouldn’t have happened. The problem, to my thinking, is that the shop was leasing property from the CITY GOVERNMENT. If it had be private property, I would completely agree with you. But it wasn’t. If my tax dollars are going to support this pastry shop, then they need to follow antidiscrimination laws that apply to everyone else.
If you want to suckle at the taxpayer teat, then you must understand that you don’t get to make your own rules. If that bothers you, then get the fuck out and make it on your own.
posted by Carl on
There are also comments in the article from people who live in Indianapolis who said the city didn’t have a police liaison for gays or anything along those lines until they complained about the bakery.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Good. Then, since gay and lesbian people openly support and advocate antireligious bigotry, gay and lesbian centers should not be taxpayer-funded and should be closed.
In addition, any gay and lesbian center who entertains political candidates or in any way is involved in a political campaign should be stripped of its tax-exempt status and kicked off city property.
Want to play that game? How long do you think gay and lesbian centers would be able to survive without “suckling at the taxpayer teat”?
posted by Bucky on
I’d love to play that game, NDT.
LOVE.
Did I mention how much I would LOVE to play your little game?
Churches are the ones that suckle the cream from the taxpayer teat, NDT.
The number of gay and lesbian center that actually exist, much less take government funding or are using government property is terribly SMALL.
Fucking minuscule by comparison, NDT.
But it we are going to strip all those GLBT centers of their tax exempt status for political activism (and I think we should if they are politically active), then we have to do the same for all those Christian churches. And Jewish Synagogs. And Muslim mosques. And so forth.
Every last hateful one, NDT.
Let’s strip all of those churches from their tax exempt status that openly advocate for political campaigns. That’s actually the law. That number is fucking HUGE. Most every evangelical church would lose their tax exempt status. Every Catholic church would. EVERY ONE. Every last Catholic church would suddenly become a taxable entity. Woo Hoo. Those fuckers are worth a few hundred billion at a minimum just here in the US alone. Same for the Baptists of every stripe. And Methodists. And all those far right sects like Liberty University and Oral Roberts U.
I’d LOVE that, NDT.
LOVE, LOVE, LOVE.
I’m getting hard just thinking about it!
You just made the best suggestion I’ve heard in ages and ages.
My taxes would be reduced substantially if all those fucking freeloading churches had to start paying taxes. All those churches that worked for the Republican party.
Make them pay!
So let’s play your little game.
How long do you think that all those churches would be able to survive if they weren’t exempt from income and property taxes?
Not long, I’ll tell you.
The number of politically involved churches here in Texas far outweigh the small handful of gay/lesbian centers. The number of gay/lesbian centers can be counted on ten fingers. The number of churches breaking the law numbers in the tens of thousands, NDT.
I’ll play that game. I’ll make that trade with you.
If every church in this country had to pay appropriate taxes on income and property, every state would immediately solve their budget crisis.
If every gay/lesbian center did the same, well …. a few dozen gay and lesbian centers would no longer exist. And a few cities might be able to hire another part-time clerk.
So yeah, I’ll play your game.
Do you still want to play?
Really?
Wanna?
I have no doubt that the gay community could find the funds to keep those few gay/lesbian center open. Do you really think that Christians could find the cash to keep a few hundred thousand churches open?
Doubtful.
But let’s play.
Please! Can we? I wanna play your little game. PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
posted by Jimmy on
Oh Bucky, I think I love you.
posted by Bucky on
I think I might love you a little bit too, Jimmy.
hee-hee
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And thus falls the bigot into the trap.
Churches share tax-exempt status with other nonprofit entities.
What the bigot Bucky is advocating is stripping nonprofit entities of their tax-exempt status based solely on their religious beliefs while allowing other nonprofit entities to engage in political activity and keep their tax-exempt and taxpayer-subsidized status.
Yesterday’s mail brought just such an item; a holiday newsletter from a LGBT nonprofit proudly including pictures of politicians, talking about how it was working with City Hall and Sacramento, asking for more money since the amount it was getting from both places was being cut, and reminding me that donations to it were tax-exempt.
Now you can demand that it be stripped of its tax exemption, or make a fool of yourself and demonstrate the double standard held by you and your fellow antireligious bigots.
posted by Bucky on
I must be doing something right, NDT, if your agrument is reduced to calling me names. Yippee!
For the record, NDT, I never advocated “stripping nonprofit entities of their tax-exempt status based solely on their religious beliefs.” I have said nothing of the sort. I favor stripping religious institutions of their government granted tax-exempt status IF and only if they violate the law by campaigning for any particular candidate or political party or political issue (such as Prop 8 in CA).
The religious bigots can bang their pulpits every day about the evils of homosexuality or whatever they want and that is perfectly legal and fine by me. But the minute they stand up there and tell their faithful to vote for a particular candidate because she hates the homos as much as they do they are in violation of the law and should lose their tax exempt status.
NOT because of their religious beliefs, NDT, but because THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. If their religious beliefs require them to break the law … then they need to be prepared to pay the price just like everyone else who breaks the law. Render unto Caesar and all of that.
And yes, I am more than happy to apply the same strict rules to any and every nonprofit. Yes, perhaps a few LGBT organizations would lose their non-profit status. But only a few. Because you see, NDT, there are ONLY a few LGBT organizations.
Once again, I’ll try to type this slowly so you might be able to understand what I am saying …
Strict enforcement of the tax-exempt status laws — WHICH I FAVOR — would prove a small burden on LGBT organizations but would be an HUGE burden on religious organizations. No Catholic, Mormon or Baptist church would be able to retain their tax-exempt status.
Which would, I admit, please me no end.
Not because I am some anti-religious bigot, but because these organizations have been breaking the law for decades and I am conservative enough to believe that everyone should obey the law or face the consequences.
Is that clear enough for you?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now let’s test this theory.
Bucky, please state that Equality California, which is a nonprofit that advocates for specific issues and tells people how to vote, should be stripped of its nonprofit status.
Please also state the same for HRC, NGLTF, and GLAAD, all of which are currently in violation of your new prohibition on any political advocacy or interaction whatsoever by nonprofits.
posted by Bucky on
Ohhhh, a schoolyard taunt!
Say what I want you to say or else … !!!
I’m all aquiver.
North Dallas Thirty. Is 30 your age or your IQ?
I can’t say if Equality California or HRC or NGTLF or GLAAD should be stripped of their non-profit status. To be honest, I don’t know enough about any of those organizations to make a judgment call.
I am most familiar with HRC and honestly, I’ve never known them to take a stand on anything except the perpetuation of their own existence. Most useless organization ever.
For the record, there are, in fact, a couple of dozen different sections of the tax code that deal with non-profits and their tax exempt status. Each section has different requirement regarding political involvement.
Also, you seem to accuse GLBT organizations for being “advocates for specific issues.” Duh, NDT. That is the entire point of establishing a non-profit. You are advocating for something. Cancer Research. Children’s Health. Drunk Driving. Whales. Fur. Guns. Abortion.
Whatever. The entire point of a non-profit is to advocate for something.
And the rules for political advocacy are different for different non-profits depending on how they are organized.
Churches fall under the 501(c)(3) rules which do not allow those organizations to advocate for any specific candidate or group of candidates (political party) or specific legislation.
So a 501(c)(3) organization, such as a Church, can advocate for a specific issue as much as they want. They can preach an anti-abortion message. What they can’t do is say that people should vote for candidate X because he is anti-abortion. They can’t tell people to vote against Proposition Y because it promotes their anti-abortion message. That crosses the line and illegal.
The 501(c)(3) designation does not allow for any specific political advocacy. Most churches have crossed this line.
Other non-profit statutes allow for some level of specific political advocacy. If you’ve actually made more that a few charitable donations, you know that sometimes your donation is tax deductible and sometimes not. For many organizations, part of their outreach is tax deductible and part isn’t.
So I don’t know enough about the status of the organizations you mentioned to be able to say that they should or should not keep their tax-exempt status. I don’t know that they even have tax-exempt status.
Sorry, but not going to take the bait.
I’ve stated my position very clearly: every non-profit organization should follow the law or they should lose their tax-exempt status. Far too many churches are breaking the law.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sorry, but not going to take the bait.
Actually, you already did, since you’ve made it patently obvious that you refuse to apply the same rules of evaluation to LGBT nonprofits and political activism as you do to others.
Which really is the point of this whole post. You are a bully and a bigot, and your ranting against churches make it clear that your antireligious bigotry and hate are an essential part of your gay and lesbian identity.
Furthermore, please state for the record that churches that spoke out against Proposition 8 or such things should also be stripped of their tax-exempt status — or demonstrate even more completely your hypocrisy in saying that these churches, which by your own definition broke the law, should not be punished.
Gays and lesbians like yourself, Bucky, demonstrate more and more why DADT, DOMA, and other laws are necessary. You simply are not capable of applying laws equally or fairly, and should be treated as a second-class citizen and a bigot. No gay and lesbian person like yourself is fit to serve as a judge; you would refuse to enforce the law against gay and lesbian people and would illegally punish people based on your hatred toward their religious beliefs.
posted by Bucky on
Sorry, NDT, but I didn’t realize I was dealing with crazy fucking insane.
Thanks for playing along, but in future I’ll know better.
Ciao.
posted by Bucky on
Oh, and for the record, NDT, “gay and lesbian people” advocating antireligious bigotry is NOT the same as an tax-exempt gay/lesbian entity advocating antireligious bigotry.
Random people can’t be associated with a specific entity without actual facts except in your small enfeebled mind.
Should we hold the Teabagger Party responsible for every instance of a crazy Teabagger making some death threat toward the President? (NSC/Feds: I wasn’t making a threat, just using such a threat as an example. Please don’t break into my home in the middle of the night.)
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bucky, I wonder why it is that so many gayLefties have an insatiable need to turn almost every argument into some sort of anti-religion, anti-God, anti-Christian attack piece.
We saw it in the Prop 8 bigotry by gayLefties against the Mormons and Catholics. We see it repeatedly in states where the pro-marriage advocates try to protect the institution from impeachment by gays.
I wonder if being an atheist is a condition for being a gayLeftie in America these days? It sure seems to be a trend in gay blog commentaries.
Whatever turned you so far away from God’s loving grace to hate Her so much now?
posted by Jimmy on
“We saw it in the Prop 8 bigotry by gayLefties against the Mormons and Catholics.”
You mean Mormons and Catholics who, in bigoted fashion, maligned us in a cynical effort to deny us our full equality?
“We see it repeatedly in states where the pro-marriage advocates try to protect the institution from impeachment by gays.”
What “impeachment”? The fight for marriage equality is inherently “pro-marriage”. Your statement could only come from someone who truly feels he is a second class citizen.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You mean Mormons and Catholics who, in bigoted fashion, maligned us in a cynical effort to deny us our full equality?
By doing what?
Pointing out that you dress children as sexual slaves and take them to sex fairs for an “educational experience”?
The fact that you consider it normal to sexually exploit children is the problem, Jimmy, not the fact that people pointed it out.
posted by Jimmy on
I don’t have any children to dress up as anything.
Someone who thinks he’s no different from child molesters and practitioners of bestiality shouldn’t throw stones.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jimmy, like with the so-called “racists” uncovered by the farLeft watchers of the Tea Party Movement, I literally watched gay religious bigots on sites like Box Cutter Turtle and others promote stalking and harassment of citizens who contributed money to promote traditional marriage amendments on the ballots… sharing Google maps of homeowners, talking about the best way to gain entry into a gated home, which roads to use to place anonymous yard signs specifically calling out the names of the contributors the gay bigots wished to intimidate, etc.
Oh yeah, engaging in the political process and contributing to a ballot drive is the equivalence of political intimidation and harassment.
Gheeesh. Bigot protector.
posted by Jimmy on
“promote stalking and harassment of citizens who contributed money to promote traditional marriage amendments on the ballots… sharing Google maps of homeowners, talking about the best way to gain entry into a gated home, which roads to use to place anonymous yard signs specifically calling out the names of the contributors the gay bigots wished to intimidate, etc.
Gheeesh. Bigot protector.”
Meh. All that amounts to simple venting.
But, fundamentalist, conservative Christians, overachievers that they are, actually go ahead and show up at military funerals, to the profound dismay of the mourners, in order to spew their rabid homophobia by harassing those who grieve for their loved one who gave their all for the nation. Some of those mourned were gay, no doubt.
Right-wing fascists are always better at bringing the ugly.
posted by PIL on
I’m very worried about the gay community, especially how the focus is no longer on freedom but on censorship. Read this article:
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/07/Tom_Brokaw_on_Covering_Antigay_Viewpoints/
And then read the comments, is there anyone supporting free speech? America doesn’t trust the liberal media BECAUSE they don’t cover “unpopular” or politically incorrect viewpoints. Yet some gays are advocating for an MSNBC-type of news reporting where the anchors tell you how to think instead of debating a variety of voices like they do on Fox News.
I admit that among some people on the right there is a type of “conservative-correctness” that would love to degay every TV station, get rid of sex education, end abortion, and promote the white-picket fence Leave it to Beaver lifestyle I abhor. But, the progressive alternative isn’t any better, and I’m afraid the gay community is embracing the progressives nuts too much.
posted by AndrewW on
MSNBC is preaching to the choir, just like FoxNews. Don’t look to the media for honest, objective news – look to each other.
posted by Carl on
I haven’t seen any TV networks clamoring to censor anti-gay viewpoints. If anything I have seen the opposite. ABC, CNN, among others, are more than happy to push anti-gay stuff to get attention.
The problem is that the media is conditioned to think anything which does not pander to social conservatives = bias.
posted by Bucky on
PIL, if you think there is anything even approaching a “liberal media” then you aren’t paying any attention.
You’ve been listening to too much Rush and Glenn.
Shame.
posted by Jimmy on
And with Comcast as the new owner of NBC, many wonder what that bodes for the editorial policy at MSNBC. Since Fox owns the right wing market share in cable news, some think MSNBC will move more to the left, appealing to an under served liberal audience.
At any rate, all MSM is corporate owned and that should be enough reason not to trust it implicitly.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Ah yes… no such thing as the liberal MSM… I guess NPR didn’t fire Juan Williams for his illiberal comments about terrorist Muslims afterall?
If you think the MSM isn’t overwhelmingly biased in favor of liberal and farLeft perspectives, you must be far, far, far to the Left of NancyP… hopefully that means you’re in the Pacific Ocean, too.
No such thing as the liberal MSM? LOL. Gosh, that’s a crack-a-lacking joke!
posted by Bucky on
Double M.
No, I don’t think that the MSM is overwhelmingly biased in favor of “liberal and farLeft (sic) perspectives.”
Apparently you wish this I was already dead from drowning. WOW.
I disagree with your opinions, but I don’t wish you were dead.
How fucking sick is that, MM?
Sick and sad.
Sad that you wish anyone who disagrees with you was just dead.
Please seek help.
As to the issue of a “farLeft” liberal MSM, is Juan Williams and NPR the best you can do? You do realize, don’t you, that Mr. Williams was a commentator for NPR and Fox News at the same time? You do realize that Mr. Williams spent much of his time on Fox bashing NPR? You do realize that Mr. Williams is a fucking bigot?
So I’m not sure how NPR firing Mr. Williams makes them part of the farLeft liberal media overlords.
Is that the best you’ve got?
Let’s stop for a minute and think. Fox News is the number one news outlet. Are you really trying to tell me that Fox News is LIBERAL?
WTF, Double M?
Have you actually watched any other news outlets but Fox lately? None of them are promoting a progressive agenda. Unless you think that questioning Obama’s birth is somehow part of the progressive agenda?
All of the major news outlets are owned by big business. And big business is CONSERVATIVE. And when I say conservative, I mean Republican.
And all of the news outlets kowtow to their corporate masters.
There is not such thing as a liberal MSM, MM. And it isn’t a joke. It is a sad reality. There is a reason that the Republicans did away with the Fairness Doctrine years ago.
And even though you wish I was dead and floating drowned in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, I don’t wish that for you. I don’t want you dead, the way you want me dead. I just wish you were even a little bit intelligent and somewhat marginally informed.
Is that too much to ask?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Bucky, I think the drama queen aspect you’ve been embracing is a tad beyond overdrive, bubba. I’m not sick, but to play the game you’d like to play suggests that you’re either about 7 yrs old emotionally or so immature you shouldn’t be commenting on any adult blog.
If one agrees with your political posturing, they’d have to be to the farLeft of NancyP… and there is no “farLeft” for anyone next to NancyP because she’s as farLeft as you can go in America and not be a communist.
Immature and childish. You nailed both traits in a single thread, Bucky.
posted by Jimmy on
Liberals were appalled, and still haven’t forgotten, how MSNBC supported the war in Iraq. Own by GE, one of the largest corporate welfare whores out there, MSNBC was part of the pro-war propaganda machine.
posted by JohnF on
First of all I don’t think there is a gay majority in America. Because it takes heterosexual coupling to create a human being. Now even if a gay couple creates life, there is no predetermined outcome of the sexual persuasion of there offspring. I have not read or heard of any study’s yet that have found the gay gene. I’m sure somebody on this blog knows more about the scientific findings of the bioligcal differences of homosexuality and heterosexuality than I do. But from what I have read and gathered from my own experiances is that being gay is not a personal lifestyle choice. Your are just born that way. So maybe I have taken the title of this article to literly or was the author trying to say there is a majority of Americans that support gay rights? By the way I do support gay rights. Oh please excuse my spelling also.
posted by John Howard on
Hmmm, is someone preparing himself to accept The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise??
Such a dramatic move (rolling back all same-sex marriages to civil unions, in exchange for federal recognition and recognition in many more states, based on the agreement that same-sex procreation is currently unsafe and is a right of marriage) more would indeed allow time for people to get used to gay people’s existence in everyday life. It would make life much better for gay people everywhere, and allow people who want to protect marriage to stop worrying and not see gays as a threat.
Meanwhile, it would allow Congress to consider the issue of same-sex procreation and procreation from stem cells and other technologies apart from the issue of gay rights (though gay marriage would certainly be central to that debate again, but at least this time it would be a rational discussion). If Congress decides someday that gay procreation ought to be allowed, then the CU’s would become marriages. Or, if it becomes clear that it would never be ethical or possible, then at least we’ve gotten all the other protections to same-sex couples already, without harming marriage.
This will be a tough turn to make, but it will be much better for everyone. Time to put the sci-fi fantasy of same-sex procreation out of your heads and settle in to reality.
posted by jimmy on
“Time to put the sci-fi fantasy of same-sex procreation out of your heads and settle in to reality.”
You first.
posted by John Howard on
I already think it is ridiculous fantasy and should be declared officially Not Gonna Happen, and prohibited with a federal law.
Now it’s your turn to admit that, and agree that it should be prohibited. Otherwise, you’re still clinging to the fantasy, and harming lots of people in the process.
posted by Jimmy on
Chirruns ain’t got nothing to do with any of my fantasies, fella.
posted by Bucky on
Jimmy, I’m pretty new to this forum, but I’ve just got to ask, are these people like NDT and John H and Jorge serious? Or are they just fucking around?
The fantasy of same sex procreation? Where the fuck did that strangeness come from? First I’ve ever heard of it.
It is hard to have a debate with people who just keep pulling things out of their ass.
But I really don’t think these guys are real.
It is usually like this?
posted by John Howard on
Bucky, here’s a recent story about same-sex procreation, but there have been similar stories reported every year or so.
WSJ.com – Researchers Create Mice From Two Fathers http://on.wsj.com/foKRDb
posted by Jimmy on
Bucky, JH desperately wants to be legitimized by having Jonathan Rauch acknowledge his “movement”. The other two, I got nothin’.
posted by Bucky on
John, gay marriage doesn’t actually “harm” marriage.
You do realize that, don’t you?
posted by Jimmy on
I’m from a big family, and Lord knows I’ve been to a couple weddings. I find that there’s practically nothing said about children in most every exchanging of vows I have ever heard. The whole thing is about the two becoming one, for whatever reason. It’s about a commitment to each other, for richer or poorer, in sickness or in heath, forsaking all others, fa la la la.
Now, when the little bugger is incognito behind the bouquet, well….
posted by John Howard on
Jimmy, that’s great, it sounds like Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus procreation rights” would be perfect for you. Everyone could still refer to it as marriage, you’d still have a wedding, commitment, fa la la, but technically, back at the city hall, the document would say “Civil Union” on it, and you wouldn’t be allowed to conceive offspring together. Some people do demand to make chirruns however they want, with someone of the same sex, so they’d be disappointed with these Civil Unions, they’d still want to be arguing for marriage. But meanwhile, you would have everything you need.
posted by Jimmy on
Oh well, since I’m down this rabbit hole again….
“Some people do demand to make chirruns however they want, with someone of the same sex, ”
Who? I vant names.
posted by John Howard on
Yeah, it does harm marriage, because it either strips procreation rights from marriage, or allows genetic modification, which also harms marriage. Marriage should protect the right to use each person’s unmodified gametes to procreate.
posted by Bucky on
John, I think you have a very twisted and sad view of what marriage is. But regardless, same sex marriage doesn’t “strip procreation rights from marriage” any more than my 70 year old mother getting married does.
posted by John Howard on
Bucky, same-sex marriage would strip procreation rights from marriage if same-sex couples are prohibited from procreating together, which they would be by an egg and sperm law, which is also needed to preserve everyone’s equal reproductive rights.
There is no age limit to procreation rights, even 90 year olds are allowed to have sex and are not prohibited from procreating together.
posted by Bucky on
John, get a grip.
Genetic engineering and marriage are two very different and unrelated things. People don’t need to be married to participate in some strange genetic engineering experiment.
posted by John Howard on
They’re related because marriage always approves and allows the couple to produce offspring together. We shouldn’t do that for same-sex couples, we should continue to do that for married couples.
But you are right – the thing that would stop genetic engineering experiments would be a law banning genetic engineering experiments. Withholding marriage won’t accomplish that as long as we allow labs to create people from unmarried couple’s gametes. Ideally, we’d ban intentional unmarried procreation, and also same-sex marriage, but that’d be harder because unmarried procreation is rather entrenched these days and it would take away something that is currently allowed. My proposal wouldn’t take away anything that people are currently doing, in order to be more acceptable.
posted by Bucky on
John, you seem to have a very Catholic — and to me disturbing — view of what marriage is all about.
I really don’t understand your total hatred for SSM. But to each his own. I always say that if you don’t approve of same sex marriage, then don’t fucking have one. Just please leave me alone to practice my religion and live my morals and I will do the same to you.
I am having a HUGE laugh at your notion that we could ban unmarried procreation. Dude if you think we can stop that then you have a very, very limited understanding of both history and human nature.
posted by John Howard on
Bucky, I certainly will leave you alone to live your life, and I’ve proposed the fastest and most uniform way to set you up with all the benefits and protections and legal recognition as a couple that you deserve, which I advocate that you deserve to people who don’t think you deserve, which are, all the rights of marriage but the right to try to create offspring with your partner.
That isn’t just your business, it would bring to life new people who deserve society’s protection, and it would effect government and taxes and energy consumption and everyone’s equal reproductive rights.
posted by John Howard on
Oh, and I agree that trying to stop unmarried procreation is not likely to happen, that’s why I said we need to stop same-sex procreation with the less elegant method of an egg and sperm law that directly bans conceiving people by any method other than joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman.
posted by Jorge on
I’ve never been so happy to see John Howard enter a topic. Bring some sanity to this savage war, please! Let’s compromise with some hot, sperm and egg anger sex.
Oh, wait, we’re all men.
We have seen conclusively that the more militant, in your face wing is going to remain in some way, shape or form. The question is, how much control will they have? And what’s going to happen with either side in control? I wonder if there will be any unified leadership or voice at all?
Those loud movements come and go very easily and will always be around. It’s the moderate wing that really needs to be strong and enduring… I assume that means long-established groups like the Stonewall Democrats (about whom I’ve heard nothing even approaching Stonewall in years) and the HRC. They have an even more important role to play now that we also have powerful conservative voices.
posted by John Howard on
I think we can identify the more militant, in-your-face wing now as the Transhumanists, they might not even all be gay, but they’re all more interested in securing the right to procreate with genetically engineered genes than they are in getting protections to gay couples across the country, or federal recognition to gay couples in the SSM states.
posted by Throbert McGee on
posted by John Howard on
Hey, can Transhumanists can eat shit? That’d seem like a super life extension ability. Maybe they can even make it taste good.
posted by Bucky on
My religion tells me that all IVF should be illegal. If you aren’t able to conceive the way that God clearly intended — good old fashioned fucking in the missionary position — then clearly God does not favor you and does not want you to have children.
All this mucking about with microscopes and gametes and such is just humanity’s ego driven desire to play God. And that is wrong.
And once you start playing around with human eggs and sperm to create life, it is a short and very slippery slope to human-buffalo hybrids, soilent green, and women getting the vote.
If you find that you are infertile and still desire children (against God’s obvious plan for you, otherwise he would have blessed you with children) then you can follow the tried and true methods that God provided in the Bible.
Take a second or third or fourth wife (can one have too many?). Or better yet, a concubine! Preferably a slave concubine, naturally. I hear that you can buy some cheap slave girls from Asia these days. Certainly for far less money that you would spend on that immoral IVF.
Or, if you have a particularly comely neighbor, just pull a David and have her husband killed so that you can have her for yourself. With so many unemployed these days, I can’t imagine that it would cost that much at all to hire someone to do the deed for you.
So I am with John on this. Egg and sperm via vaginal intercourse is the only godly and moral way to have a child. Anything else is against God’s will.
And we don’t want to make God angry.
posted by Jorge on
Now, now, Bucky, we have a forgiving God, and the last person He spoke to died hundreds or thousands of years ago, depending on how you interpret miracles. And we’re blessed with a prosperous and populous nation, too. I’m sure we can piece things together fairly well on our own if God hasn’t seen fit to correct us lately.
And if not, well, at least we’ll get to heaven a little ahead of David.
posted by jimmy on
If Sunday School were like this, I would have gone more.
posted by Bucky on
Jorge, I don’t know what kind of new age feel good hippy god you falsely worship, but the One True God, the God that I worship is not at all forgiving.
The real God is one crazy ass fucker and you never know what is going to set him off. Have sex with your father? No problem. Look over your shoulder, however and you are toast, er, well salt actually.
God, the real one, is angry and capricious and you never know what kind of shit He is going to do. Keeps everyone on their toes.
I am glad to hear you admit that you haven’t heard from your pretend god in a few hundred/thousand years. That is how you know your “forgiving” hippy god is just pretend. If he was real, he’d be talking to you and throwing down his anger from on high in the clouds every day.
I hear from my God all the damn time. Remember Katrina? Don’t you know that was retribution to New Orleans for all those homos? Global financial meltdown? God is mad that we all spend too much money on porn! And that huge tsunami that killed a few hundred thousand innocent people somewhere on the other side of the planet where everyone is dark? Well … not sure what that was for, but God was sending a message. Of some sort. Or maybe He was just having a crappy day.
You never can tell.
Anyway. God is not forgiving, he is pissed off most of the time. He seriously loves to do that whole smite thing. And he speaks to me. Every day. He tells me how everyone else needs to live their lives. He gives me the divine moral directives we all need to follow. And he tells me that it is my responsibility to spread the word about Him and make everyone live according to His moral dictates that only I know.
So all of you bitches need to listen up and believe exactly what I believe and live your lives exactly as I say because I KNOW what God wants.
And you don’t.
M’kay?
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, I don’t know what kind of new age feel good hippy god you falsely worship, but the One True God, the God that I worship is not at all forgiving.
Oooh, channelling the spirit of Xena: Warrior Princess, Bucky waxes poetic about the One True God, ai-yi-yi-yi-yi!
I am glad to hear you admit that you haven’t heard from your pretend god in a few hundred/thousand years.
Oops. You got me. Bluff destroyed. The last time I heard God’s voice was about two weeks ago. We were talking about Eleanor Roosevelt.
So all of you bitches need to listen up and believe exactly what I believe and live your lives exactly as I say because I KNOW what God wants.
And you don’t.
What would your God say if you took a bite out of this forbidden fruit?
*Smooch!*