'Big Tobacco' vs. 'Big Sodomy': Well, both do involve butts
In 1989, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen released a gay rights book called After the Ball. In it, the two detailed pragmatic approaches to obtaining societal acceptance for LGBT individuals, which they predicted was inevitably in the cards for the United States. Using their joint advertising and psychology backgrounds, the duo proposed ways that the gay community could correct the damaging stereotypes and long-standing biases that plagued gay America at the time, and still, to a large degree, plague gay America today. It was an attempt by two men to fight for what they believed in, with them hoping to change the world for (their version of the) better in the process. That is, after all, what many a writer sets out to do.
Now, there are two facts this writer must tell you about this book before continuing:
(1) The religious right routinely cites it as a guidebook for the "gay agenda." They act as if Kirk and Madsen distributed their copy to each and every gay man and woman, and we have all been using it as a queer Bible for the past 28 years.
(2) I, while an unapologetically gay-affirming, rights-fighting, marriage-craving, man-loving gay activist, has never even cracked open the literary work. Everything I just told you about the book is secondhand knowledge.
However, despite my lack of personal familiarity with the tome, I staunchly support gay acceptance in every way, shape, and hate crimes law. That's because it doesn't take outside guidance or an "agenda" to make one a supporter of LGBT equality; it simply takes a reasoned consideration of the actuality of the world. Even when I was a scared, closeted young man, I still fully supported gay rights, despite being surrounded by a majority of folks who did not. It only took my own life experiences, studies, and mind to guide my socio-political viewpoints, and to tell me that bias (of any variety) is wrong.
So why am I telling you all this? Well, consider this headline that was presented over the weekend by the reliably silly kids at WorldNetDaily:
Cute, right? But if you think the headline's an exercise in batshittery, you must read the associated commentary, wherein writer Donald Hank sets up the idea that "Big Sodomy" is a concept that can be likened to the "Big Tobacco" lobby. He works from a place where the gay community and its allies are one giant crew of immoral PR shills bound together by a common thread and goal: To manipulate the public into buying into their dangerous "agenda." He presents the idea that homosexuality is trendy today, just like smoking was cool before the scientific evidence showed that it was damaging to one's health. Hank predicts that once science in terms of "ex-gays" and homosexuality advances, gays, like cigarettes, will be considered a health hazard and eventually shunned in the same fashion. Here's a brief sample:
Now "alternative" sexual lifestyles are all the rage. They, too, are killing people. And again, it's the "intellectual" cool, liberal, worldly, suave thing to do. The usual suspects are involved. All the big name colleges have special programs for promoting "alternative" sex. Businesses promote the Gay Olympics. Politicians like Barney Frank think they can foist alternative sex on people through their power positions. Hollywood uses its influence to turn the Marlboro Man into a spokesman for today's popular deadly activity, and major companies like Ford contribute funds from the shareholders' meager coffers to promote same-sex marriage. It's just like the bad old days of Big Tobacco, and the Grim Reaper is having a gay old time.
Disgusting thoughts? Of course. But beyond the obvious extremist nuttiness at play, Hanks' piece is also quite revelatory regarding the way our organized opposition views this "culture war" battle. They truly see it as if we gays have our political opinions formed by HRC, our media consumption controlled by GLAAD, our news handed solely handed to us by The Advocate, and our ideas handed to us by authors like Kirk and Madsen. They never for a second consider that maybe, just maybe, gay rights activists come to the cause because we, independent of outside assistance, view it as a righteous fight! They see their "team" -- who, it should be noted, is WHOLLY guided by a HOLY book -- as the only one that is sensible, with those opposed nothing more than a collective of brainwashed drones.
Personally, this writer doesn't get the "cool" factor that Mr. Hank is associating with the fight for gay acceptance. For me, I came to the fight only after going through young life scared of my truth because of the non-acceptance that pervaded my surroundings, losing a bond with my family, and then struggling to marry my one true love. I quit an amazing job in the Manhattan entertainment industry because I was so thoroughly disgusted by the political games that were truly harming my life, that I felt it was almost criminal for me to be working in a "frivolous" role when their was such a necessary socio-politcal fight. There were no lures for me ever to be gay or to be an activist, and there were LOADS of reasons why I should try and not be either if I had any choice. However, I had and have no choice. I am gay because I am gay; I am an activist because far too many people still have a problem with my reality!
Mr. Hank says towards the end of his commentary
If you have a friend or relative who has been persuaded by the media, big business, politicians, university programs, including courses of study, or any person or group to try this deadly lifestyle, and especially if your friend or relative is already suffering from a serious disease contracted as a result of it, talk to him or her at the first opportunity about the very real possibility of starting a class-action lawsuit against the group or groups that persuaded them to enter into the activity that did them in. If you happen to be in a care-giving profession, that is a shoe in the door.
When it comes to trend setting, money is the root of all motivation. Let's make judicious – or shall I say judicial – use of it.
And again, there's that idea -- that it's always outside influence that makes one gay and a fighter for the change they wish to see in the world. But then Mr. Hank has the gall to suggest that one should be able to sue those who "persuaded" them into being gay?! WHAT THE CRAZY?!?!? What next, are we going to start pressuring gay kids to sue those religious folks whose persecution and attempts to "change" them led to years of depression or worse? After all, this writer is unapologetic in his thought that 9/10 of the problems that our opposition throws out as examples of "gay issues" are really due to their unrighteous efforts. When you marginalize folks (especially youth) as evil and immoral, it oftentimes can lead them to pursue a life on the margins. Should we be suing folks like MR. Hank for keeping anti-gay bias alive?
Well, hopefully neither side will get litigious, as both legal scenarios are a bit ridiculous in a free society. However, this writer, like Kirk, Madsen, and countless other folks who've married key stroke with thought in order to marry peace with society, will continue to present his side's truths and his opposition's flaws in the court of public opinion, and let folks decide for themselves who is truly damaging both the fabric of American society and actual human lives. And with commentary like the one Mr. Hank has presented as his latest point of evidence, it would seem the only rebuttal we really need to put forth is: "Will words and concepts like 'Big Sodomy' finally bring down 'Big-Anti-Gay'?" We think it's only a matter of time before the jury weighs in with a resounding YES!
That's so wonderfully deluded. Thanks Jeremy, now I can go home with a smile on my face.
Posted by: williehewes | Jul 9, 2007 12:20:35 PM
"Politicians like Barney Frank think they can foist alternative sex on people through their power positions."
I nominate this for the award of Most Unintentionally Homoerotic Vitriol.
Posted by: Marie S | Jul 9, 2007 5:30:07 PM
Well, of course, Uncle Barney's willingness to cop a feel—if not "foist alternative sex on people"—has been documented. LOL:
But Mr. Hank gives him a little too much credit otherwise, while continuing in that decades- [centuries?] long tradition of blaming "outside agitators" for whatever. They were quite successful in initially claiming that college campus anti Vietnam War protests in the late 60s & early 70s were caused not by horror at the war but by "Communists," just as they had blamed "Negro agitation" on the same, rather than, you know, maybe NOT wanting to be denied housing, jobs, an adequate education, or just not be lynched. They even paid for billboards with a picture "proving" Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Communist:
And, nearly 40 years after his death, if you want to see an entire site [there are others] dedicated to libeling King that makes Hank's essay look like a valentine to gays, see:
And, of course, Joe McCarthy, et al., claimed both communists and gays [and combinations thereof] were destroying America in the 50s. And the Nazis added Jews twenty years before.
During World War I, charges that homosexuals were helping the enemy were lobbed back and forth by the British, the French, and the Germans. [See Pemberton Billing.] That was preceded before the war in Germany by the exploitation of homophobia for political purposes in the Eulenburg affair surrounding the Kaiser.
Finally, we worry for you, Mr. Hooper, for daring to suggest that we are not all official members of the HRC cult, with a yellow equal sign against a blue background tattooed on our asses. Is it your youth that prevents you from knowing that HRC invented the fight for gay rights? Have you not yet sworn allegiance to their flag. Not sought to kiss Pope Joseph Solmonese's ring? Don't worry. Another request to send money to the Human Rights Champagne fund is probably on its way to you this very minute.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Jul 9, 2007 8:10:45 PMcomments powered by Disqus