RECENT  POSTS:  » Maggie 'always-the-victim' Gallagher did nothing to earn her anti-gay reputation » Anti-gay activists still don't realize 'recruitment' claims make them look ridiculous » Florida pro-discrimination activist John Stemberger's history leaves no room for LGBT people » Read: Federal Judge strikes down Florida marriage ban; stays ruling » Video: Southern Baptists promote upcoming anti-gay (and pro-'ex-gay') conference » The marriage debate per anti-LGBT, pro-discrimination activist » AFA's daily prayer equates homosexuality with incest, bestiality, pedophilia » GLAAD: What FRC's exploitation of Robin Williams' death is really about » Scott Lively's new mission: Making America's churches super-duper extra anti-gay » BYU protects the sanctity of pre-printed greetings  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/22/2008

A call to the 'pro-family' players: What's your endgame?

by Jeremy Hooper

We always hear our "pro-family" opponents say that they're not against gay people, but simply in favor of "protecting" marriage, families, children, and religious freedom. Though at the same time, they are standing in opposition to any and every measure that protects LGBT people and their rights, are working in favor of programs that "convert" us into "ex-gays," and are increasing the volume on the idea that our pleas for acceptance are nothing more than "indoctrination." If we work to make future generations to respect gays as part of the spectrum of normalcy, we are chastised. Our attempts to seal our monogamous couplings in a legal bond are positioned as "threatening." And our very existence is, in their eyes, at odds with all that is right with this world.

Regardless of where one stands in this so-called "culture war," we've all just sort of accepted that this is the religious right's modus operandi. Both fans and foes of their actions allow both sides to go about their business, largely viewing the back-and-forth in which the pro-gay and anti-gay sides engage as nothing more than an ideological exchange of ideas. We're so used to the script that we tend to not question the plot.

However, if you stop and think about it, some questions come to surface. Such as: If they want us "changed" regardless of what the science suggests, then how far would they go to remove us from society? What if a gay gene or combination of genes were pinpointed with 100% accuracy and their "ex-gay" movement discredited with the same certainty -- what next? We know what their current stratagem is, but what would be their ultimate goal? Our side has a clear and identifiable one: We want full acceptance of our lives and loves and all the rights and benefits that comes with that. Their side, however, has a vague brass ring.

So we at G-A-Y are starting a new campaign. We are writing some of our community's most strident foes and asking them flat-out:

200804221051

If left to their own devices, where and when would their work be complete? At one point could they be at peace? And what role do they see LGBT people playing in society?

We will post any response we get without any immediate commentary (with the exception of the comments section), letting their own words speak for themselves. We are genuinely curious, and think transparency from their side could benefit us all. Hopefully many will take us up on our challenge.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Oh please, G-A-Y - I thought you were smarter than that.

When these guys are plagiarizing nazi propaganda (replacing "Jews" with "homosexuals"), you know EXACTLY what their endgame is.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, especially since their "leaders" are proven lunatics (Barber, Folger, Randy Thomas, Parker, etc).

I find it hilarious that the "ex-gays" (especially Randy and Stephen) plays along with the Mein Kampf plagiarism. Don't they know they're being used, and in the end, they're nothing more than faggots to these pharisees too?

Posted by: Scott | Apr 22, 2008 12:04:55 PM

Scott: You know I appreciate your contributions, but your tone is sometimes WAY too hostile.

Asking the anti-gay community to put it all there does not undermine my intellect.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 22, 2008 12:07:58 PM

G-A-Y,

I was being sarcastic LOL

Seriously, anyone with common sense knows what's going on.

Posted by: Scott | Apr 22, 2008 12:12:20 PM

What endgame? I look at what goes on in the world and try to make sense of it all, and I firmly believe (but am willing to be proven wrong) that they have no endgame.

Jerry Falwell, when he no longer could stir up congregations with his segregationist banter (it was just too politically incendiary for even him to continue) looked around and settled on Abortion and Homosexuality as two contentious issues that he could exploit. He could exploit them because it is always much easier to get a group of people to band together in opposing something they dislike, than it is to get them to support anything else. It is a simple play on the basest of human emotions, fear and hate (and I know that you don't like to use the word hate, but they depend on it).

Without those issues, Falwell and his ilk would need (in his words) "to create them" so that he could rally support in opposition to them.

So, in the absence of those issues, they have no platform from which to raise funds, they dwindle down to nothing, and eventually cease to exist as a movement. But more than the movement, they cease to exist as a viable fund-raising entity. Focus on the Family raises $130 million each year for this "fight." They don't want the fight to end.

Dick Mills

Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 22, 2008 12:15:34 PM

I like this challenge...but I wonder how many social conservatives with the desired opinions read this blog. Jeremy, I'm curious, do you get a lot of traffic linked from conservative or anti-gay blogs or websites? Any google analytics or something along those lines? It would be neat to see.

Posted by: zortnac | Apr 22, 2008 12:21:21 PM

Dick: I'd be careful about thinking that exploitation and fundraising are the only reasons for the gay bias. I think that might overlook the seriousness of this whole debate.

Zortnac: Considering some have written me to correct typos in their names and I've caught others leaving anonymous comments on posts, I know I have plenty of conservative eyes. But beyond that, I have sent this out via email.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 22, 2008 12:26:47 PM

Hey, I just discovered this great blog!

Just a note there to let you know about the Greek Bloggers against Discrimination initiative. On March 17, 253 blogs from Greece and abroad put up this text of protest against the greek government's plans to institute a domestic partnership bill exclusively for unmarried heterosexuals. The text is as follows:

"In Greece gays, lesbians and transexuals know about discrimination. They face it daily from their families, in their social lives and in the professional field.

But sometimes, all it takes is a single straw to break the camel's back.

According to press reports, the greek government is preparing to introduce a domestic partnership "contract" EXCLUSIVELY for unmarried heterosexual couples. We do not believe that a mere "contract" can resolve the issues same-sex couples face or ensure their fair treatment under the law. However this discriminatory proposal is a direct contravention of the greek Constitution, as well as european human rights treaties. Especially since same-sex couples already enjoy legal rights in 18 european nations.

The aim of this intervention is to make sure that european institutions, human rights organisations, websites and weblogs from around the world learn about these proposals. What we ask for is equal rights for all. Nothing more and nothing less.

This time around we will not sit idly by. This time around we will not keep silent.

GREEK BLOGGERS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION"

You can check the original as well as the list of all the blogs participating at

http://gayrightsgreece.blogspot.com/2008/03/domestic-partnership-that-discriminates.html

You can help too by publicising our efforts and writing to the greek ministry of justice at grammatia@justice.gov.org.

Thank you for your time and we are hoping for your support!

Posted by: gay super hero | Apr 22, 2008 12:38:26 PM

It was not my intention to suggest that they would 'fess up to the fact that fundraising is the root of their disdain. Or even that it is ever discussed outside of their highest ranks. And, I fully accept that there are those among them who wholeheartedly believe in the cause (that basest fear and hate two-headed demon).

But, I would find it very difficult to believe that they would continue to direct their organizations in opposition to gay rights if the economics of it were reversed (if it cost them more than they could raise to oppose us).

Religions thrive when they can hold themselves up as the underdog in a desperate fight for their very existence. Without an antagonist there isn't much of a story. We just happen to be an easy target for them, and without us they would need to find something else to rail against. But, again, I would very happily be proven wrong.

Dick Mills

Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 22, 2008 1:20:53 PM

Yea, Dick, I totally hear what you're saying. And it's interesting. I'm just saying that I'd be careful about trivializing the harsh ideas that are most like in some minds.

But they are also not a monolith, so I'd be interested in hearing the varying ideas.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Apr 22, 2008 1:25:53 PM

Wow. That sounds ominous! After this experiment is over, I would very much like to know what your idea of their endgame is. I know what Naomi Wolf thinks, and she may not be that far off.

Dick Mills

Posted by: Dick Mills | Apr 22, 2008 1:43:42 PM

I think we will find there are 2 different methods of logic at play. The right wing tends to be embedded in dualism where one thing (such as heterosexuality) is absolutely right and another thing (such as homosexuality) is absolutely wrong.

Liberals and progressives, which includes a lot of us LGBTQA activists, tend to employ a nondualistic method of logic in which mutiple truths can coexist in a both/and manner. When one looks at photos of the universes with galaxies upon galaxies you can get a sense of what infinite possibilities are like in rational, scientific inquiry. Rather than finding a world of black/white absolutes, we find morally neutral space in which the intention of the individual is key to interpreting the meaning of the phenomena. Context is lifted up as a key interpretive factor. So, for example, we say stealing is wrong but stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is not categorically wrong in context.

The infinite possibilities and moral neutrality of science and rational thought drives right wingers crazy! They can't stand the idea of ambiguity, nor of giving up their certainty of being 'right.'

Posted by: revtj | Apr 22, 2008 2:03:41 PM

I have been asking thes exact questions for years. I actually offered it as a challenge and have answers from Alan Chambers, Peter Labarbera and Guy Adams. I could send you the emails and comments from "the challenge"

http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?p=778 is one example and http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?p=634 and
the original challenge which was made in September of 2006. I got some answers to the end game questions, but they made little sense.

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Apr 22, 2008 2:30:33 PM

Opps, forgot the link to the original in sept. http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?p=359 THere are lots of comments and responses.

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Apr 22, 2008 2:35:44 PM

Joe,

You do know Alan Chambers is one of the biggest drama queens and liars this side of the orchid patch, don't you?

Even if you were to ask him something simple like "Do you prefer MacDonalds or Burger King?", he'd dance around and give you some bullshit answer. And then when you quote him on it, he'll do his usual "That's not what I said....what I MEANT to say was.....".

Posted by: Scott | Apr 22, 2008 8:22:32 PM

I agree with you. I never never got a response for anyone on the pro-family side that really answered the question. The question forces them to take responsibility for their actions and the outcomes of those actions. I am not sure any of them are willing to do that, although I would be impressed.

I have to admit, I am excited Jeremy has posted this as he has phrased it in a similar but more "fun" way. Perhaps that is what it will take to get a response that is truly authentic.

Posted by: Joe Brummer | Apr 22, 2008 8:50:46 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails