RECENT  POSTS:  » FRC writer: We're not all the same, 'gay agenda' is 'dangerous for the wellbeing of this nation' » NBC analyst Tony Dungy says he wouldn't have drafted Michael Sam » NOM becomes even more of a generalized anti-LGBT animus organization » Sure, NOM—I'll play your game!! » Bryan Fischer: POTUS 'stood on the graves' of Malaysia Air victims 'to promote the legitimacy of sexual deviancy' » Legal profession made up of ideologues, demands legal ideologue » FRC's senior fellow for exporting/criminalizing gay people bemoan's discrimination's dwindling acceptance » (ARCHIVED): President signs executive order protecting LGBT workers » That discriminatory Colorado baker won't make Halloween cakes either » Catholic Bishops again go after basic workplace protections for LGBT people  

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

05/27/2009

Audio: 'Support traditional marriage or get out of the way'

by Jeremy Hooper

Mat-StaverThe reliably hubristic Mat Staver not only considers today's CA ruling to be a major win. To him, it's also a warning sign to just about any human being who dares to support LGBT people:





*Audio source: Proposition 8 Upheld By California Supreme Court [CWA]

Ya know, you really have to wonder about their endgame. Mat suggests that all pro-gay lawmakers should "get out of the way," and that all states should regress their rights. But where does that vision leave LGBT people? Does Mat really think that we gays are going to hand over what we've already been granted, then lie down and allow tyranny to bulldoze our existences? Does he really think that we will all just disappear? Or perhaps a better question: Is that seriously what he wants to see happen?

As these "pro-family" folks gloat over yesterday's non-win of a "win," it would seem to be time that we ask them, straight out, once and for all: Where do you see this all ending for you (and us)? We know they find us immoral and "changeable," and we know that they hate pro-gay policies so much that they will actually ban Democratic clubs from their campuses. We also know that they dedicate their every day towards making life just a little harder for us. So we now want them all to give us a direct answer to the question:

Do you want us gone?

We'll let you know what we hear.

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


Your thoughts

I understand the inclination to ask if what they're really going after is our total extermination, because sometimes it feels that way. But I think the more benign, confounding truth is that they want the same for us that we want for them: not mass extinction, per se, but a mass psychological exodus from the worldview and lifestyle we hold dear and promulgate. It's liberal sexuality vs. fundamentalist religion, the eternal battle for the hearts and minds of mankind. What we really want, in the end, is just for the other side to kind of change their minds.

So do they want us to stop being gay? I think we've driven the point home to them sufficiently that our sexuality is ingrained, and Haggard and Craig have backed that up for us. So it's not so much actually becoming straight, I don't think.

Just like they say repeatedly, obnoxiously, what they want is that we don't "act" on it.

They want us to change our minds, and realize, as they have, that even though we desire certain things, we shouldn't act on that desire because we just shouldn't. That's not going to get very far, as we've already seen.

They also continue the loathsome policy of painting us as purely sexual. They forget about the fact that we're gay because of our love, not our sex. It's important to remember that religion is completely about love, so in a way this is love vs. love.

Fake love vs. real love.

Which one's fake and which one's real is the conversation we want to be taking place, everywhere, nonstop. Because we're winning, and we will win.

Posted by: JeffRob | May 27, 2009 11:18:36 AM

I really had to laugh at this point:

"But the fact is.. in California, marriage between a man and a woman is something that is very short-lived. I mean, I should say, same-sex marriage is very short-lived."

Posted by: Coxygru | May 27, 2009 11:35:42 AM

"I think we've driven the point home to them sufficiently that our sexuality is ingrained, and Haggard and Craig have backed that up for us. So it's not so much actually becoming straight, I don't think."

I'd be careful about giving them too much credit on this point, JeffRob. I don't think a vast majority of the professional social conservatives will admit that sexuality is ingrained. At least not publicly (which is all I care about).

And I of course don't mean to imply that the organized "pro-family" movement wants our *literal* extermination. But at the end of the day, if they want to deny us of the core of our beings, and want society to ignore the realities of LGBT people and how we are viewed within it, then that is still a frightening prospect.

Mostly I want to hear it from their mouths. They are pushing agianst our every gain, which includes the benign acceptance of our lives and loves (which they call indoctrination). I think it's time they step up and say what their endgame looks like. What place do we have at their table?

Posted by: G-A-Y | May 27, 2009 11:47:26 AM

"They also continue the loathsome policy of painting us as purely sexual. They forget about the fact that we're gay because of our love, not our sex."

JeffRob, there is no forgetting involved. They must consider us purely sexual. That's the only possible defense for doing what they do. There other main defense is mixing gay adoption in with same gender marriage, although the two can stand entirely separate from each other.

Posted by: Mike in the Tundra | May 27, 2009 12:20:58 PM

you know, usually I'm a 'give peace a chance' kind of guy. But every once in a while I hear or read some rhetoric from the other side that makes me want to shoot somebody. Kudos to Mat Staver for being that person. Pro-family? Right. I still don't understand how anyone with half a functioning brain takes these people seriously - and there are millions who do. Our problem isn't with these leaders - our problem is with the fact that people are stupid and believe them.

Posted by: ZnSD | May 27, 2009 1:06:28 PM

"you know, usually I'm a 'give peace a chance' kind of guy. But every once in a while I hear or read some rhetoric from the other side that makes me want to shoot somebody."


ZnSD: For me the distinction is between the movement and the individual personalities. I don't allow myself to get at all emotionally invested in the people themselves, and instead focus on their messaging and overall movement. Sure I'll make snarky comments about their own personality traits, but I'm wholly unconcerned with their lives, families, future, day-to-day existences, etc.

It keeps me focused on LOATHING THEIR CAUSE with EVERY FIBER OF MY BEING without falling into the sometimes dangerous trap of turning my activism personal. Might work for others who want to balance rage with peace.

Posted by: G-A-Y | May 27, 2009 1:18:44 PM

Of course they want us gone. I think there are some who want us all dead, and a lot of people that just want us all back in the closet where they never have to see us or hear about us.The "closet" types think they are being more benign, but I think I'd rather be dead.

Posted by: Jon | May 27, 2009 2:12:38 PM

Thanks J. Sometimes I just need to step away from the keyboard and breathe. Usually I know to keep it at a distance but every once in a while they get under my skin. Which is why I love your site; you always break it down into the silliness that it is while keeping the focus on what's important: the freedom to live our lives. Cheers-

Posted by: ZnSD | May 27, 2009 3:29:00 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails