On the anti-equality crowd's blogger cherry-picking: We matter when it's opportuni$tic
*AUDIO SOURCE: Gay Activists Admit to Indoctrination [CitizenLink]
And there are many more "pro-family" folks who've tried to take Daniel Villareal's one snarky blog post about wanting to teach children the fact -- THE FACT! -- that being gay is a part of the normalcy of our world (HOW SHOCKING!) and turn it into some major gay rights admission. Turning Villareal into the spokesperson for the entire LGBT movement, and turning his speech into some "radical" new concept.
But here's what's so galling about that. Queerty has existed for over five years. This site has existed for six. Pam, Joe, and Andy launched in the year or two before we did. Box Turtle Bulletin has been posting detailed refutations for nearly as long. Bilerico, Lez Get Real, Blabbeando, Rod 2.0, and several others have been posting daily push back for quite some time. In fact there are any number of bloggers who, collectively, have posted thousands upon thousands of pro-LGBT blog posts. Millions upon millions of words, many of them pointedly, purposely pointed right at the heart of groups like NOM and FRC. But what do these groups do, 9.9 out of 10 times? They completely ignore what we have to say, as if we don't exist. Or they'll shut us out altogether, banning us from their comment sites and other forums. Or they'll address us in some abstract way that doesn't come close to addressing the points we actually raised. Or they'll write a blog post about us and then abruptly (and tellingly) yank it. And so on and so forth.
Or sometimes they even fully admit their intent (or lack thereof) in inter-organization email chains. Again: Telling.
But now, simply because they think they can get mileage out of one thing that one of us in the LGBT blogging world wrote, they all of a sudden think we matter? Uhm, NO! It cannot work that way. They can marginalize our voices or aggrandize them, but they can't do both! If these groups and spokesfigures want to explode and exploit Daniel Villareal's one blog post, then they need to start answering for every sound bite, video clip, admission, and anything else we post on the daily, stuff that shows how far their own fight really goes! Because we have mountains of that kind of thing, which we always make sure to get in front of someone at the opposition groups. And we know without a doubt that they see it (*from ip address tracking, email referrer stats, frank staffers who work for the organizations who tell us what happens behind the scenes, plants within the organization who are working right now among them unbeknownst to colleagues, etc.). So now that these groups have admitted that LGBT bloggers matter, it's time they answer for what matters to us!
Since Maggie Gallagher started this whole Queerty thing, we'll start with her. Here are just a few questions:
- Why does she think it's right to tell gays they "can always control their behavior" -- "behavior" she admits she considers "unfortunate"?
- Does she really think both gays and their straight supporters are "committing several different kinds of very serious sins," and does that matter to our civil marriage conversation?
- Does she still think "ex-gay" therapy deserves more research dollars, which she once suggested of President Bush (whose payroll she was on, let's not forget)?
- Why does she consider homosexuality to be "at a minimum, a sexual dysfunction much as impotence or infertility"?
- Does she seriously think homosexuality is "like infertility...a sexual disability preventing certain individuals from participating in the normal reproductive patterns of the human species"?
- Why did she ever think gay people's lives and loves constituted one of those issues "so dumb you don't have to talk about them"? [speech at Franciscan Univ., 2/2/2010]
- Why, if this is a civil marriage matter, she routinely talks about marriage rulings that "strike at the heart of Genesis"?
We could go on for many more, but we'll stop there. Because these concerns will never go addressed. Why would they? There's nothing advantageous here for our supposed moral superiors to exploit via their fundraising emails (quite the opposite, in fact), so they will have no reason to acknowledge the existence of the fundamentally pertinent bullet points that this nation's most prominent "protect marriage" voice herself chose to put on the record.
Perhaps if we start inserting a threat of eating babies or razing churches into our measured takedowns, we'll have better luck.
comments powered by Disqus