Revelation: Our opposition frequently makes accurate statements

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

10/25/2007

by Jeremy Hooper

We have a startling confession for you. That is: We frequently agree with groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council. Now, that may sound surprising, but it's totally true. We often see headlines from these groups with which we find little to no fault.

For example, take this headline from Focus on the Family:

Picture 2-98

We agree -- everyone should ask Congress to oppose special rights for any employee based on their sexual orientation. For instance, American businesses should not be forced to allow gay employees a day off for the gay pride parade. Straight employees should not be allowed to leave an hour early every day so that they can go home and explore their ability to heterosexually make a baby. Bisexual employees should not be automatically given two offices, one for each of their attractions. So yes, if "special rights" were on the table, then Americans should resoundingly ask Congress to say no.

Or take this headline from the Family Research Council, in which they assess the Donnie McClurkin/Barack Obama controversy:

And again, we 100% agree. Any person who used to have sex with one gender but now has sex with another should be tolerated. If they want to call themselves "ex-gays" -- well, frankly, we don't understand why one would ever identify as what they "used to be," not what they currently are, but whatever. It's their prerogative. And none of us should be shunning people on the basis of their sexual identities.

So what these headlines have done for us are setup ideas in our minds that make perfect, reasoned sense. They take an accurate stance and they make righteous claims. So it's quite easy to see why those who don't know any better or have been fed loads of misinformation are led into believing that they are truly doing the right thing by supporting FOF or FRC's positions. These groups design it this way!

But here's the thing: We do know better. We know that what they have done with these headlines are set up straw man arguments, as their actual arguments are biased and backwards! In terms of the first headline: What they are asking congress to oppose is ENDA (The Employment Non-Discrimination Act). This measure would not, in reality world, grant a sole "special right" to gay employees, Instead, it would offer the same bias protections that are already afforded to people on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Gay employment bias is a real problem. There is nothing "special" about working to curb it!

As for the second headline: The issue at hand is not whether or not people should be free to hold whatever sexual identity they please. The issue is Donnie McClurkin, a man who identifies as a "former homosexual" (which is perfectly acceptable) and who has called gays "cursed" and made cruel and vicious statements about homosexuality (which is not acceptable). The "ex-gay" movement and its social conservative supporters have set up the false construct that anyone who protests their socio-political goals and anti-gay biases are being intolerant to the "ex-gay"-idenitified human beings. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of gay people would make not one protestation about "former homosexuals" if it were not for the fact that these people are 99.9% of the time connected to an anti-gay agenda. Mr. McClurkin has most certainly been connected to such an agenda in the past, and gays and allies would be doing a disservice to TRUE TOLERANCE if they did not speak out against that!

The most telling aspect of the "pro-family" movement is their steadfast reliance on these red herring-laden ideas as the bases from their campaigns. It seems that no matter how Biblical or morally righteous they may find their beliefs, they do truly realize that their discriminatory ideas are likely to receive far less acclaim if presented at face value. Sure, all political movements sometimes sweeten their ideas with glowing jargon in order to make their positions seem the best. But the "pro-family," "values voting" crowd makes arguments that have nothing to do with the matters at hand, using code words that mask their actual goals. It doesn't take a master political analyst to understand why.

Tolerance for Ex-Gays Is a Test for Obama [FRC]
Take Action: Ask Congress to Oppose Special Rights for Gay Employees [FOF]

space