How did GRID effect gay rights?

In the post war environment and especially in the 1960’s society in much of the West became far more tolerant of homosexuals. The Wolfensden report in the UK which resulted in the legilsature taking measures which decriminalised most homosexulity and you had the Stonwall riots it’s aftermath in the US (as an aside I wonder how Stonewall Jackson would react to his nickname being taken up for gay rights, not well I imagine).

Of course in early 80’s the arrival of this cursed disease effected the gay community very heavily. I have wondered how that effected the progress of gay rights. Did it hamper, help, was neutral? So in a world where the virus in the 1920’s in Africa does not jump to humans, how would gay rights have progressesd? faster? Slower? As in our timeline?
And before anybody asks, yes the use of the term GRID is deliberate.

I’m no expert, but I can only suppose that it must have hindered the movement.

  1. The seemingly gay-specific disease emphasized the “otherness” of homosexuals, and was popularly linked to sexual debachery.
  1. The death toll surely reduced the proportion of homosexuals in the population, making the minority smaller.

  2. Talented gay leaders who would have risen to take positions advocating for equality were no doubt instead killed in their youth by the disease.

The only possible benefits I see are more visibility for the homosexual community, and perhaps some measure of public sympathy, but these seem outweighed by the detriments of the disease.

Why are you using GRID instead of HIV?

Stonewall was way before AIDS. Harvey Milk didn’t live to see AIDS (even called GRID), at least not the meme of AIDS.

So the wheels of justice were certainly grinding. Offsetting Human Actions list, the positives I see (from a straight perspective):
[ol]
[li]It (posthumously, largely) outed people, making gays seem less other[/li][li]It made getting a recognition of the basic humanity of gay people all the more urgent[/li][li]It spurred activism in a big way. Once AIDS was starting to be better managed as a public health issue, the organizational structure that had developed around that goal was still in place and could focus on other things[/li][li]It gave cover to politicians who wanted to advance gay rights but were afraid of a backlash by allowing them to frame it in public health terms[/li][/ol]

And The Band Played On… might be a good place to start. I haven’t read it though just saw the tv adaptation.

Here’s some (hardly definitive!) evidence for my position: Gallup’s Support For Legal Gay Relations poll.

After holding steady at 43-44% for the early 80’s, positive responses to the question “Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?” dropped to 32% in 1986, and didn’t return to the previous level until 1990. That period lines up with the “gay plague” aspect of the history of AIDS, such as the founding of ACT-UP in 1987.

It can be argued that without that reversal of support for the most basic of gay rights, the right to be free from arrest, current support would be higher still (64% as of Nov. 2011).

I assumed it was to highlight the fact that the very name initially assumed it was a gay-only disease, and to emphasize that effect on the larger societal picture.

Of course, that’s just an assumption; I have no idea what the OP’s opinions on this issue are.

The assumption that Leaper makes is correct. I would be honoured if any gay dopers who were around at that time could share their experiences.

Don’t worry, I wasn’t calling you out. Just curious.

Oh, I don’t know. That’s pretty good. I can’t see anything being more definitive, unless there are sequential polls asking people how they feel about gay rights WRT AIDS.

The thing is, most of Hershele Ostropoler’s list points to things that would have paid dividends after the immediate crisis of the early days of AIDS. He or she may well be correct that AIDS spurred activism and organization in the gay community that dovetailed into advocacy for general equality. In other words, without AIDS the acceptance could have stayed around 44%, instead of dropping for a while and then surging the other way, as the newly organized advocacy paid off.

I’m now trying to think of ways to test that idea.

Over the long run, I don’t think of it as having changed the arc very much. Initially, the bleatings that it was God’s punishment emphasized our otherness, and certainly the party went quiet for a few years as the bathhouses were closed down and we spent a lot of our time at hospitals and funerals. But the backlash from ACTUP—“we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it”—gave an impetus to several of the more recent equality initiatives.

Certainly it was seen by some quarters as divine retribution, but even amongst ordinary decent people, a reading of the early literature post AIDS seems to suggest to me that they regarded homosexuality as something akin to how we regard heroin addicts today, which seems to go against the trends of the previous few decades. That is the impression I get and I wojder if tht is a accurate one.

The Gallup polling data I cited certainly supports the idea that homosexuality was seen as less “legitimate” behavior and more like depraved criminal activity during the period of 1986-1990.

The alternative theory would be along the lines of a rebound effect in which, following the period of the “Gay Plague,” (and once it was recognized as a controllable disease and not something that was irrevocably fatal that was going to decimate society by jumping from homosexuals to heterosexuals), so many people had come out as either gay or gay-friendly that knee-jerk opposition to homosexuality began to fade.

I think that rather than just “legal vs illegal,” polls through that period that went down a few more layers in depth would provide a more accurate answer.

That theory is certainly plausible, that the long-term beneficial effect of more people coming out or being outed posthumously outweighed the shorter-term damage done by fear of AIDS.

Here’s another piece of polling data, again from Gallup.

Refer to the entry for Perceived Factors in Being Gay or Lesbian. Support for the idea of being born gay, as opposed to made gay by upbringing and enviornment (or a combination of the two) jumped from 19% in 1990 to 31% in 1997, and has slowly inched up to 36% by 2009. Over the same period, the upbringing/enviornment idea’s support dropped from 48% to 40%.

So, this could represent a delayed after-effect of the AIDS crisis, the normalization as homosexuality as just another type of person, rather than being purely a behavior, as ‘normal’ folks like Rock Hudson were outed.

I noticed that it made discussion of homosexuality, and sexuality in general, more socially acceptable. Not always in good ways though.

America’s response to AIDS is one of the worst in our history. Since only “those people” got it, nothing was done for ten years to help cure it. That is an absolute disgrace.

I’m glad Broadway finally realized too many of “those” talented, warm beautiful people were dying of a disease, and got the ball rolling with Broadway Cares (named in rsponse to the question “Who cares?”) and Equity Fights AIDS (the first organization to have AIDS in its title).

Here I am.

A little perspective: When I came out in 1963, there was no such thing as coming out. NOBODY considered homosexuality to be in any way acceptable, not even gay people. The most liberal people believed that we were deviant, but it wasn’t our fault. I was only out because I admitted I was attracted to other guys, not because I was happy with it. Nobody was happy with it. I was a college freshman, and I had every intention of going into some kind of therapy, once I finished school and had some kind of income. But at least I was honest about it, though I didn’t know anyone else who was out.

Once AIDS hit in the early 80s, I was totally out in every respect. I was living in NYC, and everyone I knew began getting sick and dropping like flies. And except for gay men, nobody gave a damn. They were too busy passing around all the jokes, and removing PWAs from their homes and jobs. So for at least the first few years, we had to rely on each other for strength, with no knowledge of what the disease was or how it was spread, no treatment, no cure, nothing. And of course the religious right was having a field day, gleefully tallying the body count.

I remember a small article in the *Advocate, *saying that something like 23 gay men in NYC, S.F. and L.A. had succumbed to a mystery illness. And how indignant we were, that 23 guys died, and there still wasn’t a cure.

The first “others” to become in any way sympathetic were the more liberal Jewish communities, followed by gay and straight women. The absolute last to take the epidemic seriously was the African-American clergy, who are still in inexcusable denial, in spite of all the deaths in their own community. This is something I will never forget or forgive.

The first real change happened when ACT-UP was born (I was not quite a charter member; I showed up at the second meeting). After having held so many deathbed hands of friends, lovers and strangers, and after sometimes having to be at three funerals at the same time, it was refreshing and invigorating to finally take matters into our own hands. The meetings were packed and rowdy, and the first march on Washington got our point across eloquently, as PWAs lay on the Capital’s steps, in deathlike poses. We finally made the papers.

By the mid-80s, some people were finally becoming more sympathetic, but what I remember most were the leaders and leaders-to-be in the gay community being extinguished, one by one. So many of the guys who should have been at the forefront of our movement were dead or dying. I have a hard time believing that we made any kind of political progress, just based on other people’s sympathy. Not in the light of all my friends and lovers and neighbors who were now gone. It has been a colossal net loss, and I can’t think of it as anything positive. HIV robbed us of two generations of men who should have made the world a better place.

But little by little, people did come around . . . not out of sympathy, but because of courageous individuals and organizations. And now, finally, in the last few years, homophobia is for the first time socially unacceptable in our mainstream society. We even have politicians and sports people who have to apologize for anti-gay comments. And now we have a President who’s in favor of same-sex marriage. This is remarkable, something I never thought I’d see.

But I can’t help thinking of all the guys who should have lived to see this happen, but didn’t.

I was among the first of the health workers to receive education regarding AIDS in Minnesota. The state hospital I worked at sent me to a chemical dependency treatment center for gays and lesbians where they had already been educating their patients with the expectation that I would return and do an education unit for our staff.

Given the setting, of course there was no sense of degradation in the material presented. But people were terrified. And with good reason since so little knowledge was available.

I spent some time developing a brief course and presented it to my supervisor who reacted with alarm. Shortly after that the plan just sort of drifted off into the ether and I was given orders that I wouldn’t discuss the illness with staff or patients. Hard to believe in a hospital atmosphere, isn’t it?

I did what I could and spent at least an hour once a month on AIDS education in private with my patients at risk of losing my job.

I am wondering how much progress had been made outside of the gay community by the nineties. I recall observing a phlebotomist drawing bood without rubber gloves on in a large hospital in Minneapolis and commenting to her that she believed in living dangerously. Her response was, “Honey, you don’t get AIDS from blood. You get it from sex.”

Just realized I posted an anecdote without an opinion.

I think both the fear and loss did a lot of damage.