For me, that reads more like a political statement than a religious statement. A religion might declare that something is personally detrimental, leading to one’s unwillingness to condone it in oneself. But it takes politics to declare something *socially * detrimental, leading to an unwillingness to condone it in others. Sometimes, religious leaders act more like politicians seeking power, rather than like healers seeking salvation. Jesus never called on government to make any law.
Gobear’s frustration, and his blending of the two, is completely understandable given his experience at the hands of these power grabbers. When Gobear sees the religion, he sees the politics. So would the rest of us if we were its targets.
Excellent post, Liberal. It absolutely infuriates me when some church leaders use their influence and their tax-exempt warchests to spread a bigoted political message and then hide behind the shield of religion when called on it. James Dobson and his crowd certainly seem to conflate their religion with politics–how many protests by the FC crowd at the Alabama Supreme Court, Terry Schiavo’s hospice, and gay marriage hotspots have condemned secular leaders for not following “God’s law”? And the far-right fringe of the fundaloonie crowd, Gary North and his Christian Reconstructionists (also known as Dominionists), explicitly want to enact Levitical law into the US legal code and transform America into a Christian theocracy.
It would be comforting to think that sort of nuttiness is isolated and ignored, but the idea that laws that offend the fundies’ God or contradict a strict reading of the Bible must be defeated is, IMO, one of the reasons for the backlash against gay rights in the US.
I have no problem with extremist ideas being aired–that’s why we have the First Amendment, but it bothers me that some people have the notion that my rights should be subject to the laws of their religion.
Well, my first response was to consider printing up a bunch of t-shirts with relevant Bible verses – “Love your neighbor as yourself”, “What you do to the least of my brothers, so you do also to me”, etc. Then again, I don’t have the resources to do that.
Instead, I’ll be forwarding the link to my very gay-friendly and vocal Episcopal church. Truth, indeed. As a certain wandering Rabbi said a couple of thousand years ago, “By their fruits you shall know them,” and there are some fruits I like a heck of a lot better than others!
It infuriates me too, but I can’t begin to know the suffering that you endure on account of it. For me, it’s only something that disgusts. For you, it’s something that injures.
I don’t think that merely stirring up hatred for these people is going to do the trick, though. When both sides hate, hate will always win. One slime is replaced by another. I think that what’s needed is some political balls. Unfortunately, the only place that I know for a certainty that you will get it is from the LP:
It amazes me that these morons are so concerned about the first amendment when they want to spew their hatred, and yet are the first to trample it when anyone else wants to speak. Yes, I realize that they aren’t the only hypocrits in town, but who do you think of first when you consider book burnings, rabid TV censorship, and elimination of the seperation clause?
If these pus-nodules become any more self-parodying, they’d be all, like, way self-parodying.
That’s a good thing, but I think the best thing that can happen for gay rights is to show more gays in the media. Not so much “flaming queers”, as that tends to scare people off. Just normal people who happen to like same-sex relationships. Ellen was a start, Will and Grace is OK, but they tend to dwell on the gay stuff a little too much. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but if gay people can be portrayed more often as normal and non-threatening, then maybe viewers will tend to wonder what the homophobes were all riled up about in the first place.
Enacting laws is all well and good, but real reform comes from popular opinion. If you don’t have that, then you’re fighting an uphill battle all the way.
I wish they’d skip the protest and go back to their normal “Day of I’m Sticking My Fingers In My Ears and Yelling LA LA LA LA I Can’t Hear You LA LA LA LA LA.”
I disagree. Saying gay people would be accepted if they were just less gay is counter-productive. Research consistently shows that desexualizing homosexuals in order to assimiliate them into modern culture/media doesn’t work. “Two Mommies” is just as reviled, if not more, than “Will and Grace” because it tries to present homosexuality as normal, which is what the opposition fears most. People tracking Ellen’s coming out concluded it had no positive impact on gay rights.
I think John on NYPD Blue, and the boys at Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are much better role models because they’re the scariest, most stereotypical gays imaginable, and yet, they’re loveable. It’s easier for the opposition to look into the face of their enemy. If you proclaim gays as just like everyone else, fundies are just going to see them with a hiding, lurking perversion. If you flaunt it, then moderates (who are the real silent majority) will eventually say, “So what’s the big deal?”
This is one of the main reasons I like to wear Pride Jewelry and have rainbow stuff on my desk, car and house. I think it’s important for people to be as out as possible, whether they’re bears or queens. The more straight people realize their friends, coworkers and neighbors include a wide range of gay people, the sooner we’ll quit being seen as threatening just accept as part of the mélange of life. I get annoyed by semi-closet cases who hide their orientation under a veneer of “it’s nobody’s business” or other evasive tactics. If we hide it from the people in our life, it reinforces the idea that it is shameful and should be hid.
I very much agree with that. I’ve often said that it is the people who lead government — and not the other way around — toward massive social change. It certainly would help if government were not the elephant in the living room middle-man through which we must go to make such changes, but that’s a different issue.
I do believe that it is a political change that is required though. And the Republicans certainly are not going to do it. But neither are the Democrats. The Republican Party has become so powerful that it isn’t afraid to show its cards now, and those cards include No Gay Rights. But the Democratic Party has become so weak that even Hillary Clinton is scooting toward center and you can bet that any promises of help for gays will end up being disasters like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell compromises even if they get the power back. My point to Gobear was that the only party committed to gay rights, unequivocally and publicly, is one that has no chance of being elected. Those whom it best would serve do not support it.
Something needs to change in politics because a government that feels threatened will use its laws to protect itself. It won’t initiate social change, and it will gladly sap the wind out of such change when it perceives a weakness in those who advocate it. Things will change when and only when change is politically expedient. Mere exposure of gay people isn’t enough. It’s going to require the kind of courage that civil rights battles have always required. Until you put different people into office, you’re going to have to sweat and bleed before the people who are there will listen to you.
First I’d just like to say that Kevin Jennings (founder of GLSEN) r0xx0rz. Of course I’m a little biased, considering I’m co-chair of a GLSEN chapter, but I met the man and the quotes from him in that article are completely consistent with everything I’ve ever heard him say. He has always fought against the repression of free speech in schools, even if the speech is against his own personal mission. Calm, tolerant, he still acts more like a teacher than a politician, though his metaphorical classroom has expanded substantially. If you ever get a chance, support GLSEN National or your local chapter… the money goes to some good causes.
Second, I find this excuse for an event pathetic and poorly planned indeed. The religious right would’ve been far better off completely disassociating with Day of Silence, forming their own event with its own agenda. By pitting one against the other, you throw into deep contrast the two types of people involved: the grassroots DoS organizers handing out cards preaching tolerance and the DoT organizers handing out pamphlets talking about “evil” and moral decay.
Your average joe student (especially on the college level) is gonna take a look at the Day of Truth material and think back to the Day of Silence people who handed him a card just 24 hours ago. He might consider whether or not they looked particularly satanic to him, whether or not they looked particularly decadent. He might even reflect that, if this is what the opposition to Day of Silence is passing around, maybe a little more tolerance is needed.
Or at least that’s the reaction I’ve generally noted in my conservative hotbed.
I’m straight and I’ve always taken the position of “it’s nobody’s business” when it came to my personal life at work. I like keeping work and home in seperate containers and make sure they rarely mingle. When asked personal questions I’ll usually answer but I won’t give any details. I’ve taken this policy for a variety of reasons and when I break them it can create an awkward environment.
Female Coworker: Do you have any siblings.
Me: I have a sister.
Female Coworker: Does she have any kids?
Me (Thinking I’d head off the next question): She’s not married.
Female Corworker Visibly Upset: You don’t have to be married to have kids!!
Oops, I didn’t know she was a single mother. I didn’t mean it as an insult but in my mind most people with kids are married.
Male Coworker: So Marc, do you have a girlfriend?
Me: Why, are you asking me out on a date?
Male Coworker: No.
Small amount of anxiety on my part when I realized he was gay. I was a little nervous that he thought I might be making fun of him. I got over it because I didn’t think he should have been asking me that question.
Sorry for the long post that went on a tangent. I just don’t think people should be required to divulge their personal lives at work regardless of sexual orientation.
I said nothing about requirements. Assuming you’re a professional and have a desk, do you mean to suggest if you’re married you don’t (or wouldn’t as the case may be) have a picture of your spouse on your desk? You don’t, or would never, mention a person who is as important to you as your spouse to your coworkers? Never a casual conversation about how the two of you spent the weekend or holiday? You seem to be more anti-social than just simply private.
I’ve only been here a couple of months, and it wasn’t exactly a voluntary move, but I feel I must say that while that lawyer from Shreveport may be an intolerant asshole, not everybody else here is as well.
I’m not sure I agree, and your position strikes me as contradictory. If homosexuality being perceived as normal is what the opposition fears most, doesn’t it strike you that there may be a reason for that fear? Think about it. If the majority of Americans think of homosexuality as normal, then the anti-gay hate groups are relegated to where they belong: the fringes of society with the KKK and their ilk. I think that every time someone forms a relationship with someone, weather business or friendship, and then finds out down the road that the person they’ve formed that relationship with is gay, the weaker the hatemonger’s rhetoric sounds. Knowing someone as a person first and then finding out that they are gay second (when it won’t matter so much because the relationship has already formed) is much stronger (IMHO) than meeting a flamboyantly gay person, because in that case their sexuality is going to color ever impression and opinion formed. The gay person will then simply be a cardboard cutout and not an individual. My sexuality doesn’t define who I am, it’s just a small part of me. I don’t expect it to be any different for a gay person.
Fundies are going to see gays lurking everywhere anyway, forget them. The way to win over the moderates is by making them realize that gay people are already a part of their life, and it just doesn’t matter at all who they’re in love with or fucking, not by presenting being gay an overriding characteristic of someone’s existence.
