Help design my "self defense against antigay rhetoric" course

In My Humble Opinion
1

I am the faculty advisor of the Gay Student Union group at a small liberal arts college in the deep south. I am leaving in two months (I have a “handpicked successor” who’ll be taking over then), but before I go I want to teach a two-three hour seminar (probably given over two sessions) on defending yourself against anti-gay rhetoric.

When I proposed this to the students during a brainstorming session I was very surprised at how enthusiastic they were at the suggestion (and yes, they knew I was talking about “verbal” self-defense, not physical). Upon reflection it seemed logical: most of these kids are between 18-22 and, having only recently acknowledged they are gay, have not read enough to really be able to deflect arguments. They “know” something is wrong in the invective from the religious right and social conservatives, but they’re not sure what.

What I envision is the following sections:

**the Bible- what it says about homosexuality, the historical context of the Bible, a blitzschnell history of the church and homosexuality, etc.

**Paul Cameron and others whose bogus “studies” have caused and or aided such misunderstanding and vitriol towards gays

**“misconceptions”- the truth about homosexuality in nature, the mistaken notions about sperm/conception that led to such prejudice against non-procreative sex, etc.

**gay marriage: the basic arguments against (i.e. why legalizing gay marriage is not the same as legalizing polygamy, incest and the ubiquitous man-goat marriage

Has anybody had any experience teaching a seminar like this? I would love any suggestions, input, dos, don’ts, links or reading suggestions.

BTW, I’m buying several cheap copies of Eric Marcus’s Is it a Choice?, Andrew Sullivan’s Virtually Normal and the Completely Queer encyclopedia to distribute to the members of the group and I want to give them a reading list as well. If there are other books you think would be better, please suggest them.

2

Well this thread could come in handy. Perhaps when refering to the studies of Paul Cameron you could highlight opposing studies, just my vague ideas.

3

I shouldn’t read old threads; I have all these Bible name puns in my head and no place to put them!

Sampiro, it’s been a while since I read Sullivan’s book but my memory is that I didn’t have that great an impression of it. I haven’t read Marcus’s book so I can’t comment beyond remembering reviews that weren’t terribly pleased with it but, you know, critics. The encyclopedia is good but out-of-date. I don’t know of a more recent comprehensive reference.

Some other books to consider: Making History by Marcus; Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers by Faderman; Hidden From History edited by Duberman et. al.; Biological Exuberance by Bagemihl; Virtual Equality by Vaid; The Case for Same-Sex Marriage by Eskridge along with one or more of the more recent marriage books; how much money did you want to spend? How about a subscription to The Advocate? This guy often has gay-themed books at ridiculously low prices.

Does your group have an office or repository for this material?

4

You could add one more section on how to counter the homosexuality-as-mental-disorder argument. I actually run into that one more than any of the others you mentioned, especially in the otherwised well-educated. They usually will cite a study about homosexual drug use, suicide, or promiscuity as proof of the inherent instability of the gay mind.

Actually, if anyone knows of a book on that topic, I’d be very interested.

5

It’s out of print but try and find a copy of Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do-The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society, by Peter McWilliams. The author expounds a philosophy of government in which “You should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own person and property, as long as you don’t physically harm the person or property of another.”

Part IV of the book, over 200 pages, is called “Consensual Crimes and the Bible” and it examines the attitudes of society and Christianity in looking at consensual crimes, and holds it up against what was* really * said(or not) by Jesus.

A fantastic book all through, actually. Trust me on this one. If you can’t find a copy I have an extra, the last of a set sent to me by the author, who wanted the work spread around.

One of my favorite features of the book is the multitude of quotes scattered throughout, in small boxes. Some of my favorites are:

“I’m an actor. Of course I can play a heterosexual!” by Sir John Gielgud

“The aim of the law is not to punish sins.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law” Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.” William Blake

“Christian: One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbors.” Ambrose Bierce

6

BTW, I forgot to mention the Mr. McWilliams, the author, is dead. His friend and philosophical opposite, William Buckley, wrote about Peter’s death here:

Damn! :mad:

7

I would include studies on gay suicide, something on “reparative therapy,” a brief history of the APA’s stance on gay people, a general history of gay people (to combat the “it’s only in the past 50 years that people have started to choose this lifestyle” sort of thing), etc., and making sure to emphasize this through examples.

8

Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do, along with McWilliams’s other books, is available full-text online here. On the topic of gay as mental disorder, one of the best books I’ve read in some while is Anything but Straight by Wayne Besen. Though its focus is the ex-gay “reparative therapy” movement, it delves deeply into other aspects of homosexuality and mental health as well. (The writing style is very casual and at times even bitchy, but Besen documents well every claim he makes.)

9

You could also try Besen’s website, there’s a lot of interesting info on the “ex-gay” therapy, and it debunks alot of their arguments.