Whose children will be allowed to participate in the White House’s annual Easter Egg Roll on April 17? Not the sons and daughters of gay parents, if the Christian right gets its way. In November, when the Family Pride Coalition, a D.C.-based gay rights advocacy group, invited its members to participate in one of the “great traditions of our country” the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (96)Page 1 of 1 pagesThese groups who say they don’t want the Easter Egg Roll “abused” for political purposes… Don’t they realise that excluding any societal group from the event would itself be an abuse for their own political purposes?
And just how do they intend to discern same-sex couples from, say, a single mom and her sister, or two buddies watching their kids together so their wives can sleep in on Easter morning?
On the other hand, if I were gay, I don’t think I’d even want to be participating in White House events of a regime so decidedly anti-basic-civil-rights.
I don’t understand the ruckus over other people’s lives. Personally, I have enough to do with my own life and family affairs without worrying about what’s going on in the apartment upstairs or the house down the street.
Posted by Josh on Mar 1, 2006 at 1:23 PM Such groups like the Institute on Religion and Democracy are showing their hypocrisy as well as their hatred towards gays and lesbians (bisexuals and transgenders also). One of the many ways to combat it is to expose their dirty laundry to the air (waves) as this article has done very well. This is certainly not a time to remain silent.
For so-called christians (notice that I don’t capitalize the word) to equate the sexual orientation of homosexuality as terrorism shows where their hatred can and is going since it is so obviously incorrect as well as not compassionate. Unfortunately, too many people especially those in positions of power are gobbling it up or reinforcing it like the White House does.
Fortunately, more and more US Americans are insisting on living their lives as they see fit thus ignoring these bigots. Plus, more and more Americans are insisting on living it out in the open (I am one of many) and without any restrictions contrary to what these hate groups would like to see happen. That is why they are fussing so much and so loud.
As a political activist fighting for human rights, I have observed that our society on mass or as a majority (especially the younger generations) is going one way, towards a more tolerant and humane society, and our political structures are going the opposite direction, towards intolerance and fascism.
Minus the dangers inherited in such turmoil, it will be interesting how our society will look in the future. Cheers to a more humanitarian society and world ...
Peace,
Deborah
a member of Amnesty International USA, the National Organization for Women and BMPN“If homosexuality is a disease, let’s all call in queer to work: “Hello, can’t work today, still queer!” found in the Washington (DC) Blade newspaper.
Posted by Deborah on Mar 1, 2006 at 9:08 PM It’s saddening to see how warped Christianity has become. Their Messianic teachings espouse love, charity, and kindness to all - especially those deemed sinful and ‘wicked’ - and they have fallen into the same sort of near-militant religious extremism that characterizes the archtypal ‘terrorists’ these Freepers hate.
Posted by Harrower on Mar 2, 2006 at 6:00 PM Liberty and Justice for SOME, perhaps we should be redrafting the pledge of allegiance, among other things. At some point the government, whether Republican or Democrate will be forced to learn tolerance towards all; not just those whose beliefs follow their own.
Posted by ebby on Mar 2, 2006 at 7:51 PM I have no problem with religions, for the most part, and do not believe that these people are as representative of American Christiandom as it appears. They certainly aren’t representative of Christianity worldwide.
As another article pointed out a month or so ago, gay teenagers are being executed in Iran—-just pointing out that this rampant homophobia is not limited to Christian fundamentalists.
Any control freak, homophobe, paranoid/cowardly personality can find a way to channel that through religious and political groups. The secular can be just as faith-based and dogmatic as the God-based religions. Just add people who are looking for someone else to give their lives meaning.
The whole administration is like a bunch of tight-lipped, meddlesome biddies at a coffee klatch. And ohmygod, we are threatened by everything at every turn. The administration wouldn’t even be there if this weren’t a nation of people that can easily be characterized as conformist, woefully insecure, dependent, the victims of twelve years of public education, and raised by television.
Why are so many on the moral right extreme always complaining about television? Why do they have televisions? Clearly they don’t trust their own abilities and congregations to keep their religions alive.
Battling Satan is a whole lot simpler and gives more immediate earthly reward than making peace with Christ and his teachings——that’s a path a “what would the neighbors thing” type personality couldn’t take.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 3, 2006 at 6:20 AM And, oh yeah——didn’t Jesus say something about woe to anyone who hurts a child? Punishing and stigmatizing the children to hurt the parents is vile. You don’t protect children by villifying their parents—-even if the parents are abusers or neglectful and the child is no longer in their custody, it is not in the child’s interest to hear mean, spiteful things said about their parents. Adoptive parents are parents. Is nothing sacred to these demonizers?
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 3, 2006 at 6:29 AM If people want to combat “Satan”, they should look within more, and work on their own moral weaknesses. Such as gratuitous hostility, self-righteousness, and the willingness to leverage innocents as a way of attacking others to whom those innocents are dear.
A new example of collateral damage…
Sometimes I wonder if anyone believes in innocence any more, aside from its connotation of ignorance, of being unacquainted with the “real” world.
The “real” world, in which some loving people who are good parents, are also homosexual.
Like the song says, they will know we are Christians by our love…
Posted by Kuya on Mar 3, 2006 at 9:33 AM And yes, wiley-my-dear, there is something sacred to those demonizers. That would be their vision of a society created in their own image, forced into the shape their dogma dictates regardless of who gets stepped on. That’s what they worship above all, what they’re commited to above all. Certainly above their commitment to exerting lovingkindness, as a gesture of spiritual realization, in this benighted and confused world.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 3, 2006 at 9:42 AM I enjoy reading your comments on my article about the brewing controversy over gay families attending the upcoming White House Easter Egg Roll on April 17.
As Deborah suggests, some good can come from exposing the efforts of people and organizations attempting to restrict civil liberties of any particular group in our country. On the other hand, I hate to bring too much attention to them, since it increases their visibility and often emboldens their efforts.
In writing the article, I attempted to uncover some of the more untrustworthy “agents” of seemingly mainstream groups. For example, with a name like, “Institute on Religion and Democracy,” spokespeople can issue press releases and strategically place articles in publications and on the internet that have a very wide reach. They sound reasonable. Their message is then carried further, however, by a not-so-random network of “citizens.”
I have great respect for the nascent model of mass communications. Broadcast and print media monoliths are scurrying to incorporate blog correspondents and RSS feeds, in order to tap into the possibilities of connecting to, and retaining, their customers.
The change has already come, however, to a large group of “wired” Americans. We are getting our daily doses of news, analysis, humor, and more from sources we have selected ourselves. Democracy sprouts and thrives within online communities, even without the approval or support of the established media power brokers. No one invited the first bloggers or podcasters to the party ... but now, they are revered as pioneers. They have done a wonderful thing for democracy.
The profusion of opinions requires filtering, though. People tend to congregate with those of like opinion. Both extremes of the gay rights debate become isolated in their own rally circles and the rhetoric escalates. I have read hateful words in forums at both extremes.
This article has touched off a flurry of posts back at www.FreeRepublic.com — in fact, the first hour of the thread linking to the “In These Times” website midday on March 1 yielded over 120 posts in the first 60 minutes. Although most posts continued along predictable lines (“Children are only accessories in their selfish lives anyway,” and a few sophomoric references to gerbils and sex acts), some very introspective conversations developed.
A few posters issued comeuppance to their fellow FReepers. One post reads, “I have read plenty of ‘I wish fags would just die and go away’ and ‘fags will burn in hell’ and the like… If you really have not seen anything like that on FR - then you haven’t looked very hard.” In response to the post, “The article makes us sound like moonbats.” One member responded, “On some threads, some of us do sound like moonbats.” The term “moonbat” was coined by British Libertarian Perry de Havilland, who defines it as, “someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be.”
I was surprised, and a bit touched, when the author of the “mow them down like terrorists,” post, who describes herself as “a Christian mom and grandma,” revised her sentiment. ”I don’t believe they should literally be killed, and I admit that I was indulging in anger-driven hyperbole.” Many of her friends from the group admitted that the forum is for “spleen-venting” and should not be taken literally. Multiple people reassured her that they know her to be a good person and, “I know you only mean well.”
Lest you get too misty-eyed for her, consider what she writes in her profile: “While I abhor violence, I have come to realize that it is the only language understood by many in the world who would do us harm… I believe that liberalism is an enemy within our borders, political correctness is its language and socialism is its goal and as such needs to be treated as swiftly and harshly as any foreign enemy.” I think I understand her thinking clearly.
Continue to next post to continue John Ireland’s COMMENT
Posted by JohnIrelandLA on Mar 3, 2006 at 8:26 PM ...continuation fromprevious COMMENT:
I fared pretty well in the forum, besides being called a “buffoon” in one post and mocked for my byline, “John Ireland lives with his partner and son in Los Angeles. If they are able to attend the White House Egg Roll in April, they will do so as a family.” Another wrote: “You can’t trust anything that a sodomite writes in regard to sodomite issues.”
Ultimately, this whole exercise demonstrates the new media reality: technology has radically democratized the press. Sure, “In These Times” and other media outlets will follow this story, but the line between journalist and citizen has begun to blur. Many people spend more time communicating directly through blogs and forums and the conversation is now, indeed, between individuals. These conversations are accessible to all and they become the news. In a very empowering grassroots way, when a person clicks “post message,” s/he becomes published.
As web-based technology democratizes the American Experience, we must all be ready to take responsibility for our words. We cannot hide behind our keyboards or claim to be misconstrued. We must accept that we have power—and use it wisely.
Posted by JohnIrelandLA on Mar 3, 2006 at 8:27 PM Kuya, then they would fight amongst themselves. (Baptists are cannibalizing now—-that’s pretty much what Baptists do). They are being led by people, and many are people who thrive on opposition and demonizing. Probably, most of the people rallying behind their religious leaders on these issues would change for the better if given the real life opportunities and living examples, but it would be a lot of work, because most of the zealots are addicts that don’t even know they’re addicts. They get high off their little frenzied tantrums——the big domapine score. They are like the rich and powerful who will never be rich and powerful enough, because they have to get more to get the chemical reward.
The true believers, could just as easily be working just as fervently for the opposite dogma. It doesn’t matter, they simply must be intenselty socially combative, must be right while everyone outside their group is wrong, they must constantly root out “enemies” and “threats” to their group, and must be either a blind follower or a totalistic leader. I think this is evidence of some seriously arrested development which includes the symptom of wanting the president to be “a father figure”.
I don’t think they hold a vision of a perfect society in their heads. They just know what they hate—-for now—-next year, there could be a new bogeyman. Just as long as they have a conduit for their grounded and ungrounded fears (and don’t have to do the work of figuring out which is which), a template for praise and blame so that no social skills are necessary , like thanking people (praise God, not the rescue team), a prescription for pain so they don’t have to take responsibility and confront the source(s) of their pain, and a code they can (say they) live by. The zealots are terrified of being lost.
Many people find their better selves in churches and spiritual groups and are nurtured and guided to a state in which they can retain their individuality and inner strength while dealing with life’s hard questions. They can stay or go without suffering a loss in identity.
There are nice cults. But when they’re bad, they can be so bad, because the followers have rejected reason and intellect and are therefore very difficult to deal with. As Harrower has brought up, there is also the potluck dinner issue, but I’ll save that for later.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 3, 2006 at 8:37 PM John Ireland, you and I must have been making our posts around the same time. I didn’t see your post before I posted my last one.
I agree with what you say, and think that the internet still holds the same promise for democracy it always has, it’s just that we Americans tend to want everything yesterday, and have been given the impression that if things don’t come off instantly and easily, then we must be dumb or wrong.
The internet is as much a revolution as the invention of written language, in my opinion. I don’t understand people who put it down as nothing but distraction and entertainment.
I think we must also take responsibility for what we allow. As you’ve pointed out, it may be a mistake to dismiss hateful speech as hyperbole. Talk of liberalism being “mental illness” or liberals being enemies of the U.S. is not something to be taken lightly.
It is because free speech is so important that I believe we should remove and ask to be removed posts that are simply hateful blather. Deleting them or consigning them to the WHOA thread, is not a violation of free speech. People are not entitled to any ear and any audience they like. This ignore them and they’ll go away trope is bogus too, when freepers are abound.
And what does it mean when you allow someone to post hateful message, after hateful message that addresses all people on a forum as if they were the same card board cut-out without response, censure, or bouncing? Does that protect free speech? Is that really keeping someone from expressing themselves? Aren’t they grownups who can find other forums or make their own hate sites? It looks to me like being completely indiscriminate about posts denigrates the value of words and invites more of the same. It seems to be a “liberal” trope that sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Bull. What is so glorious about protecting free speech if speech itself is considered immaterial? What is law but “words”?
I’m not saying that people can’t get fiesty and fiery and confrontational, but allowing clearly anti-social hate speech from someone who clearly considers everyone else on a particular forum to be wrong——someone who shows nothing but venom, is not someone that can be “tolerated”. They are either “indulged” or ‘‘advanced” by allowing their thoughtless hate posts to stand. If this speech escalates, and then translates into violence against “liberals”, then “liberals” can share some of the responsibility by accepting that they were too busy being noble by “tolerating” anti-social behavior instead of taking a stand against hateful bigotry and setting reasonable limits.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 4, 2006 at 3:52 AM The gay bashing in current US political culture is frightening precisely because so much of it is orchestrated by the White House and the Republican Party. The Bush Administration is so beholden to the Christian Right that it cannot feasibly oppose or fight them. This is why I have tried in other discussion threads to pose the issue of the immanent threat of Fascism in US society. Historically, the rise of fascist regimes in highly developed, industrialized societies begins with the vilification of a scapegoat in order to galvanize mass opposition to a common “enemy” which is said to be a threat. Opposition to gays will brutalize the general tone of US political discourse, increase intolerance in general as a precurser to fascist activity, and galvanize mass support for repression in order to “cleanse” and “protect” the society at large! The scapegoating of other groups in the society is sure to follow if early attempts in this vein prove successful!
The Bush people have over and again shown their contempt for democracy and democratic values. Let’s take the recent issues regarding hatred of gays seriously. It began with the promotion of DOMA and gay marriage as a wedge issue by the Republicans in order to put the Dems on the run in the 2004 election campaign. This was frightening because it was the first time in so long that an entire social group was dangerously held up for vilification for partisan political purposes. Rove and Goebbels are very similar creatures! Expect more of the same in the future.
This makes civil rights struggles and the fight for gay marriage even more important. No more Apartheid of ANY kind. Democracy is at stake for the entire society. Democracy cannot any longer be separated from the issue of social equality. Fearing a backlash is no excuse to shirk activism when there is increasingly less to lose in the face of the incipient fascist encroachment on our political culture. Let’s get going!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 4, 2006 at 5:12 PM True enough, , cabdriver. Activism is important, but also, the personal is political and vice versa. Taking action on issues is important, but so to is not treating hate speech as “free speech”. When the wing-nutty elements jump on board and speak as if everyone else in any forum is the same “other”, this is called “depersonalization”, and when the right of the supposed homogenous group to exist or be treated equally is drawn into question or denied, it is called “dehumanizing”. It is not benign. It is a serious warning bell.
The more bullies think they can get away with this, and the more they think the general public supports them, the further they will go.
Typical moves toward fascism are:
women told to stay home (Kuche, Kirsche, Kinder)
abortion outlawed
targeting homosexualsOne other common totalitarian scapegoat—- the intellectual.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 5, 2006 at 12:54 AM Wiley,
You’re absolutely correct about the warning signs of impending fascism. Women are key targets as are generally marginalized social groups like gays and ethnic minorities. Everyone scapegoats the intellectual—without intellectuals people would be more comfortable with their ingnorance and prejudices.
If you haven’t seen the movie, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, please go see it. I think it was directed by Karl Rove. It says everything there is to say about Bush era redneck America. There was one great line spoken by the women who played the mother of Emily Rose-the wholesome farm girl who allegedly became a victim of demonic possession in her dorm room while away at college: “Everything was fine ‘til she went away to that University!”
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 6, 2006 at 5:10 PM Already saw that movie. It seems that the administration has been pushing the other route—-mandatory psychological testing and mandatory drug administration. I’d rather have an exorcism, personally. I could confuse demons I don’t necessarily believe in, until they leave me alone—-like the one who keeps telling me I can smoke ONE cigarette. Screw him!
The movie skirted a fine line. I believe people have a right to alternative therapies, so long as they are not delusional in the way of thinking they can eat glass, or morph into paper airplanes. The woman did give her consent (or so they said). Mean and arbitrary as it sounds, I think that once a person is legally an adult, then they are responsible for whether or not they abide by their parents’ wishes. I see your point about anti-intellectualism, though, and would raise it to anyone who reads when they don’t have to is an “intellectual” in the U.S.
Forced therapy based on what is likely to be poorly administered, poorly researched, and poorly defined indicators prepared by people in a field that can hardly define itself is totally wrong in that totalitarian way that takes its liberties telling everybody what their problem is.
The people who want to make such things happen are the people who need the psychiatric community the most, but will benefit from it the least—-megalomaniacal sociopaths. How I wish the general population knew how to spot them—-it’s so easy, once you get it—- and understood the anguish they would likely suffer for having followed the amoral bastards.
A lot of working people in this country actually believe that individual members of the administration love and appreciate them, and understand them, and shares their values. (Note I said “working people”. The administration does understand the we-can’t-be-rich-enough crowd. )
Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness. Women being traumatized were told to be better wives and given valium. People who disagreed with the psychiatrists or status quo were labeled “troublemakers” and sometimes diagnosed as insane. Dissidents were put in psychiatric wards and drugged into drueling.
Totalitarian societies require a lot of cooperation and work from the professional middle class, and working class police and military. But with the media being as ubiquitous as it is, the number of people who would happily comply is, I think (hope, pray) magnified. It’s a propoganda technique, like repeating over and over that the American midwest represents the true America when 70% of the American population lives 200 miles from a coast.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 6, 2006 at 6:32 PM Gay culture and gay rights activists (not lesbians) are more to blame than anyone else for this mess
Gay culture and it’s leaders are not blameless. It is a culture rife with holes that make even the most twisted with a wholesale acceptance of moral depravity on a scale that few people know exists. No I’m not talking about gay sex, but the various forms of kink that have replaced it. Fisting is glorified in the mainstream gay press. Only after a decade of rot has gay culture started to think twice about its heavy drug use. Monogamy was never an issue, because gay men reveled in their “right” to have sex with anyone, everyone. When it became clear this was not compatible with getting the right to adopt or marry. Cleaning up the act was not an option, instead they pretended it wasn’t true.
Unfortunately the FRight Wing wasn’t willing to go along. At least a decade of “in-your-face” “we’re here, we’re queer and we’re not going to take it anymore” idiocy gay activism has resulted in the FRight Wing finding out about all the extreme excesses of gay culture fueling the absolute opposition on the part of many.
It is utterly naive to portray gay culture as same-sex loving men who just want to adopt children, get married to loving partners so they can enjoy the safety of matrimonial devotion.
“Gay culture” when the mainstream excesses are examined is the nightmare that many straights fear. They didn’t mainstream kink, fisting, maintain every weekend sex/drug parties, mega drug use, wilful contraction and spreading of HIV and other STDs.
Gay culture’s response to such excess is to laugh it off, or defend the perpatrators as victims.
Quickly changing the subject to the need for members of this culture to be equal, marry and adopt children. Hmmm.
This carelessness has proved to be an endless store of ammunition for the FRight wing so effective that it has won over a super-majority of the people.
Straight opponents of gay rights quickly use the excesses of gay culture to undermine any battle for rights. Who on the other side can take it seriously?
Gay culture’s demands for equal rights rings as hollow as Whitney and Bobby Brown’s proclamations of being clean and sober.
If gay people want the right to adopt and marry. Then the leadership needs to focus on the sicknesses that have gone mainstream to the point of defining gay life in many bigger cities.
The voices of the leadership that should be doing what the FRight wing is doing, tying them together. If we want the right to adopt and to marry, then we need to recognize the evils of drug abuse, and extreme sexual excess. Heaven forbid, some public gay figure might actually have to say, he finds the practice of fisting to be non-sexual, instead of induldging the crap about it being a male bonding experience. LOL
The right to adopt and marry are not given out as individual rights. The way they’re being fought. They are earned by the group. In this aspect gay culture has failed miserably. Individual exceptions, as numorous as they are, are not enough to get the whole group through.
“Individual rights” to marry and adopt will never win as long as those who support it remain blind to or completely accepting of the moral deficiencies of gay culture as it exists today.
I can totally see how your typical hetero can cringe in fear when hearing about gays adopting or getting married.
It’s not giving rights that they fear, but the requirement that “gay culture” and it’s non-existent standards of morality, its brutal dismissal of respecting others also be accepted as equal.
Until gays realize that yes,there is a moral ruler by which all are measured, and one that we all must maintain, they will never get such rights they seek.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 6, 2006 at 9:44 PM First of all, most gays are in fact highly well educated professional people which is why they were the FIRST to get their house in order in the midst of the AIDS crisis years ago. They are intellegent people and are highly succeptible to mass public education campaigns unlike legions of unschooled American rednecks who continue to smoke, drink, and gamble despite the obvious degenerative effects on their lives and the lives of those around them! As far as “gay culture” is concerned you make many unfounded generalizations which could also apply to many straight people! Further, much of your hateful tirade is misinformed. Most gays are not defined by their sexual practices anymore than are straight people and kinky sex is certainly not the sole preserve of the gay community. Sexual deviance is subjective and exists everywhere and is in any case an irrelevant issue! Finally, homophobic hate is only a freeper attempt to deny gays and lesbians the same rights well all deserve! You should spend time with some of the more educated gays as I have and you will surely be convinced of the unfounded nature of your prejudices.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 6, 2006 at 10:17 PM So, johnnyincentx you think none of this stuff you mentioned fisting, multiple partners, drug use is a heterosexual issue? How about wife beating and fathers molesting their daughters? Should we ban heterosexuality over patriarchal, heterosexal abberrations?
I do see your point about gay groups being partially responsible for the way they are received. I think there is truth to that for every group and their public reception.
As far as what is sexual “excess” goes, I maintain the right to determine that for myself so long as all concerned parties are adults, and I extend that liberty to all of my fellow Americans. What we do sexually with each other adults, IMO, is none of the government’s business, with the exception of rape, which is an assault and a violation of individual sovereignty. As far as drug use being called “evil”, I think that’s ridiculous and over the top. Many people use drugs, do no harm, and are stable and successful.
I don’t want the government to be my parent or moral leader, nor do I want my life to be ruled by a bunch of purse lipped biddies who have gotten the misguided notion that it is their place to decide what is “moral” for everyone else.
You said, until gays realize that yes,there is a moral ruler by which all are measured, and one that we all must maintain, they will never get such rights they seek, and I say bunk—- I think you and your fellow moral rulers oughta stay out of my heterosexual face, and the face of every other adult in this country regardless of their sexual orientation when the topic is the sexual habits of consenting adults.
This “moral ruler” is now saying that anyone who looks at pornography is an addict who has a problem with fidelity. Bullshit. This “moral ruler” just doesn’t know when to quit and apparently has a hard time keeping itself occupied with its own problems.
As far as marriage goes, I would prefer that the state had nothing to do with it. How adults bond seems to me to be a personal and in many cases religious institution that I don’t think needs the blessing of government. I don’t see any reason to make polygamy illegal, either.
Now when you talk about children—-there’s a reason for parents to have a contract with the government, because the government will be left holding the bag if the parents severely neglect and/or abuse their children. The government isn’t required to date lonely single people, so I see no reason for it to involve itself in sexual contracts between adults.
I trust that there is as much of a variety of personalities and lifestyles among gays as there is among heterosexuals. I do not know if the focus on extreme acts you refer to comes from the gay community or a fraction of the gay community, but I do know there are a lot of gay Republican men with children who divorced the woman they had children with and shacked up with an interior designer or architect. Perhaps focusing on extremes is a diversion in their favor.
I don’t like the in your face style either, but bad form doesn’t justify refusing individuals equal protection under the law based on a characterization of a group.
Plenty of heterosexual parents treat their children badly, and somehow I doubt that it’s the bathhouse gays having sex daily on drugs, with strangers who want a family life.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 6, 2006 at 11:00 PM wileywitch:
If you think pointing out the flaws of heteros validates and excuses the flaws in homosexual culture - you don’t get it.
Heteros aren’t demanding their rights. They got ‘em. They don’t need the approval of 5% of the country to keep them either.
If you think admitting to rampant hetero hypocracy excuses homosexual culture from having to demonstrate a certain fielty to a generic sense of morals as written by the majority….. well then why homosexual rights is losing so badly is pretty obvious.
Heteros are well aware of their flaws. Their reasons for keeping homosexual culture at bay is to prevent an influx of forces that would further erode their values, and as corrupted and imperfect as they may be, they value them. They fight to maintain them.
The last thing that will be tolerated is a small group of sexual hedonists demanding all social rights, which refuses to recognize this.
The oppressed never get to re-write the rules of engagement for the batttle. The best they do is learn the rules well in order to defeat the oppressor at its own game.
They certainly won’t be given that chance by the hand of G-d in the middle of the battle just because they are getting their ass so thoroughly whipped.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 6, 2006 at 11:34 PM First of all gays represent about 10% of the US population. Secondly, your homophobia is misplaced! Gays are no more or less “moral” than the general population and quite possibly more so. They are on average more educated and have a far lower crime rate! In any case, you need to deal with your unbridled hatred of a community which neither threatens you nor has done you any harm.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 6, 2006 at 11:44 PM ”...a generic sense of morals as written by the majority…”
What are you talking about? Rule by moral fashion? Have you not heard of minority rights?
The last thing that will be tolerated is a small group of sexual hedonists demanding all social rights…
Oh, you mean like the people on those reality shows with Paris Hilton, or Pleasure Island, or Spring Break? (That’s the fault of gays?)
Heteros are well aware of their flaws. Their reasons for keeping homosexual culture at bay is to prevent an influx of forces that would further erode their values, and as corrupted and imperfect as they may be, they value them. They fight to maintain them.
Oh, pish. Homosexuals aren’t a force that causes heterosexuals to lower their standards. Heterosexuals need to take responsibility for themselves. It’s just like the religious right that has to impose itself on everyone else——it begs the question doesn’t it? If it’s so hard for heterosexuals to maintain their standards, then perhaps they should examine their standards, ask themselves if they honestly maintain them, and ask themselves if they honestly want to. It may be harder to change oneself than to carp on another group, but that’s how integrity works.
This heterosexual pedestal is crap. Do you think prostitution is a thriving business because of single men? Do you think all mothers love their children ? Do you think more children are being hospitalized by gays than heterosexuals? If the straights are so aware of this, then perhaps they should be crusading for their own reform.
I think the hyping of heterosexual bonding is primarily a lucrative market and perhaps an opiate or placebo. “Romance” is definitely an opiate.
Homosexuals don’t need validation from heterosexuals, they simply need not be tread upon and stigmatized.
You may be too young to remember this, but there was a time when men openly joked about rape and women talked about it in hushed tones and used euphemisms instead of speaking the word “rape”. Was that because women failed in their public relations efforts? Did they fail to learn the rules well in order to defeat the oppressor at its own game. What would that look like?
Are you saying that homosexuals should portray themselves as falsely as heterosexuals do?
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 7, 2006 at 1:24 AM The cart has been harnessed in front of the horse!
The question is not, “Why should gay men and lesbians be allowed to have the same financial, taxation, and child-rearing benefits of married heterosexuals?”
The real question is (or should be), “Upon what basis should a broad, diverse class of people who share a single characteristic - sexual attraction to people of their same gender - be forced into a special legal status that does not include the rights enjoyed by those who are attracted to the other gender?”
And an accessory question, “What is the justification for continuing this policy?”
Posted by Kuya on Mar 7, 2006 at 6:44 AM I should also say that a hedonistic approach to sex is not a valid reason to abridge one’s rights. I submit that a married couple (hetero) who like swapping, fisting, toys or whatever exotica they enjoy should not have their parental rights cancelled or their legally recognized union dissolved. The kids aren’t in any way involved in their parents’ explorations (which would constitute a grave and sickening form of child abuse), so they should not be considered victims in any respect, either actual or potential. The bedroom door would be locked, yes?
It might even make their parents’ relationship more secure if Mom and Dad explored sex hedonistically with each other. Or Mom and Mom, Dad and Dad, as the case may be.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 7, 2006 at 8:25 AM I don’t think adult sex should be part of a child’s world at all. Adult sex is even less childrens’ business than it is the business of government or neighbors.
So, I think, it is a valid point, Kuya and johnny that adults should be discrete about sex. Their relationships, however, should not have to be hidden, IMO. Deception is an ugly thing, especially when it has to be engaged to avoid bigotry and bashing.
And, I don’t like to see heterosexuals making out in public either. Get a room!
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 7, 2006 at 8:54 AM Yes, wiley, you’re quite right on both counts. My kids have no place in that aspect of my life, nor will I accept for even a microsecond the government’s interference there either. Even when I was a kid myself, I was flabbergasted that certain sexual acts were actually criminalized. It sort of begged the question, “How would the police even find out?” to my youthful mind.
Thankfully the Supreme Court cut the legs out from under that nonsense. Ah, but those intrusive laws were based on “community values”, yes?
That’s why the door gets locked. The “community” isn’t invited.
If there ain’t a right to privacy, there ought to be!
Posted by Kuya on Mar 7, 2006 at 9:33 AM As for my view on relationships, homo or hetero, I guess there’s not much doubt in anyone’s mind. Love and mutual respect don’t have to ask the question, “What’s your plumbing?”
Posted by Kuya on Mar 7, 2006 at 9:36 AM I absolutely love reading about outfits like Free Republic. In John Ireland’s article, Free Republic is called ‘an online water cooler’ for ‘Patriots’ who are ‘biased toward God, Country, family, liberty, & freedom’. Of course they are against gay led families participating in the Easter egg hunt at the White House. So my question is this: Do these people know what the words ‘liberty’ & ‘freedom’ mean? I know, I know, it’s selected freedom, selected liberty. I suppose they are in favor of re-writing the dictionary. Webster’s defines liberty as “freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.” And freedom? Well, it’s definition is listed as “the power to make one’s own choice’s or decisions without constraint from within or without; self-determination”. If these guys truly knew and respected the meaning of these types of words, then this would all be a non-issue. Isn’t there a quote in the Bible that states ” blessed are the self-righteous”.
Posted by ticnatz on Mar 7, 2006 at 10:58 AM Cabdriver:
10% of the population - yeah right. LOL
Give a group 10% of the population like Blacks and Hispanics and amazingly as faulty as our system is, somehow, someway this % translate into many elected officials, and very very large communities made up of members of these groups all over the place. They ARE everywhere.
This can’t be said about Gay men. Umm, step outside of the 10 largest metropolitan areas of the United States and “Gay” utterly and completey disappears, and only in the top 5 or so are there actually defined neighborhoods.
Those neigborhoods when looked at are extremely small. You can walk the length of the Castro, the fabled capital of Gay America in about 10 minutes. It’s tiny. West Hollywood is about 10 blocks long and 2 blocks wide
For a community consisting of 10% of the US population the evidence of its existance is startingly missingl.
What’s worse is, even if 90% were hidden due to hate and bigotry, one should still see evidence of that kind of strength in the voting population. Yet here too there is virtually no evidence of such a large population anywhere outside those big metro areas.
Finding outward, visible signs of “homosexual culture” outside of those metro areas is confined to the lonely obscurely named gay hangout usually out in the middle of nowhere.
I would personally like to know any group that consists of 10% of America can hide so successfully - from each other!
The truth is that # includes bisexuals. Bisexuals are NOT homosexuals. Bisexuals, depsite the eager inclusion into the many names for gay groups participate in extremely small #s compared to their #s in society.
Even more ironically, bisexuals are the ones who truly make up the haters.
Behind most passionate haters lies strongly repressed homosexual tendencies.
Bisexuality in large parts of this country say the South, Texas, the West and as seen in Brokeback Mountain, truly represents “gay” life, BUT it does not share nor support the urban gay culture goals or agendas. If told they are part of gay culture, expect a strong recoil.
In many ways they are the strongest opponents. If you need a clear and exact example, think of that mayor in Oregon or Washington who was a lifelong anti-gay repug. mayor who fought all his life against any gay causes, only to be outed finally as a total homo.
To include this # in the # we associate with “gay” is a gross mis-stating of the reality of gay power and #s.
the 10% figure is a number used by the gay politicos to give them personal reason to pursue issues based on a false sense of strength.
What’s worse, is they do NOT vote in any sort of group way. Even after 4long years of Bush, Gays voted 23% in favor of his administration. Previous years, saw much larger numbers of gays voting “against” their interests.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 7, 2006 at 10:16 PM Kuya:
The questions are as they are because of who is asking who.
Homosexuals are asking/demanding (use whatever verb you like) their rights from the Heterosexuals.
Heteros hold the power, they define the rights, who deserves them and what they are and who deserves them. It’s called power.
Thus while is a wonderful ideal, that the question should be “why does the majority have that right” It’s pointless idealization of the issue.
The question is “why should gays get the rights of heterosexuals.” Whether homosexuals feel differently, or feel mistreated by the nature of the question is irrelavant. They are asking “in.”
To assume the best way “in” is to destroy the house, as some more radical types insist. Hey we’ve seen the results. Amendment after amendment taking the place of laws that would have been easily repealed as climates progressed. Now even when the climate changes the forces opposed to equal rights have power secured on their side. Taking that power one day will now require overturning amendments, a far more difficult endeavor than merely passing a new law.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 7, 2006 at 10:24 PM WILEYWITCH:
Something you say gets to the heart of the conflict, even though it may not makes sense that I feel this way.
It’s your statement “GET A ROOM.”That is what hetero culture wants from anyone who feel sexual. Of course they feel it even more strongly for gay people, but they feel it for ALL people.
The many str8s who condemn the gay leather festival Folsom St. Fair also condemn str8 Mardi Gras or any hetero festival where sexuality is on blatant display.
While at any festival that is hetero, you will see str8 couples kissing and touching, but the festival is NOT about that. If you asked the other participants whether it’s good, most would say beyond a little kiss “get a room.”
There is no “public” str8 equivalent to the likes of the Folsom fair, and only Mardi Gras comes close to what’s accepted at the tamer Castro St. Fair. Things like the “exotic erotic ball” are private.
In American culture, enough room exists for gay men to do similar light social physical interaction (a hug, a kiss, a pat) in public without anyone caring.
It’s when it turns to an expression of the sexuality that it gets the angry stares. The same stares used for heteros who go too far.
All sexual excess tees them off, and makes them shout “get a room.”
If gays want rights that the heteros refuse to give them, they need to get a room for some of their cultural excesses. Heaven forbid though, any gay person question the propriaty of the Folsom Street Fair. It’s a public celebration of gay rights.
Those things more than any individual homosexual man or woman wanting rights is what makes str8s reject homosexuality completely.
On an individual basis, the overwhelming majority are open and willing to change.
Gay culture laughs and ridicules as stupid ignorance when they’re told by their str8 counterparts to “get a room.” Yes it is true the tolerance for gay sexual expression is lower, but it is not as absolutely intolerant as many gay rightists like to make it out to be.
How this relates to adoption is this way. Pushing for “gay adoption” is really not sensible in light of all the restrictions various str8 people have when seeking to adopt. Why should the elimination of gay obsticles to adoption take precidence over fixing the problems with adoption in general?
How about pushing to eliminate all rules that pertain to information identifying someone as single? How about eliminating the need to be married in order to adopt? How about eliminating any preference for female adopters. How about eliminating color requirements for those who want to adopt? Let’s eliminate age requirements.
No effort is made to ensure people born into a home are going to be raised in an “ozzie and harriett” setting. So why is it demanded in order to adopt. In truth most of the rules that prevent gay adoption stem from that expectation.
If constructed along the lines of the actual typical “single-parent” family in most of America, most of the rules and regulations that are used to prevent gay adoption would be eliminated.
Fighting to remove specific laws against gay adoption would be a lot easier if fought alongside the battle to eliminate the large set of rules that use “ozzie and harriet standards” to measure the worth of those who want to adopt. It also would eliminate the notion that some have, that gays are pursuing special rights. In a way this is right. Gays obtaining the right to adopt still leaves out the many single people (str8 gay Etc.) who would adopt but can’t. It would still prevent the many older childless couples without adoption rights.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 7, 2006 at 11:38 PM I don’t know where you live, johnny, but I’ve lived all over this country, and in Europe and have done a little traveling. On the whole, the overwhelming majority of get a room! behavior I have seen has been heterosexual. The worst I’ve seen is middle aged couples on buses. Fortunately, I usually have a book with me. Shoot, if I had things in my purse or my pack with labels on them, then reading labels would be more compelling activity for me than watching them make out or complaining about it.
I’ve been guilty of it myself in my youth, but that justified someone telling me to “get a room!”, or having security haul me off the premises. It would not justify the denial of equal protection under the law to me and other libidinous nymphy babes. It certainly wouldn’t justify denial of equal protection under the law to all heterosexual women, or all heterosexuals.
The following may seem like an unrelated tangent, but bear with me:
I remember the first time I saw hair in a woman’s armpit—-it was the 72 Munich Olympics and it was a German swimmer. I was appalled. It made me cringe. I thought it was shockingly horrible. Then I asked myself why I thought that. I saw hair under men’s armpits all the time and it didn’t shock me. What’s so different about men’s and woman’s armpits? It still made me uncomfortable for a few years, but I knew (when I was twelve) that I reacted the way I did, not because some woman hadn’t shaved her armpits, but because all the women I had ever known did. Enculturated, enculturated, enculturated.
Have you noticed how normal it is now for men to carry and coo and coddle their babies? It wasn’t that long ago that that would have been about as acceptable as a man walking around with a purse. I think it’s beautiful—-I love to see men melting with their babies. A lot of men make better parents than a lot of women.
I’ll grant it, that a little more discretion and less in-your-face would be helpful to all concerned, but having to hide is not fair. I, personally, would rather see two grown men kiss, than see them assault and/or kill each other.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 8, 2006 at 4:18 AM WileyWitch:
You’re totally right, most such behavior is courtesy of heteros, but that is because the the overwhelming majority of people are heteros. Where gays predominate, the examples you will find are overwhelmingly gay ones.
The problem with what your point is the same one with all the arguments in regards to this matter. “If heteros don’t have to abide by the rules, then homos shouldn’t either.” First off, heteros are supposed to abide by the rules, unfortunately heteros denying heteros rights in a group manner as they do to homosexuals is oxymoronic to say the least.
Your point also assumes an absolute equality that is ensured and guaranteed by something. What I don’t know.
My point is not whether that is right or wrong, but what is reality.
Reality is “rights” are derived from concensus. Any right can be denied stripped away no matter how sacred if enough people agree that a minority of any kind should not have them.
The ones in power, whoever they may be, have the right to do so. The minority of course can object, but cannot change it without forming its own majority to rule otherwise.
It’s funny to me that the most secular and non-believing in society desperately insist that there is some “higher ideal” that “guarantees human rights.” OK what is it? Who is it? Where is it?
Ironically the elemination of religious values that secularists have fought so hard, are the source of this belief in a higher guarantor of human rights. Without religion, those rights are derived solely from group concensus that they should or should not be.
It’s impossible to create a “heterosexual” group to compare the disenfranchisement of “homosexuals.” However if you could create one you would find that such a group would also be rejected and find their rights limited.
There is a reason why most “str8 swinger” groups are secretive. It’s because if they came out in the open and identified themselves with parades, a culture and segragated themselves their rights would quickly be curtailed.
Some close paralells in history can be found. The practice of Mormons were severely and harshly punished by Christians. Murdering Mormons was seen as a practical solution in the farm states (an idea that might appeal to some gay radicals LOL) The wanton killing of Mormons and burning of their settlements is what caused them to flee to the Western Desert. Statehood and its privilidges were denied until they accepted certain principals Christians held dear.
Women as a group have had all sorts of rights taken away, denied for sexual reasons. The irony is it is so widespread, amorpheous in nature and so complete it’s rarely recognized as punishment for “sexuality.” Also women do not form separate “women’s cultures.” If they did form communities like gay men do, you can bet those groups would find their rights and privilidges severely curtailed.
One could easily argue, based on the insane, cruel comments of anti-abortion activists that being forced to have a baby is just punishment for a woman daring to have sex. I’ve read that many times said various ways in forums like the one this article mentioned. One could easily say that a woman loses the right to control her body, when she chooses to have sex. That is the net effect of outlawing abortion, but because the lines are not so clearly drawn as they are in regards to homosexuality, no one sees it that way.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 8, 2006 at 6:31 AM wileywitch:
Actually judging from my short time in the reddest red state, I’d say the majority of the FRight wing deal very well with discrete gay couples, living their lives privately among them. I say this because it’s widespread here. All the gay men I have met over time here, are heavily involved with their families, often very religious ones. They live in the community. Aside from a two tiny ghettos they don’t have a choice. It works out. From this perspective the whole hullaballo about gays needing special rights to adopt or get married seem an extreme reaction to an inconvenience rather than a true example of civil rights violations.
In government terms they may not be willing to declare them equal, but in terms of lving their lives they are. The stories of being denied priviliges for a dying spouse or adopted child are more exceptions than rules. The smart person realizes these rules are easy to get around. That is they were until amendments were passed explicitly denying most work arounds. Luckily those extreme measures are likely to be overturned.
I’m sure most people would prefer to see to men kiss then kill each other, but it depends on what type of kissing really. LOL If you’re talking about the crotch groping, slobber kiss with tongues extended to clean one another’s tonsils I think a lot would hand them guns. That goes for any hetero couple who decided to act that way too. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 8, 2006 at 6:38 AM Johnny,
Your absurd and evil notion that the majority should strip away the rights of any minority they disappove of is purely Hitlerian and has no place in democratic discourse. You ask, in the absence of religion where do rights come from (as if religion grants rights!) The framers of the US Constitution believed that human rights were both self evident and inalienable. That is to say the notions of the 18th C. Enlightenment, upon which our nation’s constitution is based, hold that all people are equal regardless of society and its rules and that all people deserve freedom, life, property, and happiness that cannot be denied them WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW! Such due process, of course, is only legitimate by a popularly elected government of officials structly observing the separation of governmental powers.
As to the source of other rights and morality I would suggest it is the culmination of years of Stare Decisis. That is centuries of common law, custom, legal codes, and traditions upon which much constitutional law and principles are based. The US Constitution undoubtedly emerged by such accretion although many of the notions which it embodied were either new or newly accepted.
You really do need to deal with your irrational hatred of Gays.
Does it stem from religious inculcation!?
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 8, 2006 at 7:36 AM cabdriverinchicago
What’s absurd and hitlerian is your tactics in attempting to attribute to me the garbage you tried. I never said what you wrote. I won’t reply to it.
Due Process is and can be met to acheive the removal of individual rights as much as it can be to give them.
In fact if a particular faction is smart and stacks the SC with all FRight Wing judges “due process” can be reduced to a SC ruling. Stare Decisis is what Roberts and Alito used to assure the gullable that they would not overturn Roe Vs. Wade. I’m not holding my breath.
The framers of the constitution had strong religious basis for their beliefs. IF you would bother to read the other writings of many of the signers of the constitution you’ll see that for them the inaliable rights stemmed from an almighty creator, not only the enlightenment. The fact that a few where agnostic or athiest does not negate the feelings of the rest.
Do you really believe the enlightenment stemmed from the ether, fully formed and totally independent of religious thought that preceded it by millenea in regards to the rights of man? Many of the underpinnings for that enlightenment came from religion, and new understandings of its origins that were rediscovered during that time.. Judiasm presents the earliest examples of the concept of “human rights” even if it’s not clearly stated in legalize. It’s there. There in lies the root of all Christian beliefs abouts the rights of man.
You certainly like to mix and match in your argument don’t you. As far as the USA is concerned there is NO centuries of precident for general human rights. We’re only a bit over 200 yrs old, and for most of that time individual rights were limited all over for any reason, sex, color.
As you know, the constitution ONLY APPLIED “white landowning men.” <u> talk about exclusion</u> It took how long for black men to get that right (briefly, then taken away effectively for 100 more years) How long for women? How long for white men without property. The “existance” of rights cannot be retroactively defined as including the times when they did not exist. In all honesty the rights we call “
To try to argue that the constitution somehow guarantees gays individual rights on any level is absurd in that it totally ignores how other groups came to obtain their rights. They did NOT get it simply by deciding for themselves that is what the constitution said, and then telling everyone else to obey them. That is what you seem to think you can do though.
Those rights were extended in a process stretching over two hundred years to groups that were NOT included. The process is ongoing. The “Stare Decisis” has NEVER been independent of the religious underpinnings that formed its base. Any student of history in any age will see endless references attributing the beliefs of fundamental rights stemming from religious beliefs. The problem for you is it’s so entertwined in culture and layered with custom, you think it’s origins are separate.
The SOLE enforcement power behind the constitution, stare decisis is backed by the will of the majority.
What prevents the majority from abusing its power is the rarity that majorities on any issue come together to overturn the precident and make a new one.
Gay rights is one of the few issues in recent history that has actually motivated enough people to make up a supermajority capable and willing to undo any stare decisis you think is 100% protective of the gay rights you believe exist.
Get any majority stirred up and angry enough and there is NO precident that can stop them from getting what they want.
THAT is exactly what the FRight Wing UNDERSTANDS and is working towards, and with great success. <b>While you foolishly dither and argue about how your rights cannot be taken away, your rights are inaliable,<b> <u>the FRight Wing is taking them away!</u>
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 8, 2006 at 8:17 AM cabdriverinchicago
What is particularly entertaining is your belief that anyone who feels differently than you must “hate” or be the victim of “religious inculcation.”
Such stupidity is one of the biggest achilles heels of those who seek rights for gays.
How long will it take for gay rights to understand “never insult people just because they disagree.” “Never assume that because someone disagrees that they are against you.” You do both.
Gee I wonder what genius tacticion thought up the strategy you employ.
insult, degrade your opponent and his views. Then demand your opponent respect your views and use them as the standard. Hmmmm.
Even gays were absolutely right on every point in the rights argument, they’re use of such tactics would still make them lose.
Exactly how far would I get with you accusing you of being an anti-faith bigot for always connecting a “negative in your eyes” to a religious source?
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 8, 2006 at 8:28 AM Johnny,
I really don’t know what your beef is or why you have all this “anger” (your word) at gays. The US Constitution guarantees ALL people rights equally even if the American political system has often historically violated this particular intention of the document in the past. The Constitution doesn’t single out Gays as a group for whom rights should be bestowed but neither does it say there is any legal basis for denying them equal rights. Equal rights for gays are thus “eminating” rights ie implied in the obvious intent and practical meaning of applying the Constitution. The same argument was applied by several court decisions at many levels upholding Roe vs Wade. Further, many state and local statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and they’ve been legally upheld as constitutional in lower courts. True, many framers of the Constitution had strong religious beliefs and many didn’t. All seemed to believe in the separation of church and state as evidenced in the establishment clause of the Constitution which is the only thing that matters. Modern jurists everywhere support this conclusion even is clericofascists don’t and no one believes that theocracy and democracy are ever to any extent compatible.
This is quite a serious issue! There is a real danger that the US will eschew democratic tradition and yield to its own fascist tendencies. The only reason most people detest gays and want to see “the majority strip them of their rights” (again your words and a highly undemocratic image suggesting mindless lynch-mob style oppression) is extreme intolerance fostered by religious beliefs. You have rights to believe what you want but why deny similar rights to others. Homosexuals are generally fully productive and contributing members of US and other societies and should be regarded as such. Its high time to stop oppressing them!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 8, 2006 at 8:58 AM cabdriver:
LOL I always get a chuckle out of the simple minded tactic of assuming anyone who disagrees with you is angry. The smart person asks instead of assumes.
The ongoing interpretations of law and the constitution assuming correct and right are already pre-determined as in line with gay rights is what is costing gay rights so much. It makes it impossible to understand why they lose.
What you say about the constitution and its significance is your OWN personal opinion.
It is not law. It is NOT reason that is superior to the legal reasoning of the FRight Wing. Who based on the facts on the ground are clearly winning this battle.
In this battle winning = right. Losing = wrong.
I guess you state your beliefs as fac in hopes that I will try to disprove
The “facts” in this case are a product of many things. They are certainly not as black and white and so simple as you try to portray, nor have they been interpreted in a way that supports gay rights as you believe.It’s one thing to say “I believe this is what the constitution means.” It’s quite another to do as you do, and state “this is what it means.” Oh really? Are you a ghost writer of all legal opinions for the Supreme Court. Such a position would put you in a position to speak with the authority you seem so naturally to assume is proper for your beliefs.
The fact that the constitution didn’t single out gays is not PROOF of anything other than they were not considered at all.
Historically it certainly NOT been the cae, that any group not considered by the writers of the constitution received full and equal rights.
More likely “I think” being men of reason, they expected any “new group” claiming equal rights would have to prove themselves worthy of equal rights.
The constitution does provide a sufficiently flexible framework to take up the issue of gay rights without ever having considered gays in any way.
This process does NOT include a fiat accompli of granting full rights to any new group prior to their proving they deserve them. It’s the process that will prove them deserving or undeserving.
That is what the FRight wing gets so well, and the gay rights activists blinded by their own rightousness do NOT get at all.
The self-serving rightousness that has blinded the gay rights movement is very similar to beliefs that support your conclusions. You still have to fight the battle and play by the rules. Gays get no special pass by declaring themselves fully qualified, yet that is what they are doing exactly. They still have to prove it. That is what the process is for, and one must take into account the views of the opposition, not simply dismiss it as wrong and absurd as gay rights activists pretentiously keep on doing.
Exactly what point did I make that would offend “modern jurists everywhere” as you characterize them? Where did I say the framers did NOT believe in seperation of church and state. I did NOT. Another pointless point to make you seem right and me wrong for no purpose.
As for the imagry my words trigger in your mind, I’m not responsible. Those images are a reflection of your reality. If you want to know what’s behind something I say (if anything) ask me LOL.
The FRight wing has gone to great lengths to prove just the opposite in regards to “fully productive” and “contributing.” Judging from the vote totals in supports of their various agendas, they’re doing a great job in making their interpretation the only one that matters.
Truth and right in the world of politics and law is stems from the decisions and actions of those in power. Who is power and what is power is protean, and it takes agile quick thinking to understand the complexities. That is the perspective I’m coming from and that perspective loses almost all meaning in the black and white perspective you prefer. That would explain your constant misinterpretation.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 9, 2006 at 7:20 AM Johnny, I’m not saying you’re anything, or that you said I said that you were anything, but where does “the rules” come from? Did you not get my points earlier? Rules change. Fashion changes. Boundaries change. That is often called “progress” in a society that values or claims to value individualism. That’s why I don’t have to wear long nails, and nylons, and type 60 words a minute without errors and without breaking my nails.
I’m also not expected to tease my hair with a metal comb that looks like a medieval torture instrument, stack it so that it looks big and affix it with hair spray so that it stays in place during a typhoon, to be considered socially acceptable, attractive, decent, desirable, or hire-able.
I’ve always asked men out, and with two exceptions, it always worked, even when it was common knowledge that men didn’t like that. Common knowledge is so often bunk.
Thanks to the mosh pit, I learned to dance because I was no longer required to engage in a stupid mating ritual, passively waiting for any man’s approval as if I gave a damn, then having to follow their lead.
And here’s an example of socially acceptable behavior that is, for some strange reason, not called the spade that it is——men hanging out together at strip clubs. Are they not sharing a sexual experience? Are they not having sexual experiences together? I have no problem with that, but let’s be real about it.
Most men, I think, if their wives or girfriends asked them if—-since the men went to strip clubs—- they had any problem with their women mates going next door and making a little money stripping for a neighbor, my guess is that the men would be shocked and opposed. Double standards still abound among heterosexuals, it is no surprize that double standards are abound where homosexuals are concerned, but in time, we might all just get comfortable with ourselves and find workable boundaries. The idea that there are rules doesn’t help in that regard, in my opinion. There are people. People change.
I understand being bothered or disturbed by the “in your face” stuff, Johnny, believe me. I think that’s where the left went really wrong in the nineties and it killed a lot of discussion and cultural exchanges, especiall where racism was concerned. I can see the value of subtlety for those who know how it works, and shaming does not help. But “minority rights” is nothing to sneeze at. There is no reason why adult people should have to deny their sexual preferences for other adults because heterosexuals are the majority. They might even be a smaller majority, if they weren’t afraid of social exclusion, family rejection, or having the crap beat out of them.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 9, 2006 at 8:22 AM Johnny,
All I said was that the Constitution guaratees all people the same rights even if the American political system throughout its long history at certain times denied those rights to various social groups. In addition, you have expressed great animosity towards gays that you have not expressed towards others. You want to deny them the same rights. You denigrate ALL gays as a group in a way you would never do to others. Stop at once! No one is asking you to BE gay. You must learn to tolerate those who are different! I know you must have been taught to believe religious doctrines which attack gays and regard them as less than straight people. This is WRONG! In a democratic society church and state must be separate. We all were taught dogmas. How can a diverse society sustain itself if all insist on their own dogma? We are a DIVERSE society and must be tolerant. Religion must be kept in the private sphere. I know our founding fathers believed this as well!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 9, 2006 at 8:40 AM I hope the queers show up on Easter Day ... why? Because that will help out the GOP.
Middle America is sick and tired of the Gay Mafia trying to push their values on everyone.
Middle America doesn’t want their kids taught about “homosexuality” in school and then made to think that it’s cool to be a “homo”.
The list goes on and on. So, I think it’s great that the homos came up with this idea about Easter and the White House.
PS - Don’t forget the Hollywood moonbats and Michael Moore, they really help your cause in 2004.lol ... lmao
Posted by tina1 on Mar 9, 2006 at 8:49 AM Hello Johnnyincentx,
I understand the dynamic of majoritarian politics, however I submit that any society that claims itself to be an upholder of ideals such as freedom or equality ought to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
And who, of all societies that have ever existed, claims to be the living embodiment of those ideals in the form of a nation-state? No one more so than my beloved USA. What you’ve classed as a foolish idealization, I see as comprising central questions. What kind of society is the United States? Not in its self-comforting propaganda, but in fact? Does it, or does it not, live up to the principle that a vital role of government is to protect citizens’ rights?
To the extent that minority rights are not protected from negation by an aggressive majority, the US does not live up to its stated ideals. To me, this smells like hypocrisy. I can’t think of a single reason why it ought not to be lambasted. This has been true in regards to race relations, gender relations (although women are hardly a minority), and in the most recent period, relations among groups identified by their sexual preference.
When rights are diminished for a particular group, should there not be a justification that goes beyond simple majoritarian bullying, derived from (arguably) a sectarian/cultural bias that has percolated into a generalized dislike for “people like that”?
I have yet to see a justification that does not boil down to simple distaste for gay sex. Gay people should have the same rights as me, not because of (or in spite of) their sexual tastes, but because they’re American citizens. That should be the prior consideration, and the fact that it is not is a shame upon the ideals that we trumpet as a society without let up.
I have no idea the extent to which the in-your-face radicals who you find offensive speak for the mass of gay and lesbian individuals. Based on the acquaintances and friends I’ve had who are gay and lesbian (not a huge number, but more than a double-handful), I think they’re too diverse as a group to be so easily typed. Except for who they love, of course, which is really the central sticking point. Who they love is each other. They don’t even want you and me. They want each other and to have the rights other Americans have. Seems like not too much to ask.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 9, 2006 at 11:16 AM I spent a lot of times with gays in art circles. A lot of gay bars and clubs were great venues for local bands too, so it wasn’t assumed that everyone there was there to be gay. For some reason, I don’t care about the sexual practices of people with whom I am not having sex. Somehow lesbians could spot me as a “breeder” right away, and I was never hit on my women in gay clubs. We give ourselves away unconsciously I guess.
The gay people I knew just wanted to be themselves. They didn’t want to convert anybody, though I’ve heard that many women might be surprized at how easily their boyfriend (if drunk) would accept a blow-job from another man. I have the impression that it was sometimes an opportunist sort of thing and that no further mention or sexual attempts were generally made.
Then there are those “straight” men who have sex with young men they pick up and then beat them up afterward.
I think this whole gay issue is a tad bit too emotional and fearful for personal reasons that most people don’t want to examine, and it is also a red herring and substitute for looking at much larger issues that would seriously scare people if they would dare to look in the direction of realpolitic.
So let’s put this in perspective. Have gays ever declared war on heterosexuals? Is there a gay mafia? Are there gay death squads? Are gays trying to get plutonium on the black market so they can nuke the American Midwest? Are gays hijacking airplanes? Systematically robbing banks? Beating up old ladies?
Though I often despise these expressions, I find them appropriate here:
Get over it.
Get on with your life.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 9, 2006 at 9:03 PM Kuya:
I agree with most of what you said.
Are you assuming I would disagree?
What I wrote really doesn’t disagree with what you wrote.
It’s one thing to hold true to one’s own’s values.
It’s quite another to decide to fight every battle assuming what you think is the actual truth, and anything that is opposite your beliefs is false, a lie, proof of purposeful, practiced hypocracy.
In the end assuming your opponents are purposeful hypocrits who know you are right just makes it impossible to create an effective strategy to beat the opposition.
Oh and I am not saying you do that. I’m addressing what most of my posts are about.
Your questions in my view are very valid. I have not objected when expressed as you do.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 10, 2006 at 12:29 AM wileywitch:
I only wish people would answer those questions, but the opposition is way to “wiley” for that. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 10, 2006 at 12:31 AM cabdriver:
OK cool, but the constitution does not do what you think.
I mean the constitution starts with the phrase “We the people….truths self-evident….are all equal”
Yet it denied blacks citizenship. It enshrined their worth as 2/3 of a white man. It didn’t even mention women.
Clearly the simple “black and white” interpretation of what the constitution says is going to sail wide of the mark of what it really means in the real world.
My point is, we can all agree with what we feel it means, but the results in the real world are often dramatically different.
Understanding the whys of this is what I’m interested in. This requires not ruling out other people’s views no matter how much I disagree with them, especially when they hold the power, and I don’t.
As far as what I have said about “all gays” and “denying them rights” this just further proves you have NOT read what I wrote.
You say I have expressed great animosity towards gays that I have not expressed towards other groups? Where have I talked about other groups?
I’ve never addressed what I think specifically of gay rights. You still haven’t asked either. Apparently you are 100% sure that your assumptions are absolutely accurate. Well, far be it from me to disturb the your bliss.
I have been talking tactics and the results of choices made. I’ve been very specific. I’ve mentioned “gay rights activists” sometimes “radicals” Perhaps you assume that every gay person is included?
Personally I would consider “gay rights activists/leaders/radicals” to be a very small part of gay life. From my experience gay people can be astoundingly apathetic. This apathy allows the small “self-appointed radical leadership” to assume the most visible rolesand pretend they ARE what all gay people are like speak with one mind for all. This falsehood is quickly siezed upon by the FRight wing and used against all gay people.
The irony of your comment “how can a diverse society sustain itself if all insist on their own dogma” OK, who or what is the “dogma” that should lead all? Yours?
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 10, 2006 at 12:45 AM Wileywitch:
I just read your second post. Once again I find nothing I disagree with, strange why are you expecting me to LOL
HOWEVER, you say: There is no reason why adult people should have to deny their sexual preferences for other adults because heterosexuals are the majority.
I don’t think anyone, save for the absolute extreme end of the opposition is asking that (Pat Robers and his ilk) They of course ask even more.
Denial and pretending to be straight is not an option. A lot of what is asked for is the recognition of the fact that heterosexual culture has boundries and rules (however poorly adhered to, and abused is besides the point). With modification a lot of them are very doable in public gay life. Doing so would eliminate a lot of the ammo the FRight wing has.
I’d give specifics, but it seems from most of what you said, you know what I’m talking about, even if you don’t agree per se.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 10, 2006 at 1:03 AM In case you haven’t noticed, johnny, I’m an open book. “Wiley” is a joke on myself.
The nugget we have a problem with, I think, is that you appear to see “the rules” as homogenous and standardized, and I see things in constant flux. The nuclear family of two people who married each other as virgins and never had sex with anyone else all their lives, and who had kids, and stayed together til death did them part was a fairy tale when it was the dominant model of “decency” and “normalcy” and “the American family”, now it’s unreal.
I think treating each other with respect and dealing with people individually is the best way to handle social problems. Handling social problems as political problems just keeps everybody distracted from the fact that our
government is dropping every ball in its rightful court, and the plutocracy is robbing us blind.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 10, 2006 at 8:21 AM wileywitch:
No actually I don’t know if our points overlap enough to truly conflict.
The “rules of the game” are mostly dictated by “those who are in power” and the “current state of affairs.”
The myth you speak of is certainly not real life, but it does form the backbone of the beliefs and hopes of much of the opposition. Nothing is more dangerous than telling someone their fantasy is a fraud.
Newcomers to the game do not have the ability, and cannot assume the right to just declare a new set of rules, especially if the rules go against the rules set by those in control merely by declaring it to be so. Yet that is what has happened in the gay rights struggle. .
Blacks gained their civil rights through a long struggle, but they and women gained their rights only after finding a way to sway the majority to their side.
From a historical perspective, success always comes from swaying the majority. Can you name a single minority that has won total equality while still experiencing majority opposition?
What makes it confusing is only in the last hundred years or so has the majority become synonymous with “power.” Prior to that power belonged to a small elite. A lot of rules written back then where meant to work within that context. Importing them into our framework will not magically transform the rules into one favoring minority rights.
For gay rights to triumph it has to trod the same path as any other rights movement. It has to gain the sympathy of the majority. Currently it does not have it. Why it doesn’t is what I’m talking about.
One reason it doesn’t is the leadership chose harsh confrontation instead of any sort of compromise with forces they deemed homophobes to stupid to know what hypocrits they are. I don’t think I’m exaggerating considering the things that were said about me, and assumed.
The fact that the views of the other side are just as extreme is besides the point. Since they are the ones holding a lot of the power. Winning requires proving our views. That’s the way the struggle always unfolds.
The goal is to sway the vast middle, not the FRight wing. The nature of group dynamics gives the natural edge to the FRight Wing. Gay culture, gays are simply too new to have a similar deeply seated legitimacy in the minds of that vast middle.
So when the gay rights movement came out swinging and demanding it came across very badly, and the FRight wing put this too good use in swaying the previously almost nuetral vast middle to their side.
Showing respect does not equate with believing someone deserves respect either. It’s more a practical consideration in pursuit of a goal.
I think I go to greater lengths to understand the reasons behind the opposition are interpreted as “agreeing with them.” I do not at all.
The prolibs have been losing on almost every front for years now. It’s time we figure out why. The gay rights struggle to me is like a small scale model of how to do everything wrong.
Doing things wrong doesn’t mean their goals is wrong, but their strategies sure suck, even if their goals and beliefs are noble and right.
To be clear the “gay rights struggle” refers to an ongoing process for which the “gay strategy” has been largely controlled by certain gay activists that has a certain agenda. It is not a synonym for all homosexuals. It certainly doesn’t refer to the individual on any level.
Ironically if gay rights looked at the success of so many individual gays in society they would find a way to win.
It’s a multi-faceted issue. There are no black and white answers really. All the problems and solutions are also interconnected. Unfortunately most people who disagree with me try to turn what I say into isolated, black and white explanations. Which they simply aren’t.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 10, 2006 at 7:11 PM Wileywitch:
Oh yes, after reading your posts, I assumed a while ago that your name was not absolutely serious. Believe it or not I write the same way. A lot of the bombast I use makes me laugh at myself.
Unfortunately most people interpret it as raging anger. I mean now that’s funny. The worst thing anyone can do is take themselves too seriously.
I do mean what I say, but the extreme way in which I say it is more campy intellectuallism than anything else. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 10, 2006 at 7:16 PM Well, johnny we are still deadlocked at a point which requires more linear and historical examination than I care to put myself through, but I’ll give you this—-I think the gay population fell for it when they took the gay marriage single issue bait in an election year.
Timing is everything, and the single-issue bandwagon is in danger of being harnessed to dead horses. I don’t think the issue of gay rights is all that parallel to other civil rights movements, though. White Americans were afraid of African-Americans. I could list other reasons, but I’m pressed for time, and want to catch up with the news.
Plus, my compadre is in the home stretch of finals week and he’s going to be using my computer a lot this weekend.Women, did not exactly have majority support in the early seventies—-not even by women, btw.
Part of the problem the left is having with in-your-face shaming methods is no one is afraid of proclaimed pacifists, and no one is going to openly examine their thinking in the presence of someone who is shaming them. So, I think it would behoove the left to try to acknowledge that people who are homophobic or opposed to gay lifestyles do have their “reasons”, and a wall of name-calling opposition, will only strengthen their bigotry.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 10, 2006 at 8:11 PM well wileywitch how it must cause your blood to freeze in your veins to come so perilously close to agreeing with someone who expresses himself in such an objectionable way. Far better for you to focus on the 1% we disagree than be happy we agree on 99% of what’s before us. ;-) JUST KIDDING
What you said in your last post is exactly what I’m talking about. All my posts have been attempts to explain the reasons why your conclusions need to be heeded.
This is just to clarify, not disagree. When I say “majority” I’m not being literal in the sense the majority is marching arm in arm with whatever group is making a demand.
Rather, the way I used"majority” here is more a reflection of “being in control of the levers of power” that direct the majority.
In literal terms the majority is made up of a vast grey middle made up mostly by poorly informed, apathetic people. Who have chosen to abdicate that responsibility to opinion leaders on either side of the political spectrum. They just say yes or no at election time.
Assumption of the “majority” position is achieved by creating a group of sufficient size and strength able to control enough levers of power that they became the controlling force of the “majority.”
In almost any situation though the literal majority in this nation is nearly inactive. It does not lead, it is led.
Somehow in regards to this single issue, gay rights, the gay activists so overplayed their hand, were so high-handed and so obnoxious they did the near impossible, they actually turned the usual huge grey middle into part of the FRight Wing.
This is not the norm, and cannot be simply written off as bigotry. A lot had to do with their tactics. Which you seem to agree.
I say it can’t just be bigotry. Since such widespread intense feelings would make themselves just as constantly visible on the individual level. Yet as we see almost everywhere, even in the most conservative, FRight Wing areas, people end up being extremely tolerant and live and let live in regards to gays they do know. From the outset, gay rights activist leaders rejected tolerance as tokenism.
You do a good job of summarizing the resulting disastrous tactics that grew out of this wholesale rejection of compromise. no one is afraid of proclaimed pacifists, and no one is going to openly examine their thinking in the presence of someone who is shaming them. So, I think it would behoove…....
We as prolibs need to lesson our tolerance for the rabid, ultra-passionate, no compromise radicals who often lead single issue campaigns by speaking up. It hurts us all. That is what I try to do, because I want us to win. To win requires doing what you said. Bad habits can be awfully hard to break especially if they’re kind of fun, and demonizing opponents is kind of fun. LOL
What you said in regards to single issues, and taking the bait was absolutely on target. And as it relates to gay adoption. The issue should be addressed as part of a wholesale rewriting of the rules that govern adoption in this country.
Which by the way use that “nuclear family” fantasy set up as a standard.
Revising those rules and eliminating all but the most basic fundamentals would go a long way towards eliminating the obstacles to gay adoption. Only the physical and financial ability of the adopting parent(s) should be taken into account. Age, being single Etc. should not be factors.
Birth parents don’t have to meet any standards to have kids. So why are the barriers so high to adopting? Gayness standards are just part of that setup. By joining the general battle to change adoption rules, gays have a far better chance of winning. It sure beats trying to set up a special exemption to rules set up to stop many str8s from adopting. They have to obey a whole slew of “morals rules” too.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 10, 2006 at 10:52 PM Dear Johnny,
At times I’m slow to recognize things but it seems you are a FReeper. Is this the basic reason for your anti-gay hatred? Perhaps it is! The FReepers tend to hate a lot of people. One might say it is odd they LOVE America while hating most of the people who live in it!!! The FReepers seem to be a purile lot. Much name calling, lots of semi-literate babble, not much substance. I notice Wiley has lots of patience for you. She probably thinks you’re one of the much maligned earnest salt of the earth types that much misunderstood and needs some coaching towards enlightenment. I am not so sanguine!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 11, 2006 at 7:14 AM Cabdriver, I don’t think you understand how the left is as responsible for the boat we’re in as the right is. I am generalizing, of course, but it seems that the left (a generalization) has a very hard time admitting that it’s wrong, and is so sure of it’s solutions (based on theory) that it doesn’t bother to ask why and how bigotry exists and thrives. In fact, it seems to me that many on the left are too concerned about sullying themselves with “the salt of the earth types” (which I count myself among) to be bothered all that much with reality at all.
For instance, on my vacation last summer, I was sitting in a bar in Upper West Manhattan having a conversation with a local about corruption and politics in general. We got onto the topic of racism. I told him that I thought we could have worked out a lot of those problems in the nineties if the left had not killed so much dialogue with shaming, and finger pointing, and just telling people they were wrong and bad people for saying “politically incorrect” things in “politically incorrect” ways.
I told him that most racists were taught to be racists from the time they were young and there were a lot of dynamics at work to make it difficult for them to break out of that mindset. I told him that if you talked to a racist person, one on one, and you weren’t judgemental and you sincerely asked them how they became racist, you might be able to have a dialogue. Nobody was going to look within in the face of someone calling them names and judging them.
So, I started telling this guy about how I had a skin-head with his head in his hands, looking inward and asking himself why he was racist. The guy in the bar immediately reacted with “Skin-heads! They’re all morons! Then he pointed to a black friend of his that was coming down the stairs toward where we were sitting.
That’s it. Skin-heads are morons. This guy has a black friend so he’s not a moron—-he’s a good guy. Yep. That’s really going to solve the problem of racism, right? The skin-heads—-who are all morons—-will have moron children and raise them to be racists who will grow up to have moron children who they will teach to be racist, and the guys who call the skin-heads morons and point to their black friends will be morally superior.
Problem solve-ed.
I, am having a conversation with johnny by the way, I am not condescending or patronizing by nature.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 11, 2006 at 8:10 AM Wiley,
That’s all well and good. I am never for self-rightously chastizing people who don’t know to much better than to be racist. I try to just say “I refuse to hate someone simply because of their skin color, language, ethnicity religious background etc. Wiley, the country is getting more racist everyday and it really has nothing to do with the Left. I’m constantly hearing a barage of anti-Mexican hysteria on the radio here in “liberal” blue state Chicago ranting on about how one in twenty people in the US workforce are here illegally etc. So what? They only help the economy. The morons miss the real point. These people are being used as the equivalent of peasants for large scale plantation agriculture for export markets. They are the US peasantry which transformed small scale California agriculture into one of the biggest agricultural economies in the world and a basis for much of our current wealth. The white independant yeomanry could never serve this function (they’re being squeezed out by big agribusiness) and the black tenent farmer long ago disappeared.
People don’t understand that the basis of racism is the early structuring of the economy’s class system and the many functions it plays in buffering groups from each other while politically stabilizing the accumulation process. Asian and Middle Eastern shop owning immigrants act as an urban buffer between rich whites and poor blacks all the while serving the ideological function of being held up by society as an example of bootstrapping. They bear the brunt of poor black frustration which is deflected on them instead of the system. European immigrants cheapened garment assembly over 100 years ago in the US as the factory system geographically concentrated the entire industry replacing the small workshop system. These workers were stereotyped as well even though they helped transform US industry and create immense profit which was reinvested in the further financial and industrial expansion of the US economy.. The UK’s industrial revolution was financed by the slave trade. Racism is an integral part of Capitalist development. It is the result of attempts to restructure and stabilize a system that concentrates wealth in politically destabilizing ways. The system is based the geographic and sectoral distribution of various cultural groups. Thus the system’s dynamic and structure is “racialized.
Racism is also used to create animosities to deflect attention away from this important fact. If Mexican labor didn’t produce greater profit than the costs of its reproduction there would be no support for allowing immigration on the part of the big bourgeousie. As the economy globalizes and the global division of labor concentrates industries in a few countries like China, India, and Mexico as labor migration patterns shift to suit this new arrangement expect more racist backlash. As the system produces greater inequality its apparent racial nature fosters the blaming of various racial groups rather than the system itself. False consciousness results. The source of much racism is resentment over the system’s production of greater inequality not resentment over political correctness.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 11, 2006 at 8:58 AM cabdriver. LOL Who’s angry now?
Think whatever you want to make yourself feel better.
I can say a big “whatever” to what you wrote, because it’s clear you never read or understood what I wrote. You skimmed it.
Skimming is not reading. It causes people to do exactly what you have done. Assume you read thoroughly and comprehended completely when you actually missed the point entirely.
Responding to assumptions like yours is pointless. Since it’s not grounded in fact but a construct meant to enable you NOT to think, ah such bliss.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 11, 2006 at 7:10 PM People don’t understand that the basis of racism is the early structuring of the economy’s class system and the many functions it plays in buffering groups from each other while politically stabilizing the accumulation process.
I’m not going to read your post completely right now, because Clouds is still sleeping and my only chance to be on my puter before he’s up and and ready to finish studying for his finals may be up any minute now. For now I’ll say that that quote of yours is a good example of how the left (a generalization) is generally ineffective. You’re not really talking about people. You’re talking about abstractions, and treating people as if they were merely the results of abstractions, and if they only understood the theory that you think is sooooooooooo vital, so important, so fundamental, etc., etc., then they would be born again.
Of course there is a history of racism. Of course it can be analyzed and studied in respectable scholarly ways. But to propose that learning a particular academic view is THE solution to the present bigotry among now living people is Academic Snake Oil. It is also dogma, that is (often) conveniently wrapped in jargon, with a whole slew of assumptions based on prior theories and the assumptions in them.
When the person who did not go to college and take at least 20 to 30 hours of abstract tripe that has often forgotten its own (usually Marxist and/or Freudian) origins, doesn’t want to hear it, well then it’s because they want to remain ignorant (she says, facetiously).
How convenient that it is the willfull ignorance of the “uneducated” at fault, and not the tendency to <u>abstract</u>—- detach, disconnect, disengage, dissociate, extract, isolate, part, remove, separate, steal, take out, uncouple, withdraw, and spout information that is neither necessary nor particularly relevant to changing the way a person feels about their neighbors, or fellow workers, or colleagues, and the way people choose to behave, in the present.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 11, 2006 at 7:23 PM wileywitch what you said in your last post is so exactly what I think.
To give credit to the FRight Wing (fear right) is to empower them.
Recognizing what we do that causes setbacks empowers us.
One of the worst things someone can do is go into battle assuming they are right in every regard.
If they fail they have nothing to fall back on to explain or change.
In the battle between Right and Left, in my view the Left is overwhelmingly correct, but it has been fighting the battle as if “being right” is synonymous with “winning.”
What you talked about in your post is something I call “benign racism” and “pathological racism.”
Most racists are benign, in the way you described them. Much of the negativity they feel towards other races is a result of never being asked why, or a result of never knowing someone different. When confronted with the reality of their fears quite often their racist beliefs collapse.
The problem is with the “PC Drones” who condemn all who have such feelings as being “pathalogical” and deserving of the same condemnation and retribution. Doing this turns the benign into the pathological. As in calling all white people “racists.”
In all things there are degrees. Such differences must be recognized. The “benign” types are swayable, changeable. They are willing to listen if someone will talk to them in a way they can understand.
Telling them they are evil, ignorant bigots like pathological racists are only turns them against you though - as you seem to agree.
I guess curbing that tendency on the prolib side is the focus of my posts.
Someone has to stop these little thoughtless, merry go rounds of self-justifying thought that actually shut down prolib thinking that would advance the cause.
What I’d like to see is a return to the original progressive/liberal core causes of women/environment that help the most people, everywhere, rather than these target causes for small groups.
Success in the core agenda will produce success in all areas. Since inherent in the prolib agenda is fairness and equality. When you get that, there is no need for special deliniations giving this group or that priority mention or focus.
Of course I may be going far beyond the point of agreement, but that is in general how I feel.
Special interests, no matter how noble, inherently have a degree of selfishness that takes more than it gives to the movement. Once that special interest is satisfied, the group disappears along with it the support it was supposed to give.
The prolib agenda isn’t supposed to be about ephemeral one-issue causes but a broad concept that will bring equality for all.
OF course some might say “women” are just that, but I’d disagree.
Women are a majority. Issues that affect women, affect all.
Winning the battle for women, thus wins the battle for everyone. I don’t think this can be said for any other group with their own particular agenda for whom winning only benefits them specifically. Therefore they cannot place their goals above that goal.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 11, 2006 at 7:27 PM Wileywitch:
sorry I was referring to your next to last post. You posted again before I finished my last one. LOL
(Though I agree with the last one too.)
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 11, 2006 at 7:34 PM Wiley,
There is nothing wrong with theory. You artificially separate it from the “way that real people feel” about things. In fact, theories are about all aspects of human behaviour. They try to explain the evolving of feelings in masses of people in terms of the social phenomena that theory analyzes. What’s wrong with that?!
All I tried to say was that racism doesn’t stem from “human nature” or natural instincts toward tribalism or territoriality like evolutionary or “bio-sociology” tries to contend. Rather, in modern societies, racism comes from the deliberate ordering of the division of labor in the economy and the ideological racism which is used by the elites to explain this ordering. Modern societies developed through oppression and discrimination against differing groups on different levels. Society is stratified as is its racial composition by the socio-economic order. At different times different groups are relegated to different sectors, tasks, functions, industries, etc. according to the political/economic needs of capitalism’s reproduction of its social relations. This is where the “feelings of racism” originate. They are politically ordered not natural.
Wiley, why hate college? It’s important and not at all elitist. I find it hard to believe people think education is elitist when we have a society that has a near 500 to one earnings ratio even as 15 to 20% of the people lack basic needs. This isn’t elitist but college is! I think this sort of reasoning is also inculcataed by authority. BTW, back in the 1960s thoroughly uneducated political prisoners like George Jackson, Eldridge Cleaver, and many others who we don’t know read Antonio Gramsci, C. Wright Mills, Marx, Lenin, WEB Dubious, and Trotsky while in prison without thinking it was elitist and unrelated to reality. They also took the opportunity to study law and defend themselves and expose the system. They went on to write important political tracts themselves. Wiley, maybe you need to think clearly about where the new anti-education, anti-intellectual bias in our current political culture comes from and why. It’s the far-right wackos that want to label everything intellectual “elitist” so people stop thinking. Study and education is NOT elitist! It’s for everyone. It’s not just in universities, either. And it’s liberation.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 11, 2006 at 9:11 PM Johnny,
I sometimes find it tough to get through your posts. They don’t come across very clearly to me. Do you hate gays or not? Sould they be accorded equal constitutional rights, or not? You have to answer these questions for yourself and others that you wish to communicate with unequivocally or else stop the BS. Be direct. Say what it is that you think and why???
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 11, 2006 at 9:16 PM cabdriver
The way you phrase your question is so utterly obnoxious and pretentious. LOL Yet is seems so natural for you. Did you earn a degree in rightous pontification? ;-)
It assumes I’ve been deceptive, when in fact this is the FIRST time you actually asked rather than assume what my view is on the subject.
I am curious how you are able to write rather abstract, convoluted, idealistic opinion pieces yet are flummoxed so easily by what I write.
I also find it entertaining that this “confusion” doesn’t prevent you from passing judgment on my “views” as you assumed them to be.
I believe we are all equal. Everyone deserves equal rights.No exceptions (Well OK, I do have a thing against monosexual, anti-genderists who seek to eliminate all visible physical differences among people via surgical intervention to ensure all have voluptuous penendulous breasts and a matching penis! - just kidding)
However believing everyone is equal, doesn’t equate with unconditional support.
Support is conditional on several things. One thing I consider is how they carry out the struggle.
I am not going to mindlessly support any group that uses self-defeating tactics that result in loss after loss. I certainly am not going to support any group who in losing pays no heed to the damage their losses inflict on their allies and supporters in the prolib side of politics.
Gay rights has been blinded by its own rightousness, and has been extremely careless in its fight. Its losses have affected the whole prolib movement. Team Bush owes its 2004 victory to the gay marriage issue.
Something you seem to be utterly unaware of is this is a “friendly forum.” It is the proper place to express disagreements. <u>Expressing disagreement does not to equate opposition or hating as you call it.</b></u>
All groups need a place where they can disagree uncensored.
Unfortunately all to often this healthy exercise is cut short by ideologues and PC enforcers like you, cabdriver, who demand all discussion conform to your standards before it can be discussed without condemnation
If I slam the conduct of the gay rights activists/agenda here, I do it assuming that most of the readers are sympathetic to gay rights and want them to succeed. They want equal rights for all as I do.
Part of finding a way to succeed is understanding why we fail.
No group can afford to declare criticism off limits. Here everything should be on the table.
<u>This makes it possible that once differences are settled “in house” the prolibs can fight together when they rejoin the process in public. We can speak with one voice and be far more effective and actually set up to win!!</u>
The inability to do this is a major reason why progressives and liberals haven’t been able to achieve that basic cohesion and that’s why we keep losing.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 12, 2006 at 2:18 AM Johnny,
Let’s get one thing straight-I despise Political Correctness as one of the dumbest things ever in our country’s history and also somewhat damaging through the resentment and exasperation it creates. Having said this I must note that you said some offensive things about gays and also seemed to be advocating the revocation of their rights. Perhaps you don’t mean it. I don’t really know! Anyhow, judging the justice of a cause by its tactics and degree of success makes no sense. Tactics and degree of success is arbitrarily related to causes and in any case has NO bearing on whether or not they are worthwhile or morally and politically just. The classic group that is continually judged this way is the Palestinians. They are constantly criticized for poor leadership and, worse than this, for continually losing to militarily superior Israel. What does this have to do with the justice of their cause?
The reason I made my remarks is because many people judge struggles, groups, etc according to person bias. All I’m saying is being in the majority doesn’t make one automatically right. I agree everyone is equal and has similar political rights. Also I never meant to be rude or insulting to you or anyone its just part of my style.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 12, 2006 at 2:44 AM Why do I hate college, cabdriver<b>? Are you serious? Is that how you respond to disagreement? Is it a knee-jerk sort of thing?
<i><b>I LOVED COLLEGE!!!!. If the treasury doesn’t go broke and the VA keeps their promise, I’m going to GO BACK TO COLLEGE, and LOVE IT SOME MORE!.
I’m damned good at it too—-I’m an excellent student, and one thing I’ve learned is that a lot of theory is rife with cultural assumptions and academic assumptions—-most especially Marxist and Freudian assumptions about what makes people tick. The social sciences are as much popular myth as science, and that’s before it trickles down to Oprah.
People are complex individuals. To know one, you have to get to know one. No template, no class analysis, no personality inventory will tell you who someone is and what “their problem” is, and how they can change. People are more than the sum of their parts, they are certainly more than pawns of historical, economic, and social forces.
Of course, historical, economic, and social forces are vital, but the idea that people can rise above them by understanding a particular academic perspective is ridiculous.
Many liberal arts cults feel it necessary to consider themselves as scientific as a rocket scientist. But they generally base new theory on old theory, one way or another—-even if the new theory is just a reaction against the ruling trope.
There is a lot of great and enlightened thinking in the liberal arts and social “sciences”, and there is also a lot of bull. The combination of publish or perish and stupid disciples who codify what the master himself doubted is responsible for a lot of ridiculous writing.
Even the good stuff is limited in scope and power, especially when observations are presented as “solutions”.
I’ll read your posts later. I’ve got to catch up on the news and the sun is out.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 12, 2006 at 8:09 PM Hello again Johnny,
If I mistook your actual views or expressed an unwarranted assumption, sorry about that. It’s often the case that I’m only able to check in here with days of time between, and I may have slipped into the trap of skimming posts for the gist, responding to that instead of the actual detail of content. Regrettable sloppiness, perhaps, on my part. Better next time.Continuing…
I’ve wondered a number of times whether it might not be the proper role of government to disregard the majority when determining policy.
Yup, that is one hazardous road! I’m not at all comfortable with the implications of the idea. However, it does appear evident to me that sometimes “the majority” viewpoint is oppressive and victimizing.
I’m reminded of the compromise back in 1877 to settle the disputed 1876 presidential election. One main feature of the compromise was to withdraw federal troops from the former Confederate states that would not outrightly accept the 14th Amendment and the “equal protection” clause it contained, therefore requiring all states to protect the rights for people of African descent (or anyone else now considered a natural born citizen). As soon as federal enforcement was seen to end, the “Jim Crow” era began. Those state legislatures (presumably driven by “majority” attitudes) pretty rapidly eroded the civil rights for racial minorities, until they were virtually non-existent for almost another 100 years.
At the risk of coming off as pedantic… Sorry, one of a teacher’s worst failings (the other is talking too much).
Anyway, in the interest of brevity, I’ll sum up by noting this conundrum in my mind. I’d like to express confidence that regular folk would sort of automatically see the rightness of equalizing rights for all, but to express that confidence really would amount to silly idealism, because it doesn’t play out in real life often enough.
How to deal with this? Should we accept the necessity for judicial activism to help bring about greater justice? Should we cajole the masses in hopes that the “correct” value will one day drive the law? Should we shrug and simply wait for enough people’s attitudes to change? That might be a long wait!
And, do we want the government, with all of its own flaws and vagaries, overriding popular sentiment as a routine practice, when the “right” values aren’t expressed by enough people?
I’ll be damned if I have a satisfactory answer to any of these questions, however like you (now that I’ve read your explicit view) I want all people to have the same rights regardless of their descriptive categories.
Perhaps a lot of what has fueled my posts is irritation and impatience with the lack of realization I see among people that the existence of others’ rights should not depend upon the recognition of those rights by neighborhood people. It’s a bit dismaying that such a value is not firmly established in the political and social culture of the US.
Well, that’s enough stream-of-consciousness for now, thanks for your patience.
Posted by Kuya on Mar 13, 2006 at 1:40 AM cabdriver: exactly what “literally” did I say that you deemed offensive, and why do you continue to write as if anyone needs your approval? I guess it’s “your style?” LOL
Almost all your comments in regards to what I wrote are actually your feelings about your own assumptions.
You have a problem with taking things literally. LOL Not all meaning is hidden. Some people actually say exactly what they mean. I think what confuses you is your interpreting or extrapolating way before you understand what someone said.
Are you aware of what an “interpretation” is?
You have no idea how much you “interpret” without even understanding.
You clearly are utterly unaware of how you use a double standard for your views and writing and that of others.
A nice example of this is when you wrote: judging the justice of a cause by its tactics and degree of success makes no sense. I don’t think I addressed that issue. What did I write that makes you think I did?
In regards to the Pal. comment. They have yet to try “passive, non-violent resistance” along the lines of Ghandi and MLK. Think about it.
Essential to successful communication is clear understanding. Understanding MUST come before interpretation or inferring Assuming is no substitute for asking.
You will win few if any battles with such tehniques. You only make enemies. Many of which would support you if you hadn’t been so condescending and patronizing. You must be a naderite. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 13, 2006 at 4:11 AM Kuya:
You’re very considerate for saying that I appreciate it.
Your questions have rather complex answers as you know. The only thing I’d do is caution you against assuming the “majority” is always in the wrong. I doubt if you do this, but that’s how what you wrote seems to infer.
Quite often the “majority” is in the right. Women are a “majority.” That majority has been disenfranchised for much of history.
The FRight Wing fundamentalists are a minority.
Their strength comes from how well they manipulate news and events to maximize their strength and control the majority.
The majority, the vast middle, is mostly benign, and actually sympathetic to equal rights. That majority is not made up of leaders, but of willing followers. If you make your case good enough, they’ll support you, even against their obvious, better interests.
<u>The key to getting the support of the vast, passive majority in the middle is using the right tactics.</u>
Key is speaking to them on their level, not down to them.
Key is not ridiculing beliefs widely held therein, because we happen to be more enlightened. Instead find the reasons, and in that we’ll find the way to change the misinformed beliefs. Only the hard-core racists Etc. are beyond reaching, and they actually are a small minority.
Key is addressing issues that affect them directly. To expect them only to care about issues that don’t affect them is to be unrealistic. The biggest strength, now wasted, the gay rights activists had on their side was the fact that “gay life” was remote. Its public image could be shaped and molded into something positive and vibrant, but no effort was made. This turned it into a huge weakness. One the FRight wing exploited to create a horrible, frightening image in the mind of the vast middle majority.
The vast middle majority is NOT idealistic by and large. They are pragmatic.
They are also averse to change - NO MATTER what the change may be. To get them to support change requires a well-planned process.
Proof of this is the incredible success of the FRight Wing. It’s common knowledge the success of today is the culmination of 30 YEARS of planning and effort made with virtually no equal planning and effort on the part of the prolibs.
Who decided once the laws were passed for the first time was the last time they would be decided.
The vast major, moderate middle has had all its information sources co-opted by the FRight wing. Almost all easy information is filtered and re-interpreted by the FRight Wing to ensure it supports their expremist views.
Making easy to understand, easy to access information is essential in ensuring the “majority” is supportive of equality and fairness. In the place of that the prolibs provided philosophical essays that required a masters to understand LOL.
Changing the mind of the vast middle majority which is sympathetic to equality and fairness only takes honest effort, like Air America, and getting wealthy liberals to buy back some of the media now almost totally in the hands of FRight Wing allies.
Such tactics combined with stronger,more focused grass roots efforts would reveal how much more the “majority” is naturally more sympathetic to the prolib agenda.
If we can do this, and do it well and use a winning strategy, then the “majority” will become our ally and the bulkwork against oppression. That I think is a far better alternative than trying to figure out a way to nueter it.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 13, 2006 at 4:33 AM Agreed, johnny—-what you said.
Kuya, I understand your conundrum. I would add sending the Guard in to allow black children to enter school as one of those unfortunate times when government disavowal of majority opinion had a leg to stand on.
But I don’t think it’s necessary for the government to rule on this gay marriage issue any time soon. Amending the constitution for it is just ridiculous, IMO. I could be wrong (I could always be wrong), but I think most gay couples can get what they want without court recognized marriage. Power of attorney comes to mind. And people can make binding contracts that courts will recognize. I don’t think people have to take til death do us part vows to see their partner in a hospital any more than the legal guardian of a child would have to adopt the child to take them to the hospital.
I’m not advocating unequal protection of the law, but am pointing out that many in the gay community took the bait and helped Rove and the media turn the last election into a circus as it was being stolen.
And, like johnny and I have been discussing, tactics have a lot to do with whether or not you get what you want. We’re not saying that tactics and outcomes decide whether or not you are entitled to or deserve what you want.
Tactics also have a lot to do with whether or not people are genuinely influenced enough to expand their thought, and maybe even to challenge some issues in their own lives that they have accepted at face value without question, and to start rethinking a lot of things without prompting and pressure. People need to feel safe to change, or be forced to change. The frightwing wants to use force and the threat of force.
What tactic will the left use? Shame and guilt and other emotional appeals? Academic dogma? Surely we can do better than that. And in order to do that, I think most activists will have to get to know the working class instead of telling them who they are, what they need, and what their problem is.
For what it’s worth, most of the middle class will be in the trenches soon, and they might find out that they can learn a lot from working people who never went to college.
As Johnny brought up, the right wing has been working hard and in an organized manner for a long time to get where it is today. Methinks it will take far fewer than thirty years for them to destroy themselves. That’s the one good thing about totalitarianism, utopianism, and extreme idealism—-the either self-destruct or rush to their own defeat because they ignore reality and don’t think the laws of physics apply to them.
When the chips go down, is the left going to be an inspiration to get up and get moving? Part of the question of ‘how can we be effective’ is ‘what have we been doing wrong’?
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 13, 2006 at 8:02 PM Johnny,
Stop belaboring this and learn how to just say what you mean and be precise. Don’t play games. It’s not about me. If someone advocates taking away a minority’s rights simply because they don’t like them or find them offensive I feel I should call them on it. That’s it! Also the subliminal FR in “FRight wing” was easily and understandably taken to mean Free Republic which is a nauseatingly bigotted and reactionary blog! Can you blame me if I conflated the two things?! Stop whining and get with the program. Maybe Wiley can help?
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 13, 2006 at 8:59 PM Wiley,
Many of the your posts which respond to my remarks don’t really address the issues I raise and worse, you tend to put words in my mouth and misinterpret what I say. You’ve been doing this for a while. I don’t think I’m better than others for commiting six and a half years to higher ed. at UW. I study all the time. I recommend others do the same. I also am autodidactic. I don’t regard formal education as the only kind either. Nor is it necessarily the most valuable kind. I feel that the world would be better if people were more educated and articulate. It’s not a class thing or a matter of prestige. The Jailhouse lawyers and intellectuals from when I was growing up (at a time before anti-intellectualism was being spread by reactionary pundits, clerics, and other assorted morons) is proof of what I’m saying. Wiley, you seem to have a very American hostility to the academy despite your protestations and the fact that you were a good college student.
There is much value in theoretical knowledge. It isn’t ivory tower snobbery. It helps make things comprehensible. Also, I never said or implied that people are “pawns of history” or that they can’t defy prevailing trends or dogma. The truth of these facts is what enables social and politcal change. What I am saying is that social outcomes are ordered by the correlation of forces between classes in their political struggle over what is Just and human needs. It is not the result of human nature or “essential” human charactoristics but power. People’s consciousness develops in the thick of this struggle. Sometimes the people win as in revolutionary times and sometimes they lose and accept the ideolgical inculcation of the master as in our current epoch.
Gramsci realized that the modern bourgeousie extended its class sphere over the whole of civil society so as to create ideological hegemony favoring its political interests. This was not necessary in pre-modern times as feudal authority was directly administered through vassels and the other agents of the system such as the Church. In modern society the bourgeousie enjoys a more organic connection to civil society through the development of its institutions and economic base. Ideology secures legitimation for authority through mass inculcation and the reification of all social relations in terms of elite interests. This is why people think what they do. It is orchestrated by authority, but there is also resistance! Modern society is even less democratic than before because of the increase in centralized control and the greater integration of society with the bourgeousie and its interests. Wiley, you should read Gramsci. He interpreted Marx better than the Russian Revolutionaries did and made it more relevant to western society and the present! No wonder so many political prisoners found him important and compelling. He wrote as a political prisoner, himself!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 13, 2006 at 9:42 PM WileyWitch
Well, I hope your response to being put in your place by our own personal “self-appointed intellectual in charge of telling everyone what they need to do” was a suppressed chuckle. LOL
It’s best you withdraw before you cause him to collapse from the strain of having to put forth such a “load” of weighty, profound conjecture expressing things that are far beyond the our ken. LOL
Even without understanding the patronizing lecture has no doubt invigorated your belief in the struggle, and strengthened your resolve for the fight. You are surely inspired to fight ‘til your last breath for his rights. Whatever rights you have exist merely to enable you to fight for his. ;-)
The delicious irony opening his reply is too much. ;-) It’s almost identical to what I’ve said in my replies to him. hehehe. Yet as always he is utterly oblivious.
I will keep this short, since you have quite a book or two to read. LOL
To be sure, I hope you realize I am teasing you, and not serious at all. ;-)
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 13, 2006 at 11:09 PM cabdriver:
Yeah you “conflated” all right.
Thanks to your own extremely skewed view, and the strong inherent biases that influence your perceptions you got it totally wrong.
The “F” in FRight Wing is short for Fear or Fright. It is a nod to one of their chief tactics, instilling fear in the majority in order to control them. It grew out of Bush’s extensive and continued use of fear in order to frighten people especially after 9/11.
I started using it, before this article ever mentioned the Free Republic. The only relation to that is in your mind.
Evidently you have the same inability a lot of radicals do, and that’s recognizing simple “catch phrases” for what they are, due to your tendency to overanalyse.
Another I use all the time is “Repugs or Repugnicans.” I would love to hear what insideous meaning you see in that? The obvious lie I use to cover it up, that it is a merging of repugnant and republican will not withstand your scrutiny.LOL No doubt you’ll break the code and reveal for everyone the brain-washing message I have hidden in that term. LOL
What’s truly amazing is how utterly blind you are in your own failings. Perhaps it’s because you spend all your time assuming you have the unimpeachable role of “judge and jury” of everyone else? LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 13, 2006 at 11:18 PM Johnny, I chuckled out loud, and will continue with my designs to take over the world, as planned.
Cabdriver, I am also autodidactic. So what? It’s not uncommon.
Let me give you one of my quotes:
Many liberal arts cults feel it necessary to consider themselves as scientific as a rocket scientist. But they generally base new theory on old theory, one way or another—-even if the new theory is just a reaction against the ruling trope.
There is a lot of great and enlightened thinking in the liberal arts and social “sciences”, and there is also a lot of bull. The combination of publish or perish and stupid disciples who codify what the master himself doubted is responsible for a lot of ridiculous writing.
Even the good stuff is limited in scope and power, especially when observations are presented as “solutions”.
Note that this is not a black and white pronouncement of hatred for college. Perhaps you could ask yourself why you find criticism of academia to be so hostile (to what)? You can ask yourself why it is so important for you to believe that I harbor hatred for college, if you like, as well—-of course. I know myself well enough to know better than you do how I feel about college. If that comes as a surprize to you, then you might want to contemplate that.
I have been told by an academic that also devoted six years to college, that the reason I painted Mary’s dress red (though I, a mere painter, called it orange) was because I was angry. The only evidence of my anger was the fact that I had painted Mary’s dress a red that was, in fact, orange, but the well educated analyst insisted on discussing my anger at every session, though I wanted to discuss issues of <u>integrating life with art</u>.
I let that silly little Jungian disciple go when I realized that I was surrounded, on all sides, by furiously angry tulips, and this woman was simply not going to listen to anything that didn’t fit with her branch of academic religion.
So typical. So much for analysis.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 14, 2006 at 12:28 AM Wiley,
The person who said that you painted a red dress to express subliminal anger is nuts. So what? Does this deligitimize all academic analysis? I should think that most educated people would have laughed at such a superficial and unrepresentitive example of psychoanalytic evaluation of someone’s art. Instead you think it represents every academics mentality, including mine. That is unfair!
Also, I don’t judge people and their views as a “self-appointed intellectual” but I don’t think people should be dishonest either.
The reason I suggested Gramsci (whose ideas about consciousness should be utterly accessable and easy to understand) is not to be pedantic but because you often accuse me of not understanding why people have the notions they do even when it seems counterintuitive and against their best interest. Most commonly held beliefs are not “natural human responses” to society but the result of deeply and consistently inculcated notions. Ruling groups extend their outlook/culture/interests/identity over the whole of society making their views seem natural and self-evidently correct, instead of partisan and class based. As a consequence their interests are conflated as the national interest, the security of their profits conflated with the health of the economy, their hegemony is conflated as public safety and national security, their values are conflated as “decency”—“what is good for GM is good for the country” as the old early post-WWII saying went. Never mind that these ideas become more deeply held as society increasingly polarizes and fewer and fewer people benefit from the system as time goes on. I’ll leave you and Johnny to think about it!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 14, 2006 at 3:47 AM Speaking for myself, I’ll think about it whether you leave me to it or not. Cabdriver, I am far more tentative, careful, and precise with my speech than you are giving me credit for, nevertheless, I am going to respond to your last post casually.
Thank you so much for recommending someone who is accessable and easy to understand. It is so kind of you to consider my mental deficiencies. Nevertheless, I have three books going now, am a gardener preparing for spring, and have to do some research on nuclear issues for my own pet project.
Anyone who ever exchanged five words with me has probably caught on that I don’t think the past has any connection whatsoever to the present. I don’t think that ruling groups make any attempts whatsoever to socially engineer their drones and goon squads. And I dismiss all academic theory out of hand—-every last bit of it. Even the math. Why? Because I hate it all, and I enjoy hating it.
I have to go druel on myself for awhile, then I think I’ll re-read Dick and Jane for the finer points.
...All is flux in beings’ wake—-
eternal vacuum sucking up an eternal bang.I could not stand exactly here,
if part of an engine weren’t hanging there—-
knotted as is.So where do I stand?
There is a question that language can only obscure
(I think) muttered words are moving sky,
and blankness draws the clouds.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 14, 2006 at 4:21 AM Wiley,
The idea that the past has NO connection to the present is flat out absurd! No one except for perhaps nihilists make this assertion! The real debate is not IF the past influences the present but HOW it does so. The far right (like the Freepers) think that the past utterly determines the present because change is illusory. They are fond of saying, “the more things change the more they remain the same” because they are extreme essentialists, that is they believe there is a transcendental predetermined meaning in human history that will predispose all outcomes.
Liberal enlightenment theory believed change existed but that is was evolutionary ie, by accretion. Society evolved as new needs gradually developed and change became gradual. Also knowledge is built by accretion. Inherent in this view is a kind of essentialism found in thinkers like Hegel (and to some extent Marx) to the effect that there is an discernable historic destiny of mankind such as Freedom. Here there is the enlightenment belief in inevitable human progress.
Marxists believe that all change is revolutionary but that the past is still deeply connected to the present. Different epochs of history are separated by revolutionary transformation that is often violent. Yet the nature of the change is not nihilistic but dialectical. Certain relevant aspects of the past epoch are subsumed into a new social formation based on new social conditions and transformed and integrated into new patterns of social relations to form an historic synthesis. An example could be found in the current epoch of globalization. The nation-state, a product of earlier stages of capitalist development predicated on the confined territoriality of the nation, does not remain the same or imperceptably evolve so as to maintain its basic features into the new era. Neither does it utterly disappear or quickly begin to lose all relevance as it fights the new trends in order to survive as some globalization enthusiasts like Tom Freidman suggest. Rather it sheds part of the old institutional structures and functions vital to nationally based capitalism while holding on to some present features and developing new ones relevant to the globalization of capital accumulation in creating a new synthesis. Some sociologists like W. I. Robinson see a new “transnational state” emerging in order to manage this new accumulation process and the pressures brought to bear upon its new pattern of social relations such as the WTO and the WEF. Old institutions from the early post WWII era like the IMF and the World Bank are refurbished to meet the new requirements of the age. So change exists but it is both revolutionary and dialectical.
So Wiley the understanding of the past MUST be Historicized for things do not exist outside their historic context. What made you think there was such a nihilistic disconnect between the past and present? Please be specific!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 14, 2006 at 6:31 AM WileyWitch
methinks cabby boy is having a bit of fun himself, and is indulging us by pretending to be utterly daft and pointless. I must say I am impressed, I’ve never seen anyone go to such lengths and so successfully portray the pretentious, witless, pompous, heavy handed judgmental lefty who drives away potential supporters and believers with his leaden prose to thick with contradiction and abstract rationalizations that it is worthless in understanding or explaining the real world. I personally think his portrayal is so accurate and spot on, that it should be held up as an example of what leftys need to absolutely avoid in terms of verbose intellectualizing and pompous elitist preaching ;)
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 14, 2006 at 7:46 AM LMAO! God, I wish I had said that johnnyincentx!!! Can I copy it and put it in my Live Journal? All names would be changed to protect the whatever, and I would credit you, of course.
Still laughing.
Ahhh, now an opportunity to use one of my favorite lines from the Queen of American Punk:
Yeah, when they built that tower of Babel, they knew what they were after. They knew what they were after.—- Patty Smith
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 14, 2006 at 8:22 AM I suppose it’s true that gay partners can get most of what hetero married couples get, by roundabout means. Still, I can’t for a minute pretend that I’d be satisfied with the situation if I was gay. The constant and strident public debates, the at-a-distance vilifications and generalizations, all the scrutiny of everything from why exactly I would have turned out gay to how exactly I would be having sex in the midst of being gay, speculation about what would have been my motives for wanting to be married (my belief: the same ones I actually did have when my wife and I married)...
On and on. Hell, even as a hetero, I’m sympathetically weary of all the harangue. It really never lets up. One gay buddy of mine who is about to marry his boyfriend in Canada, every time the political/social/cultural aspects of the issue come up in conversation, his sheer fatigue from having to always listen to others’ socio-legal chatter is vivid on his face. No wonder his eyes roll up and his tone becomes disgusted as he yet-again has to answer questions about, “The gay thing…” I put myself in his shoes and want to say, “Can I get a fucking break, already? I just want to get married!”
Really, the whole source of the debate is shameful. If I were the president (as if), I’d say, “They have the rights because they’re citizens. Period. Y’all don’t get to vote on it.”
Simple. (as if)
Posted by Kuya on Mar 14, 2006 at 8:40 AM Wiley and Johnny,
You both make ignorant statements about all kinds of stuff and then you mock others because they understand more because they actually took the trouble to understand what’s going on in the world and what it means. Johnny’s posts have been a total mess starting from the classic homophobe freeper to apologetic recanter while Wiley has taken the REAL arrogant high handed approach by trashing others and taking everything personally whether or not it is addressed toward her. She began be attacking me personally in the thread on the NYC Transit Workers Strike after I made a very modest post stating that the US public is hard headed and not inclined toward sympathy toward or solidarity with thier fellows due to the individualist culture among other things. I was immediately attacked for disrespecting the entire American working class and public in general for this simple, obvious, and non-controversal observation. This is especially remarkable since most of the other posts seemed to agree with me especially the one before mine which very cleverly and concisely said, “America is not the land of solidarity, but dog eaat dog.” He was both correct and in agreement with me but drew no fire from the sanctimonious Wiley.
I rarely say this but neither of you have actually addressed the issues in a way that sheds much light. You just attack people for expressing themselves differently. It shows immaturity and insecurity and is in any case nasty. I often began to wonder whether or not you’re serious or if your freeper trolls trying to aggravate and demoralize people. Johnny’s ridiculous ranting in all directions suggests this could be the case. Some tell-tale, unverifiable claims by Wiley intended only to defame the left like how “certain elitists ridicule others by criticising their attire at protests” is one example of cretinous closet conservatism. Another is a remark about how there are many people don’t know anything about the Bush Administration they just oppose him to be trendy (I’m paraphrasing) which reveals your basic salt-of-the-earth types sympathy with the low intellectual style if not “substance” of the current US Regime.
I may go over board at times but I say what I believe. I’m not fake. I don’t try to ridicule people. I’m generally polite and respectful. I talk as I do not to be arrogant but to start good discussions and to revive the much needed intellectualized discourse this society had in the past when social change was closer at hand than it is today. I don’t try put others down like you two do either with my tone or directly. If people are offended by what I say and the style I use it’s their problem not mine!
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Mar 14, 2006 at 5:19 PM Kuya, I understand. I am sympathetic. What Johnny and I have been discussing is tactics. I stand by my suspicion that the gay community took the bait and was suckered into making “gay marriage” a divisive issue when all eyes should have been on the government and the election. The homophobes fell for it too. I was embarrassed for all sides by the media spectacle.
Our entire planet is tottering on the brink. We need to choose our battles carefully, and develop a sound strategy. Preventive wars/gay marriage. Nuclear strikes/gay marriage. Destroying our alliances/gay marriage. Energy/gay marriage. Water/gay marriage. States going bankrupt/gay marriage.
I believe that all adults are entitled to equal protection under the law.
Can gays get what they want without falling for a Rovian antimonious look over there! issue to keep the divisions going?No one is keeping gays from bonding, no one is preventing them from making binding contracts that will allow their partners to act on their behalf, no one is preventing them from pushing for civil unions with their states (I’ve gotten health insurance through a boyfriend, they can fight for that too). Legalizing gay marriage isn’t going to change anyone’s attitude about gays or marriage.
Heterosexuals might want to ask themselves why they bother with the marriage contract with the state.
I don’t think that the government needs to be defining relationships between consenting adults at all—-unless it’s a child custody issue. Adults should be able to make and carry out whatever contract they like without government interference. I believe that, but do not feel that I need to emote or rail about every single issue, and I don’t think that makes me a bigot. I wish activists on gay issues well, I hope they find better tactics than emotional appeals that stir up controversy during particularly crucial elections.
Cabdriver, you are projecting. You are by far, the most condescending and patronizing poster I have ever had a discussion with, and since you are so convinced that you are the only bright crayon stuck in a box with dullards that you need to educate, I’ll leave you to your little box and stop reading your posts.
I’m not going to defend my intelligence. If you were as intelligent as you apparently think you are, you would see that there is no reason for me or johnny to defend ours.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 14, 2006 at 7:50 PM Kuya:
I understand the frustration too, but being frustrated and annoyed and totally fed up is not enough reason to strike out mindlessly from a position of extreme weakness That is the key.
It’s NOT about knowing your role or place, as much as it is knowing your strengths and weaknesses and what you can succeed at and what you cannot.
It’s as WileyWitch said. We’re talking strategy, not whether or not gays deserve equal rights.
Of course they do, but deserving equal rights does NOT mean you have the right to use any tactic no matter how sucky it is.
The evil FRight Wing win on every issue by, as WileyWitch plainly spelled out, focusing on gay rights.
The best answer in the situation of 2004 would have been to simply wait to reply until after the 2004 election.
Doing that very likely would have ensured John Kerry was president. As president he would have made their agenda a reality.
It takes to tango. Sometimes the best thing to do when provoked is to walk away.
Ironically the results of the recent battles have demonstrated how limited “gay oppression” really is.
If truly oppressed, we’d see huge #s of gay men in prison, joining Black and Hispanic men sitting there in disproportionate #s.
If truly oppressed, we’d see all sorts of efforts to enforce laws against drug abuse enforced with special fervor in the gay community in order to send them to prison. Yet the opposite is reality. Society has had NO problem doing that to Blacks.
If truly oppressed we’d see the Gov’t blatantly denying healthcare for HIV. Instead it funds HIV care like no other illness.
IN a truly oppressive environment. There would be NO compromise with the oppressed. Those expressing opinions contrary to policy would be rounded up and silenced.
From this reality comes the lower sense of urgency I sense in WileyWitch’s posts.
If the data from Mass. and other places where gay marriage is allowed, gay men are not rushing to get married. <u>So why the rush to make sure they have that right? I suspect the same is true in regards to gay adoption.</u>
<u>In essence the gay rights struggle is all about ideology first and last, and practicality, change and results last.</u>
On what grounds does the gay rights agenda assume absolute priority over a woman’s right to control her own body, fighting militarism, defeating racism.
In my book there is no reason for this priority.
The real goal should be finding the most effective means to end ALL bigotry and racism, not merely trying to find a way to end it for a specific group.
<u>Besides, passing a law falls far short of eliminating bigotry and racism as Blacks have found out.</u>
In truth, the bigotry gays face in this nation varies dramatically from place to place. Can anyone claim that gays suffer bigotry and oppression equal to blacks in places like CA, NY, SF, NYC, Houston, Chicago Etc. If anything in those places they are part of the privileged classes.
Due to limited resources priorities need to be set in accordance with need, ability and urgency must be measured appropriately. Gays deserve equal rights, <u> BUT achieving that cannot be a priority over doing the same for making equal rights for women, blacks, and children reality.</u>
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 14, 2006 at 9:49 PM WileyWitch I’d be flattered if you really wanted to use that particular post in your Live Journal :-)
(Just curious, what is a “live journal?”)
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 14, 2006 at 9:52 PM WileyWitch; here is an “meant to entertain” thought for the day ;-)
It has suddenly become clear that to some we risk being seen as agents of dark evil bent on upsetting their delicately balanced world view of some pure ideologues in the pro-lib world. Who are nestled safely far beyond the reach of real oppression and economic deprivation. We are the hand of darkness sheathed in a white glove moving to and fro among the innocents. Slaying their hope, by merely pointing out that successful pursuit of the ideal world we dream of requires some common sense tactics. <u>How dare we declare the heart is not always the best strategist!</u> How dare we mention that it takes far more than blind adherence to one’s own beliefs to effect change. Our response to the self-serving, hedonistic idealism feels like a dull knife in their back. <u>Unnecessarily brutal and excessively cruel we are for insisting we focus on winning rather than whining.</u> Of course it makes sense that those lost in their own idyll wild world would react so. For it is far easier and much more satisfying to preach, judge and decide for others from a point of unquestionable righteousness, than it is to actually make a practical effort to change things. If they could they would banish us with a few perfunctory PC word spells. Unfortunately such spells so effective in the past in squelching needed dissent are powerless now thanks to years of defeat due to following their rules. Those who have learned the hard lessons which changed us into pragmatic people are not so easily banished. Claims made by absolute idealists stating they are the one, true agenda for all pro-libs will not define us out. Their demands that we place no agenda before theirs will not be heeded. (Gee it’s fun being high and mighty LOL :-)
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 14, 2006 at 11:14 PM Johnny here is my live journal entry with your post:
It’s been so long since I made a link, I think I forgot. I’ll see in a second.
Click somewhere around and you’ll find the Live Journal home page.
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 15, 2006 at 2:38 AM Johnny, you know I know you know why I want to bang my head on a brick wall so that my psychic and physical selves can feel consonant after trying to talk to a fellow liberal about the liability of having political fashion, self-indulgence, and new-age tribalism in the front seat.
There has always been a conflict between the individual and the group in human society, and there are reams of theories, and schools, and political institutions who have attempted and are attempting to alleviate this conflict, or at least to make the struggle more fair.
Anyone who can’t step outside of their “individuality” for a march or a meeting, is perhaps too insecure, unstable, selfish, or self-serving to be truly useful to a group or cause.
There has been a study that shows that fence-sitters who were leaning toward opposing the Iraq “war” leaned in favor of it after seeing a demonstration. There is this assumption that if you’re not demonstrating you’re not doing anything, and who on the left is bothering to ask if they are really effective? It’s body counts. Ewww.
As an American, I find this very difficult, but I must suggest that perhaps a more subtle approach is in order. (Whatever “subtlety” is—-some people have a grip on it).
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 15, 2006 at 3:04 AM Johnny, I have so been enjoying this talk. I have been thinking that a spoof of the left is overdue. It needs work. The following is not to be taken literally.
Anyone who really believes in the cause of freedom should remember the great leaders of peace and resistance—-Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King. A real patriot is ready to die for their country, for liberty, for freedom, for the right to watch pornography.
Having my head smashed into the pavement by seven cops, having my nuts chewed off by rats in a Slavlavian prison, being shot in the head by a cold-hearted psychopath working for a shadow government——that’s the way for an activist to go.
But I will never betray my code by wearing work-a-day clothing while trying to get most Americans to listen to what I have to say and what I propose they all do. I will die before I wear a tie. Is it my problem that most Americans are too shallow and ignorant to understand symbolism?!
But seriously, I read an article about a year ago about how easily demonstrations were being coopted and minimized by the media, and this guy asked a good what if? What if all the demonstrators showed up in the same “uniform”—-like white shirts and black pants? What if, instead of thousands of people expressing their “creativity” and “individualism” (notice how few “brands” of “individualism” there are), the demonstrators demonstrated solidarity and discipline? Wouldn’t that make an impression?
Posted by wileywitch on Mar 15, 2006 at 8:22 AM WileyWitch
Good comments as always. I have an idea as to a tactic that the pro-libs could use, and I’ll tell you later when I have time to write it ;)
Posted by johnnyincentx on Mar 15, 2006 at 9:37 PM Zero time to write, but thanks for responses. I will think about the pragmatic approach, how it might look.
K
Posted by Kuya on Mar 16, 2006 at 8:17 AM “Gay Rolls on the Lawn”
is it me? why isn’t any one pissed off
that there is an Easter Egg Roll on the White House Lawn.
How stupid.—- No Hot Mustard.
These kids and Presidents
and wives and ribbons
look like idiots
making out
like harvey on weed.
so gays want to roll into the hutch and hatch.
If Two make Three, why not One?.
collect the Wholeeggscrew drop them on a sidewalk.
Humpty Dumpty is Announced.
Break em all apart ! Brown and White Eggs Too.
Democracy= the power to pass gas thru all Holes at One cc.It’s sweet at a gay Tea Party on the Lawn.
Even though there is no Party
And Harvey Is not a Pookah———-
Posted by knocko on Mar 23, 2006 at 2:26 AM When I hear these things It really makes me wonder what opinion is held by the majority of Americans. I wonder how many americans actually fall under “near-militant religious extremism,” as one poster put it. To a reader of ITT it’s easy to see acceptance in homosexuals as the correct view. If that was the case, it wouldn’t be possible for such anti-gay opinions to be elected to office so easily.
A survey done in march by the Chicago Tribune shows that “Homosexual behavior also was viewed as immoral by 50 percent, with 12 percent saying that it was morally acceptable, 33 percent saying it wasn’t a moral issue and 1 percent saying ‘it depends.’ “
It’s easy to understand the “Christain Right’s” actions when you see that society still hasn’t caught up to homosexuals.
Posted by spayced on Apr 2, 2006 at 9:06 PM Or spayced, homosexuals haven’t caught up to society. Heterosexuality is the primary relationship for reproduction and adaptationof the species. Several Hundred thousand years of custom cannot just be swept aside as “backwards”. To put it simply, it works. The species reproduces, and has successfully adopted to severe climatic and technological changes.
This is not to say that there has not always been homosexuality. Or that new forms of social relationships will not be accepted as normal. However the petulance of homosexuals (I like the traditional definition of gay, thank you very much) about the alleged bigotry of the majority is tedious. Holding one’s breath or stating that what one wants to do is now the social norm does not make it so. To persuade the majority that it ought to incorporate alternative models of social behavior into species-friendly paradigms, advocates need to be patient and reasonable.
Society can function and evolve very well without homosexual families included in easter egg rolls. Tolerance of non-traditional families is not a categorial imperative. It can however become a non-controversial option. In the meantime there are a number of legal options short of “gay marriage” that do or could provide needed legal protection for property, guardianship and adoption.
The American legal system is nothing if it is not resourceful. History will prove that it was the most tolerant regulatory system ever known.
After all, after China becomes the world’s dominant power, and its influence will spread throughout the world as American influence did after WWII, what will be the world-wide tolerance level for homosexuality under the neo-Puritanical Maoist-Confucian .model? Moreover, as we watch Latinos demonstrate for inclusion into American society, do we really believe that our new compatriots expect to be lectured about “sexual orientation” toleration as a condition of full acceptance? Times are changing. But not necessarily in a “gay” way.y
Posted by knocko on Apr 9, 2006 at 2:41 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by John Ireland
- Prop Hate and My Family
- Marriage Equality in Peril
'Prayer warriors' battle to pass state referendums banning gays and lesbians from marrying - He Shoots, She Scores
When Mike became Christine, she gave Los Angeles sports fans a courtside view of gender politics - Transsexuals in popular culture
Recent Hollywood portrayals and fictional dramatizations have boosted the national visibility and humanity of transsexuals - Defining Hate in the United States
Despite widespread public support, hate crime law across the country remains inconsistent and the crimes often go unpunished. - Outing is In Again
Did Bill Maher break the Barney Frank Rule?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
