[GN] A young straight perspective
Marcus Winberg
> Most people *do care, and go out of their way to prove it...by bashing
> gays with ther SUV's.
A qualified truth at best, I think.
I don't believe that more than 20-35 percent of the american people are particularly pro- or anti-gay. The majority are indifferent. If they were going to the polls, these would be swayed by logic and sanity.
That's the problem, getting them to the polls, that you have such an abysmal voter turn-out. Is it even 50 percent for elections to your highest elected officials? I also heard that it was not than in the mid teens for local elections?
That's how the "Christians" et al manage to defeat gay rights in your country. The indifferent people, who might be swayed by reason, aren't enthused enough to bother voting the bigots out of office. Until that happens.... It's going to be uphill for you.
Cheers,
Marcus
**********
If you receive GayNet via direct email:
To post, send mail to gay...@queernet.org.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majo...@queernet.org; put a line saying
unsubscribe gaynet
in the body. (This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact gaynet-...@queernet.org.)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Devil Doll
====
... Yes, for the ones that either want to call attention to themselves so they can solicit approval due to personal issues, or for the ones who just want to out as many potential fuckmates as possible. To them, silence doesn't exactly equal death, but the same old pieces of ass. The old "visibility to promote tolerance" line no longer carries the weight it used to, and isn't a reasonable excuse to trot out sexual preference on a soapbox.
Most people really don't care in any way that matters whether someone's gay, straight, or bi. I'm straight, and unless I'm somehow affected, it shouldn't be my business what someone else likes. 90-some percent of the people I've know share this attitude. This is (as I have come to interpret the often contradictory messages of P.C.) what the vocal among the "suffering and oppressed minorities" want from those of us who will not come to their meetings or march in their parades, yet suffer similar slings and arrows daily for whatever reason.
"Hi. I'm Spo0kyPants. I'm outrageously bisexual." said the marcher to the man minding his own business.
"I know. Everybody knows now. So what?" said the man who had been happily minding his own business.
"Homophobe." said the marcher.
But, can you imagine an aggressively advertised and enforced straight white male parade (that doesn't have any other activity or holiday or organization affiliated with it) NOT being criticized on some level?
"We're not racist. We're not hateful. We're not sexist. We're just celebrating what we are." said the straight white male marcher to the curious reporter.
"They claim they're not sexist, they claim they're not racist, and they claim they're not hateful, but where is the diversity? This reporter thinks they're guilty as sin, but...you be the judge." said the reporter to the shocked public.
"Gas. Bottle. Rag." said the hateful, racist, sexist public to the marchers family, employer, and friends.
So, to sum up, we who have gone through great trouble to actively and politely Not Give A Fuck would appreciate if those who have requested that we do so please actively and politely Shut The Fuck Up.
Thank you.
===
Summary:
"Most people really don't care in any way that matters whether someone's gay, straight, or bi."
There you have it.
==
Devil Doll
devi...@GodIsDead.com
devi...@SuperVillains.org
http://home.earthlink.net/~chrisfox/
"All I like to think of now is the cool spring rains washing the fever from the bones of the dead, that they might find their hollows in the earth"
-- Bela Bartók, speaking of the Holocaust victims
_____________________________________________________________
--->Get you free email @godisdead.com
Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
Bruce Garrett
Hiya Chris. The more things change, the more they stay the same,
eh?
CF> So, to sum up, we who have gone through great trouble to actively and
CF> politely Not Give A Fuck...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont's Same-Sex Partnership Law Dominated Races
Reuters
9.46 a.m. ET (1400 GMT) September 13, 2000
BURLINGTON, Vt. (Reuters) - The nation's first same-sex partnership law
proved the dominant issue in both major parties' primary elections in
Vermont on Tuesday, but voters sent a mixed message regarding the state's
civil union statute.
Former state legislator Ruth Dwyer, an outspoken opponent of the law, won
the Republican gubernatorial nomination to face incumbent Democrat Howard
Dean, who signed the civil union bill into law last April. Dwyer defeated
comparatively moderate attorney William Meub 58-42 percent.
...
Opponents of the law, which grants gays and lesbians the rights and
responsibilities of marriage such as health, pension and inheritance
benefits, had posted "Take Back Vermont" signs throughout the state in the
run-up to the primary elections.
...[House Judiciary Chairman Tom Little] acknowledged the divisions the law
has opened up in the state, saying, "This is probably something that's
going to take a generation to resolve."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CF> ...would appreciate...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AFA Calls for Kolbe's Arrest on Sodomy Charges
Tuesday, 1 August 2000
The Datalounge
NEW YORK -- One of the country's most prominent conservative groups has
called for the arrest of openly gay Republican Congressman, Rep. Jim
Kolbe,who is slated to speak Tuesday night at the Republican National
Convention, on sodomy charges.
The American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project said
Monday the American Family Association has begun circulating an action
alert demanding the arrest of the Congressman when he returns home to
Arizona.
GOP convention delegates and the AFA member base began receiving a document
entitled "Arrest Mr. Kolbe" several days ago. The notice contains a sample
letter addressed to the Chairman of the Republican Party, which demands
formal charges be brought against the Republican Congressman.
"Mr. Kolbe as a self-described homosexual means nothing except to say that
he engages in sodomy. Did you know that in Arizona, sodomy is against the
law? Mr. Kolbe should be arrested when he returns to his home state for
violating state law. Would you agree that all lawmakers should insist that
all laws be enforced?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CF> ...if those who have requested that we do so...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Univ. of HI Warriors Kick Rainbow
PlanetOut News Staff
Friday, July 28, 2000 / 11:55 PM
The university is lifting the "stigma" of the gay liberation emblem from
its sensitive football players - no offense intended.
Nature supplies Hawai'i with myriad rainbows, and more turn up in graphics
there on everything from license plates to storefronts, but after 77 years
the image has suddenly become a little too pink for what used to be the
Rainbow Warriors of the University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
On July 26, the University ceremonially introduced a new "H" logo with
patterns in the style of traditional kapa in the colors green, black and
silver, from the same designer who supplied logos for a half-dozen National
Football League teams and other sporting events. The administration proudly
explained the symbolism and tradition behind its every element, including
the slogan "To Unite and Move Forward As One" (Pupukahi I Holomua).
But even at the ceremony another agenda began to peek through. Assistant
women's volleyball coach Charlie Wade joked to the 500 invited guests about
the old logo, "I can't be certain, but I think the rainbow had something to
do with a flight attendant giving me his phone number one time." The
women's volleyball team, apparently still known as the Rainbow Wahine, will
be the first to perform in the school's new uniforms when their season
opens September 1.
Athletic director Hugh Yoshida actually came out with it on a TV show July
27, where he revealed that the men's teams formerly known as the Rainbow
Warriors are simply the Warriors now. He said, "That logo really put a
stigma on our program at times in regards to it's part of the gay
community, their flags and so forth. Some of the student athletes had some
feelings in regards to that." He said this didn't mean the decision was
anti-gay so much as, "We are just trying to get a new image out there." On
July 25 he'd connected the desire to find "a new look for the university"
with the hiring a year ago of June Jones to stop the football team's
season-and-a-half-long losing streak. (Jones succeeded, bringing in a 9 - 4
season record and an Oahu Bowl win.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CF> ...please actively and politely Shut The Fuck Up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gays push Mass. civil-union law
by Tom Mashberg
The Boston Herald
Sunday, May 7, 2000
Ken Kirkey and his partner, Mark, had hoped to spend eternity together.
They were married in front of their parents in 1994, in a church in Jamaica
Plain, and had plans for side-by-side burials, too.
But when Mark, 37, died of cancer in 1998, Ken discovered he had no legal
rights to his partner's remains. Soon after Mark was cremated, his kin
removed his ashes from the home that Mark and Ken had shared for five
years. They have since refused to return them to the man Mark called "my
husband."
"We considered ourselves married in every way, including responsibility for
each other after death," Kirkey, 36, an urban planner, said. "But when he
passed away we were like legal strangers. I had no rights under law. It is
hard to convey how painful it is to have your soulmate's remains
arbitrarily taken away from you."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure thing Chris. I promise, Cross My Heart, that on the day when
none of us have to give a fuck whether anyone else gives a fuck, I'll be
happy to shut the fuck up. But...not before.
Nobody gives a fuck. Say...why not give the University of Hawaii a
call and let them know, won't you...? They could save themselves some
money if they didn't have to buy all those new team shirts and
everything...
Ya know...Ignorant prejudices still have a way of getting up and
laughing in our faces, and...well...sometimes you just gotta
respond...regardless of whether anyone gives a fuck or not. For example:
just a few months ago I was talking in a Usenet newsgroup with this guy
who, after I remarked that I had pictures of beautiful men on my walls,
concluded that I, a Gay man, must have covered my walls with pornography.
What I have on my walls is artwork that wouldn't bring a blush to a
Baptist, and a couple of bronzes no more risque then a Remington...but this
guy immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was wall papering my
apartment with pornography, and he accused me of wanting to keep myself in
a state of constant sexual stimulation. He even tried to justify himself
by claiming that if you asked any Gay guy at random off the street whether
or not they had pornography on their walls the answer would almost
certainly be yes. Can you imagine that? Makes you wonder how many Gay
people he ever actually met in his life.
Uhm...wait a minute. That was you...wasn't it...?
Sorry...never mind...
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ Your manuscript is both good and original, but the
part that is good is not original, and the part
that is original is not good.
-Samuel Johnson
Eric Bohlman
[summation of how far we *haven't* come]
Let's not forget the lesbian couple who were ejected from Dodger Stadium
for kissing in the exact same fashion as the straight couple they came
with (and were, initially, banned for life from Dodger Stadium in the same
way that someone who had been caught picking pockets would have been).
Sure, the story has a happy ending, but the couple had to go to a lawyer
to get that happy ending. And they were able to do that only because
California has what the Radical Right likes to call a "special rights"
law.
I'm sure Chris is entirely correct that twentysomething Goths don't give a
damn whether you're gay or straight. And indeed all research shows that
younger people are generally less homophobic than older people. But
twentysomething Goths aren't a clout-heavy group in the US. For most
people, the question of whether or not to be out in the workplace, for
example, will depend not on the opinion of some twentysomething Goth but
rather on the opinion of some fortysomething ex-jock.
Sure, even the situation with the teen and twentysomething jocks is
improving; we've all read about Corey Johnson, though we need to remember
that his coming out to his high school football team was as much the
spontaneous act of a rugged individual as was Rosa Parks' refusal to leave
the front of the bus, i.e. not at all; in both cases, they were carefully
planned actions undertaken with the advice of activist groups that were
regarded as radical at the time (in case I haven't made it clear, Parks
and Johnson were heroes of *collective* action; if they were characters in
an Ayn Rand novel, they'd be villains, not heroes. Note also that several
of the groups Johnson worked with were involved in that confidential
session in Massachussetts where a teenager asked what fisting was and got
an answer other than "you're not supposed to think about such things").
And Chris works in a field where, if his current employer went out of
business and he had to find a new job, he'd be more likely to find people
who wouldn't hire him because he's over 35 than because he's gay.
But most people, and therefore most gay people, aren't twentysomething
"alternative" types working in IT and living in Seattle, nor are they in a
position to *become* such. Things simply aren't the same all over. There
are plenty of places in the US, many regarded as generally desireable
places to live, where most people, if they observed on the one hand Chris
and his lover going about their daily life in Seattle, and on the other
hand the crowd at the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco, would see not a
big difference of kind but a small difference of degree. Prejudice works
that way.
Zeke Krahlin
Subject: [GN] A young straight perspective
>"Most people really don't care in any way that matters whether
>someone's gay, straight, or bi."
Not in Amerika, that's for sure. You do come from Amerika, don't you? If
people didn't care, there would not be a majority of voters constantly
sabotaging the progress of gay rights.
Most people *do care, and go out of their way to prove it...by bashing
gays with ther SUV's.
=====
LAVENDER-VELVET REVOLUTION!
Disgusted with our choices for next President?
Write me in: Ezekiel J. Krahlin, gay activist,
homeless and civil rights advocate. To make
an informed decision about me, peruse my website:
http://surf.to/gaybible
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
Eric Bohlman
> I don't believe that more than 20-35 percent of the american people are particularly pro- or anti-gay. The majority are indifferent. If they were going to the polls, these would be swayed by logic and sanity.
>
> That's the problem, getting them to the polls, that you have such an abysmal voter turn-out. Is it even 50 percent for elections to your highest elected officials? I also heard that it was not than in the mid teens for local elections?
>
> That's how the "Christians" et al manage to defeat gay rights in your country. The indifferent people, who might be swayed by reason, aren't enthused enough to bother voting the bigots out of office. Until that happens.... It's going to be uphill for you.
Exactly. Two years ago, the state of Maine passed a law prohibiting
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Radical Right groups
collected enough petitions to force a referendum on whether or not to
repeal the law. Polls before the referendum showed that only about 15% of
the electorate favored repeal. But the referendum won by a narrow
majority, and the law was repealed. How did this happen? Only about 30%
of the voters actually voted in the election (the referendum was the only
thing on the ballot, and the election took place in mid-winter right after
a bunch of snowstorms), and that was enough for the proponents to get a
majority because a much larger percentage of them voted. The pro-repeal
groups did a good job of making sure their voters got out to the
polls. The main anti-repeal group, Maine Won't Discriminate, wrote off
all the rural areas of the state as hopeless and only campaigned in a few
cities (where the vote went against the repeal).
The problem is that while overwhelming majorities of the American public
favor certain gay-rights issues (such as protection from employment and
housing discrimination), most people don't view them as issues that affect
them personally, and therefore they aren't willing to expend any effort
for them.
Richard
marriage votes in Hawaii, Alaska, and California --- each with good turn
outs -- each with a different campaign for the gay-lesbian perspective, and
each in ohterwise very different states .... but the final results were
remarkably similar... 2 to 1 against gay-lesbian marriage.
Ballots that require a postive response to gays and lesbians in the USA
fail...partly because of turnout issues. But the turn out issue is another
way of looking at a bigger problem for us ... most gay positive straight
people I know are positive on gay rights, but not so positive on gay
activity. They are very comfortable sending us an anniversary card, but
uncomfortable seeing us kiss in situations where it would be appropriate
for a straight couple to kiss. My faviorite coming out response from the
'80's was, "I don't care at all if you are gay, it doesn't change a thing,
as long as you don't act gay." I think that sums up the way a lot of
voters feel right now...an ambivilence...."I support equal employment
rights for glbt, but I sure hope I don't have to work with someone who
"acts" gay." etc etc.
In Maine, the supports of no discrimination had to take an uncomfortable
positive action to vote. and they didn't. Fear of gays and lesbians was a
powerful motivations. Justice for gays and lesbians was not a powerful
motivator.
I agree that we are better off than we were 20 years ago....but
assimilationists delude themselves to think that it is a simple matter to
change laws at the local, state, or national level to finish up the job of
assimilation. Liberal California, land of Democrats by and large, on the
cutting edge of social change, voted 2:1 to keep marriage between one man
and one woman last year. We need a few more activists before the
ambassadors can even get their foot in the door!
Richard Seward
Bruce Garrett
EB> Let's not forget the lesbian couple who were ejected from Dodger
EB> Stadium for kissing in the exact same fashion as the straight couple
EB> they came with (and were, initially, banned for life from Dodger
EB> Stadium in the same way that someone who had been caught picking
EB> pockets would have been).
I hadn't heard the part about how they were initially banned for
life. Yeah...I'd considered posting that one, along with another one that
came down the wires around then, about another Lesbian couple who were
tossed out of a Burger King somewhere for precisely the same reason. I'd
also considered posting one, of any of dozens and dozens of stories about
kids suffering abuse in school because of their actual, or perceived sexual
orientation. I'd have reckoned it something a Gothling would relate to,
since from what I hear the breed isn't treated much better then Gays in a
lot of high schools...but then you never know who's actually being honest
about their own personal experiences on the net.
EB> I'm sure Chris is entirely correct that twentysomething Goths don't
EB> give a damn whether you're gay or straight.
That's my hunch too...but then that was my hunch about most of my
fellow long hairs back in the late 60s/early 70s...a hunch I was proven
wrong about time and time again during my wonder years. Most of my close
personal friends are straight, and many of them are people I met during
that period in my life, but I had to step on a lot of landmines before I
found out who really didn't give a fuck, and who was only posing as someone
who didn't give a fuck. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that there
were a few jerks in the Goth crowd, and it hardly surprises me that Chris
would dig one up to hang his flag on.
It's one thing not to care whether your neighbor is gay or
straight, and another not to care whether they're being treated fairly and
decently, and another still to resent it when they fight back when they're
not. You hear it again and again nowadays from the anti-Gay crowd that
they don't have anything against homosexuals as people...they just oppose
militant homosexuals, and their militant homosexual agendas. But the more
you look at it, the more you realize that a Militant Homosexual is a
homosexual who doesn't think there is anything wrong with being a
homosexual, and a Militant Homosexual Agenda is a homosexual acting like
they don't think there is anything wrong with being a homosexual. 'Shut
the fuck up' isn't something you expect to hear from someone who really
doesn't give a fuck, unless they also don't have clue, but it's something
you're bound to hear from someone who does.
EB> For most people, the question of whether or not to be out in the
EB> workplace, for example, will depend not on the opinion of some
EB> twentysomething Goth but rather on the opinion of some fortysomething
EB> ex-jock.
I honestly do believe we're winning this fight. The Corey
Johnson's of the world are proof of that. But for every Corey Johnson
story, you find a lot of these...
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/821/821_loomis.html
...and I find it really hard to imagine that any young straight Goth
wouldn't know that this is happening to his gay and lesbian peers. That's
not to say that some of them probably don't give a fuck.
But the fact that so many people seem to feel the need to at least
pass for tolerant, means that our struggle has won a crucial moral high
ground in the minds of our neighbors. I think we can build on that and
make this a better world. But that means speaking out against intolerance
and prejudice, it means protesting discrimination, putting human faces, and
human stories on the issues that affect our lives. It does not mean
shutting the fuck up.
EB> There are plenty of places in the US, many regarded as generally
EB> desireable places to live, where most people, if they observed on the
EB> one hand Chris and his lover going about their daily life in Seattle,
EB> and on the other hand the crowd at the Folsom Street Fair in San
EB> Francisco, would see not a big difference of kind but a small
EB> difference of degree. Prejudice works that way.
Yes. I have to thank Roger for creating alt.politics.homosexuality
because over the years it's given me a great opportunity not merely to vent
at the opposition, but see it's thinking in action for myself. Several
months ago I was arguing with a numbskull in there who kept insisting that
homosexual affairs aren't loving in the slightest, but just base
expressions of deviant lust. I posted an excerpt from an essay of mine
that's on my web pages, about my own moment of self discovery, and how I
came to love a class mate in High School. I posted a paragraph from it
where I described my feelings about the moment another guy took me into his
arms for the first time. It contained zero, zilch, nada, graphic language
in it, but this jerk insisted afterwards that I'd posted a pornographic
story about two "pervs fondling each other." It was amazing. It's not
that they'll look at a loving gay couple holding hands, and then look at a
sex club, and say afterwards that the sex club is closer to the truth then
the loving couple holding hands...it's that they'll look at a gay couple
holding hands and See the sex club. It's really amazing to watch that kind
of prejudice in action.
---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ "This play is absolutely full with vulgar and
explicit scenes, including one with two men
embracing and kissing"
-Church petition against Kilgore Texas College
production of Angels In America
Zeke Krahlin
>The problem is that while overwhelming majorities of the American
>public favor certain gay-rights issues (such as protection from
>employment and housing discrimination), most people don't view
>them as issues that affect them personally, and therefore they
>aren't willing to expend any effort for them.
HOMOPHOBIC BASTARDS!
=====
LAVENDER-VELVET REVOLUTION!
Disgusted with our choices for next President?
Write me in: Ezekiel J. Krahlin, gay activist,
homeless and civil rights advocate. To make
an informed decision about me, peruse my website:
http://surf.to/gaybible
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
**********
Zeke Krahlin
said:
>I agree that we are better off than we were 20 years ago....
With the one ugly exception that, now that the gay issue is on everyone's
lips ('scuse pun), the right wing has become emboldened to the point where
homophobia has become a public source of pride. Also: these nutcases
really believe that we need Armageddon in order to have Jesus return. So
it is easy to imagine that, if Bush became president, he'd establish a
separation of gays from the majority hetero population (read:
concentration camps and experimental labs). And I'm sure he'd also start
WWIII, also in the name of God.
>but assimilationists delude themselves to think that it is a simple
>matter to change laws at the local, state, or national level to
>finish up the job of assimilation. Liberal California, land of
>Democrats by and large, on the cutting edge of social change, voted
>2:1 to keep marriage between one man and one woman last year. We
>need a few more activists before the ambassadors can even get their
>foot in the door!
Richard, this is a most elegant clarification of our present, scary
situation. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly. Yes, even in "Liberal
California" we were smeared. I am so sick of other gays acting as
sooth-sayers, lulling us into hapless complacency...as if we were calves
being fattened for the sacrifice. Homophobia is so much a part of the
Amerikan Institution, that I am even tempted to believe that our leaders
are worshipping some variety of Dark Gods, who periodically require some
human sacrifices--even *massive sacrifices through certain major
cycles--in order to keep the gears of hardcore capitalism running
smoothly. With our blood...our glorious and gifted gay blood. They take
our best ideas and talents; then slaughter us.
Roger B.A. Klorese
> >The problem is that while overwhelming majorities of the American
> >public favor certain gay-rights issues (such as protection from
> >employment and housing discrimination), most people don't view
> >them as issues that affect them personally, and therefore they
> >aren't willing to expend any effort for them.
>
> HOMOPHOBIC BASTARDS!
Do you expect people to expend effort on every issue on which they have a
stand? Or can we have a little time left for careers and relationships,
please?
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rog...@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
Devil Doll
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:59:32 -0700 (PDT) Eric Bohlman said:
>
>>public favor certain gay-rights issues (such as protection from
>>employment and housing discrimination), most people don't view
>>them as issues that affect them personally, and therefore they
>>aren't willing to expend any effort for them.
>
>HOMOPHOBIC BASTARDS!
Yawn.
Learn to distinguish apathy from bigotry, tyke.
==
Devil Doll
devi...@GodIsDead.com
devi...@SuperVillains.org
http://home.earthlink.net/~chrisfox/
"All I like to think of now is the cool spring rains washing the fever from the bones of the dead, that they might find their hollows in the earth"
-- Bela Bartók, speaking of the Holocaust victims
_____________________________________________________________
--->Get you free email @godisdead.com
Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
**********
Devil Doll
>
>>but assimilationists delude themselves to think that it is a simple
>>matter to change laws at the local, state, or national level to
>>finish up the job of assimilation. Liberal California, land of
>>Democrats by and large, on the cutting edge of social change, voted
>>2:1 to keep marriage between one man and one woman last year. We
>>need a few more activists before the ambassadors can even get their
>>foot in the door!
>
>Richard, this is a most elegant clarification of our present, scary
>situation.
No, it's not. One can be opposed to gay marriage for reasons having nothing to do with bigotry; the idea simply does not make sense to a lot of people. It's a terrible choice of barometer, especially since the same voters that go 2:1 against gay marriage tend to vote favorably against gay job discrimination.
Roger B.A. Klorese
> No, it's not. One can be opposed to gay marriage for reasons having
> nothing to do with bigotry; the idea simply does not make sense to a lot
> of people. It's a terrible choice of barometer, especially since the
> same voters that go 2:1 against gay marriage tend to vote favorably
> against gay job discrimination.
...which, ultimately, means that discriminating against people who happen
to carry the label "gay" is unacceptable to them, but discriminating
against what being gay means -- the relationships we form -- is perfectly
acceptable. To me, that's bigotry, whether it's wrapped in religious or
social-engineering or any other trappings.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rog...@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
Devil Doll
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Devil Doll wrote:
>> No, it's not. One can be opposed to gay marriage for reasons having
>> nothing to do with bigotry; the idea simply does not make sense to a lot
>> of people. It's a terrible choice of barometer, especially since the
>> same voters that go 2:1 against gay marriage tend to vote favorably
>> against gay job discrimination.
>
>...which, ultimately, means that discriminating against people who happen
>to carry the label "gay" is unacceptable to them, but discriminating
>against what being gay means -- the relationships we form -- is perfectly
>acceptable. To me, that's bigotry, whether it's wrapped in religious or
>social-engineering or any other trappings.
Ultimately, yes.
In real life? Don't be an ass. If people really sat down and *thought* about the nature of their objections, they would realize that their inability to conceptualize gay relationships has at its root some "unexamined presumptions" that can't be meaningfully distinguished from bigotry.
So .. how do we get people to think? How do we lead people to objectivity?
Maybe we need to be more *miltant*.
Maybe we need to *piss people off*
Maybe we need to *shock and outrage* them
Maybe we need to spit our contempt for their most treasured institutions.
Maybe we need to act really and I mean REALLY queer.
Maybe we should get as lewd and disgusting and vulgar as we can manage, take a feather from the FRC and AFA and see if we can make them vomit in horror. Yes, we really are everything Pat Robertson says we are ... only worse!
That'll show 'em!
Yeah!
</s>
I have a much better idea ... let's show them we're human beings.
And not cardboard cutouts sniggering about how "diverse" we are.
Welcome to The Carrion Flower.
==
Devil Doll
devi...@GodIsDead.com
devi...@SuperVillains.org
http://home.earthlink.net/~chrisfox/
"All I like to think of now is the cool spring rains washing the fever from the bones of the dead, that they might find their hollows in the earth"
-- Bela Bartók, speaking of the Holocaust victims
_____________________________________________________________
--->Get you free email @godisdead.com
Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
**********
Roger B.A. Klorese
> So .. how do we get people to think? How do we lead people to objectivity?
>
> Maybe we need to be more *miltant*.
>
> Maybe we need to *piss people off*
>
> Maybe we need to *shock and outrage* them
>
> Maybe we need to spit our contempt for their most treasured institutions.
>
> Maybe we need to act really and I mean REALLY queer.
>
> Maybe we should get as lewd and disgusting and vulgar as we can manage, take a feather from the FRC and AFA and see if we can make them vomit in horror. Yes, we really are everything Pat Robertson says we are ... only worse!
>
> That'll show 'em!
>
> Yeah!
Yeah. Many of them, in fact, *do* benefit from being hit with a 2-by-4...
> I have a much better idea ... let's show them we're human beings.
Your "much better idea" works for some and fails for others. We need
both.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rog...@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
Devil Doll
>Yeah. Many of them, in fact, *do* benefit from being hit with a 2-by-4...
No, they don't. The only change you make in someone with potential to overcome his bigotry by angering and offending him is to remove that potential. What you're reciting here is one of the great myths .. that "visibility promotes tolerance" or that unsettling people with shock and offense leads to making them think. It's bullshit. It persists because so many of you don't *really* care about making real progress, nor would you know what to do with yourselves without bigotry -- real or imagined -- to define you, to give you some sense of authenticity.
No .. the whole point of hitting people with an emotional 2x4 is to get yourselves a little emotional rush. That's all it's ever been for, and at some level not as deep as others' inability to comprehend gay relationships, you know this to be true.
>> I have a much better idea ... let's show them we're human beings.
>
>Your "much better idea" works for some and fails for others. We need both.
It fails for others, period. Some people are beyond reach, and shocking/offending them won't bring them into reach. For them we need laws.
==
Devil Doll
devi...@GodIsDead.com
devi...@SuperVillains.org
http://home.earthlink.net/~chrisfox/
"All I like to think of now is the cool spring rains washing the fever from the bones of the dead, that they might find their hollows in the earth"
-- Bela Bartók, speaking of the Holocaust victims
_____________________________________________________________
--->Get you free email @godisdead.com
Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
**********
Sasha Normand
I am understanding that from a goth not on the list who claims to be
cool with others' sexuality as long as they are not waving a flag in
his/her face, we have come to a debate on what political method and
stance to take regarding equal rights and precisely what those equal
rights should in fact entail in realistic terms...?
(The previous bit of regurgitation and summary to explain where I'm
starting in case I missed something somewhere)
The two issues that keep cropping up here are protection against
discrimination and recognition of relations a.k.a. marriage. These
issues are not comparable on the same plane. Protection against
discrimination is an unfortunate necessity in our society, unfortunate
for several reasons more than the obvious. It always necessarily
redefines categories for discrimination, in effect, reproducing them.
So by being named in an anti-discrimination bill you come into existence
as a hate-able body, a potential victim. It assumes that discrimination
will occur based on identity, and therefore in a way naturalises hate
and fear. It classifies what features a person may be hated for. It is
always reactive since it can only punish, not realy prevent, despite
good intentions. Most importantly, even as defining why people
irrationally hate other people and act on this hate (i.e., for what
features), it simultaneously teaches what actions wil make this acting
publicaly unacceptable and so while defining what may be called
discrimination also defines how to get around it, what discriminatory
act will not be recognised as such and thus renders itself utterly
impotent.
A demand for equal rights, on the other hand, is harder to dance around,
hence the more strenuous objection to such bills by the same voters who
applaud anti-discrimination measures. As much as I hate to admit it (I
believe marriage is a religious institution and should be abolished as a
state measure altogether, for everyone), the fight for gay marriage is a
much better fight to wage in terms of the "big picture." It provides a
more accurate barometre of the public opinion of non-traditional family
units and lifestyles. It is fighting for a productive legislation
rather than a repressive one. It is fighting to undefine (what
constitutes love and family) rather than to redefine (what constitutes
an oppressed identity).
Just some thoughts and observations. Comment on the goth thing that
started this under separate cover soince I'm running on again.
S.
--
****************************************************************
Sasha Normand University of South Florida
8721 Orange Oaks Circle 4103 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33637 FAO 156
Tampa, Florida 33620
Roger B.A. Klorese
>
> >Yeah. Many of them, in fact, *do* benefit from being hit with a 2-by-4...
>
> No, they don't.
Yes, they do. And it's been true for every movement till now as well
as ours. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.
> The only change you make in someone with potential to
> overcome his bigotry by angering and offending him is to remove that
> potential.
No, it's not. Often as not, you shake their belief in their own fairness
and goodness, to positive result.
> What you're reciting here is one of the great myths .. that
> "visibility promotes tolerance" or that unsettling people with shock and
> offense leads to making them think. It's bullshit.
History supports it significantly.
> It persists because so many of you don't *really* care about making real
> progress, nor would you know what to do with yourselves without bigotry
> -- real or imagined -- to define you, to give you some sense of
> authenticity.
Nonsense.
> No .. the whole point of hitting people with an emotional 2x4 is to get
> yourselves a little emotional rush. That's all it's ever been for, and
> at some level not as deep as others' inability to comprehend gay
> relationships, you know this to be true.
Bullshit.
> It fails for others, period. Some people are beyond reach, and
> shocking/offending them won't bring them into reach. For them we need
> laws.
History is not on your side, for women, for African-Americans, and for
lots of others.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rog...@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
Devil Doll
>I'm trying to chart where this thread has wandered...
>I am understanding that from a goth not on the list who claims to be
>cool with others' sexuality as long as they are not waving a flag in
>his/her face,
He *is* cool with others' sexuality, entirely indifferent; the list consists of people all over the spectrum. He's straight and just plain doesn't give a crap about other people being non-straight. Just about everyone he knows feels the same way and people in those circles who get bent over it are considered to have some loose screws.
That judgment extends to gays and bisexuals who are other than well-adjusted about their sexuality. It's a judgment I agree with.
Note the distinction; he doesn't want gays to stay closeted, he doesn't want gays to keep their affection from his sight .. he just wants them, along with others who whine and demand and claim to be oppressed ... to shut up.
These people are all in their early 20's to mid-30's, and there is not a one on the list who does not regard promiscuous people as damaged, and not a one who would tolerate real racism or bigotry ... nor a one too uncomfortable or uncertain enough to make jokes about it. Aside from a few jackasses, I like the list a lot. It's not a goth list, it's more composed of former punks and industrial-gothic scenesters.
These aren't people who want gays to "not shove their gayness in their faces"; these are people who are sick and tried of the victim mentality and the politics of identity and oppression.
OTOH, GayNet is like the Loading Dock of the Internet, only it's not populated by smokers, it's populated by a dwindling group of the emotionally wounded, people for whom the work of keeping the alive illusion of specialness is becoming overwhelming, and is only possible with heavy reinforcement.
No wonder that everyone on the gay Internet who's notorious for beliving himself oppressed is here .. from Zeke Krahlin and his imminent civil war, to Tom Keske with his eternal call to vengeance and militance, to B. Allen with his eternal call to anger and rage, and now even Bruce Garrett, with his moulding pile of Lambda Reports, his shrine to Saint Matthew, and his gigabytes of APH archives. Everything but a grip on reality.
The smokers puff away on the dock, smiling nervously before they trundle back inside to their healthier coworkers. The queers come here for a transfusion of paranoia.
Jeez.
==
Devil Doll
devi...@GodIsDead.com
devi...@SuperVillains.org
http://home.earthlink.net/~chrisfox/
"All I like to think of now is the cool spring rains washing the fever from the bones of the dead, that they might find their hollows in the earth"
-- Bela Bartók, speaking of the Holocaust victims
_____________________________________________________________
--->Get you free email @godisdead.com
Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
**********
Roger B.A. Klorese
> consists of people all over the spectrum. He's straight and just plain
> doesn't give a crap about other people being non-straight. Just about
> everyone he knows feels the same way and people in those circles who get
> bent over it are considered to have some loose screws.
And we all know how important a role 20something gothboys play in the
day-to-day workings of our society.
> OTOH, GayNet is like the Loading Dock of the Internet, only it's not
> populated by smokers, it's populated by a dwindling group of the
> emotionally wounded, people for whom the work of keeping the alive
> illusion of specialness is becoming overwhelming, and is only possible
> with heavy reinforcement.
Then go away.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE rog...@QueerNet.ORG
PO Box 14309 San Francisco, CA 94114
"There is only one real blasphemy -- the refusal of joy!" -- Paul Rudnick
Zeke Krahlin
> Do you expect people to expend effort on every issue on which they
> have a stand?
The problem with *that rationale, is that (in our culture) gays always
lose out, each and every time. If they have a choice of political activism
or volunteer work, they'll go for a lot of great causes...but always,
without ever considering the gay issue. Why, I have met many a "gay
friendly" hetero who thinks it's just enough to be friendly to
gays...though deity forbid he or she ever *donate money or time to the gay
cause. This, in spite of their donating considerable amounts to *other
causes.
> Or can we have a little time left for careers and relationships,
> please?
Again, my point exactly. When these heteros are all exhausted from their
volunteer work, on top of their jobs...they resent that you even speak a
single word for gay rights...though none of their compassionate
volunteerism includes gay people.
This, of course, is a generalization...as there are exceptions. But the
exceptions are way too few and far between; and the generalization is too
coldly accurate.
So, when are all these gay-friendly heteros going to roll up their
sleeves, and fight for gay people? When pigs fly? Obviously, educating the
masses did not work.
There is only one solution to winning our rights: aggressive dissent like
nobody's business. Usurp people and groups that villify gay people.
Infiltrate. Bash back. Terrorize, when the occassion calls for it. But one
thing is for certain: we must do this for ourselves, with our own muscle
and ingenuity. We can't ever expect to amass enough straights to really
make a difference.
=====
LAVENDER-VELVET REVOLUTION!
Disgusted with our choices for next President?
Write me in: Ezekiel J. Krahlin, gay activist,
homeless and civil rights advocate. To make
an informed decision about me, peruse my website:
http://surf.to/gaybible
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
**********
Eric Bohlman
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Devil Doll wrote:
> > No, it's not. One can be opposed to gay marriage for reasons having
> > nothing to do with bigotry; the idea simply does not make sense to a lot
> > of people. It's a terrible choice of barometer, especially since the
> > same voters that go 2:1 against gay marriage tend to vote favorably
> > against gay job discrimination.
>
> ...which, ultimately, means that discriminating against people who happen
> to carry the label "gay" is unacceptable to them, but discriminating
> against what being gay means -- the relationships we form -- is perfectly
> acceptable. To me, that's bigotry, whether it's wrapped in religious or
> social-engineering or any other trappings.
In some cases, it probably is bigotry, but in other cases, I think it's a
combination of apathy and simple misinformation. I'd reserve "bigotry"
for the cases where someone not just *should* know better, but *does* know
better. IOW, for the people who *can't* be reached by education.
For example, I suspect there are a lot of Americans who, if asked to vote
whether to legalize gay marriage, would vote no because they don't want
the government telling churches they have to perform certain marriages.
There's nothing bigoted about that particular sentiment, but someone who
offers such a rationale is uninformed. If you can convince such a person
that the separation of church and state prohibits such coercion, and use
the example of how even though a divorced person can legally remarry, the
Roman Catholic Church is not obligated to perform a wedding Mass for him,
you can probably change his/her position. In this case, someone who is
truly bigoted would either deny that separation of church and state
exists, or would simply insist that you were wrong without feeling
obligated to offer any reason why you're wrong.
It's important to remember that there's a lot of knowledge that *we* take
for granted, because our position forces us to be aware of the issues, but
that many if not most people simply aren't aware of. It does no good to
argue that the people *should* know it; the fact is that they *don't* know
it, and therefore we're *practically* obligated to *teach* it to the
public. Yes, there are going to be some people who will be *unwilling* to
learn, but it will do us absolutely no good to treat everyone as if
they're like that. Once again, a lot of people simply *don't know* that a
properly-made will bequeathing your house to your same-sex partner can
easily be overturned on challenge by a blood relative. Where would they
have learned that? The only reasonable answer is "from us." We simply
can't afford to take a snobbish or angry attitude toward simple ignorance.
We need to reserve our impatience for those who are *willfully* ignorant.
Neither Zeke's more-or-less explicitly stated position that anyone who
doesn't understand our issues is a bigot, nor Chris' implied position that
if we just behaved properly, everyone would magically come around to our
point of view, are helpful in a situation like this. What's needed here
is some old-fashioned consciousness-raising. That's something that
requires a lot of slow, tedious, one-to-one, *local* work. It's truly a
case of having to think globally and act locally. It requires lots of
patience, a thick skin, and the ability to judge whether or not a
particular person is reachable.
Bruce Garrett
> I am understanding that from a goth not on the list who claims to be
> cool with others' sexuality as long as they are not waving a flag in
> his/her face...
CF> He *is* cool with others' sexuality...
He's cool with other's sexuality...he just wants gay people to shut
the fuck up. Because a white pride parade wouldn't be treated with the
same respect by gay people.
Hey...I'm cool with that...
CF> Note the distinction; he doesn't want gays to stay closeted, he doesn't
CF> want gays to keep their affection from his sight .. he just wants them,
CF> along with others who whine and demand and claim to be oppressed ... to
CF> shut up.
He doesn't want us to go back into the closet...just shut the
fuck up about being oppressed, because we're no more oppressed then
straight white people are.
Hey...I'm cool with that...
CF> It's not a goth list, it's more composed of former punks and
CF> industrial-gothic scenesters.
Funny...you said before that the post was from a "goth list" that
you were on...
CF> GayNet is like the Loading Dock of the Internet, only it's not
CF> populated by smokers, it's populated by a dwindling group of the
CF> emotionally wounded, people for whom the work of keeping the alive
CF> illusion of specialness is becoming overwhelming, and is only possible
CF> with heavy reinforcement.
I haven't seen anyone in here claiming to be all that special.
Except for you and Zeke that is...
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
The hard part about being a bartender is figuring
out who is drunk and who is just stupid.
-Richard Braunstein
Bruce Garrett
CF> One can be opposed to gay marriage for reasons having nothing to do
CF> with bigotry; the idea simply does not make sense to a lot of people.
Fine. Now tell us that equal rights simply does not make sense to
them either. Remember, the issue in Vermont wasn't marriage, but the
so-called "civil unions"...in other words, granting our households equal
legal status with theirs...at least in some measure. But even a
measure of equality without actual marriage is too much, apparently, for no
few of the voters in Vermont. They don't give a fuck do they? Whatever
you think of same sex marriage, it's pretty hard to make a case against
your neighbor's civil rights, without also making a case, spoken openly or
kept quietly to yourself, against your neighbor. To cast the vote that
says the law needn't treat your neighbor equally to yourself, you have to
think at some level that they don't deserve equal treatment. You can say a
lot of things about the people who are "taking back" Vermont right now, but
that they don't give a fuck isn't one of them.
CF> It's a terrible choice of barometer, especially since the same voters
CF> that go 2:1 against gay marriage tend to vote favorably against gay job
CF> discrimination.
Some people don't give a fuck. Some people do give a fuck, and
think everyone else should too. And some people give a fuck, and want
everyone else to think that they don't give a fuck. At the moment, these
people would like to have their cake and eat it too. They'll grant us the
right to exist (job discrimination), and the right to have sex (repeal of
sodomy laws) but taking that final step of admitting that our
relationships, our families, our households, are the equal of theirs still
just sticks in their craw. Some of these will still get over their
prejudices, and vote with us on the matter...but what we're seeing right
now is that a lot of them aren't. And as long as they Can get away with
having their cake and eating it too, they'll think they're entitled to have
their cake and eat it too.
---
-Bruce Garrett
http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
You cannot say to gay people that you value them as
equals if the law does not treat them as equals.
-British LD Home Affairs spokesperson Simon Hughes
Todd Morman
>>>
It's important to remember that there's a lot of knowledge that *we* take
for granted, because our position forces us to be aware of the issues, but
that many if not most people simply aren't aware of. It does no good to
argue that the people *should* know it; the fact is that they *don't* know
it, and therefore we're *practically* obligated to *teach* it to the
public.
<<<
Bingo. We all have issues that we could use more education about; getting
angry at someone who's focus has been elsewhere just plain isn't productive.
Outreach work is the best thing we can do; yes, you get the same questions
over and over and over and over, but it's *totally* worth it to answer them
again and again and again and again for new people. Questions that I hear as
belligerent at first turn out to be coming from an honest -- and even open
-- place; the right response can have a major impact, especially if it's
calm, friendly and reasonable. I've seen it happen, anyway.
I'm convinced that the thing people most remember in discussions like this
is the tone, more than the logical arguments, of the participants. That's
how most people in the apathetic middle decide these things.
Throwing in a couple of "We are so *through* with the shit we've been taking
for centuries and it *is* going to change" messages helps, too.
>>>
What's needed here
is some old-fashioned consciousness-raising. That's something that
requires a lot of slow, tedious, one-to-one, *local* work. It's truly a
case of having to think globally and act locally. It requires lots of
patience, a thick skin, and the ability to judge whether or not a
particular person is reachable.
<<<
Most people are reachable. Call it a faith thing.
Todd