portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

education | gender & sexuality | human & civil rights

About "Homophobia": Gay Victimology and the Liberal Kulturkampf (by Justin Raimondo)

Anyone who questions the gay agenda is immediately branded "homophobic". In practice, homophobia seems to mean any actions or words that displease certain homosexuals... the denizens of the organized gay lobby.

Gay Victimology and the Liberal Kulturkampf

by Justin Raimondo

A Note from the Author: What follows are the first few pages of a book-length manuscript on the gay rights movement, and the whole Gay Question, provisionally entitled: The Ideology of Desire: The Tyranny and Absurdity of Gay Identity Politics. Although I don't get into such issues as the nature-nurture debate, the search for the so-called "gay gene," the Boy Scouts, etc. - all issues covered in the book -- I think this fragment can stand by itself.

The power of the State has been used as a bludgeon against gay people since at least the High Middle Ages. The great irony is that, today, as toleration of homosexuality is growing, the leaders of the gay rights movement seem to be saying: Now it's our turn.

Their argument has by now become all too familiar: we have been imprisoned in straight society, they say, and systematically deprived of the comforts and sympathy owed to every American. We have been persecuted by the followers of an ascetic - and vengeful - desert god, and now we demand full status as an officially-approved victim group, right up there with blacks, women, and other U.S. government-certified minorities. And if the social mores will not yield to our assault, then we will use the battering ram of government power to storm the fortress and take the city. We are victims, and now it is our turn.

The gay activists of yesteryear demanded that government get out of the bedroom. Today a new generation of gay leaders is inviting government back in. The political program of the first activists centered around a campaign to legalize homosexual relations between consenting adults. Their message to all governments everywhere was unequivocal: leave us alone. The gay movement of the new millennium has a different message: far from advocating "hands off!" they want government to actively intervene on behalf of the homosexual minority. At a time when homosexual acts are still illegal in several states, the official gay rights movement is fixated on passing laws that would somehow protect homosexuals from alleged discrimination in housing and employment. From an essentially libertarian movement, which sought to minimize the power of government in the sexual realm, gay organizations and leading spokespersons are today calling for the expansion of state power over nearly every aspect of our lives. This reversal is all the more remarkable because it took place in a relatively short period of time, less than a decade.

The birth of the gay liberation in America as a mass movement can be dated precisely: June 27, 1969, when, late in the evening, the patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Manhattan, resisted a police attempt to close the place down. For three days a neighborhood rebellion effectively kept the cops from carrying on the ancient tradition of shaking down gay bars and busting the ones that didn't pay up. In the official complaint, the (admittedly somewhat shady) operators of the Stonewall Inn were cited for not having a liquor license. The reality, however, is that even if they had applied, it is doubtful their request would have been granted: the state bureau that handed out the licenses was notoriously hostile to gay establishments. The first modern gay liberationists, then, were rebelling against government regulation. The logic of their protest, if applied consistently and carried to its ultimate conclusion, would have led to a demand for the dismantling of the economic and moral regulatory apparatus residing in government. But something happened along the way to divert the gay movement from its original spirit and goal. A central idea of gay liberation, as it was first conceived, was liberation from government. Today, the so-called gay rights movement sees government as the agency, not the enemy, of liberation. From socialized medicine to anti-discrimination legislation to mandatory "tolerance" lessons in the schools - there is not a single scheme to increase the power of the Washington bureaucracy that these alleged liberationists do not endorse. How do we account for this radical about-face?

Part of the explanation is that much of the momentum for the gaylib movement came from the counterculture, and its political expression: the New Left of the sixties. Moving into reformist mode by the time the eighties rolled around, the leftist-dominated gay leadership fixated on passing anti-discrimination ordinances at the local level, an idea that was eventually incorporated into the politically correct canon of straight liberals.

"Homophobia" and the Marginalization of Traditional Values

This legislative agenda was not a reformist water-down of the original, but a complete inversion, a betrayal of not only the style but the meaning of the Stonewall rebellion. In heedless pursuit of this agenda, what was once a crusade for tolerance has itself degenerated into a major source of crankish intolerance. In every important sense, the gay rights movement has become the mirror image of the Religious Right - or, at least a caricaturized version of the Religious Right -- appealing directly to the State to actively promote its view of homosexuality in the schools and the arts. Since both of these areas are dominated by government, they are fair game for the various victim groups that lay claim to their "fair share" of the pie.

Anyone who questions this agenda is immediately branded "homophobic," and is not only smeared but targeted and pursued to the very ends of the earth. The entire state of Colorado faced a vicious attack, as prominent figures of the Hollywood Left, such as Barbara Streisand, led the jihad against the state that dared repeal its gay rights laws by popular referendum. The advocates of this referendum were widely reviled as hate-mongers by their opponents, and portrayed by the national media as unabashed bigots. When Colorado voters approved the measure, gay activists started a boycott aimed at what they deemed "the hate state." Colorado, they averred, had fallen victim to one of the worst forms of thoughtcrime, the dreaded and malignant "homophobia."

Just as homosexuals had to endure the medicalization of their "disease" when the gay subculture was first noticed by the nascent fields of psychotherapy and sex research, so today the advocates of traditional values, particularly those who take their Christianity seriously, are subjected to the same diagnosis of a pseudo-medical disorder. The theorists of homophobia have developed an elaborate analysis of this newly-discovered condition, one which seem to include all or most heterosexuals. The inventor of the term, George Weinberg, defines it as "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals." Weinberg sees several sources of homophobia, among them repressed homosexuality, envy, and disapproval of groups and individuals outside the traditional nuclear family structure. His theme of repressed homosexuality, and homophobia as a "reaction formation" - a fear and hatred of one's secret desires - is borrowed from Freud, and is all of a piece with the Freudian dogma positing a strong link between paranoia and same-sex love: Freud clearly considered homosexuality to be a form of mental maladjustment.

As for the envy factor, this may well be true. If so, it certainly contradicts the carefully cultivated image of the homosexual-as-victim projected by the gay rights lobby. For if large numbers of heterosexuals are envious of gays, then there must be some advantage enjoyed by homosexuals; how likely is it that any ordinary person would envy a member of an oppressed and downtrodden class? Hostility to sexual arrangements in which procreation is not the central organizing principle of the relationship fails to explain the lack of hostility to childless heterosexual couples.

In practice, homophobia seems to mean any actions or words that displease certain homosexuals. Not your average, everyday garden-variety gays, but the denizens of the organized gay lobby. There is, in fact, a specialized organization, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), that has taken upon itself the role of guardian and monitor of the gay community's image. The recipient of big money from the Hollywood Left, and boasting a network in virtually every major city in the country, GLAAD's hypersensitive antennae scan the skies for signs of homophobia in the media. In regular alerts to its members, and in the pages of gay newspapers from coast to coast, GLAAD publishes the addresses and phone numbers of transgressors, and urges its supporters to complain.

Such groups as People for the American Way and other left-oriented "civil liberties" organizations pull in millions of dollars from liberals worried about the much-vaunted threat of the so-called Religious Right. This myth of neo-Puritan fundamentalists intent on ransacking America's libraries, and purging all traces of sexuality from public life, is central to the demonology of modern liberalism, the bogeyman at the center of their worst nightmare. How ironic, then, to contemplate the implications of an epistle from San Francisco's GLAAD that denounced the March-April 1994 issue of the Video Librarian for daring to recommend Gay Rights, Special Rights, a video distributed by the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC). The following quote from the Video Librarian reviewer is GLAAD's idea of rampant homophobia:

"It would be easy to dismiss Gay Rights, Special Rights as another rabid, right-wing piece of propaganda, except for the serious and valid argument at its core: Should gays and lesbians be accorded minority group status and thereby gain civil rights protections?"

This attempt at a balanced discussion is considered so self-evidently homophobic that Al Kielwasser, local GLAAD guru, did not even bother to explain why he thought it was so. Readers were merely urged to "send much-needed feedback" to the publisher of the Video Librarian.

Clearly, the intent of GLAAD is to make sure that the nation's libraries are cleansed of material they consider potentially harmful. But why stop with such obviously partisan polemics as the TVC video? Why not extend the proscription of anything deemed anti-gay to the local library's current inventory of books? Just think: we could build a bonfire in which the works of Freud, and all the saints in heaven, would be consigned to the flames. It would be as good an excuse as any to torch the complete works of, say, Norman Podhoretz or Pat Buchanan - and even the books of some gay writers whose loyalty to the cause might be found wanting.

All expressions of the idea that homosexuality is in any sense a choice are immediately and vehemently protested by GLAAD as "homophobic," in spite of the considerable dissension on this subject not only among reputable scientists, but also among gays themselves. In the absence of any scientific proof for the gay determinist hypothesis, articles in the press suggesting another view would advance our knowledge of this area by at least carrying the discussion forward. But if the gay ayatollahs of GLAAD have anything to do with it, then those articles will never be published and there will be no discussion. As an example of their dogmatic hectoring, a June 1995 missive from GLAAD berated syndicated gossip columnist Liz Smith for referring to Chastity Bono's "sexual preference":

"Of course, most mainstream journalists have begun to use the more accurate terminology, 'sexual orientation.' 'Preference' carries the unfortunate implication that lesbians and gay men can be changed; it's a term that appeals to the homophobic imagination, in which evil queers prefer immorality over righteousness."

In it's perpetual attempts to intimidate editors, writers, publishers, and movie producers, GLAAD is representative of that curious anomaly of the new millennium: the illiberal liberal. The irony, and the great danger, is that GLAAD is endorsed and subsidized by alleged proponents of "free expression" and openness -- whose money is going to subsidize a new and politically correct version of the Library Police.

In 1980, GLAAD's campaign against the movie Cruising demonized this realistic drama as heterosexist propaganda dedicated to the proposition that, as gay film historian Vito Russo put it, "homosexuality is not only contagious but inescapably brutal." The militant movie mavens of GLAAD reached a crescendo of shrillness in the controversy over Basic Instinct, an elegant movie about a murderess with lesbian tendencies. GLAAD's moral and aesthetic standards are sub-moronic: if a gay character in a movie or television drama is portrayed in a less than flattering light, or even ambiguously, it is GLAAD's cue to get out the picket signs.

This campaign to sanitize homosexuality in the movies soon expanded to include an organized effort to inculcate GLAAD's view of the subject in public school textbooks. In California, GLAAD chapters were urged to attend meetings of the State Board of Education's ad hoc "Committee on Hate/Violence," which is, we are told, "an important platform of curriculum reform." The strategy is to piggyback onto the current campaign against racially-motivated "hate crimes" in the public schools: "Given the committee's focus, the public can demand the Board's attention to the role that textbooks can - and must - play in combating homophobia. After all, unless the Board of Education begins to spend tax dollars on books that include fair and accurate information about lesbians and gays, our schools will continue to teach a curriculum of hate and violence."

What could be clearer than this clarion call for state-subsidized gay propaganda aimed at children? As a parent put it at a meeting of the Queens (New York) School Board Distict 28, in reference to the imposition of New York City's infamous "Rainbow Curriculum": "Remember that the Children of the Rainbow [teacher's manual] specifically tells teachers that in all subjects they are to mention the gay and lesbian lifestyle. This means that in math, reading, and writing, our children will have to hear about this. And remember, this is the first grade." The whole process, he correctly concluded, amounts to "indoctrination."

These parents want to know why homosexuality must be discussed in the schools at all. Gay activists answer: because we are victims. Violence against homosexuals is endemic in this society, and it is the responsibility of the public schools to prevent this by promoting "tolerance."

Christian fundamentalists and other advocates of traditional morality, in opposing social engineering projects such as New York City's "Rainbow Curriculum," declared that homosexuals were trying to recruit innocent young children into their ranks. But they needn't have worried. For the insipid and defensive propaganda of the tolerance brigade would only serve to repulse the very students who might be inclined toward homosexual behavior. What budding young homosexual would not sneer in derision upon being told he has to do a book report on Daddy's Roommate or Gloria Goes to Gay Pride? Such drivel would not recruit anyone, not even the likeliest candidates, and instead would have the opposite effect. Deprived of the aura of rebellion and the forbidden, the allure of homosexuality would practically vanish. Stripped of its otherness, homophilia would soon lose a good deal of its erotic charge, at least for a great many potential practitioners. The irony of the gay activist agenda in the schools is that its full implementation would eventually result in considerably fewer homosexuals. Perhaps GLAAD and the fundamentalists - who have more in common than is at first apparent - can get together on this one.

May 19, 2001

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and the author, most recently, of An Enemy of the State: The Life Of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000).

Article published in anti-state.com :
http://www.anti-state.com/raimondo/raimondo1.html

Behind the Headlines - Justin Raimondo's column in Antiwar.com: http://antiwar.com/justin/
Archives: http://antiwar.com/justin/justin-arch.php

homepage: homepage: http://www.anti-state.com/raimondo/raimondo1.html


No "?" signs 22.Feb.2004 10:47

poster

Sorry. I don't know what was the problem with the code. Please ignore the nonsensical "??" signs in the end of the paragraphs.

Gay "Agenda"? 22.Feb.2004 11:23

lesbean

Actually, I thought the question marks were quite appropriate,since you obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.


THERE IS NO GAY AGENDA, ASSHOLE! Unless you call demanding that society treat us like humans is an "agenda".Why the hell shouldn't gay rights activists turn to the government for help enforcing/writing their HUMAN rights.


And then there's "recruitment". This lie pisses me off more than any other. Saying that gays are trying to bring children or others into "the movement" is tantamount to calling us child molestors, which any thinking person knows is statistically bullshit. Anyway, we don't need to recruit. There are PLENTY of us here already.


Vive le gay marriage!

Right-wing left-wing 22.Feb.2004 12:08

Buzz

Justin's writings are just the ramblings of a right-wing left-winger intended to stir up and back his version of intolerance. You can count on crackpots such as him appearing to counter every social change movement by asserting that evil vultures fly circles around oppressed groups, waiting to milk victim's status and strip constitutional rights from us all. That is indeed a farce and people such as Justin would much prefer to see gays and minoritys suffer for centuries and not have any rights-any law whatsoever giving them any protection from harrasment or affording them the same rights as everyone else is deemed "special rights" to Justin's ilk. Disgusting.

Re: Gay "Agenda"? 22.Feb.2004 12:22

Mies van der Rohe

Did you read the thing carefully? Justin actually pooh-poohed this nutty religious right idea that the school curriculum in NY amounted to "recruitment."

One of the problems people have is they don't really read and listen to others. Whether you agree with him or not, Justin's piece can't be interpreted as an attack on gays.

Justin is obviously a hardcore Libertarian. By the reasoning he uses, he would reject also the 1964 Civil Rights Act too. He would defend the "right" of business establishments to discriminate in favor of whites against blacks
in public accommodations, etc.

However, even if you reject the extremes of his argument, you can still see some merit to some of the points he makes, for example, that some people in GLAAD have an inquisitorial attitude on a variety of ideological points. The whole business of berating someone for using the term "sexual preference" was a good example, I thought. The public school curriculum in NY may be another. Does it in fact require gay rights to be integrated into every aspect of the curriculum? This strikes me as absurd. I hope it's not true.

Personally, I wouldn't frame it in the sharply ideological Libertarian terms that Justin does -- I'm not a Libertarian, afterall. It could just be that what we have here is simply a classic case of overreaction. Some gay activists respond to the attacks of Christian fundies with a siege mentality. Once someone has developed such a siege mentality, they can support all kinds of extreme and irrational measures.

You are a useful idiot for homophobe, no wait, you are one 22.Feb.2004 12:26

Ferret Mike

There is no "gay agenda," and you cannot recuit hetrosexuals, you either are Lesbian, Gay, or Bi-sexual or Straight. You are being disingenuous at best, hateful and devisive at the worst.

Imagine a man who has loved another man deeply for most of his adult life. His partner gets sick and suddenly he is there with no legal protection to get past a narrow minded and viciously posse of hostile family members. How would you like that to happen to you?

It costs More for medical expenses, taxes and every other aspect of life married couple take for granted they will get a break on to help make ends meet. I don't know why you would begrudge tow adult's their choice of whom they spend their life with as their partners.

Gay bashers decry the high profile of the issue they call fire on. They miss the point that they make the issue have a high profile, that if they practiced human decency and used common sense then being gay would be no more notable a fact about someone than say that they are left handed for example.

Gay bashers decry the number or sexual liaisons and the shortness of relationships. But it is their blind hatred and loathings that make it impossible to contractually form a legal bonding, and offer no or little quarter in job, home and hearth, and play to just be human beings being with other human beings sharing their lives with whom they love and care for.

You should think about this issue and not buy into such stifling control of others. To hang the threat of loss of social standing and peace of mind unless another complies with a socio religious mindset makes nonsense of the conservative mantra of undying hatred for socialism and communist ideology.

They say they loath others controlling aspects of their property rights and right to make a profit regardless of impact on others. But then they become Mao like adherents to the principle of sacrifice to the common good and meddle in the lives of others.

I can not respect this hypocrisy and conservative talking out of both sides of the mouth on lesbian and gay issues.

It is time for them to free their minds of hypocrisy and vicious hatred. The injustice they hand out to others only returns to haunt them in the end when they become enslaved to what they have become as a result of what they do to others they render dubious services to in being legalized bullies and thieves, and nothing more than a den of fascists. To win on this issue you have to lose the hatred and intolerance. You have to free your mind and to open your heart.

yawn 22.Feb.2004 12:32

bored

Saying that your critics will call your straw man logical contortions homophobic in advance doesn't change the fact that the premise here is indeed homophobic. It's an old tired middle school debate team technique, much loved by the neocons and xian right.

Demanding equal treatment under the law is inviting the government into your bedroom?
Refusing to be invisible and silent is shoving it down people's throats?
Declining to be discriminated against is crying victim?

These question marks (?) are intentional.

Bullshit 22.Feb.2004 12:39

Ferret Mike

"One of the problems people have is they don't really read and listen to others. Whether you agree with him or not, Justin's piece can't be interpreted as an attack on gays."

Bullshit. I am very gay, I've been kicked out of the Military after a peer interview security check though I was being quite celibate and quiet, and I've experienced how the closet builds up tensions that then explode inappropriately in other venues.

Nobody wants to recruit, or adhere to an "agenda." And the APA's research bears this up. If this birdbrained and hateful idiot who wrote this wants to contradict the findings of the APA, let him contract impartial research done in the same fashion as the APA's to give his strange words some foundation that will hold weight. He is a crackpot starting with a conclusion and then invents a cobble of disjointed factoids from many sources to support it. He can go to Hell.


I don't buy it 22.Feb.2004 12:39

Buzz

"Violence against homosexuals is endemic in this society, and it is the responsibility of the public schools to prevent this by promoting "tolerance."?

Anyone who would make the above statement clearly shows where they are coming from. He is saying violence against gays is here to stay and the schools have no business attempting to prevent violence against students who happen to be gay.

truly sad, knee-jerk response 22.Feb.2004 12:56

Mies van der Rohe

Did anyone other than me actually READ Justin's piece, rather than skim it and instantaneously peg it as "homophobic"? Listen to what he says:

"In heedless pursuit of this agenda, what was once a crusade for tolerance has itself degenerated into a major source of crankish intolerance."

Whether you agree with him or not, it's clear that Raimondo doesn't support intolerance to gays. I rather suspect he strongly rejects it. He respects and appreciates the Stonewall rebellion. He praises it for being consistent with Libertarianism, as he sees it. It's just that he doesn't see how some of the highly ideologically charged, inquisitorial tactics that some people in GLAAD have adopted can further the goal of tolerance.

Some comments here have gone off on rants attacking opposition to gay marriage. Raimondo never even talks about gay marriage, for or against. (Being a Libertarian, I rather suspect he would support it, as consistent with his other views on personal freedom. Why shouldn't individuals be able to marry whoever they want? Why should the state get to dictate such a personal choice? But I'm not sure what his actual position is.)

It's too bad that some hot-button issues leave no room for many people to even read and hear divergent viewpoints at all. This lends a certain credence Justin's case. Again, I wouldn't put it in the Libertarian terms he does. Rather, chalk it up to "siege mentality."

Horsepucky 22.Feb.2004 13:18

Buzz

"Such groups as People for the American Way and other left-oriented "civil liberties" organizations pull in millions of dollars from liberals worried about the much-vaunted threat of the so-called Religious Right. This myth of neo-Puritan fundamentalists intent on ransacking America's libraries, and purging all traces of sexuality from public life, is central to the demonology of modern liberalism, the bogeyman at the center of their worst nightmare"


As if there is no actual threat from the right-wing. Hundreds of articles every week are written and published by right-wing authors working to remove and prevent gays from having rights. This author is but a cog in the wheel of stripping gays of having any legitimate credibility in the political spectrum and court system. There is a boogyman, in fact hundreds of boogymen and to deny that is simply horseshit.

Who asked Hetrotrash to speak for us anyway? 22.Feb.2004 13:18

Ferret Mike

"Whether you agree with him or not, it's clear that Raimondo doesn't support intolerance to gays. I rather suspect he strongly rejects it."

And you are what? Another Hetrotrash wannabe spokeman for us? Steve Biko, father of the Black Consciousness movement in South Africa took those well meaning White folks and supporters to task for speaking for Blacks in a manner that took the job of framing the issues and explaining who those suffering were and why they did what they did away from them.

Lesbians, Gays, and Trans-gendered people can speak for themselves, thank you. Now if people want to support us, fine and dandy. But we don't need malicious fools defining us and what we go through for us.

Rohe, you take others to task for allegedly not reading for content. I submit that if you are a straight boy, stifle yourself. The author of this piece needs to do the same.

Tend to your own house Heterosexual, and we'll tend to ours. Nobody died and appointed you two as knowledgeable spokesmen for a group you must belong to to understand well enough to define and lead.


"No one expects a faggot inquisition!" 22.Feb.2004 13:29

goatlove

The majority of responses to this article (except for those from Mies) serve as perfect examples of the kind of reactionary "victim" preoccupation that much of the queer movement clings to like they'd forget who they were without it. When they hear someone mention queer issues outside of the narrow context of "Oh how these people have suffered! We must plead with the government to protect them!" they rabidly denounce whatever the person is arguing, most likely without so much as reading the damn article, as Ferret Mike has so aptly shown.

BTW, y'all who think Justin Raimondo is a homophobe may find it relevant that he's gay.

Where's the beef? 22.Feb.2004 13:39

Ferret Mike

Oh I read the piece alright, goatie. And it is clearly not written by a Gay man. Got a citation to back up your bizarre contribution?

<p>So this idiot is Gay? Where's the beef?

citations... 22.Feb.2004 13:51

goatlove

These are just two from among a boatload...

From  http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j101402.html :
"Raimondo is a gay conservative activist from San Francisco"

From  http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021403.html :
"And, hey, I'm also gay, although "gay leader" -- whatever that may mean -- is pushing it."

Also, while I won't dispute your claim that you may have "read" the piece in the sense that you ran your eyes over each of the words, you show no evidence of having actually taken time to "apprehend" the text.

OK 22.Feb.2004 14:01

Buzz

If he is gay he is feeding into the pool of intolerance promoted by the right-wing. He is attempting to validate the same assertions the right makes and that is apparent.

re: OK 22.Feb.2004 14:19

goatlove

I agree with your assessment regarding his dismissal of the Religious Right as an active, viable force for the suppression of personal liberties... I think he's off to suggest that they're irrelevant or "bogeymen". But while I dismiss this particular comment of his (and a several others) as rhetorical, hyperbolic garbage, I don't think the entirety of his reasoning is off, nor do I think his aim (against identity politics in general) is inherently false or anti-queer. Just because some of his opinions (e.g. against queer propaganda in schools) are congruent with those who are fervently anti-queer does not necessarily make him one of them nor their tool. I personally don't see much support for his being a house-homo.

More words from the mouth of Justin 22.Feb.2004 14:21

Buzz

"But in fact no major religious conservative has called for legal measures against homosexuals. The Christian Coalition, the Eagle Forum, and other grassroots conservative activists only involved themselves in supposedly "anti-gay" political activities defensively, in working to overturn gay rights legislation that attacked their most deeply held beliefs."


Oh yeah we believe you Justin.Those Christian belief systems are of tantamount importance and when the gays make those "attacks" it is soooo dangerous to their way of life.

Re: More words 22.Feb.2004 14:29

Mies van der Rohe

Buzz:
Again, this is coming from a guy who probably thinks the 1964 Civil Rights Act unfairly suppressed the "right" of white-owned businesses to pick and choose their patrons. It doesn't mean he's anti-black. Just foolish.

more thoughts 22.Feb.2004 15:05

Buzz

He may be just a fool, but he is a fool feeding into the wheel of oppression, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Who is going to glom onto his wisdoms? Likely anyone looking for validation on the right wing's assertion that the "gay agenda" is shoving itself down america's throat. This guy is the shill for the anti-gay movement,knowingly or not and consciously or not. The end result of his writing this commentary is as important as his background and reason for writing it.

Uncle Tom Raimondo 22.Feb.2004 15:19

Ferret Mike

Are you calling me a liar Goatlove? I read the piece, and have damn good reasons for my position and statements. I have monitored FreeRepublic.Com and other hate sites for years and see this sort of 'activism' from them all the time. It is common a practice to add veracity to an assertion by including just enough truth to it so it will fly. I appreciate the citations, but all that proves is that he is a world class 'Uncle Tom' in regards to those who share his sexual preference.

I have seen this self loathing before, and he wipes his feet on the struggle against homophobia and anti-homosexual activities of the right in a very 'Uncle Tome' manner. So, he hates himself enough to try to build gratitude with fellow righties and would like to build a niche on the right as a relevant gay man in their world.

Anyone familiar with the depth of hatred, and irrationality toward and concerning Lesbians and Gays would look at this piece, read it and their filters would process this claptrap garbage in the same way mine did. (Go to FreeRepublic.Com (FR)and do a search for threads concerning homosexuality and be prepared for incredibly extreme hyperbole and hatred, you really do have to see it to believe it.)

I am familiar with right wing Internet activism that works to disrupt and demoralize sites like the Indymedia network. You are not permitted to even post a URL or link to Indymedia on Jim Robinson's FR, but the do exchange information there on tactics and activities that the call 'FReeping.'

Do not call me a liar or patronize me. I am not here acting as a troll, and I am very accessible in Eugene, Oregon under my posted real life nickname. I am a forest activist, and I can be found most easily at the Grower's Market building with very few inquiries. -MJMc


Re: more thoughts 22.Feb.2004 15:23

Mies van der Rohe

You could be right, Buzz, that Raimondo is going to give aid and comfort to the religiloonies. However, I maintain that he may have some good points that are sufficiently important as to be worth considering in their own right. My estimation of the validity of his points has only risen as a result of the kind of knee-jerk reactions I've seen here to his article.

Why can't people actually read and thoughtfully digest what someone has to say, instead of immediately framing it within their own agendas and pigeonholing it as "anti-this-or-that"? This failure of rational thought and intelligent criticism is a hallmark of this country, afflicting leftists as much as rightists. Perhaps this failure to read and think logically and engage in real political debate, meeting the arguments of one's opponents with an open mind, underlies some of the extremism that Raimondo was criticizing, like the business of excoriating anyone who uses the term "sexual preference" instead of "sexual orientation."

I see the same dynamic at work in so many ways in this country. It's part of the demagogic power of the pro-Israel lobby. Anyone who criticizes Israel is shouted down as "antisemitic." Anyone who goes to the World Social Forum is accused of being involved in a leftwing antisemitic movement. Here's a great recent article on this subject:  http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0219-08.htm

I see this larger problem as being endemic to our political culture. A soundbite, nanosecond attention span, anti-intellectual culture ultimately empowers bigots and rightwing opportunists, and this is a big part of why this country has been such a fascist hellhole for so long, and getting worse lately.

re: more thoughts 22.Feb.2004 15:25

goatlove

So those who oppose the US occupation of Iraq are actually just shills for the pro-Saddam and pro-tyrant movements? Their agendas do overlap, you see...

Correction 22.Feb.2004 15:33

Ferret Mike

I had to re-write that as the first version of that post did not go through. Correction to my last post: I did not intend to use the rightie phrasing of "sexual preference" for 'sexual orientation.'

I spell checked, but did not catch that until checking to see if the post was posted. This should be obvious, but it is important enough of a point of order to clarify this. MJMc

Yeah 22.Feb.2004 15:55

Buzz

"At a time when homosexual acts are still illegal in several states, the official gay rights movement is fixated on passing laws that would somehow protect homosexuals from alleged discrimination in housing and employment. From an essentially libertarian movement, which sought to minimize the power of government in the sexual realm, gay organizations and leading spokespersons are today calling for the expansion of state power over nearly every aspect of our lives."

He wishes to define the origins of the gay rights movement as libertarian. Sure claim it was your political ideology behind the movement. He does what he accused others of doing, attempting to subvert the movement.

"It's my body and I'll fuck if I want to, fuck if I want to..." 22.Feb.2004 16:01

goatlove

Are you calling me a liar Goatlove?

No, I'm calling you a poor reader, a deficit possibly exacerbated by an agenda of claiming victimhood and oppression. If you had read and understood the article, you would not have complained, for example, that Raimondo is framing pro-gay propaganda in schools as recruiting materials because, as the text of the article shows, this is clearly not the case.

Correction to my last post: I did not intend to use the rightie phrasing of "sexual preference" for 'sexual orientation.'

Your compliance with the diddering over orientation vs. preference and characterization of "preference" as a "rightie phrasing" is exactly the kind of fanaticalism the the article is addressing. Am I "chocolate oriented" if I find that I enjoy eating chocolate ice cream more than vanilla, even though it's likely I'm predisposed to that enjoyment by way of my personal physiology? No. I prefer eating chocolate.

And why does it even matter whether or not it's biology? Queers should be fighting for their freedom to fuck and marry because it's what they want and prefer, not because nature says they have to. Arguing on biological necessity is like begging for second-class status... That is the Uncle Tom line.


Beware 22.Feb.2004 16:59

Heed

Whatever they do gays must beware of the Backlash effect. For one example, Massachusetts and SF has prompted a federal law against gay marriage in the works.

Trying to get my goat are you? 22.Feb.2004 17:46

Ferret Mike

"No, I'm calling you a poor reader, a deficit possibly exacerbated by an agenda of claiming victim hood and oppression."

I read and post on the Internet daily when I'm not in the forest. Come on into the Free Republic exile board formed in reaction to the mass bannings on that forum done so capriciously by owner Jim Robinson. It is called LibertyPost.Org, and we need more liberal interlocutors to balance the political spectrum demographics caused by so many of these LPers being from the FreeRepublic.Com board.

You will find me there in a familiar account name, and I dispassionately debunk very toxic homophobic sentiment without identifying myself as being gay but to the owners whom I have E Mailed and made clear I do not want to just talk about my status as a gay man. I am beyond worrying about getting a taylor made hair shirt over the lose of jobs, housing, billet in the military, or any other thing I have been tasked for because of bigotry.

You do not know me well enough to maintain this assertion of yours as to my lack of ability to read for content, or project how I present myself in life. You strike me as very arrogant in your posturing and condescending, it would behoove you to stand down.

"If you had read and understood the article, you would not have complained, for example, that Raimondo is framing pro-gay propaganda in schools as recruiting materials because, as the text of the article shows, this is clearly not the case."

I explained, and will reiterate that I took the verbiage in the header of this thread to be focused on advancing an anti Lesbian and Gay agenda and that I saw it as pointless to take such obvious myopia and mean spirited verbiage as anything but a load of Bull Shit with truth sprinkled into the mix. You may not agree with my take on this, you are welcome to dislike how I responded, but to continually refuse my statement of having read it in good faith and to posture me as a nitwit speaks ill of you not me. At ease the insult.

Your compliance with the diddering over orientation vs. preference and characterization of "preference" as a "rightie phrasing" is exactly the kind of fanaticism the the article is addressing. Am I "chocolate oriented" if I find that I enjoy eating chocolate ice cream more than vanilla, even though it's likely I'm predisposed to that enjoyment by way of my personal physiology? No. I prefer eating chocolate."

Argue with the APA whose guidelines for language I follow, not me: Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language

Problems of Terminology

Problems occur in language concerning lesbians, gay men, and bisexual persons when the language is too vague or the concepts are poorly defined. There are two major problems of designation. Language may be ambiguous in reference, so that the reader is uncertain about its meaning or its inclusion and exclusion criteria; and the term homosexuality has been associated in the past with deviance, mental illness, and criminal behavior, and these negative stereotypes may be perpetuated by biased language.

The term sexual orientation is preferred to sexual preference for psychological writing and refers to sexual and affectional relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual people. The word preference suggests a degree of voluntary choice that is not necessarily reported by lesbians and gay men and that has not been demonstrated in psychological research.

The terms lesbian sexual orientation, heterosexual sexual orientation, gay male sexual orientation, and bisexual sexual orientation are preferable to lesbianism, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. The former terms focus on people, and some of the latter terms have in the past been associated with pathology.

And why does it even matter whether or not it's biology? Queers should be fighting for their freedom to fuck and marry because it's what they want and prefer, not because nature says they have to. Arguing on biological necessity is like begging for second-class status... That is the Uncle Tom line."

Who said anything about biology? I didn't. And I suffer a lack of social access to gay peers because I do not go to bars as I hate the music, cigarettes and do not drink. I made the informed choice to be here in Eugene as an activist rather than move to a gay enclave such as exists in PDX. I'm forty nine and do not need marriage or sex this point of time in my life. I need to see old growth forest saved. That makes me the happiest.

As far as your little attempts to rhetorically 'count coupe' on me with "my alleged reading problems," and throwing my Uncle Tom term back at me, get rid of the grudge and dispassionately look at yourself. Are you trying to make a point, or to just dis me? I would say you have issues, and you are welcome anytime to look me up here on LP or in Eugene and I would be happy to talk with you further on any and all of this. -MJMc


two peas in a pod 22.Feb.2004 18:48

goatlove

You do not know me well enough to maintain this assertion of yours as to my lack of ability to read for content... it would behoove you to stand down.


I don't need to know you well to ascertain that you're responding to statements that the article's author didn't state as if he did.

You appear to think it's cute and acceptable if you call folks "heterotrash" and tell them to "go to hell" when their opinion breezes beyond the simplistic "gay == good" demagoguery, yet manage to appear surprised and hurt when people don't bother to slip on their velvet gloves when pointing out genuine flaws in your reasoning. Get over it.

Who said anything about biology?


The APA does by saying "The word preference suggests a degree of voluntary choice that is not necessarily reported by lesbians and gay men," and you do by proxy by choosing to abide by their standards of discourse and vocabulary. The APA has just barely gotten over the notion that being queer is a classifiable pathology... Why do you give a shit what they want you to call yourself?

Are you trying to make a point, or to just dis me?


I'm trying to make the point that Raimondo is not just some limp-wristed Uncle Tom and is in fact writing about a very real phenomenon (which, as Mies stated, only seems more apparent in the way that the article has been "critiqued" in this thread) in which there are significant factions of people with the agenda to reform "homo" to be short for "homogenous".


To Goat 22.Feb.2004 19:32

Ferret Mike

"I don't need to know you well to ascertain that you're responding to statements that the article's author didn't state as if he did."

Your choice Bub. I deliberately notched back the heat back as a invitation for you to do so. If you wish to continue in flame mode, I'm game.

"You appear to think it's cute and acceptable if you call folks "heterotrash" and tell them to "go to hell" when their opinion breezes beyond the simplistic "gay == good" demagoguery, yet manage to appear surprised and hurt when people don't bother to slip on their velvet gloves when pointing out genuine flaws in your reasoning. Get over it."

And you retaliated with Faggot? So? What's your real point. I work and not hating smug self satisfied twits who relish in their status as avowed lovers of the opposite sex and the opposite sex only. The crap in the header is indeed demagoguery, and you are now doing as I actually expected you to do in your response. You are only into further slash and trash dialog. If their is one thing I know well about the topic, it is as complicated and convoluted as any political topic out there.

As for being surprised, or hurt, I am beyond that. I atoned for venting anger pent up from months of dealing with gay bashing on the forums I frequent by unmasking who I am in real life, and showing all the good faith possible to keep to the topic in here. But you interpret that as weakness on my part, and you obviously fell I think I can not hang with a hot modus of posting. Wrong.

You are an insufferable twit, and reading between the lines you obviously have deep issues that involve hatred or resentment toward gays and lesbians. I actually would prefer to be right in front of your face saying this. As a long time tree planter/woods worker and Paratrooper I used to love a good scrap. And bubba, I assure you I am in excellent physical shape. And if I was intimidated, I sure as fuck would not give any tools to find me to someone.

You are so smug and full of yourself, well asshole, got a car? Hop in it and come on down. I ride bicycle year round and don't have that immediate means of travel. Words are cheap, dip shit.

"The APA does by saying "The word preference suggests a degree of voluntary choice that is not necessarily reported by lesbians and gay men," and you do by proxy by choosing to abide by their standards of discourse and vocabulary. The APA has just barely gotten over the notion that being queer is a classifiable pathology... Why do you give a shit what they want you to call yourself?"

You tell me? Who gives a flying fuck about what you think of this point yourself cowboy.

"I'm trying to make the point that Raimondo is not just some limp-wristed Uncle Tom and is in fact writing about a very real phenomenon (which, as Mies stated, only seems more apparent in the way that the article has been "critiqued" in this thread) in which there are significant factions of people with the agenda to reform "homo" to be short for "homogenous"."

Fuck off. Limp wristed is your appellation, as is faggot. Raimondo is a brain dead twit, and you make a great disciple.


debate != flame war 22.Feb.2004 20:14

goatlove

I like a decent, toe-to-toe debate, but flaming just does not hold my interest. Bye.

Whatever Goat 22.Feb.2004 21:50

Ferret Mike

"I like a decent, toe-to-toe debate, but flaming just does not hold my interest. Bye."

Which is why you came back with that last corker of a post. Let me tell you my last real bad experience in Portland with a group of youths sauntering down NE Stark Street. I was planting trees with Greenhill Reforestation and that weekend I drove my bug into Portland and was heading for the Silverado. A lanky kid with a longish haircut waved, smiled and said, "HI!" He then delivered a roundhouse kick which caught me in the neck.

I was caught by surprise and only managed to go into a back stance to anchor myself. I will never forget that brief flash of shock and surprise as I stepped in and reciprocated. Three more skin headed sorts started in on me and in retrospect I realize they were waiting for a prostrate body to boot.

As I disengaged to preform a retrograde maneuver, a bouncer grabbed my coat and I heard, "Inside honey, lets go." Naturally I was grateful. Four were too much to take on.

It turned out they had booted one kid sitting near where Roxie's is now, and were just into some good clean troll and fag bashing that night. The police were on their trail and at one point they asked me to ID who it was who had kicked me. I couldn't remember offhand which of the group out there near Georgia's Grocery it was. I had to say I didn't know.

The kid came up in a surly manner and made sure I knew it was him, and we left it as an eyeball to eyeball. By that time he knew I was in way better than average shape.

I will never forget that night. I will never forget the month and a half it took to throw me out of the Army as a undesirable. It was mind numbingly horrible. If there is one about thing people in an organization where bigots are given a comfort zone, people thusly empowered and sanctioned to hate know no mercy.

I don't hate you Goat love. However I do understand you. You do not want debate. You do not like uppity 'faggots,' and you know how to pull people's strings.

You have an open invite to start over. I don't wallow in self pity, and I don't retain a grudge. Live is ferociously short, and no woman or man is perfect. You take care and stop by and see me if you are in Eugene. I practice non-violent civil disobedience, and have a great deal of understanding that I am far from perfect, and believe it or not, I do know how to laugh at myself.

I Don't think you will, with all due respect you strike me and not having too much courage or empathy for others. But I would be most happy if you proved me wrong. Take care, and enjoyed the thread so far. ;-) -MJMc


Bet you Indymedia guys can't fix that last post, C'est la Vie 22.Feb.2004 22:08

Ferret Mike

Dear, Portland Indymedia, your interface bites. You need a preview function, and this having to remember to hit the HTML button is hard on us poor ferrets used to posting on board where this just happens naturally, oh well I'll live (snivel snivel) Love Ferret Mike ;-)

So is Raimondo a self-hating homosexual? --JDL Terrorists, ponder... 23.Feb.2004 03:03

HA HA HA

Hi.

Justin Raimondo is gay. Did you know that?

An excerpt:
... "Justin Raimondo of San Francisco is running against Democrat Nancy Pelosi for the 8th district U.S. House seat. Raimondo is gay and he supports Buchanan--a rare combination that's netting him newspaper and TV exposure." ...
-- http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.29.96/public-eyem-9609.html

Another:
"Which part do you believe to be untrue, Debbie? The "flamboyant gay liberationist" part? I know Raimondo personally, as do several others on this list and on SIL, and they'll all assure you that he's quite openly gay. He's also an advocate of gay liberation, as opposed to gay rights. This is itself not a bad thing, in my
opinion."
-- http://www.wetheliving.com/pipermail/atlantis/Week-of-Mon-20030331/001246.html


The JDL (You know, the jewish terrorists that tried to blow up US Congressman Daryl Issa? ), They have a website called ,"Justin Raimondo Watch".

An excerpt:
"His actual name is Dennis. He is a Homosexual, like Adolph Hitler. He only recently confirmed he was gay. The JDL of New York outed him and his hypocrisy." <---They say he's an "anti-semite", of course...

Another excerpt:
"The reason why he is a libertarian is because he is gay. Gays back then wanted the government out of their lives to to repeal sodomy laws. This is his reason for his libertarian view."

Another:
"So is Raimondo a self-hating homosexual? " <--- I like that one the best, those silly Jewish terrorists!

-- http://www.jdl-ny.org/raimondowatch.htm


I'm not gay myself, so I'm probably not to qualified to comment on being gay. But I would like to say that I do enjoy reading Justins website, I visit it every day.