11-04-2005, 11:02 AM | #41 (permalink) | |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
There are two basic ways that a queer person can be accepted by society today. They can do so by active participation in the movement for rights or they can try to "pass" as straight. For a queer person to "pass" and accept the benifits of being percieved as straight, and then turn around and participate in policies that harm people just like them... I don't care if they've figured out that this is wrong, or what their reasons are. It's hypocrasy, pure and simple. And a harmful one at that. If you believe that you personally deserve the respect of society, but that other people do not...i'm going to call foul. Using the community so that you don't live in a world where queer witch hunts are common, and physical violence (even from law enforcement) is the norm...and then harming that very community for personal gain? How is that not treason? Now...some take this logic and move to outing as a reasonable response. I'm somewhat more wary, for a variety of reasons, but in general follow the Frank rule...that as soon as one's personal hypocrasy begins to harm others in the community, it is no longer reasonable for us to maintain our secrecy.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
|
11-04-2005, 11:31 AM | #42 (permalink) | ||
can't help but laugh
Location: dar al-harb
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill |
||
11-04-2005, 11:48 AM | #43 (permalink) | ||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
edit: irate covered the other possibility here. If the policies hurt themselves in addition to people like them, then I don't see the hypocrisy. "I don't think the government should sanction ANY same-sex marriage" is not hypocritical. Is the policy in question directly attacking the benefits that the closeted politician keeps, or is the attack due to societal trends that can be but aren't necessarily associated with the policy? To give an example, are all those against hate crime legislation automatically against gays gaining full societal acceptance? Is it not possible to be against the former but in favor of the latter? Quote:
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. Last edited by FoolThemAll; 11-04-2005 at 11:51 AM.. |
||
11-04-2005, 01:54 PM | #44 (permalink) | |||
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Wealth and/or priviledge can shield a person from a great deal of the negative effects of homophobia and the like. I don't take kindly to the people who "make it" by stepping on the rest of us. I assume that it's a similar idea in racial minority communities. Since when is it okay for a person to take the support of a community for years, and then turn around and act like they don't owe anything back?
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
|||
11-04-2005, 02:18 PM | #45 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Principled reason for being against hate crime legislation: crimes should not be treated differently based on the identity of the victim. I see no reason why anyone, gay or straight, couldn't claim either principle. If you wish to argue that the reasoning of these plrinciples is flawed, you'll have a new argument on one hand (hate crime legislation) and agreement on the other (gay marriage). But if you can't see how a gay person might stand against these policies in principle, then I don't think you're being imaginative enough. I did read Gilda's thread, by the way, and I think it's a terrible shame. Whether through gay marriage or though some other sufficient method, this needs to change.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|
11-04-2005, 02:29 PM | #46 (permalink) | |
can't help but laugh
Location: dar al-harb
|
Quote:
if they must deny their homosexuality in public to gain respectable acceptance by society in one instance, how would they gain the same society's respect by becoming loudly open about it?
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill |
|
11-04-2005, 04:24 PM | #47 (permalink) | ||
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
As a person who is out, my message to the closet cases who think that as long as they play by the rules they can benifit at my (and the rest of the community's) expense? Your silence will not make you safe. If your private decision to be closeted becomes a position from which to attack the queer community? Don't expect to have closet doors any more. Outing is a legitimate, if difficult tactic. It can, short term, reinforce a message that queer is negative...and as such is a last resort measure. But it may be required to prevent larger damage on the out community from a few self-serving closet cases. In the case of politicians who are willing to support the FMA to keep their political ambitions alive...I think it's unfair for them to continue to expect our discretion. Quote:
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
||
11-04-2005, 06:21 PM | #49 (permalink) |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
without a serious dose of self-hatred, i don't know how a person could think that they deserve to be second class citizenry, or that their affirmation will cause the downfall of society. It's delusional to think oneself is that bad (and that important for that matter.)
Seriously. Think about what it would mean to believe that. In most cases, we would say it's pathological. It's absorbed self-hate...and if they want to think that privately, i think that's too bad. If they want me and others to hate ourselves... That's another matter entirely. sidenote...i realize that in being snide to irate, i may have oversimplified matters a touch. It is obviously possible to remain closeted in some realms of life and not others. I was out a school for some time before i told my parents...and most straight people who meet me breifly probably think that i'm straight as well. But my utilitarian use of passing (as in, i don't think it's necessary to hit everyone over the head with it) is not reflective of my willingness to stand with my community in times of need. When it comes down to it, i have been willing to be open and active in the struggle to secure fundamental rights for all citizens. This leaves the point i was making. The overall choice of ethos is either to be open or to hide. Despite the attraction of the latter, for the most part it has become a fool's choice. We are at a point in history where silence will not protect our interests or help us lead happy or normal lives.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
11-04-2005, 07:03 PM | #50 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
#1 - But with a serious dose of self-hatred? Would you concede that they could genuinely believe then? That it could be a matter of principle then? #2 - It needn't be self-hatred. I'll bring up that one cliche, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". They could believe that there's nothing wrong with them so long as they aren't actually participating in any sort of homosexual act. #3 - "Gay marriage destabilizes the institution" does NOT equal "affirmation of gay relationships is bad". Keep in mind the many people against legal gay marriage who have no problem with religious or nonreligious gay marriage ceremonies. Or the many people who don't mind the idea of civil unions. #4 - They may not view it as a matter of second-class citizenry. Perhaps they view marriage as a function applicable only to heterosexual couples. Perhaps they don't view marriage as a right. (Libertarians in favor of removing marriage from the public sphere would agree.) Perhaps they view gay marriage as unnecessary catering to a minority group, like removing "In God We Trust" from our money. And perhaps those who are aware of situations like Gilda's would prefer that problem be fixed in a different way not altering the legal conception of marriage. #5 - Dude, sometimes people just don't sufficiently examine their beliefs and don't see the flaws and unintended conclusions that you've been seeing. There really are people out there who want to reserve marriage for heteros yet do not view gay couples as inferior. It's possible for the position to be devoid of any anti-gay sentiment.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|
11-04-2005, 07:41 PM | #51 (permalink) | |||||
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
|||||
11-05-2005, 09:06 AM | #52 (permalink) | |||||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you want one of these "idiot" closet cases to remain an "idiot", the best thing to do is to treat him as nothing but a harmful enemy who could never be shown the errors in his thinking. Maybe some can't, but I'd rather not make such a careless blanket assumption. Quote:
Perhaps it'd be better to choose an issue that relates to Steele?
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|||||
11-05-2005, 09:35 AM | #53 (permalink) | |||||
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
This is not to say they aren't authentically queer, or that somehow this makes them the worst person on earth. That's not it. But i can't regard this kind of self-hatred as a legitimate political position. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
|||||
11-05-2005, 10:53 AM | #54 (permalink) | ||||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Because there is no obvious and certain bigotry on the surface of some of the arguments I've listed. There's obvious possible bigotry; they could hold these positions because they consider same-sex relationships inferior. But there's no bigotry that's both necessarily tied to the belief and obvious. At least not as I see it. I see the bigotry being necessarily tied to the belief if you dig deeply enough (at least as far as I've dug), but not automatic as if it's a simple equation of "anti-gay marriage = anti-gay". There's nuances that prevent that kind of simplicity, even if the nuances can be torn down.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
||||
11-05-2005, 11:54 AM | #55 (permalink) | ||
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think we need to come to agreement, but what i wanted to show, is from one perspective how the rhetoric comes to be like this. A lot of people see outing or oreos and think that's where the discussion starts. They then often place blame accordingly. But what i'm getting at here, is that there is a preceeding action in these cases that the community believes to be harmful enough to warrant retaliation. There's a reason, even if you disagree with it, for the rhetoric to be this heated.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
||
11-06-2005, 08:58 AM | #57 (permalink) | |
Lennonite Priest
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
|
Quote:
People are people regardless of party, and some people will be more opinionated and feel certain ways, but not every Dem, or even the majority may feel that way. Same with GOP, same with any organization or any group of 2 people or more. To make a comment like that and in essence believe or imply every Dem feels this way is wrong and ridiculous. People are people and everyone has differing views.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" |
|
11-06-2005, 04:03 PM | #58 (permalink) | ||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
||
11-06-2005, 05:34 PM | #59 (permalink) |
Cunning Runt
Location: Taking a mulligan
|
Never mind. Hypocrisy this blatant isn't worth my comments, and I'll just invite shrill cries of "bigot!" if I put the shoe on the other foot.
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher Last edited by Marvelous Marv; 11-06-2005 at 09:15 PM.. |
11-10-2005, 12:59 AM | #60 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: inside my own mind
|
I heard about this awhile ago, but I thought this was done by some blogger and basically condemned by most people? I thought it was in really aweful taste, and from what I could tell unwarrented. (labels like oreo, twinkie and such suck...) That said, I don't think Steele is as popular as some of you are making him out to be. I live in the Potomac area and honestly nobody likes the Erlich/Steele goverment that much.
but I haven't been home in a couple months (school) so maybe radical shifts in thought have occured. offtopic: I read the Washington Post, NYT, and Washington Times, and honestly the Washington Times just isn't as good a paper, I'm not saying it's not a ok source of info, but overall I think the articles aren't as well written.
__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part.... |
11-10-2005, 10:03 AM | #61 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
I think this whole thing is asinine and really, just a bunch of right wing rabble rousing in the hopes that they can deflect some attention from the fact that their party is falling apart.
Although I'd prefer that people could just drop the tags of black/white or gay/straight people have built identities about themself and the people that have similar traits. martin makes a great comparison to the use of outings to show closeted gay people as hypocrites. I think it's a lot easier to see the analogy by looking at a closeted republican gays. The truth is that republican gays are simply in sleeping with the enemy. It is the Republican party that seeks the ability to treat gays as subhumans, not the Democrats. Republicans actively seek: Banning gay marriage The ability to discriminate against gays in the workplace, and Elimination of unmarried partner benefits. I think it is necessary for the gay community to out closeted gay politicians that choose to align with republicans and seek out anti-gay policies. I also think that straight people should not get involved with these disputes within the gay community (ie outing of a closeted gay is ok if done by other gays, not ok if done by straight people). Taking this back to the issue of 'oreos,' many Black leaders see the Republicans as being an enemy to black americans. If they choose to attack him for what they percieve as being a 'traitor to their kind' and call him an oreo, then that is their fight. White democrats should stay out of it. The other issue is that Republicans are trying to attack the dem party as a whole becuase they stayed out. Deciding not to stay out and not condemn does not equal agreement with a tactic. |
11-10-2005, 11:57 AM | #62 (permalink) | |||
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|||
11-10-2005, 02:16 PM | #64 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
But I'm mulling over that last point I made. I'm thinking that it would make a difference whether it was standard practice to disassociate one's self from others in the party who make objectionable statements.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|
11-10-2005, 02:38 PM | #65 (permalink) |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
two things...
dissociation, and condoning: there's obviously a fine line involved in deciding how much agreement one seeks from someone before labeling them a traitor. but i fail to see how in American political life, where we have pretty well absolute freedom to make political statements...that failing to stand against something *while holding a position of power* isn't the same as silent affirmation. If you can do something to stop a bill and you don't....that at least says you're not opposed to it. I'm wary to draw parallels to less liberal democratic (i mean small caps on both) societies... The who: the question isn't hetero vs. non-hetero. i think the question is straight vs. queer. They are positional and perspectival labels. A person who is queer is one whose sexual/gender idenity or presentation places them in conflict with a heteronormative society (one that demands straight idenity and polices gender roles). Thus, a man who is percieved as "effeminate" might be hetero, but still be queer in that his gender idenity causes conflict with a heterosexist society. Or, a woman who is a ally to the community might be percieved through one of the classic tropes of the "dyke" or as a bitch because of her advocacy...even if she sleeps with men. It isn't who you fuck. It's who society thinks you are because of who they think you fuck. All of this goes to who is allowed to do this. If you haven't put your neck on the line because of being queer for whatever reason....i don't trust you to have the right amount of caution in doing any of this. It's tricky for me to call these shots, and i do so in conversation with the community. The last thing we need is people who don't know what the risks are using outing as "just another" tool in the political armament. What makes outing a tactic with a potential for liberation is that it comes from the very people that have the most to lose. Otherwise...it would just be gay baiting. It's not that a hetero person could never do this...but that a person who is "straight" couldn't understand what it means to be targeted by society....and what it means to return fire in self-defense.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 Last edited by martinguerre; 11-10-2005 at 10:33 PM.. Reason: i can't parse sentences |
Tags |
dems, hate, oreosdoes, party, race, trump |
|
|