martinguerre

Without direct reference to the racial issues...

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

irateplatypus

this does not make sense, you can't have both properties be true and be talking about the same society.

but you are presupposing that they do think they deserve the respect of society... which would be illogical if they in fact do think of their homosexuality as wrong.

__________________
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

FoolThemAll

It would be hypocrisy if disrespect were one of their aims. If their aim really is, and is with good intention, welfare reform or the removal of hate crime laws, and they mean no disrespect, then I don't see the hypocrisy.

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?

Yeah, if personal gain was the only motivation, then it'd be treason. But a gay man/woman could easily be against hate-crime legislation on principle and the same is possible for an anti-gay marriage position. If that situation's still treason, then it's a treason I don't attach much significance to. Treason could be the correct choice.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

martinguerre

Uh, yes. Those are the two major and opposing methods of being queer in a straigh society. Deal with it openly, or hide.


Yeah, I am. Usually the self-haters go in to the "pass as straight" category, in which case, if they make policy moves harmful to the queer community, i think they've made themselves open season. Especially if they've been gracing our bedrooms while doing so...and they usually do.

I'd disagree...in both cases, there is a demonstrated need for both policies...these are not nicities. Read gilda's thread about the accident...without marriage being available, there can be serious barriers to having one's partner be present after an accident or life threatening illness. Simply, there is no principled reason, IMO, for a queer person to not support queer rights: the right to have your partner visit you in the hospital, the right to be financially linked, the right to be a family, the right to be protected by the law. If somebody wants to get elected by denying me those basic rights, then its on.

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

FoolThemAll

Principled reason for being against gay marriage: the fear that it'll destabilize the entire institution of marriage. I didn't say anything about the reasoning being solid, mind you.

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.

irateplatypus

still not making sense, one necessarily excludes the other.

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

martinguerre

What the? That's exactly what i'm saying. Those are two (2) separate, distinct, opposing, non-conflatable, you do one OR the other but NOT both, can't have it both ways, divergent, some people choose one and some choose the other, oil and water, diametrically opposed, and different ways of being queer in a straight society.

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.

Principled involves beliving your reason. Thus, my conclusion, that a queer person would have no principled reason for opposing it...

__________________
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

FoolThemAll

You don't think they could genuinely believe it? Why not?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

martinguerre

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

FoolThemAll

You're still making a lot of assumptions that I'm not (yet?) willing to.

#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.

martinguerre

Hardly more than it is a stance of principle for a person to believe that they are the anti-Christ. Irrational self-hatred is a pathological affect.

If they're celibate...that probably puts them in another category entirely, one i haven't seen. In the Ex-gay movement for instance, the leadership turns over every few years. Guess why. You see, there's a reason why people have been outed. They didn't keep to themselves. And when these hypocrites asked their political victims to keep them safe...


I live in an interesting place...being attracted to both men and women. I can't find a difference in how committed those relationships are, if they are worthy of recognition by marriage, or any other categorical matter. And i can personally tell you each one of those positions is untenable. Simply, there is no rational reason for claiming that queer marriage is not the funcational equivalent of hetero marriage. Treating people differently for unsubstantiated reasons is discrimination, a failure to regard the all as equal before the law. Would you make any of these arguments based on race? Or wouldn't that make you a racist?

If you want to live the unexamined life, then for God's sake stay out of politics and do not use the apparatus of the state to impose your unthinking views on other people. The right to be an idiot is a private matter, not public one. I would NEVER support the outing of a private citizen who simply wanted to be a closet case.

Make any of those arguements above based on racial lines...and you'll soon see why i disagree with that.

__________________
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

FoolThemAll

A book that they're brought up to believe as word of God states that homosexuality is wrong. Doesn't sound all that irrational to me. Wrong, but not irrational.

Yeah, I'm not talking about the risk-takers. Although it's certainly possible for a "slip" to be followed by genuine remorse, confession, and penance.

And again, I'd state that substantiated rational reasons can appear to exist. It's just that none of them stand up to intense scrutiny from what I've seen. "There's no possibility of procreation" can, on a couple superficial layers, be seen as substantiation.

Not UNexamined, insufficiently examined. We're not talking about idiots here.

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.

I don't see the two as analogous because I don't see any arguments even superficially sound that aren't racist. Well, except for "marriage isn't a right and should be removed from the public sphere, rather than expanded".

Perhaps it'd be better to choose an issue that relates to Steele?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

martinguerre

I feel badly for people who are told this...but it again becomes a right to swing your fist stopping at my nose issue. If they in error, believe that God's message to them is not love, but rather condemnation...i'll do my best to tell them otherwise. If they begin preaching that destructive message to others...or using the power of the state to enforce it...

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.

Again, you're speaking of a category i haven't really seen. Do they exist, i'm sure of it. But in American political life, its rare to the point of non-existance as far as i know.

My point is that i don't know how a human being decides that their own love makes them the devil. I don't know how you authentically integrate the hatred of society into your being, and start a witch hunt for people just like you. I don't know how you grow up as a person of color in a racist soceity and think that the "real" problem doesn't lie with systemic racism...that personal sucess has to come at the price of blaming those who don't suceed. How can a person live such a reality, and then come to such a non-sequiter conclusion?

The original quote covers "insufficient" as well. The responsbility to get things right comes with acceptance of political life. And i do hope to change minds. But most of them won't change without being forced out of the untenability of their self-hate. It can be an ugly process, to confront the way that your own personal demons became a starting point for persecuting others. But without such realization, i don't know where one would start to get better.


That's my point. If you can't make these arguments without being a racists, why can a person make them and not be a homophobe?

__________________
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

FoolThemAll

Then vote and campaign against them. Like you do with every other politician who holds beliefs you disagree with.

I'll admit I'm heading into the realm of speculation now, but it would make sense that you wouldn't know of the ones who don't take risks.

It needn't involve hatred or a witchhunt. That was the point I was trying to make.

Not be a bigot?

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.

martinguerre

If necessary, i'd include outing. Again...i've said it here before...it's a stratagy i'm somewhat uncomfortable with, but have accepted as necessary in certain situations. When one of "us" decides that their welfare is more important than the rest of the community, i think it becomes a proper defense to note the hypocrasy involved.

I don't think you can have it both ways. Unless queer persons are thought to be inferior to straight ones, i can think of no rational reason of not extending marraige and other basic rights. Those nuances are smokescreen, not substance, IMO.

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

JBX

The Dem's have shown the true face of intolerance.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

pan6467

And the GOP never has?

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?"

FoolThemAll

The hypocrisy isn't the damaging factor, though. And it generally isn't - usually it matters little whether someone is hypocritical and wrong or consistently wrong. The big problem would be bad policy and inflammatory rhetoric. You're using a part of his personal life against him, not his policies, and that strikes me as fighting sleazy politics with sleazy politics.

Yeah. And sometimes there's a justification as well. My point is that when it comes to possibly gay marriage (you gave some good arguments I had to chew over) and surely (in my view) issues such as hate crime legislation or welfare reform or the cutting of city services, there may not be justification and I believe that the burden of proof should lie on the accuser. The accuser should be prepared to explain why the positions/rhetoric must necessarily be anti-thisgroup.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Marvelous Marv

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

jonjon42

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....

kutulu

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.

FoolThemAll

Because it's only okay for gay people to resort to such childish and disgusting tactics as 'valid' responses to opposition. I could possibly see relevance if the sexual orientation of anti-gay policy proponents had any bearing on the validity of the policy. It doesn't. Hypocrisy, if it is present in a given situation, only indicates inconsistency and not which part of the inconsistency should be trashed. It's not relevant, and bringing it up can only serve as a way to hurt someone you disagree with. Bring it up if it has any bearing on their job or their adherence to law. (Out of curiosity, what'd you think of the whole Clinton/Lewinsky episode?)

Nonsense. White democrats are just as capable of debating the validity of such charges. They can look at policies and decide whether they necessarily entail an anti-black agenda. And HINT, not all consequences resulting from public policy are intended.

No. But it does equal condoning.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

kutulu

Bullshit. That's just like the crap that gets strewn around at Muslims. Since they don't say anything they are condoning terrorism. More BS.

FoolThemAll

If the Muslims in question were a part of a political party which included a terrorist wing, then yeah, I would see that analogy as apt.

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.

martinguerre

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