?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Ys
ysabel
..:: .::: .:: .::.::.:.: .. ..:: .::: .:: ....

May 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Ys [userpic]

(Ganked from solarbird, because Larry makes a damn good, if really saddening, point. BugMeNot works at the URL, if you don't want to register.)

Why do straights hate gays?
An aging 72-year-old gay man isn't hopeful about the future.
By Larry Kramer
LARRY KRAMER is the founder of the protest group ACT UP and the author of "The Tragedy of Today's Gays."
March 20, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-kramer20mar20,1,4594749.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true

DEAR STRAIGHT PEOPLE,

Why do you hate gay people so much?

Gays are hated. Prove me wrong. Your top general just called us immoral. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is in charge of an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian troops, some fighting for our country in Iraq. A right-wing political commentator, Ann Coulter, gets away with calling a straight presidential candidate a faggot. Even Garrison Keillor, of all people, is making really tacky jokes about gay parents in his column. This, I guess, does not qualify as hate except that it is so distasteful and dumb, often a first step on the way to hate. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us.

Gays should not vote for any of them. There is not a candidate or major public figure who would not sell gays down the river. We have seen this time after time, even from supposedly progressive politicians such as President Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and his support of the hideous Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, it's possible that being shunned by gays will make politicians more popular, but at least we will have our self-respect. To vote for them is to collude with them in their utter disdain for us.

Don't any of you wonder why heterosexuals treat gays so brutally year after year after year, as your people take away our manhood, our womanhood, our personhood? Why, even as we die you don't leave us alone. What we can leave our surviving lovers is taxed far more punitively than what you leave your (legal) surviving spouses. Why do you do this? My lover will be unable to afford to live in the house we have made for each other over our lifetime together. This does not happen to you. Taxation without representation is what led to the Revolutionary War. Gay people have paid all the taxes you have. But you have equality, and we don't.

[More at URL]

Current Mood: disappointeddisgusted
Comments

Actually I've said this before. The Democratic Party, which is supposed ot be your party, would sell you out for a ham sandwich. If it makes you feel any better they did the same thing to blacks a few years back. They just did it quietly. And they shook welfare checks in our faces right after so it shut most of us up. it's why I both hate the democratic party and am disgusted by blacks. Everyone, supposedly, has a price. Ours is just really low I guess...


The Democratic Party, which is supposed to be your party

Says who? Or do you mean 'gays and lesbians' rather than me specifically?

Sorry I meant gays and lesbians. And Blacks. And the disenfranchised. It's supposed ot be the party which fights for the little guy being slapped around by the big one.

It's up to a ham sandwich, you think? Jeez, that's an improvement!

You should read Andrew Sullivan's commentaries on HRC and their wretched hopelessness and how they serve as a slavish apparatchik club for the Democratic party in general and the Hillary Clinton campaign in specific. This being ripped open - by lots of people, not just him - is a good step forward, I think.

The queers are I know are all well aware of the reality of the situation w.r.t. the Democratic party, but we're still stuck in this crappy two-party system and the other party is overtly and directly hostile to our existence, so we really are just kind of fucked.

(Also not a Democrat.)

It's really shitty to have to choose between people who spit in your face in public and others who just won't shake your hand. :(

At the same time I would have to say "Dear Gay people, why do you hate bi people? And dear Gay people, why do you sometimes hate the opposite sex?"

I don't think it's about straight people. I think it's just people. Why does anyone hate? It's awful, but it's like a way for people to justify their own differences. Instead of just accepting, they have to hate.

We're all just glorified cockroaches. We have to hate to make ourselves feel better.

IT sucks.

Gay people have paid all the taxes you have. But you have equality, and we don't.

Technically, if gays don't have equality then straights don't have equality either. In fact, gay haters often argue against equality in the name of "no special rights for gays," which is akin to claiming that suffrage would be "special votes for women."

"Gays are hated. Prove me wrong. Your top general just called us immoral."

I can't prove you wrong, but I don't hate you (perhaps I should say y'all so you know I'm speaking in the general plural, not speaking directly to you, Ys... English sucks...) And, at the same time, I think your actions are immoral. As I think about premarital or extramarital sex. Or worshiping any god but mine. And, come to that, there's enough wrong with me that I can call myself immoral as well, though I try to do better than I have.

But this much I have to say: it *disgusts* me when people equate hatred with lack of full and total acceptance and approval. Do I hate my daughter because I don't approve of some of her actions? Ridiculous. I do my very best to not hate anyone (and there are a few people I fail rather miserably at that). If your principle is "If you don't agree with me and accept me totally, then you must hate me," well, then you're pretty much admitting you hate me for disapproving of something in your life.

There is a big difference between asking for total acceptance and asking not to be beaten up, abused, unemployed, homeless, made into a legal pariah and so on.

I am more than a little disturbed that you would play the "total acceptance" card, when I know you're seeing some of the same things I am and I have talked with you about the struggles you have with God and politics.

The question is not "do you think I'm immoral?" but "do you believe that you have the right to try to strip me of my legal, secular rights because of your belief that I'm immoral?". You don't have to approve of me to be willing to, say, oppose legislation that would let my spouse's abusive mother kick me out of the hospital room and take over decisions for her if she were to be in a car accident and unconscious. That kind of situation is blatantly unfair, but if we were in Virginia, say, instead of Colorado, we'd be facing exactly that possibility, for no other reason than that we're both female instead of one man, one woman.

The sort of statements that were made publicly about that Virginia law, to continue the example, were not "we refuse to give total approval." They were "we want these people to decide not to live here, so we'll make the environment so hostile they'll leave." Those are very different things.

I'm not trying to play any card. Sorry, but I find it offensive when someone implies that I hate gays, which is how I take the beginning of that article -- my reading of it: 'Gays are hated. For example: someone called being gay "immoral." That's hateful.' and thus if (since) I think being gay is immoral, I must hate him too. And, if that's my reading of it, you can see why I think that statement implies 'total acceptance has one alternative: Hatred.'

But your question? Do I believe I have the right to ...? Of course not. You're as welcome around me as every other immoral person, by which I mean everyone on the planet. I wasn't speaking to those points, merely to my reading of the opening text of the article.

Should the government (local, regional, national) or its branches (including the military) enforce morality? That's a lot tougher because of the other questions it poses. (For instance, I don't think you can enforce morality, since that implies forcibly changing someone's mind; at best you can force particular moral *behaviors*, and I tend to think that's not a battle worth fighting where it doesn't impact me directly. And then the issue of "whose morality?" etc. drag the whole argument deep into the swamp.)

I don't want to see sanctions against someone because of any of their lifestyle choices, except to prevent direct harm to others. I don't think sexual orientation requires sanctions, though I can see why some people think it should. I think they're wrong, though.

I hope that explains my rant a little better. Sorry you were disturbed -- I think it was a miscommunication.

And, if that's my reading of it, you can see why I think that statement implies 'total acceptance has one alternative: Hatred.'

Mostly, I think that's taking that line out of the context of the whole article. Standing on its own, I might agree with you, but that's really one small part of his point.

I'll also note that he's calling out GLBT folks in there, not just the straights. There's some "standing up for yourself can suck, but if you don't do it then you deserve what you get" in there.

Eh, it's the entire first paragraph that makes this implication. And, as it is the first, it sets the tone for the rest of the article. (of which, granted, I only read as much as you quoted here.) I tried to take it as hyperbole, but couldn't convince myself to do so.

It isn't the main point of his article, I know. But it's the first point, and it's a foundational point for the rest of his arguments, and it sticks in my craw.

meh, I'm straight, I don't hate gays and I'm not one the righteous who try to claim they don't hate anybody. Many people have earned my ire, sometimes large portions of a certain group. But they each did it individually. I'm not sure it does any good for the gay community to think of 'straights' as a group as the enemy. I certainly don't think I'm your enemy. You wanna be disgusted by Peter Pace, that's justified... you can join my club. But reacting to being judged as a group by judging another group is trying to solve a problem at the same level of ignorance that created it.

That said, I'm not sure the democratic party or its members, by and large, actually do hate gays. I know the party fails miserably to represent my interests but that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that they must hate me. I realize that in the system they have to play in they CANNOT represent me and win in a popular election. I might prefer that they speak up and get politically clobbered with a clean conscious but it is worth remembering that the upshot of that is would be a 99% right-wing evangelist congress... wouldn't that be fun.

So the party does what it can. It's a flawed system, blame the system... better yet try to come up with a way to fix the system. But don't waste all your considerable brain power trying to figure out what moniker does or does not indicate hatred... cause people, you have to judge one at a time.

There's theoretically a big angry rant here, but it'd be pointless and possibly insulting given that we're on the same side. I completely disagree with this guy, but hey, the real enemy here is the fucking rightwingers.

This whole thing sucks, and I am sorry.

Actually I very much like to have errancy pointed out to me. One of the best ways for me to learn new things/think new thoughts. I can probably do without the 'angry' part but I'd like to hear the rant. If you don't want to hijack ysabel's journal for it, feel free to email me at: AidanSonoda@ftml.net

I guess it isn't total disagreement at what's being said. I mean, all of what he mentions - Pace, Coulter, the marriage thing, the tax thing - are quite true.

I guess what I disagree with is his really inflammatory way of phrasing it.

I may be Queer, but my life was hell thanks to the damn religious right, thanks to my second-class-citizen status, long before I figured out I liked guys. All of us are in the same boat here. Yes, things suck for Queers in this country, but it sucks being Jewish... or Black, or Latino, or Amerindian, or hell, just poor. There's a lot of terrible crap out there - there's also a lot of people who've done their bit for Queer equality, regardless of what their own sexuality was.

And having some bigotted old piece of crap, hiding behind his minority status while he belittles everyone else, does not help the situation.

LOL

"...There's theoretically a big angry rant here, but it'd be pointless and possibly insulting given that we're on the same side. I completely disagree with this guy..."

Hmmm, you meant the guy who wrote the article...

Ysabel's indenting scheme threw me, I thought that was a reply to my post and that 'big angry rant' was for me. Hehe, I thought I'd really pissed you off. Anyway

Yes, I agree completely with all you've said. The whole article smacks of a special kind of self-righteous self-pity and does nothing to help the situation or the author's cause.

P.S. Vote Libertarian is the best advice I've heard in a long time, whatever your particular reasons...