|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lying for Jesus, Anti-Gay Edition
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
One of the more important tricks of being an anti-gay activist is the ability to tailor your message to the audience. So when addressing a fundamentalist congregation there's lots of talk about predatory gays, diseased gays, gay Nazis, gay terrorists, and gays coming for your children. On the other hand, when invited to speak on cable news it's all "grave concern over preserving traditional values" and such. Maintaining a separation between these two audiences becomes key to keeping both revenue sources available.
Which is why GLAAD claims it has launched the Commentator Accountability Project.
quote:
The GLAAD Commentator Accountability Project (CAP) aims to put critical information about frequent anti-gay interviewees into the hands of newsrooms, editors, hosts and reporters. Journalists or producers who are on deadline often don't have the time to dig into the histories of a commentator. Audiences need to be aware that when they’re not talking to the mainstream media, these voices are comparing LGBT people to Nazi Germany, predicting that equal treatment of LGBT people will lead to the total collapse of society, and even making accusations of satanic influence.
The Commentator Accountability Project is bringing all of these statements to light, while calling attention to the sentiments behind them. We will show that the commentators who are most often asked to opine on issues like marriage equality or non-discrimination protections do not accurately represent the "other side" of those issues. They represent nothing but extreme animus towards the entire LGBT community.
Naturally a lot of the commentators on the list, and their supporters, are objecting to being held accountable for their past statements, claiming that publicizing them is equivalent to censorship or a blacklist. So, is it unfair to publicize statements and opinions by people whose job is to make statements and have opinions? Or does the danger posed by gay CommuNazi terrorist child molesters justify this kind of two-faced approach to advocacy?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 6736 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
I will admit to some slight misgiving in that I don't think it is always fair that someone's crass, offensive and idiotic comment on a subject should be taken as their real opinion and their more carefully chosen words considered to be a facade. I don't think I would want to be 'held accountable' in public for the myriad stupid things I have undoubtedly said in private. There is also an obvious danger of previous statements being cherry-picked for quotation out of context, so that a comment could be made to appear more unreasonable and inflammatory than it originally was.
On the other hand, if a person is fairly confronted with some past mis-speaking, they do always have the option of repudiating it. And if what is being quoted is public speech, that is, the expression of opinions on the subject which they knew were being recorded and which they intended to be taken seriously, I'd say it was in principle fair enough to quote it.
It is, after all, an important part of the anti-marriage side that they are not bigots or homophobes, because it is recognised by all concerned that their arguments would lose such credibility as they have if they were bigots and homophobes. Public statements which indicate bigotry and homophobia are not just mudslinging, but constitute evidence which would be relevant.
So, with the proviso that the organisation gathering this data ought to do so without intrusiveness, misrepresentation or unfairness, I think it is a legitimate response.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 3182 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It is, after all, an important part of the anti-marriage side that they are not bigots or homophobes, because it is recognised by all concerned that their arguments would lose such credibility as they have if they were bigots and homophobes.
This.
It's the notion of character evidence, really. It's only when you make assertions about your own character that the door is opened to evidence that disproves your assertions.
--------------------
The musical diary now has an entry in which I witter on endlessly about the band Gomez without telling you properly what I think of their music. Enjoy.
Posts: 9686 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
So, with the proviso that the organisation gathering this data ought to do so without intrusiveness, misrepresentation or unfairness, I think it is a legitimate response.
The thing that's making it easy for GLAAD is that a lot of the folks who will be featured really, really, really, RIDICULOUSLY love doing everything possible to find a media outlet to open mouth and let their stupid spill out for all to see.
--------------------
Female rudeness or violence in resistance to male aggression has often been taken to prove that the woman was not a lady in the first place, and therefore deserved no respect from the aggressor or sympathy from others. -D.A. Clarke
Posts: 10216 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
So, with the proviso that the organisation gathering this data ought to do so without intrusiveness, misrepresentation or unfairness, I think it is a legitimate response.
The thing that's making it easy for GLAAD is that a lot of the folks who will be featured really, really, really, RIDICULOUSLY love doing everything possible to find a media outlet to open mouth and let their stupid spill out for all to see.
GLAAD and John Stewart. I think he asked the rhetorical question on The Daily Show "Don't they know what that little red light on the camera means?"
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 6736 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Naturally a lot of the commentators on the list, and their supporters, are objecting to being held accountable for their past statements, claiming that publicizing them is equivalent to censorship.
No, publicizing them is like a megaphone-- helping them get the message out. That is the very opposite of censorship, it seems to me.
How oriental to use the same word for both ends of a spectrum.
I think that this is a brilliant idea.
--------------------
We are part of the earth and it is part of us... What befalls the earth befalls all the sons of the earth --Chief Seattle
Posts: 7713 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Furthermore, if I owned a gay bar, I'd like to post every one of those mug shots on the wall as the post office does with the "most wanted" list.
'Cuz sooner or later one of them will probably walk in.
--------------------
We are part of the earth and it is part of us... What befalls the earth befalls all the sons of the earth --Chief Seattle
Posts: 7713 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LQ
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Dan Savage slams journalistic recourse to heterosexist weighers-in under the guise of "balance," noting that we don't invite the KKK to "round out" features on Juneteenth or Martin Luther King Day.
--------------------
Communists at least work for a better world at this moment of history, one more in accord with the will of God than is our present capitalist one. - Frederic Hastings Smyth
Posts: 6302 | From: Nassau District, Québec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
These lies don't bother me as much as the lies that HIV is somehow caused by gay sexuality; that the average lifespan of gay men is their early forties; that most gay men have thousands of sexual partners and are addicted to sex/drugs/alcohol; that being gay itself (as opposed to being a stigmatized minority) is the cause of depression and mental illness or that gay people have nothing to live for after they pass their 40s (evidently because we're too old to be sexually attractive and have no biological family.) Even when you would correct them, they would continue the lie.
The all-too-easy lying for Jesus which almost seems part and parcel to fundamentalism almost drove me from Christianity altogether.
[ 22. March 2012, 18:14: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3532 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Dan Savage slams journalistic recourse to heterosexist weighers-in under the guise of "balance," noting that we don't invite the KKK to "round out" features on Juneteenth or Martin Luther King Day.
I wonder if some day history is going to view Dan Savage the same way we view Martin Luther King --I think one very big contribution to society being at a cultural "tipping point" is his tireless work.
I know, it's been decades worth of work by a lot of people but (for instance) I think his "It gets better" project hit the cultural consciousness at exactly the right time-- the ground was fertile and furrowed, and he just tossed the seeds in.
Savage is also personal proof to me that you don't have to know you're a man of God-- or even want to be a man of God-- to actually be one.
--------------------
When naming your legendary weapon, remember - Everyone has a "Soul Reaper" or a "Dragon's Flame" but what enemy can live down the shame of being slain by the "Fluffy Bunny"? --Original source undetermined
Posts: 25577 | From: Waves and seagulls, football crowds, and churchbells. | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Dan Savage did a lot for the world with It Gets Better, but he does not get a pass for being a sexist ass.
--------------------
Female rudeness or violence in resistance to male aggression has often been taken to prove that the woman was not a lady in the first place, and therefore deserved no respect from the aggressor or sympathy from others. -D.A. Clarke
Posts: 10216 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(rereading post, trying to figure out where I was giving anyone a pass.)
To put it in reverse fashion, I think it is possible to recognize the incredible impact for good a person has had while acknowledging they still have some shit to work out. MLK wasn't a saint, either.
--------------------
When naming your legendary weapon, remember - Everyone has a "Soul Reaper" or a "Dragon's Flame" but what enemy can live down the shame of being slain by the "Fluffy Bunny"? --Original source undetermined
Posts: 25577 | From: Waves and seagulls, football crowds, and churchbells. | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I have a lot of issues with Dan Savage. He embodies some of the worst aspects of gay male culture. On a few occasions he's written stuff that sneers at overweight, out of shape and older gay people. It's great that he's fairly young, fit and (somewhat) good looking (I suppose) but it doesn't make him better than those who are not.
And while I am no fan of Santorum, I think Savage's "Santorum" Googlebomb was complete offensive - not because I don't think Santorum is a complete arse and deserves ridicule - but because Savage's neologism itself was dripping with homophobia. He turned a sex act that is associated with gay men (and many gay men actually do) into something repulsive and disgusting. It certainly doesn't send a positive message to people struggling with coming to terms with their sexuality. I haven't seen sexism (some of the cases people have pointed to seem stretched), I guess I shouldn't be surprised if it's there.
In any case, this gay man doesn't want him to be our MLK. Harvey Milk was a flawed character who did great things and is a better fit.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3532 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It shouldn't be terribly difficult to work out what a fundamentalist preacher is saying to his congregation! Don't most preachers want their message to get a wider hearing? Aren't church doors open to all who want to enter? Some clergy even put their sermons on tape. And if the church in question belongs to a wider denomination, there are likely to be copies of the church doctrines, constitution, conference reports, in-house magazines, etc. that probably cover the gay marriage issue, if it's so important to them.
So I shouldn't think there's much secrecy, really! But even if an individual is guarded when speaking to a reporter, there are plenty of other sources of info. If nothing can be found, that suggests that the organisation in question is something of a fringe outfit, in which case why would the media take them seriously anyway?
Posts: 1511 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It shouldn't be terribly difficult to work out what a fundamentalist preacher is saying to his congregation! Don't most preachers want their message to get a wider hearing? Aren't church doors open to all who want to enter? Some clergy even put their sermons on tape. And if the church in question belongs to a wider denomination, there are likely to be copies of the church doctrines, constitution, conference reports, in-house magazines, etc. that probably cover the gay marriage issue, if it's so important to them.
First off, most of the people on GLAAD's list aren't official clergy, though there are a few. (I'm looking at you, Ken Hutcherson and Jim Garlow!) Most of them do spend a lot of time pimping their particular religious viewpoint though, like the Republican politico (and former presidential candidate) Gary Bauer or Watergate conspirator Chuck Colson.
Second, the commentators cited aren't concerned with just "the gay marriage issue", though that is important to them. They seem to be more concerned about gay people existing rather than getting into the specifics of what legal arrangements they engage in.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 6736 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LQ
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Indeed - marriage equity opponents are exceptionally loquacious in opining that marriage is not the answer for the "conscientious homosexual," but comparatively tight-lipped about proposing alternatives. Thus while they may profess to "love the sinner and hate the sin," the inescapable conclusion becomes that there is in fact no place for these particular sinners in their vision of salvation, however much they may huff and puff when it's pointed out.
Posts: 6302 | From: Nassau District, Québec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I was always under the impression the alternative posited by opponents to same-sex marriage for the was along the lines of "if you want to get married, make the decision to be a heterosexual".
--------------------
Female rudeness or violence in resistance to male aggression has often been taken to prove that the woman was not a lady in the first place, and therefore deserved no respect from the aggressor or sympathy from others. -D.A. Clarke
Posts: 10216 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Crœsos
These speakers may not all be clergy, but I presume they get airtime to discuss their views because they hold a particular theological perspective that's shared by certain other people. Otherwise, who are they supposed to be representing, other than themselves? If you present yourself as a 'spokesman', whether lay or clergy, then there must be a group of people that you speak on behalf of.
As for their problem with the existence of gay people, presumably that rather shocking view is part of the reason why they're invited onto TV shows. Why would TV shows invite fundamentalist spokesmen to express merely a measured level of '"grave concern over preserving traditional values"'? That seems like a bit of a waste of a fundamentalist spokesman to me! Aren't there any genuinely less extreme people the media can turn to if that's what they want?
Still, I imagine that on all sides there's a need to be able to communicate with people who share a range of views.
(I'm British, and I have to say that the situation appears less divisive here. People can be on different sides of the debate without demonising the others, secretly or otherwise.)
Posts: 1511 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LQ
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I presume they get airtime to discuss their views because they hold a particular theological perspective that's shared by certain other people.
We would certainly hope that would be safe assumption, but it's not clear to me, from surveying the sample glancingly, what theological perspective that would be. I don't think that organisations like the "Family Research Council" or the "National Organization 'for' [sic] Marriage" are beneficiaries of any para-denominational (or inter-denominational) standing, their representatives vested with any kind of formal of informal doctrinal authority, or their overblown rhetoric representative of the theology of any definable Christian body of thought, even those whose adherents might be inclined to their conclusions.
Posts: 6302 | From: Nassau District, Québec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
