Charles Colson says he’s always been civil toward ‘the lavender shirt mob’

Faith in Public Life’s Nick Sementelli says “Chuck Colson Doesn’t Like the Truth About His Homophobic Record.”

GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) listed Colson in their recently launched “Commentator Accountability Project” which “aims to put critical information about frequent anti-gay interviewees into the hands of newsrooms, editors, hosts and reporters.”

As Sementelli reports, Colson says he doesn’t belong on that list, protesting that GLAAD’s definition of anti-gay speech “is skewed,” mischaracterizing any disagreement as “gay-bashing.”

GLAAD’s doesn’t use that term — “gay-bashing,” but here’s how they describe the kinds of speech that earn anti-gay commentators a spot on their list:

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.

Colson protests that he’s never been guilty of doing that:

Over the years I have been very careful not to involve in gay-bashing. I can’t think of a single time I have. I seek to honestly discuss the issues. So if any reporter has evidence of gay-bashing on my part, I’d like to hear it.

Well, OK. Happy to oblige.

Here’s a transcription of a recording made on the eve of Nixon’s second inauguration in 1973. The tape was made public in 2009:

COLSON: Republican intellectuals [inaud]. And as Dick [Scammon] says, the lavender shirt mob, the, what he calls the New Left, the homos and queers. And he says that’s the bunch that now make up the Democratic Party, and he said the more they, Democrats, have to cater to the blacks and to the poor, and the New Left, the more [they] are driving large numbers of the middle class [away].

Colson, I would guess, would say that doesn’t count because it was before his “born-again” experience, the religious conversion in which he became a new man. Perhaps, although I’ve never heard Colson repent or apologize for those slurs or the sentiments behind them. Nor have I heard from him anything like the sort of humility, caution and magnanimity that ought to characterize the statements of someone who truly regrets that he used to talk like that while acting as a public servant in the Oval Office.

But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend Colson really did have a change of heart. What is the new, redeemed and sanctified, born-again Colson saying about “the lavender shirt mob” these days?

Well, the born-again Colson has a history of 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.” GLAAD has citations for all of these quotes, and more:

“If any of this reminds you of the tactics of Nazi Germany, it ought to” Colson said of the APA’s condemnation of so-called “ex-gay” therapies.

Colson compared demonstrators opposed to Proposition 8 to: “Bull Conner, who, with the help of brutal cops, used violence and intimidation to chase African Americans out of the public square. Or roving gangs of Nazi brownshirts who ruled the streets of Germany during Hitler’s rise to power.”

Colson predicted that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, “men will die.”

And on the subject of marriage equality, Colson said: “Gays and lesbians don’t want marriage. … Gays are actively trying to destroy marriage and will take away our freedom of speech and religion in order to do it.”

I think I preferred the unvarnished bigotry of the pre-conversion Colson. At least back then he had the honesty to admit what he was saying.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Left Behind Classic Fridays, No. 96: 'Humbert Steele'
Now we get moose and squirrel
'You're better than this' vs. 'You should be ashamed of yourself'
Postcards from the culture wars (8.24)
  • Anonymous

    Okay … let’s see ….

    The Gay Agenda: Work for equal rights (the right to employment without negative repercussions, the right to marry your chosen life partner, the right to obtain a big-ass debt own a home) through legal means, open discussions and “Did You Know” commercials.

    The Republican Agenda:  Keep homosexuals deep in the closet through means of public ridicule, propagating a culture of fear of the Other, sanctioned abuse and “legal” apartheid laws aimed at sub-humans.

    As I see it, the only ones wearing brown shirts and Colson and his cronies.

  • Damanoid

    “Homos and queers”?  My god, it was worse than anyone suspected: the homos had forged a strategic alliance with the queers.  How did America even survive the ’70s.

    It’s not really my place to say, I suppose; but as pejoratives go, “lavender shirt mob” seems almost charmingly whimsical.  Poor Colson, terrified by visions of impeccably manicured, intimidatingly fabulous mafiosi, all seeking to make him an offer he can’t refuse.

    Word on the street is that if you don’t keep up your protection money to the Lavender Shirt Mob, they send a couple of guys around to redecorate your workplace in a burnt sienna and avocado palette. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/jon.maki Jon Maki

    Word on the street is that if you don’t keep up your protection money to the Lavender Shirt Mob, they send a couple of guys around to redecorate your workplace in a burnt sienna and avocado palette.

    “Nice sexual orientation you got there.  Be a real shame if somethin’ was to happen to it…”

  • http://plantsarethestrangestpeople.blogspot.com/ mr_subjunctive

    Then you wake up, roll over, and see parachute pants lying next to you. . . .

  • Anonymous

    That’s when the Flannel Button-Down Enforcers come in to finish the job.

  • Tricksterson

    The Lavender Shirt Mob, Really organized crime. 
     With Elton John as the Fairy Godfather.

    Coming soon to a theater near you.

  • Anonymous

    Ah, good ol’ Chucky C. Another pundit I’d like to appear my on “Gallows or the Guillotine?” panel discussion.

    If I were GLBT, “Lavender Shirt Mob” would be my new band’s name.

    BTW, Fred, google “Lavender Shirt Mob” (I did it to see if there were any bands already using that name) and you’ll see that you’re Numbers One and Two!

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    If I were GLBT, “Lavender Shirt Mob” would be my new band’s name.

    I hadn’t realized that was a requirement. Speaking as a GLBT man (only some of those) who is unlikely to ever start a band of my own, I’d be willing to sponsor yours for permission to use the name.

  • Dan Audy

    I always wonder with older politicians and commentators whether they are really ignorant that the internet has documented everything they’ve said and can back it up or whether they are selectively editing their memory in order to maintain a sense of decency.

  • Ian needs a nickname

    Colson’s bigotry would be depressing aesthetically even if it wasn’t hateful and harmful.  His metaphors are painful.  In what respect does he think gay people are like Nazis?  Are gay people too weak to be soldiers or are they brutal thugs?  Are they a lawless mob or are they thuggish cops?  Do they wear brown shirts or lavender shirts?   He could at least pick a consistent hateful stereotype before warning us about the coming lesbian Kristallnacht.  His carelessness might give someone the impression that he has no coherent reasons for his hatred…

  • Ima Pseudonym

     Why…they’re both at once!  Like Obama the Liberal Black Radical Nazi Socialist Fascist Christian Muslim Atheist, they exist in a state of superposition, neither fish nor fowl, and collapse into a discrete state only when observed. 

    I think we may actually have discovered quantum demonization here–we’re through the looking glass, people…

  • Lori

    There’s a video of a little ditty called “Probably Gay, the Homophobia Song”that’s been making the rounds the last week or so. Someone ought to forward it to Chuck, just for giggles.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1CQg9f7z9eg

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    I have literally seen a “straight” conservative man make the argument, with a completely straight face, that man-on-man sex is JUST SO AWESOME that if we permit it, men will never have sex with women again and all our traditional social values and such will collapse and also extinction. I almost felt bad for him. He really believes that every man deals with the same struggle he does – that there aren’t any real straight men, just God-fearing men who have the decency to suppress their craving for cock.

    Now, as a man who has sex with men whenever the occasion arises, I won’t disagree that it’s awesome, but I’m also capable of grasping that there are lots and lots of men who just don’t feel any need or desire to make intimate contact with another man’s genitals. But that’s because, unlike that guy, I’m not deeply invested in the notion that my thoughts and desires are socially approved by the Christian White Guy Authorities.

  • Lori

    I’ve met people like that too and it’s awful. On one hand I feel compassion for anyone who is that much of a mess. On the other hand it is Not OK to make other people suffer for your issues and people need to deal with their own shit.

    I don’t think that’s actually the norm among homophobes though. I think a lot of, for lack of a better term, average homophobes have issues with sex roles and such, but I don’t think they’re all secretly gay. Professional homophobes are another story.

    These days I assume that anyone who makes their living off homophobia by working for an anti-QUILTBAG hate group and any lawmaker who makes anti-gay legislation a significant part of his/her platform has some major sexual issue going on and that in a high percentage of cases that issue is being QUILTBAG and in denial or the closet.

  • Tonio

    I share Lori’s suspicion about the “professional homophobes.” My theory is that they subconsciously believe that they can eliminate their impulses by denouncing homosexuality publicly. And yes, the average ones seem more worried that homosexuality might lead to gender roles disappearing, which suggests that their true motivation is protecting not just straight privilege but also male privilege.

    Colson is probably a different creature in his homophobia. Based on his statements over the years, he probably sees himself as the pure, nobile warrior fighting the forces of darkness. His worldview may be as uncomplicated as that. He looks enough like an aged Harry Potter where I can easily imagine him dreaming about vanquishing lavender-wearing Death Eaters.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    Quite. Homophobia is normative enough – especially in some places – that many people are just homophobic because they’re not interested in questioning those norms. But the louder and more vocal a homophobe is, the more I suspect them of being a closet case. I mean, I’ve met people whose denunciations of my sexual orientation included a lot of very detailed, imaginative description…

    But I especially agree about the people who feel the need to make this an issue on a national or public platform. Suddenly I’m reminded of the infamous conservative, homophobic Alabama pastor who was found dead wrapped in wetsuits and with a dildo in his ass. Now, the fact that he had a dildo in his ass doesn’t mean he’s definitely gay, but whatever the specifics of his desires and orientation (which ultimately aren’t anyone’s business but his own), it’s clear that he had desires that he was ashamed of, and thus could only attempt to fulfill in private. His shame and homophobia cut him off from the ability to find safer outlets for his desires – had he been able to practice them in the company of like-minded people, he’d still be alive today.

    But sadly, some people who grow up sexually non-normative and conservative internalize that shame so deeply that they can only double down on their enforcement of sexual norms, rather than abandoning them. My own journey as a bisexual Baptist (not Baptist anymore, as you may have noticed) was aided greatly by the fact that, for reasons likely involving the phrase “cognitive dissonance,” I never felt properly ashamed of my attraction to penises.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    I see men say things like that online all the time. Kirk Cameron said something re: homosexuality about having to control one’s impulses. And then there are the men who are even more extreme, and talk about how having sex with a woman at all is a sacrifice. And they say these things with a straight face, totally not understanding that they’ve just outed themselves to the world, which makes me wonder just how common these conversations are among right-wing men. 

  • http://deird1.dreamwidth.org Deird

    That sort of thing is hilarious.

    “So… you’ve just told me you’re a misogynist and severely closeted. And somehow this makes you really really qualified to tell me about heterosexual marriage and how it should work… Right…”

  • Tricksterson

    Yeah it always flusters people who claim homosexuality is a choice when I point out that what they’re arguing is that humans are naturally bisexual.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s one from 2004 where Colson is not merely predicting but practically threatening the total collapse of society:

    We must be careful not to blame innocent Americans for murderous attacks against them. At the same time, let’s acknowledge that America’s increasing decadence is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. When we tolerate trash on television, permit pornography to invade our homes via the internet, and allow babies to be killed at the point of birth, we are inflaming radical Islam.

    Radical Islamists were surely watching in July when the Senate voted on procedural grounds to do away with the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is like handing moral weapons of mass destruction to those who use America’s decadence to recruit more snipers and hijackers and suicide bombers.

    What are his listeners supposed to do with that? Sit back and watch their country be attacked (by terrorists he explicitly agrees with) or stand up to the lavender shirt mob themselves? This is practically an incitement.

  • Anonymous

    I always loved* that argument.

    Me: “Your giant gas-guzzling status symbol is fueling our addiction to oil, and all of these reckless wars in the Middle East.”

    Willfully Ignorant Pseudo-Cowboy: “Get outta mah country! Country music, donut cheeseburgers, big guns, shopping networks, etc. etc.! Murkah!” 

    vs.

    Colson and/or additional theocrat homophobes: “We must completely dismantle our modern culture and return to feudalism, lest the Mahometans rise up and destroy us all!”

    Me: “Haha what?”

    Colson: “Will & Grace caused 9-11!”

    *was nauseated by

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

     So, what I’m getting here is that he’s saying that Islamic terrorists are reasonable to want to kill Americans. And the only way we can stop them is to do as much as we can to model our society after their own ideal society. Patriarchal repression, institutionalized bigotry on a scale that would make the Pope himself want to join GLAAD.

  • Anonymous

     No, you’ve got it all wrong! We need to model our society after their society, but kill all of them as well. Because they’re right for the wrong reasons. Women aren’t really people, and should be ashamed of their slutty horrible selves, and all government and culture should be theocracy-based, and everyone should have guns and homosexuality should be punishable by death– they’re correct in all of those.

    But they keep saying “Mohammed,” when the real reason women and gays aren’t people and everyone should have and shoot guns is Jesus. Also, they’re brown-skinned and don’t speak English.

    So we need to emulate their society while killing them for infidels. And if they kill off our infidels in the process, well, they brought it on themselves.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    “Lavender Shirt Mob”? Jesus, what an asshole.

  • Matri

    Notice his use of the word “mob” there.

  • Rikalous

    You laugh, but Colson was not quite as full of shit as he sounds. In ’73, there was a gay vigilante group called the Lavender Panthers taking on gay-bashers. Only in San Francisco.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908008,00.html

    Not that that makes him any less of an asshole.

  • Anonymous

    Well next time I need a new shirt I’ll make sure it’s lavender. Except I’m a woman so I’ll have to make sure it’s plaid as well.

  • http://twitter.com/Didaktylos Paul Hantusch

    “Lavender Shirt Mob” – can’t help thinking of Alec Guiness and Stanley Holloway …

    And he should be referred always as “ex-convict Colson”.

  • fraser

    “Bull Conner, who, with the help of brutal cops, used violence and
    intimidation to chase African Americans out of the public square. Or
    roving gangs of Nazi brownshirts who ruled the streets of Germany during
    Hitler’s rise to power.”
    This is one of the dumbest things any homophobe has ever said. Where are the brutal cops beating up anti-gay protesters? Or the GLAAD members kicking skinheads to death in the streets? Or the gay stormtroopers smashing in windows of the people who voted against gay marriage?
    But I’m sure the very slight distinction between saying “you’re a bigot” and setting a guard dog someone will not penetrate to those Christians who sincerely believe they’re as oppressed as the Jews in pre-WW II Germany.

  • Apocalypse Review

    I can’t find this hilarious article, but I saw a thing in The Onion that basically mocked the extremely prurient levels of interest some homophobes have in gay sex.

  • Rikalous

     

    I can’t find this hilarious article, but I saw a thing in The Onion that
    basically mocked the extremely prurient levels of interest some
    homophobes have in gay sex.

    This one, I presume? I thought of it, too.

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-paves-way-for-gay-sex,17698/

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That one is close, but I recall a much older one where this dude kept describing all the things he was doing while denying he was gay himself. Heh.

  • Tonio

    talk about how having sex with a woman at all is a sacrifice

    Are you sure they didn’t mean that being in a marriage with a woman is a sacrifice? That mentality sounds much more plausible, because in my experience they describe procreation in opposite-sex marriage as a human’s duty to his or her species. Maybe some of them are thinking of the old concept of the mistress, where it was expected that husbands would go outside the marriage for recreational sex and limit sex with their wives to procreation. The Handmaid’s Tale impregnation scene still chills me, with the Commander performing the act as though he’s having a wart removed.

  • Anonymous

    “Are you sure they didn’t mean that being in a marriage with a woman is a sacrifice?”

    This reminds me of the most ridiculous article I ever read about the evils of marriage equality. At one point the author writes:

    Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage–much less three, as I have done–were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.

    His argument is that the “obligations of kinship imposed on traditional marriage” will be undone by same-sex marriage, because, “marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood–and sexual accessibility–is defined.”

    If you’ve got the stomach for it, I recommend the whole thing. I haven’t seen it topped for sheer WTFery.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/533narty.asp?page=1

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     I know that a decade or so ago, my mom proposed that, once equal marriage was legal, there would be no reason a woman would ever deign to marry a man, rather than just marry a female friend for the various benefits of support and platonic companionship, once they hit thirty-five and no longer had sexual desires.

    There is no word for for the emotion I felt when she said this. If there was, I think it would be “Horrifisadirelievodisgusted.”

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    once they hit thirty-five and no longer had sexual desires

    Ahahahahahahahahahah *gasp* hahahahahahahahahahah. 

    Yeah, um, I won’t get too into too much tmi, but I will just say your mother’s experience seems to have been the opposite of mine.

  • Lunch Meat

    That article is breathtaking in its stupidity and backwards logic. To summarize his argument:

    1) Though modern romantic marriage is thought of as being all about love, the traditional institution of marriage is entangled with a whole lot of baggage about rules, penalties, honor, retribution, and gender roles. (Okay…)

    2) Marriage equality proves that you don’t need any of that crap to have a loving, functional relationship. (With you so far…)

    3) Therefore marriage equality is bad because that stupid patriarchal system that controlled everyone and subjugated women was a good thing and we should go back to it. (WTF??)

    But without social disapproval of unmarried sex–what kind of madman would seek marriage?

    Few men would ever bother to enter into a romantic heterosexual marriage–much less three, as I have done–were it not for the iron grip of necessity that falls upon us when we are unwise enough to fall in love with a woman other than our mom.

    Yeah, you’re a paragon of honor, virtue, and traditional marriage. What could it possibly have been that your wives couldn’t stand?

     Every day thousands of ordinary heterosexual men surrender the dream of gratifying our immediate erotic desires. Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides, starting out upon what that cad poet Shelley called the longest journey, attired in the chains of the kinship system…If gay men and women could see the price that humanity–particularly the women and children among us–will pay…

    Thanks for your condescension and martyrdom. Yeah, we women can get along perfectly well without you.

    I’m not even upset, just amazed and impressed at the wrongness of it.

    (I have read part of this article to my husband, and to spite Mr. Schulman, he has requested that we go make boring, shackled-to-the-burdens-of-matrimony love and enjoy it ferociously. So…yeah. Be back later)

  • Tricksterson

    Gee I wonder why this guy has had three failed marriages?

  • Tonio

    WTF doesn’t begin to describe my reaction. Schulman treats it as a given that the only alternative to marriage for women is “rape, degradation, and concubinage.” All three are directly caused by male privilege, so instead of doing away with the privilege, he would instead formalize it. My jaw dropped at his suggestion that the only thing preventing incest is societal disapproval – I hope he doesn’t have a sister. Saddening that in the 21st century there are still men who openly and approvingly deem female virginity as a commodity.

  • Tricksterson

    By his own words it’s apparently his mother that needs to worry.

  • Anonymous

    tw: rape

    his suggestion that the only thing preventing incest is societal disapproval

    Well, if we categorize all coerced and otherwise nonconsensual sex as rape instead of categorizing some coerced or otherwise nonconsensual sex as incest, then yeah, societal disapproval is the only thing stopping incest. Mind, it’s only in a narrow set of parameters (generally involving either didn’t-know-they-were-siblings or fictional characters) where all parties to incest are actually consenting–intrafamilial dynamics applied to sexual relations get side-eyed on power balance issues same as employer-employee sexual relations; also, if somebody squicks at the thought of it, she’s not gonna consent to it, and most people do squick at the thought of sex with someone they were raised with or by. (Freud? Genetic sexual attraction plus the fact that he was raised by a nurse instead of by his mother.)

  • Tricksterson

    Haven’t you heard?  All incest is nonconsensual.  All of it.  Admittedly I’d say this is true in 90% of cases but there’s more consensuality (is that a word?  It is now.) than you’d think, especially at the cousin level.

  • Tricksterson

    Soooo basically he’s saying that tyhe problem with gay marriage is that it will <b?decrease the inherent misery of the institution?

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Nope. Sex. I’ve seen the marriage is a sacrifice bs too, but there are men who say sex with women is a sacrifice. They are not thinking of monogamy or anything else. It is explicitly sex with women

    I’ll look links up tomorrow, but I believe Orson Scott Card is one of the men who said this.

  • Tonio

    Now I’m incredibly curious about what Card said, and why men like him view sex with women as such a sacrifice. Without knowing more, my initial suspicion is not that they’re gays in denial but that they’re sexists of biblical proportions. I would think a rational gay person, in or out of the closet, would simply treat hetero sex like I treat sauerkraut, as something that I can’t stand personally but don’t begrudge for others.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    You have to understand, though – these are gay men who are deeply committed to “traditional values,” so they do their social duty of marrying a woman and having kids because that’s the “right” thing to do. And because they often can’t openly discuss their experiences, they might assume that all men are as unattracted to women as they are, and that all heterosexual sexual politics is just a matter of cruel necessity for the sake of social order and human survival.

    And furthermore, they resent openly gay men for getting to have all the fun and enjoyable sex that they’d rather be having. Why do you think so many male politicians who have their names all over various anti-gay-marriage legislation have been caught in the bathroom with their lips around another man’s cock? Their thought process is literally, “If I couldn’t openly and unashamedly be with a man, why should THEY get to? It’s not fair!”

    So I mean, yeah, they are sexists of Biblical proportions, but male homosexuality + misogyny + conservatism makes for a very bizarre mindset.

  • Tonio

    That’s a very plausible explanation. So why don’t I deem it to be true? Because as a matter of principle, I’m reluctant to make assumptions about orientation without independent verification. We’ve had plenty of examples of the “professional homophobes” whose orientations have been exposed, and it’s reasonable to have suspicions about such people in general, but those examples alone aren’t proof.

    Despite the gut-wrenching awfulness of the Weekly Standard piece, its specific type of homophobia is not nearly as hateful as things I’ve read elsewhere. That strongly argues for serious consideration of other motivations for the sexism.

    Plus, an individual’s orientation is simply none of my business unless he or she chooses to disclose it. I’ve said that I’ve never knowingly met a gay person, but I’ve met three who I found out later were gay.

  • Tonio

    For clarification, the none-of-my-business policy also applies to straights. Who anyone chooses to date or marry is, by default, a private matter.

  • Lori

    That’s a very plausible explanation. So why don’t I deem it to be true? Because as a matter of principle, I’m reluctant to make assumptions about orientation without independent verification.  We’ve had plenty of examples of the “professional homophobes” whose orientations have been exposed, and it’s reasonable to have suspicions about such people in general, but those examples alone aren’t proof.

    No one is saying that being a professional homophobe is proof that the person is gay. As I said earlier, I consider it reason to suspect that the person is gay, but I don’t consider it proof of anything.

    Plus, an individual’s orientation is simply none of my business unless he or she chooses to disclose it.  

    I think this is true of a private citizen simply living his/her life. I don’t think this is true of someone who is pushing to take rights away from QUILTBAG citizens. Once a person makes him or herself a public advocate for discrimination I think the fact that the person is closeted is relevant.

  • Tonio

    As I said earlier, I consider it reason to suspect that the person is gay, but I don’t consider it proof of anything.

    Thanks for the clarification – your earlier post sounded as if you were certain they were gay.

    Once a person makes him or herself a public advocate for discrimination I
    think the fact that the person is closeted is relevant.

    But my point is not about professional homophobes already exposed as gay, but about ones who purport to be straight. I doubt that we could treat them as gays in denial or in the closet without inadvertently endorsing the view that homosexuality is shameful. Or without letting the truly straight professional homophobes off the hook. The real issue is that they’re promoting hatred, whatever their motivation for doing so.

  • Lori

     

    I doubt that we could treat them as gays in denial or in the closet
    without inadvertently endorsing the view that homosexuality is shameful.

    Sure we can. Being gay isn’t shameful, but lying and hypocrisy are.

  • Tonio

    Yes, lying and hypocrisy are indeed shameful, and George Rekers and Ted Haggard deserved the shame they received after their lies were exposed. My point is that we shouldn’t automatically treat professional gay-bashers as if they’re liars and hypocrites. Among other reasons, that wrongly makes the issue about their character and not about the effects of their hatred on society.

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    I’m perfectly willing to take them at their word that they’re straight – despite what I might suspect in the back of my mind in specific cases – because it doesn’t matter. If they are gay and determined to make themselves miserable by denying their romantic and sexual inclinations, that’s their business. When they try to make every other gay person in the country do that too, it’s everyone’s business.

    But yeah, like Lori said, “outing” gay gay-haters isn’t gay-shaming, it’s hypocrisy-shaming. If some white politician wanted to go back to the one drop rule and I looked in his family records and found that he has a black great-great-grandmother, I’m sure as hell going to make that public. Not because there’s anything wrong with having a black great-great-grandmother, but because it demonstrates that this politician wants to make rules for others that he has no intention of following himself.

  • Tonio

    Good points in your first paragraph. And I would agree that outing a professional gay-basher with solid evidence is defensible. I’m just trying to make a distinction between that and publicly labeling all of them as gay based on suspicions alone. I was reading Lori’s posts as not necessarily advocating the latter, but perhaps condoning it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    I thought it was the Westermarck Effect.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That’s the opposite of Genetic Sexual Attraction.

    The thing that’s always so ridiculous is the degree of credulousness that people have about absurd straw-man arguments trotted out to “prove” opposite-sex marriages are somehow inherently more sanctified or real or I don’t know what than same-sex marriages.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    That’s the opposite of Genetic Sexual Attraction.

    Right, the Westermarck Effect is what usually prevents Genetic Sexual Attraction from resulting in incest.

  • cyllan

    Instead, heroically, resignedly, we march up the aisle with our new brides,

    Um, buh, WHAT? 

    People really think this way?  I’m sorry; my brain just threw a segfault.

  • Lori

     

    People really think this way?  

    Some deeply closeted gay people, yes. IME Triplanetary has it right
    about such people. They deny their true selves because they’re “supposed
    to”. They hate the lives they feel forced to lead and deeply resent those who are living the life they want.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X