The Gay Fray

[Tiassa]

Icky Lesbians

The Republican Party paid for lawyers to try and extract inheritance tax from her?

Aren't they the party of less taxes?

Well, right. Except Edie Windsor and Thea Spyder are icky lesbians.

But it does bring to mind one Robert Gilligan of the Catholic Conference of Illinois: "Civil unions afford all the benefits of marriage."

Gilligan's statement seems just a bit untrue. Imagine that. After all, marriage, it seems, doesn't afford all the benefits of marriage.

And all because Edie Windsor has the "wrong" parts between her legs.

And, you know, what's between your legs is even more important to Republicans than jobs or taxes, or whatever else they might tell you to look at in order to look away from the ugly sight of conservatives zealously pursuing a widow's inheritance.

 

[Tiassa]

Land of Dreams ... But Not If You're Gay?

Land of Dreams ... But Not If You're Gay?
FRC's Perkins: Americans don't want gay money

Discover America is an arm of Brand USA, a public-private partnership, that promotes international tourism in the United States.

Big deal.

Discover America recently released its first television commercial.

Big deal.

The commercial is called "Land of Dreams", and features the song of the same title written by Roseanne Cash and John Leventhal.

Again, big deal.

But frames around 34-35 seconds in the spot include the image of gay men riding the trolley in New Orleans.

​

Apparently, this is a really big deal.

A new batch of U.S. travel ads should send some leaders packing--permanently. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. In 236 years, America's never had an international tourism ad. So when Congress passed the Travel Promotion Act, people thought it'd be a great chance to highlight American attractions. What they didn't know is that it would highlight same-sex attractions. That's right. The commercial invites people to America-not to see the Grand Canyon, but to celebrate homosexuality. In one scene, a gay man is sleeping on his partner's shoulder in a trolley. The actors said they were specifically recruited to add a "homosexual presence" to the commercial. According to Brand USA, the ads were supposed to "open up some minds as to what America really is"-which, based on this commercial, is a country of radical values and backwards priorities. I suppose this is part of the President's push to "rebrand" America. It's just too bad he used a travel ad to feature so much cultural baggage.

(qtd. in Tashman; boldface accent added)​

Really?

Brian Tashman of Right Wing Watch makes an obvious point:

The Discover America ad highlights diversity in the US, including a song by Rosanne Cash and images of an interracial couple, two Muslim women in a city and people celebrating the Hindu festival Holi. But Perkins is peeved by its attempt “to celebrate homosexuality” by featuring a man with his arm around his partner on a bus for almost two seconds.​

Would it be hyperbolic to wonder if Perkins isn't part of the Ahmadinejad camp insofar as he would rather just pretend that homosexuals don't exist?

Well, the answer to that is obvious: Perkins needs homosexuals in order to continue drawing a paycheck; he needs a demon to slay.

So what's the deal? Is Perkins suggesting that American businesses don't want international money if the people spending it might be homosexual? Money is money; capitalism doesn't discriminate.

Think about it. If you're a struggling restaurant on the Gulf Coast, are you really going to say, "So anyway, these two guys come into the rest'rant t'day. Want to have a big party. Spend a thousand dollars on shrimp and beer and all. But, you know, they looked kinda like homosexuals, so I told 'em no way, no how, and get the hell out of my establishment, queers. Oh, and Jeannine, since sales are off, you ain't gettin' any hours next week."

And, really, when we get right down to it, by Perkins' definition, the advertisement also highlights impossibility. You know, like whatever is going on with the parachute and the falcon.

What actually gets me is that while I am critical of television advertising in general, to the point of hostility, this is actually a well-done spot.

But, you know, it suggests gay people ought to feel comfortable inside the United States, so, well ... yeah. You know.

As Hunter suggested for Daily Kos:

Well, it's a radical country where a guy can put his head on another guy's shoulder on a trolley for two seconds and not face public execution for it, which sounds pretty good to me. I understand some people are working to change that, though ....

.... For the sake of argument, we'll just say here that the president of the United States personally scripts and directs every promotional video made by the government. Granted. But what impresses me more is that Two Damn Seconds is enough to even get on Tony Perkins' personal gaydar.

I think the problem here is a bit more than branding. The ad features "an interracial couple, two Muslim women in a city and people celebrating the Hindu festival Holi." So I think the ad is obviously trying to send the message "Come visit America: we won't stone you for having different beliefs." Now in many parts of the world, that counts as a pretty good selling feature—it's definitely something you want to highlight, when trying to appeal to folks to spend their delicious, delicious tourism money here. All of those people, though, are people whose mere presence pisses Tony Perkins off. His branding would be more like "America: We won't stone you for having different beliefs, but trust me, we're working on it." And trust me, they're working on it.​

I don't know; do people still think homosexuality is contagious? That would explain why Perkins would rather American businesses shun gay money.
____________________

Notes:

Discover America. "Land of Dreams". April 23, 2012. YouTube.com. June 9, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcfbdiiEQDM

Tashman, Brian. "Tony Perkins Lashes Out at US Tourism Ad for Featuring Gay Couple". Right Wing Watch. May 31, 2012. RightWingWatch.org. June 9, 2012. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tony-perkins-lashes-out-us-tourism-ad-featuring-gay-couple

Hunter. "For the Family Research Council, two seconds without hate is two seconds too many". Daily Kos. June 2, 2012. DailyKos.com. June 9, 2012. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...-seconds-without-hate-is-two-seconds-too-many

 

[scifes]

there are more homophobes in the world than homosexuals or "open minded people" who don't mind homosexuals, and so it's bad for business, bad for tourism.
good for the homosexual agenda, but on the expense of what the ad was meant to accomplish.

 

[Balerion]

The Ahmadinejad comparison is an apt one. Though Perkins can't have homosexuals killed, there certainly is a vocal movement among his kind for such a penalty. And, like Ahmadinejad, he is well aware of the existence of homosexuality in his country, but is aghast at the prospect of such a reality being broadcast to the rest of the world. He doesn't outright deny it like his Iranian idol does, but he takes a similar tack by promoting an image of America in which it does not.

While Perkins' assessment of the ad is incorrect--Hunter has the right when he says "So I think the ad is obviously trying to send the message 'Come visit America: we won't stone you for having different beliefs.'"--we can extrapolate from his condemnation of homosexuality as "radical" that he wouldn't be any more in favor of the ad's correct interpretation, putting him closer still to Ahmadinejad's way of thinking.

As to scifes' take on what this ad actually accomplishes, I can say that even if it fails as a promotion for American tourism (which I don't think it does, because as Hunter said, its message "We ain't gonna kill you here," probably plays well internationally) it does something more important by desensitizing America to such images. Nobody blinks at gay characters on TV today, but a little more than 30 years ago, Jodie Dallas was a polarizing first and foremost for no other reason than he was openly gay (then, later, for other reasons and to other people).

So network sitcoms and dramas have been conquered, and reality TV, but where we haven't seen homosexuality portrayed is advertising. This is a step in the right direction, even if it pisses off a ton of people in the process. Eventually, the people who aren't bothered by this will drown out the people who are.

 

[Tiassa]

Quote of the Week, and It's Only Monday

Quote of the Week, and It's Only Monday
Anderson Cooper says ....

Unceremonious, to be certain, but CNN personality Anderson Cooper is officially out of the closet:

The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud.​

It's not like people didn't know, or at least suspect, but with this note to Andrew Sullivan, released with Cooper's permission, it's official.

Or, in other words: Move along. Nothing to see here, folks.
____________________

Notes:

Sullivan, Andrew. "Anderson Cooper: 'The Fact Is, I'm Gay'". The Dish. July 2, 2012. AndrewSullivan.TheDailyBeast.com. July 2, 2012. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/anderson-cooper-the-fact-is-im-gay.html

 

[Tiassa]

When Reality Says "Enough"

When Reality Says "Enough"
Preacher sues Rachel Maddow for stating the obvious, and loses

Christian extremist Bradlee Dean, a preacher who attained infamy by using an opportunity to lead morning prayer in the Minnesota state Senate to attack President Obama's faith has suffered something of a setback in his effort to intimidate critics.

Dean, the head of You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International and prominent supporter of Rep. Michele Bachmann, was apparently upset by some reports that he advocated the murder of homosexuals. Last year, he filed a fifty-million dollar defamation suit against Rachel Maddow and MSNBC:

Dressed in black shorts and a Minnesota Twins T-shirt, Dean on Wednesday told a total of four reporters, "it is regrettable that I had to take this action, but I felt that it was necessary to protect not only my rights but also countless others who believe in family values for our nation's youth."

At issue are comments Dean made last spring on his radio show, Sons of Liberty, regarding homosexuals:

"Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America. This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination ... If America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that."​

Some reported that Dean's comments indicated he, more or less, supports killing homosexuals. Maddow devoted two fiery segments to Dean's comments, which Dean said Wednesday have done "great damage" to his reputation. Dean later issued a statement to clarify his position on homosexuals, saying he and his ministry are firmly against violence toward homosexuals.

(Taintor, "Anti-Gay")​

Dean's lawsuit did not go so well:

Fast forward to June 25. Judge Joan Zeldon of Superior Court in Washington, D.C., ordered Dean to pay the defendants' "fees and costs in the amount of $24,625.23 within thirty days." The defendants include Maddow and MSNBC, and also erstwhile local news source The Minnesota Independent and one of its reporters, Andy Birkey. MSNBC did not comment on the case.

(Taintor, "Controversial")​

Dean's problem, of course, is that he painted himself into something of a corner. As an alleged preacher of God's Word, Dean asserted that Muslims "seem to be more moral than even the American Christians". And it is a difficult proposition that what he really meant was, "Sure, they seem more moral, and if America won't enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that, but, as a man of God, I do not support Godly morality."

That, essentially, was his only way out of the appearance of advocating the murder of homosexuals.

Contrary to his lawyer's claim, Rachel Maddow's career does not appear to be over.
____________________

Notes:

Taintor, David. "Anti-Gay Preacher Sues Rachel Maddow, MSNBC For $50 Million". TPM Muckraker. July 28, 2011. TPMMuckraker.TalkingPointsMemo.com. July 9, 2012. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme..._preacher_sues_rachel_maddow_msnbc_for_50.php

—————. "Controversial Preacher Bradlee Dean Ordered To Pay Maddow’s Legal Fees In His Lawsuit Against Her". TPM Muckraker. July 9, 2012. TPMMuckraker.TalkingPointsMemo.com. July 9, 2012. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/bradlee_dean_maddow_msnbc_lawsuit.php

 

[Tiassa]

Episcopalians!

Episcopalians!
It's not same-sex "marriage", but ....

So, yeah. I had no idea this was coming:

The bishops of the Episcopal Church on Monday approved creation of a liturgy for “holy covenants” between partners of the same sex, which does not mention “marriage” but does include a lifelong commitment by partners.

The vote by the House of Bishops, at the church’s 77th General Convention, was 111-41. Episcopal Presiding Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori, voted in favor of the new liturgy.

Three years in the making, the new liturgy has a couple make vows to each other, exchange rings and be declared “bound to one another in a holy covenant, as long as they bothy shall live.”

The liturgy now goes to the House of Deputies, consisting of priests and lay people, for what is near-certain approval. It would then go into provisional use starting in the first week of Advent, meaning December 2, 2012.

(Connelly)​

Said the Right Reverend Michael Louis Vono, Diocese of Rio Grande, "It was the Jesus thing to do in our time."

I believe congratulations are in order. That is, sure, it's not marriage, specifically. But it's a big step forward, and I haven't figured out the rhetoric that would appropriately demand Episcopalians take the final step of actual marriage equality.
____________________

Notes:

Connelly, Joel. "Episcopal bishops approve same-sex liturgy". SeattlePI. July 9, 2012. Blog.SeattlePI.com. July 9, 2012. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/07/09/episcopal-bishops-approve-same-sex-liturgy/

 

[scifes]

bah, and i thought me and dean can get along just well, till he brought up the "foreign enemy"..

 

[Chipz]

Does anyone else think that gay porn should be illegal?

 

[Syzygys]

Does anyone else think that gay porn should be illegal?

Do you include lesbian porn in that??

 

[Tiassa]

Well ....

Does anyone else think that gay porn should be illegal?

Anyone else than who?

You? Or is there some organization out there you might quote?

I mean, it's not that I doubt that the proposition to outlaw gay porn exists somewhere in the culture, but who is making the suggestion on this occasion, and what is the rationale?

 

[Grumpy]

Chipz

Does anyone else think that gay porn should be illegal?

All porn involving both a male and a female is gay porn, at least for the watcher(of either sex).

Grumpy

 

[Asguard]

Does anyone else think that gay porn should be illegal?

Would you like to justify this piece of homophobia? Or would you like to quietly slink back into a corner. Being gay is no more wrong than being straight is so why shouldn't the porn industry cater to that too?

Homosexuality is found in over 450 species, homophobia is found in only one, which do you think is unnatural now?

(sorry about that, getting used to new format)

 

[RedStar]

Homosexuals are the same as everybody else: human beings.

Mindless discrimination is what sustains capitalism. We need to realize that we are all united as workers and come together to fight capitalism, which means accepting all of our brothers and sisters.

 

[Tiassa]

Unsustainable Seasons

Mindless discrimination is what sustains capitalism. We need to realize that we are all united as workers and come together to fight capitalism, which means accepting all of our brothers and sisters.

As much as I appreciate the sentiment, I think it is something of a stretch.

Aside from the occasional charlatan trying to "pray away the gay", or otherwise making his living from advocating hatred, there isn't much capitalistic incentive for this kind of discrimination. It's not like calculating the balance sheet for maintaining slave labor. The one thing a homosexual male has over a heterosexual woman is the pay scale, so the corporate bosses aren't saving any money hiring queers.

While I see your point in the abstract, it does not carry over into the practical as well as we might hope.

Psychologically, I would suggest that mindless discrimination is symptomatic of capitalism, much as Brown described in general terms:

It is a Freudian theorem that each individual neurosis is not static but dynamic. It is a historical process with its own internal logic. Because of the basically unsatisfactory nature of the neurotic compromise, tension between the repressed and repressing factors persists and produces a constant series of new symptom-formations. And the series of symptom-formations is not a shapeless series of mere changes; it exhibits a regressive pattern, which Freud calls the slow return of the repressed, "It is a law of neurotic diseases that these obsessive acts serve the impulse more and more and come nearer and nearer the original and forbidden act." The doctrine of the universal neurosis of mankind, if we take it seriously, therefore compels us to entertain the hypothesis that the pattern of history exhibits a dialectic not hitherto recognized by historians, the dialectic of neurosis.​

To the other, we should not limit mindless discrimination to being symptomatic solely of capitalism. However, accepting that people might define capital in different terms according to their needs—money, vengeance, political influence, &c.—yes, there is some common "capitalistic" relationship, but to assert that "Mindless discrimination is what sustains capitalism" is axiomatic is to stretch the bounds of logic.

Remember that the Revolution will not abolish capitalism, but, rather, turn it toward the needs of society instead of focusing its benefit on the individual. Money, in the end, is merely a distribution system. Instead of dollars or pounds or rubles or rupees, one could easily use vouchers, chits, or coupons. The capitalistic outlook will still aim to concentrate these abstract representations of goods and services—essentially, of labor—in fewer and fewer hands.

Wilde reminds that the goal is not to ease the hardships of poverty for the poor, but to eliminate poverty.

Capitalism unrestrained requires the misery of poverty; it cannot function without a growing majority of the people working in poverty. But textbook capitalism, according to Smith, is as valid a system as humanity has yet discovered. The point should not be to abolish it, but, rather, to either turn it toward some useful purpose or replace it with something better.

Transforming homophobia into a specific necessity of capitalism requires a warping of logic that cannot endure the weathers of time.
____________________

Notes:

Brown, Norman O. Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytic Meaning of History. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.

Wilde, Oscar. The Soul of Man Under Socialism. 1891. Marxists.org. July 19, 2012. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/index.htm

 

[Chipz]

Anyone else than who?

You? Or is there some organization out there you might quote?

I mean, it's not that I doubt that the proposition to outlaw gay porn exists somewhere in the culture, but who is making the suggestion on this occasion, and what is the rationale?

Than I.

All pornography should be illegal. I don't like prostitution -- and I don't like seeing women in poorer countries selling themselves for pennies. This thread is about the Gay Fray, so I say Gay pornography should be illegal.

 

[RedStar]

Tiassa, what I meant by my statement is that pitting the people against each other diminishes class consciousness and gives them an object for their anger. It is the same deal with patriotism, racism, sexism, etc, it's to diminish working class consciousness.

 

[Tiassa]

The Problem With Petitions

The Problem With Petitions

To the one, it's good to know that for some people morals trump profits. Unfortunately, in this case, I think Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's moral stance is a bit repugnant:

Cathy's remarks earlier this week to a Baptist website, in which he affirmed the Atlanta-based company's belief in "the biblical definition of the family unit," went viral Wednesday. Supporters and opponents of gay unions immediately weighed in.

"We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles," Cathy told the Baptist Press.

As of Friday afternoon, more than 2,100 people had signed a pledge at Causes.com to boycott Chick-fil-A. The petition was sponsored by the Trevor Project, a national organization focused on suicide prevention efforts for LGBT youth.

"As customers, we can no longer stomach your intolerance and disrespect for countless LGBT citizens," the pledge reads. "Until your company's values reflect the freedoms and dignities that all American citizens are due, we will no longer eat at Chick-fil-A!"​

The problem I have with signing such a petition is that I have never eaten at a Chick-fil-A. Indeed, I doubt I ever would. Morals aside, there is nothing about fast-food chicken that strikes me as appetizing.

Meanwhile, Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston suggested he would work to exclude Chick-fil-A from his city, saying, "You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population."

The company, of course, released the boilerplate clarification that its "culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender".

But not all of the reaction has been outraged. The hate group National Organization for Marriage released a statement in support of Mr. Cathy, and even called his son, Truett, a "corporate hero".

Really, though, it's easy enough to say I wouldn't eat at Chick-fil-A as an objection to Dan Cathy's homophobia, but it also wouldn't be entirely honest. I don't want to eat at Chick-fil-A because the idea of consuming that food repulses me on the merit of being repulsive food.
____________________

Notes:

Boone, Christian. "Chick-fil-A: Gay marriage debate and fast-food chicken? Yup." The Christian Science Monitor. July 21, 2012. CSMonitor.com. July 22, 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/L...Gay-marriage-debate-and-fast-food-chicken-Yup

 

[arauca]

Than I.

All pornography should be illegal. I don't like prostitution -- and I don't like seeing women in poorer countries selling themselves for pennies. This thread is about the Gay Fray, so I say Gay pornography should be illegal.

I agree we don't need additional scum .

 

[Grumpy]

arauca

Originally Posted by Chipz
Than I.

All pornography should be illegal. I don't like prostitution -- and I don't like seeing women in poorer countries selling themselves for pennies. This thread is about the Gay Fray, so I say Gay pornography should be illegal.

I agree we don't need additional scum .

We need less people trying to tell others how to live their lives, not more. If you don't like porn, don't watch it. If you don't like other people watching porn, keep your nose out of their business. We call that freedom in the US, and it means freedom from judgmental assholes interfering with our freedoms as well.

Grumpy