#1 Understanding the Viciousness of the Gay Left06-07-2013, 11:08 AM
June 7, 2013
By Robert Oscar Lopez
On Tuesday, June 4, the gay lobby -- for the purposes here, "the Gay Left" -- was exposed for its intrinsically sociopathic tendencies. As the shock settles in about the Human Rights Campaign's possibly felonious violation of fellow citizens' civil rights, it is fitting that I should introduce the uninitiated reader to a basic overview of the Gay Left and the simultaneous totalitarianism and anomie that have shaped it since the famous Stonewall rebellion of 1969.
In light of the fluffy report issued this week by the College Republican National Committee urging the right, in part, to abandon opposition to gay marriage, the message I am about to deliver is triply urgent: don't fall for the con!
The Gay Left is not the same thing as gay people, many of whom are good folks. The Gay Left is also not, despite what one might think, merely another part of the liberal intelligentsia. It is a peculiar creature, a specific cluster of organizations that evolved from the specific environmental stresses of police repression, psychiatric stigma, and AIDS.
The problem is that while in America the institutionalized persecution of homosexuals has been dispersed into episodes of de facto social friction (as opposed to de jure discrimination) the survival instincts that grew out of an earlier age of repression -- many of which become destructive if they outlive their moment of necessity -- remain integral to the Gay Left's political apparatus.
Where are we now? A quick run-down
During hearings on Capitol Hill, Chapman University professor John Eastman of the National Organization for Marriage unveiled new evidence that the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy organization, may have feloniously obtained confidential tax documents from the IRS and then published them with the intent of humiliating political opponents.
This accusation, as has been noted by several commentators including Dennis Prager and Ann Coulter, brings the current IRS scandals to a whole new level. Below is the exchange that took place between Rep. Paul Ryan and Prof. Eastman:
RYAN: So your donors are confidential, that's protected by law. You have proof that the IRS leaked your confidential donor information to a group that opposes your point of view. And your donors were harassed as a result of that. Is that correct?
As Dennis Prager pointed out in his show, this is the most serious chapter of the IRS scandal. A brief transcript:
PRAGER: People will more openly talk about marital problems, and certainly child problems, than they will disclose their financial data [...] And so to publish people's tax returns is to in some ways strip them naked in public [...]
EASTMAN: [...] what was leaked to the Human Rights Campaign was Schedule B of our tax returns, which is our list of major donors and their addresses. And that is as private of a tax return as your own individual 1040 tax returns. And it's a felony for anybody to disclose that information without your permission. The Human Rights Campaign posted this on their website and we immediately called for them to take it down [...]and this is a felony. It is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, to disclose somebody's tax returns without authorization [...]The Human Rights Campaign had been trying for a long time to get our donor list so that they could do just that to our donors [harass and intimidate them]. The president of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Salmonese, had just recently become a national co-chair for the Obama re-election campaign.
While bad enough, this is only the tip of the iceberg -- the gay lobby is also gleefully co-opting military and police forces to hound its enemies too.
How did we get here?
In June 1969, a group of homosexuals in New York City got into a protracted altercation with the urban police force that had been raiding gay bars. According the History Channel's sanitized account of this famous event, the riots were "the impetus for the formation of the Gay Liberation Front as well as other gay, lesbian, and bisexual civil rights organizations" and "regarded by many as history's first major protest on behalf of equal rights for homosexuals." The Stonewall riots developed an exaggerated image in the collective memory of the LGBT movement, but this moment of fighting back against violent persecution is the locus classicus for their entire worldview.
By June 6, 2013, we see a different story. This time it is Grégor Puppinck speaking before Geneva's Council of Rights of Man about "the grave matter" of 350 people being arrested and detained, through violent police acts including tear gas, for the simple reason that they objected to the recent gay marriage law passed in France. The peaceful assemblies gathered to defend the rights of children to a mother and a father -- rights that the French law undermines, in their estimation (and mine).
The LGBT movement fought fire with fire. So it became exactly what it fought against.
After Stonewall, the shrinks and the soldiers
The jump from violent self-defense to violence against innocents occurred because the gay community had to contend with brutally real shocks, to which they developed an adaptive response.
Not long after the Stonewall rebellion, the burgeoning gay rights movement became addicted to the adrenaline of protest. They stormed the medical professions to de-stigmatize themselves. Psychiatric and psychological associations de-classified homosexuality as a mental illness by the mid-1970s, and the expert "consensus" (of which there would be several more, all unmitigated disasters) was that the urges felt by homosexual men posed no peculiar danger to their health at all. Indeed, by this consensus, men having sex with men were no different from men having sex with women. Within seven years there was a massive AIDS epidemic.
Somewhere, perhaps, there could have been a middle ground between total repression and complete anomie. With women taken out of the picture and modern medicine offering them copious antibiotics, they felt invincible. They had no idea HIV existed. Why would anyone know it existed? For thousands of years sexual mores, taboos, and codes of conduct had ensured that there wouldn't be men running around with thousands of other men, ejaculating into each other's delicate parts after knowing each other for as little as a few minutes.
The AIDS epidemic was as traumatic as anyone could imagine; I should know, as I was there for the worst of it. Growing up in a gay community and spending the 1990s surrounded by homosexuals, I cannot begin to recount the emotions of that catastrophe. To tell one story is to open up about hundreds upon hundreds of others, all wasting away -- uncompensated for having been sold a false "consensus" and urged by idealistic experts to do the very thing that killed them.
A rational reaction to this epidemic would have been to question the 1970s "consensus" about homosexual normalcy and rein in the sexual abandon that had laid waste to so many young gay men. As we know from human history, however, people rarely react to trauma rationally.
Faced with AIDS, the response from some gay groups was to offer comfort; from these gay groups sprang the vast network of community centers and free clinics that still help many gay people to this day.
But the response from political activists such as those who founded HRC in 1980 was to go into massive denial about what their ideology had wrought. Rather than back down, they sought to relive Stonewall again, this time projecting the harm done by a virus onto actual human beings, whom they blamed for willing the disease to destroy them. So a mythology developed that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the AIDS crisis. Homophobia was responsible. Discrimination was responsible. Gay men could not be responsible.
The deflection of blame onto imaginary enemies required tremendous mental work, and this work became the overarching labor of the Human Rights Campaign and its many sister organizations. Gay activists retreated from physical reality and rejected the notion of truth, since both reality and truth had betrayed them. They took comfort in the notion that if others saw them as good and normal, their problems would be solved. And so hiding problems -- which sometimes bordered on lying -- took precedence over self-improvement.
Whenever caught in a misrepresentation -- as they already have been regarding suicide and sexual assault in the military, and as they will soon be regarding same-sex parenting -- they have learned to become aggressive.
There are still many who fear homosexuals rather than hate them. They react to aggressive behavior by gay activists with appeasement and avoidance. They give gays what they want and forego any arguments with them. What gay activists learn from this is simple: Be aggressive and you will get what you want. Stay on the offensive and never play defense. Replace the last false consensus with a newer, glossier consensus, and repeat it again and again without ever apologizing for having been wrong the last time.
When it turns out that men having sex with men are much more likely to incur venereal diseases, push a new consensus about open homosexuality having no impact whatsoever on morale or unit cohesion in the military. When this too goes terribly wrong, and the sexual assault rate rises by 35% after the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (mostly homosexual rapes), then harp on the consensus about same-sex parenting being just as good, or better, than families with a mom and a dad. If all else fails, be aggressive.
The National Organization for Marriage became the target of the Human Rights Campaign's seasoned and entrenched method of coping with the universal disappointments of real life. Had there been no National Organization for Marriage, the HRC would have seized upon a different target -- a church, a random conservative blogger, a Knights of Columbus lodge. Nobody assailed by the HRC should ever take the mean-spiritedness personally. Nor, I must add, should they give in to it. The more you feed the beast that is dysfunctional gay activism, the greater the beast will grow. As I learned during the AIDS crisis, its first victims are usually other gays.
Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2VXUK21rl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Robert Oscar Lopez edits English
Page Printed from:
at June 07, 2013 - 08:44:56 AM CDT
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
06-07-2013, 11:58 AM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
I can't help but think that this article is supposed to be some attempt at distraction, to keep the public from making the connection and seeing the association between American evangelicals and:
Gay people being attacked in Russia in the last month.
Gay people being attacked in Paris in the last month.
Gay people being attacked in New York City in the last month.
American evangelicals promoting hate and violence against gay people in Uganda and other parts of Africa.
Nigeria demonizing gay people and sentencing them to 14 years in prison in order to appease both Christians and Muslims.
The audacity of Cardinal Dolan.
And of course the glaring association between what American evangelicals say and what skinheads and nazis and religious nutbags do.
A French leftwing activist has been left braindead after he was attacked by a group of skinheads, in an attack that has raised fears of increased far-right violence.
The interior minister, Manuel Valls, said a fight broke out on Wednesday evening between two groups of young people in a street just steps away from the famous Printemps department store in Paris.
Clement Meric, a 19-year-old student at Sciences Po, one of France's most prestigious universities, was beaten by several skinheads, according to Valls.
No suspects have been arrested, and Valls told reporters at the scene of the attack – a crowded, pedestrianised area with cafes and chain stores – that finding them is the top priority.
It was unclear how the fight developed and how many people were involved.
06-07-2013, 12:17 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
06-07-2013, 01:04 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
professor at Cal State Northridge, is very vocal on the Chronicle of Higher Education, and is a welcome antidote to the many appeasers who don't know what they're talking about. The academic types can't stand him, of course, but his ideas come out of his experience, not out of vague, feel-good political ideas.
Social Science, Gay Parents, and the Myth of Objectivity--Comments section
Robert Oscar Lopez 11 months ago in reply to jcisneros
I cannot pretend to be objective either -- and nor, I think, does anyone, on this issue. My mother (biological) was a lesbian (or bisexual, I guess) and she raised me with her female partner through the 1970s and 1980s in blue collar Buffalo. My mom passed away in 1990 but her partner, now 74, is still alive living in a small farm town in upstate New York; she coached my wife through the birth of my daughter.
I loved my mom and would never let anyone make blanket denunciations of lesbian parents. My mom did the best she could challenging racism and homophobia and class snobbery simultaneously, also raising six kids without a lot of help from the fathers. (Though later in life I realized my father's side of the story.)
The thing is, to be perfectly honest, it was very hard growing up the way I did. I know what you're going to say -- that was 1975, it's changed, etc. I don't think the changes can diminish the difficulties a child faces in such an unusual household.
My basic needs were not taken care of; my mothers could not protect me from violence in my neighborhood. They relied for support on the local gay community, which unfortunately did place me in contact with predatory gay males much earlier than I needed. They couldn't explain my male perspective to me, and confused me about my gender. They enrolled me in ballet and I rebelled by learning rifling through a marksman club in our town. I doubt very sincerely that I would have ever hyperanalyzed my own sexuality and concluded that I was bisexual at the age of 20, had I not been raised around so many gay people.
Today I am in a happy marriage to a female, but the happiness I have found is largely the result of having converted to Christianity, reconnected to my biological father, and made peace with my homosexual past so that I could commit myself entirely to my wife in a functional marriage.
None of the findings of this particularly disturbing study surprise me. It is quite logical -- other than the parts about kids in gay homes being more likely to get touched or abused; on that I am highly skeptical, except that I can see kids being exposed to the gay community at large through their parents, and in my experience, the gay male community (not lesbians) has a lot of predators.
I am not wild about the arguments for gay marriage because I know they are disguised strategies for gay adoption and I don't want to put kids in that situation except as a last resort when there's no other way. Gay couples shouldn't be ashamed of offering foster homes to homeless kids and working with their biological parents. Trying to raise the kids in a world that's totally gay is a whole other concept that isn't sound.
Like you, I am a historian of sexuality and do not read world history as offering many convincing arguments for gay parenting as a universally applicable model. It has a lot of challenges. I don't think it's always going to be bad for kids, but it presents a lot of unusual obstacles, especially if there are other challenges thrown in, such as poverty. Many liberals I know say, "well think of all the screwed up straight parents." That's true, but I doubt gay adoptive parents are going to be screwed up any less often; they are simply going to be carrying with themselves a lot of difficult baggage for their kids to deal with.
You can't have it both ways, I say. Most social science about gay parenting erases experiences like mine. I know, because I've contacted many "researchers" on the topic and they universally lose my case, choosing not to tell my story in favor of the success stories. The bias almost always works in favor of promoting gay parenting as normal (this is similar to how the fight to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell favored stories of gay troops without any problems and covered up all the gay soldiers who'd gotten sexually abused by other gay soldiers.)
06-07-2013, 01:15 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Here is Lopez on:
Same Sex Marriage in France
....These four mobilizations are credited as the largest mass uprising in France since the famous revolts of May 1968. As many as 60 percent of French respondents supported same-sex marriage in the fall of 2012, but the level of support now hovers around only 39 percent, with 54 percent supporting “civil unions” only. It is no wonder that the French government has had to shield itself and its LGBT benefactors from outrage with an increasingly totalitarian modus operandi encompassing tear gas and other familiar police-state tactics.
The French resistance to same-sex marriage has demonstrated that an ostensibly progressive nation that had little issue with homosexuality as a moral question can change its mind, not based on ignorance of reality, but based on knowing more about what same-sex marriage really means.
The French had little issue with the PACS, or domestic partnerships, passed in the 1990s. The nation is not a die-hard right-wing country, as we know from the fact that Socialists took over the government in 2012.
Yet millions of French citizens stormed the streets of Paris and dozens of other cities to block same-sex marriage. Despite attempts by the international press to paint the “Manif pour Tous” and the “French Spring” as a band of intolerant Catholic reactionaries, polls show that a comfortable majority of the French people share their view of the same-sex marriage law, even if some within that majority are not eager to join in the street protests.
The drop in support for same-sex marriage came with education and broader public debate. As the French knew more gay people individually and learned more about the ramifications of their legalized marriage on the community at large—especially children and poor communities overseas targeted for adoption and surrogacy—they liked the idea of same-sex marriage less and less.
The text of the law that passed bears the scars of a public backlash. For instance, both insemination rights for lesbian couples and gestational surrogacy rights for gay men had to be scrapped by President François Hollande’s government because of their horrendous unpopularity. (Both insemination and surrogacy are subject to broader bans in France than in the United States.)
Adoption was included in the final bill that went through the French parliament, over the strenuous objections of adoptees of all stripes, ranging from a fifteen-year-old writing in Boulevard Voltaire to Cyril Langelot to Benoît Talleu, an eloquent Franco-Vietnamese teen who addressed 700,000 French marchers on January 13.
Benoît’s adoptive father, Franck Talleu, was inexplicably arrested two and a half months after his son’s famous speech. Police detained him for wearing a sweatshirt with the children’s rights blazon on it. The arrest was widely viewed in France as proof that the Hollande regime had to employ invasive practices to cover up the unpopularity of its pro-LGBT proposals.
While same-sex adoption survived massive protests, its chances are going to be rather slim because of the long waiting list of heterosexual couples looking to adopt. Since France’s public controversy, now Russia has refused to authorize any more adoptions into the country and India has blocked surrogacy by same-sex couples. It will be more difficult for same-sex couples to mask their purchase of babies through surrogates abroad as international adoption.
The French attorney general Christiane Taubira tried to skirt the French ban on surrogacy with a memo allowing the government to treat overseas babies conceived by surrogate mothers as adoptees eligible for citizenship. Instead of quiet acquiescence to this sleight, she sparked mass protests against the merchandizing of women’s wombs. The shocking turn in the Washington Post, with an unprecedented column criticizing surrogacy by Kathleen Parker, might be evidence that the French street revolution set off a chain reaction that eventually brought even a super gay-friendly American publication like the Post to face the grim business behind same-sex parenting.
The French government’s attempts to scrub these controversial aspects of the same-sex marriage bill quietly didn’t work. As the public contemplated the problems with sperm banking and surrogacy, they grew increasingly suspicious of everything the LGBT lobby was promoting about its “families.” This happened despite all the assurances from Hollande’s ministers that the marriage bill would not lead to a boost in artificial reproductive technology....
06-07-2013, 01:21 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
And on gay parenting:
...The richest and most successful same-sex couple still cannot provide a child something that the poorest and most struggling spouses can provide: a mom and a dad. Having spent forty years immersed in the gay community, I have seen how that reality triggers anger and vicious recrimination from same-sex couples, who are often tempted to bad-mouth so-called “dysfunctional” or “trashy” straight couples in order to say, “We deserve to have kids more than they do!”
But I am here to say no, having a mom and a dad is a precious value in its own right and not something that can be overridden, even if a gay couple has lots of money, can send a kid to the best schools, and raises the kid to be an Eagle Scout.
It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste.
It’s also racist and condescending for same-sex couples to think they can strong-arm adoption centers into giving them orphans by wielding financial or political clout. An orphan in Asia or in an American inner city has been entrusted to adoption authorities to make the best decision for the child’s life, not to meet a market demand for same-sex couples wanting children. ...
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
06-07-2013, 01:55 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
I tend to trust his personal experience over the self-serving rhetoric of gay adults who want to have children at all costs and deny them their biological reality.
06-07-2013, 03:08 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
06-07-2013, 03:24 PM
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|