Nasty Rhetoric on Gay Marriage
Apr. 6th, 2004 10:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsMan, the rhetoric from the right has become unimaginably ugly. The center of the ugliness appears to be WorldNetDaily, which is as right-wing as it gets without putting on the red-and-black armbands. Consider this "for the children" article that basically says that gay marriage has destroyed the instutition of marriage in Denmark-- without informing us that marriage had collapsed as an institution in Denmark before gay marriage was instituted. If "marriage" is worth defending, it's worth defending-- and joining. The necessary mentions of NAMBLA and the ongoing excoriation of Judith Levine follow. Levine comes in for particular hate from the right because of her book "Harmful to Minors," in which she dares ask the question, "How is sex harmful to minors?"
The American Family Association follows with The Sexual Assault On America, which lists off the emotional aftermath of rape and then tries to ascribe those states to "America" as a whole: powerlessness at "stopping the Homosexual juggernaut", accepting blame for denying gays and lesbians their civil rights, so forth, ad nausea. This article is especially repugnant for its naked aggression against gay and lesbian supporters and it's description of civil rights as "the gang rape of a nation." Jesus wept. At least during the early 1900's the characterization of black men as "rapists on our white flowers" came from the pitiful and the pathetic, seeing light only in the yellowest of dingy newletters; to see it coming out of a man of the cloth throuh Agape press is a sign of how just how coarse and crude discourse has become. I am left a-gape.
WorldNet goes for the throat: "At least three of the world's major religions ôòó- Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- condemn homosexual relations. These faiths prescribe varying degrees of punishment for those who practice such behavior. The most serious punishment is death." Charming, huh? "The nature of the lust that consumes their bodies," he writes. Lovely. He cites "personals ads" in gay mags about barebackers, as if that were the totality of gay men's activities.
Man, the Internet just lets the ugliness hang out.
The American Family Association follows with The Sexual Assault On America, which lists off the emotional aftermath of rape and then tries to ascribe those states to "America" as a whole: powerlessness at "stopping the Homosexual juggernaut", accepting blame for denying gays and lesbians their civil rights, so forth, ad nausea. This article is especially repugnant for its naked aggression against gay and lesbian supporters and it's description of civil rights as "the gang rape of a nation." Jesus wept. At least during the early 1900's the characterization of black men as "rapists on our white flowers" came from the pitiful and the pathetic, seeing light only in the yellowest of dingy newletters; to see it coming out of a man of the cloth throuh Agape press is a sign of how just how coarse and crude discourse has become. I am left a-gape.
WorldNet goes for the throat: "At least three of the world's major religions ôòó- Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- condemn homosexual relations. These faiths prescribe varying degrees of punishment for those who practice such behavior. The most serious punishment is death." Charming, huh? "The nature of the lust that consumes their bodies," he writes. Lovely. He cites "personals ads" in gay mags about barebackers, as if that were the totality of gay men's activities.
Man, the Internet just lets the ugliness hang out.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 10:39 am (UTC)WND a focus now? Damn, Joe Farah has come a long way. Homeboy used to do some damn good journalism in the early days, before he let religion get in the way.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 12:41 pm (UTC)Quote from first article: The "gay marriage" movement is all about "me" and "why can't I get the same rights."
Isn't this portrayal of the fight (which is fairly accurate), in context, much akin to painting a woman or black person as being terribly selfish and trying to tear apart the moral fabric of society for not wishing to be a 2nd class citizen and to have the same civil rights as anybody else? Funny how the closed mind works (or rather, fails to).
no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 02:39 pm (UTC)Your comments (right on the ball, btw) remind me of an incident that happened around here not long ago. According to rumor, a certain soldier in our neighborhood was given a dishonorable discharge when gay porn and heterosexual child pornography were found on his home computer during the course of a domestic abuse investigation. I'm not sure if that's really why this family left or not, but what I am sure of is this:
Every person I know around here (military installation in the south) who heard this rumor was more freaked out by the adult gay porn than the hetero kiddie porn, with the exception of my husband and myself.
That scares me.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-06 09:39 pm (UTC)people's mind is a sort of medivel "Chain of being", with god at the top and the inanimate
at the bottem.
Between these extreams exits men at the top,
followed by adult femails, children, animals,
ect.
Homosexuality is wrong in this model because
it defies the normal mode of things. And if
you are prepaired to defie the normal mode of
things in one way, then clearly you are prepaired
to defie the normal mode of things in other ways
as well.
Excuse ME!
Date: 2004-04-06 09:48 pm (UTC)These Creature = to what in your opinion? Just want to make sure I'm reading you right!
Usually I jump the gun and shoot first and ask question later. Then make ass out of myself. So I decided to let you have the opportunity to make your statement a little clearer. Because I feel like jumping out of my skull.
A) These Creature is to Same Sex Marriages
B) These Creature = ?Same Sex Marriage? is to the Starting of Legalizing Bestiality and Child rape.
I'm bit confuse here, so please tell me your opinion a little bit clearer! Thank You.....
Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-06 11:01 pm (UTC)What defies Normal?
What is LOve to you?
What hell are you talking about that declares MEN are on Top of the food Chain. That is totally WRONG...IT's MAN not MEN. Read the Bible, dude or dudet! Quote and I Unquote it specifically said "Creator form >MAN< from the dust of thy Earth" Man is refer to as In the dictionary = 1.[n] any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae. So there for Hominidae is the top of the Food chain. There is not a Male or Female segregation here. Man is a classification as unison = ONE being = Hominidae. Or some in alternative religion as Earth Barer or Zoology as Mammals - live barer as mammals are on top of the food chain. Not just your views as Men or persay MAN as male as in thinking of A Male Chauvinistic PiG.
Now scientifically speaking on spiritual level Man was manifested with male and female characteristics joining of DNA = A - Sexual being until Man itself un-manifested by the creator became two souls.
That there will give you the reason why you as if your a Male or a female has both bi-sexual counterparts of the DNA counter characteristics feelings. Why you feel, if you do at all...feel masculine at time or Famine. Their is nothing wrong with Bi-sexuality of Same sex marriages. For >WE< in the beginning were one with both characteristics feeling or some would like to believe the word is hermaphrodites is correct terminology as a unison MAN.
So there for in conclusion why are you segerating US with in a classification as Male and Female are separated in a food chain when we are as one - equal or unison or mammals?
Why does this smell so thickly of desperation?
Date: 2004-04-06 11:16 pm (UTC)The "gay marriage" movement is all about "me" and "why can't I get the same rights."
Those damn niggers. Who the hell do they think they are, asking for the same rights as everyone else? They're all just a bunch of low-lifes anyhows.
I don't think we'll see a significant change in that attitude even after gay marriage is institutionalized.
Re: Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-06 11:19 pm (UTC)Re: Excuse ME!
Date: 2004-04-06 11:19 pm (UTC)But The word Human Being sadly to say are judgmental fools. Not all human being are. Just few are judgmental fools. Nothing we can do to stop that characteristics with in us or them, well some can. Although most christianity thinks they are allow to make righteous judgment (like there some major difference between Judgment and Righteous Judgment.), which still in my eyes still consider as characteristic as human being - being a judgmental fools eyes depending on what they consider a righteous judgment.
Re: Why does this smell so thickly of desperation?
Date: 2004-04-06 11:26 pm (UTC)Re: Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-06 11:28 pm (UTC)Re: Why does this smell so thickly of desperation?
Date: 2004-04-06 11:33 pm (UTC)Do you think that or your just making a wise crack? Clarified Please!
Re: Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-06 11:40 pm (UTC)Re: Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-06 11:59 pm (UTC)Plus it could be a tactical statement...in reflection towards the passage in general.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-07 12:11 am (UTC)If you live by the old testament in reflection of the Christian Eyes, you are wrong...in a way. That is why they revise it - now they must fellow the new testament.
Ok so they revise it and live by the new testament.
Then why can't we revise our rights to sexuality and freedom of expression. Start living in this era as individuals with the freedom to think and how we want to live.
Re: Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-07 12:12 am (UTC)Re: Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-07 12:21 am (UTC)Re: Why does this smell so thickly of desperation?
Date: 2004-04-07 12:31 am (UTC)40 years from now we'll still be fighting against bigotry and ignorance because a bunch of backwoods hicks are stupid. Honestly, I don't see the present-day opponents of gay rights to be any more forward thinking than that.
Re: Why does this smell so thickly of desperation?
Date: 2004-04-07 01:10 am (UTC)Re: Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-07 01:46 am (UTC)Re: Why does this smell so thickly of desperation?
Date: 2004-04-07 01:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-07 11:34 am (UTC)Re: Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-07 01:44 pm (UTC)Re: Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-07 08:02 pm (UTC)She right, I was extremely tire and I can see I've totally was out of it. What do you mean when stating that you would like to see him being stock and scared?
Re: Excuse Me!
Date: 2004-04-07 08:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-15 11:33 pm (UTC)http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N18/dorai18.18c.html