Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Research Help Anyone?


Thanks to Brett for getting me the source for a wonderful article where this whole "taking words out of context" debacle gets explained by Signorile himself! I was correct, it is very similar to the Gay Manifesto absurdity that happened some years ago. Although, it appears the author of that text was Michael Swift, not Andrew Sullivan.


On the Exodus Media Blog, I found this article about how the sky hasn't fallen after same-sex marriage yet, but it will soon. Of course, he thinks it still will. I find it funny that the author sticks to calling gay people "proponents of homosexual behavior" and refers to their "behaviorial choices."

I guess that's the new spin of the anti-gay crowd. While 5, 10, and 20 years ago, gays were seen as people that chose to be heathens, even the anti-gay side is having to admit that people don't choose their gay attractions. So, to try to make their "gays are sinners" claims more palatable, they reduce being gay down to a sinful state where the only thing involved is sex. And, they can keep saying "choose" now, but they shift it from choosing attractions to choosing behavior. Forget the love, relationships, bonds, etc. And forget that the rest of the world doesn't have to choose never to love someone romantically--ever. That would make it too easy to accept gays.

So, with his group of gays called people that promote homosexual behavior in hand, he goes on to say that gays aren't asking for rights, but rather ACTIVELY seeking to DESTROY the family. This is no passive idea that "if we allow gay marriage, straight marriage will suffer." He really thinks gays are actively trying to destroy families and our society. If this isn't reminiscent of the Communist scare, I don't know what is.

As proof, he gives this quote: "If that sounds extreme, consider this comment by activist Michaelangelo Signorile, who ardently promotes homosexual behavior:
[You should] fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the definition of marriage entirely. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake is to transform the definition of “family” entirely."

Now, here is the research help I need. First, the author misspells Michelangelo Signorile's name, so I am a bit skeptical. Second, when I through the whole quote into a search engine, nothing came up. Then when I cut it up, only right-wing sources came up, nothing from Signorile or the gay media. I'm thinking this is reminiscent of the Andrew Sullivan "Gay Manifesto" fiasco that was taken out of context by many churches and blasted to their members, even though the original meaning was nothing what the churches had changed it to say.

Let me know if anyone can help.


At 5/10/05 9:37 AM, Blogger Brett said...

Hi, Brady. Here's the URL for Signorile's q&a column in New York's Gay City News. Signorile addresses the quote, which originally appeared in OUT magazine, and how it has been taken out of context.

At 6/10/05 4:12 AM, Blogger Willie Hewes said...

I don't see what's so shocking about Signorile's quote anyway, even out of context. I'd like to redefine the meaning of "family"! The definition espoused by "pro-family" groups is far too narrow to work in a modern society.

I think any group of people living together and supporting each other can constitute a family. I don't think the state has any business telling that group of people who should sleep with whom (as long as there's no children involved).

I grew up in a single parent family with four kids, and I now live in a family of three (me, my boyfriend and a friend of ours).

We had to wait 6 months for housing benefit because the system couldn't cope with three young jobseekers living together (this is in the UK).

How stupid is that? I'm sure Mr Alan Sears would like us all to couple up boy x girl and get happy little suburban houses to raise our 2.3 children in, but there's a lot of people who do not choose to organise their lives that way. Not all of them are gay. Welcome to the 21st century Mr Sears!

I would say the "family" as represented in US (and UK) law is long overdue a redefinition.

Bring it on, I say.

At 7/10/05 8:47 AM, Blogger Brady said...

Hi Willie,

I think the problem when people say they want to "redefine" family is that the opposition sees it as an attempt to destroy everything they hold dear.

Lots of people (most I'm sure) like the "traditional family" of a mom and dad, brothers, sisters, etc. So, when people say redefine, many people see that as an attempt to end the family that they grew up with.

They don't see the nuance that family has been redefined already. I.E. single family homes, etc. The right has a good spin working on this idea, and I think we have to be careful not to play into their hand.


Post a Comment

<< Home