A new challenge to the lgbt community - analyze the war against lgbts
I've noticed that in the Obama/Warren controversy, folks have been making comparisons between inviting Rick Warren and inviting a known racist like David Duke:
You wouldn't give David Duke a prominent place at the inaguration. Also if Warren maligned any other group like he maligned gays, we wouldn't be having this conversation about "having a dialogue."
Those who press this argument do have a point. But the devil is in the details.
People are throwing around the word "homophobic" to describe Warren but what they don't understand is that the word "homophobic" does not have the same power as the words "Anti-Semite" or "racist."
With the words "racist" and "Anti-Semite" comes the history of lynchings, cross burnings, the Holocaust and various other acts of violence.
But before you point out the case of Lawrence King, Matthew Shepard, and others who have suffered homophobic violence, remember one thing.
The racists and the Anti-Semites don't have people like Tony Perkins or James Dobson invited on news programs to give their positions.
And not matter how ugly anti-gay violence is, people like Perkins and Dobson are able to distance themselves from these acts. With a calm visage and a smiling face, they are able to bat down the word "homophobic" as a term that gays use to bash Christians.
This speaks as to how insidious the war against lgbts actually is. For the most part, the weapons are not sticks, knives, and guns, but carefully worded rhetoric and soundbites that have been practiced consistently in meeting rooms until they have the semblance of sounding unthreatening.
So the question is how do we combat this without looking like raging dogs.
8 comments:
I tend to stick with "bigot". Short, to the point, packs an emotional wallop.
But see that is a problem - the word is generic and can be easily batted down. Is it impossible for us to expand the conversation?
As it is now we say "bigot" and the other side says "they only say that because they are intolerant of our point of view."
There needs to be more detail coming from us. It's not about "is the other side bigoted" but "what have they done to deserve the designation."
I just saw some video with Rick Warren. He was laughing off the charge that he was homophobic, saying that his church members served water and donuts to protesters outside his church after the success of Prop 8. How do you combat their carefully staged, rehearsed rhetoric and soundbites? I can only say that we just need to keep telling our own personal stories to our family, friends and those that will listen.
AND, if I may add, be more aggressive with making them answer as to why they rely on discredited studies and distorted legitimate work. Why are people like Tony Perkin never asked, "why do you rely on the studies of people like Paul Cameron and George Rekers?" or "why have there been complaints by researchers that you distort their work."
Calling people names and not backing it up with facts does nothing for our side.
Alvin, some just rely on The Bible and have a sense of arrogance that they aren't GLBT ......... and, why should they care.
I have more faith in some people and really do believe if we point certain facts out to them, they will begin to question those who are supposed to be their leaders.
And even if we don't, the facts need to be brought out in the open for the sake of perpetuity.
I am dismayed that so many GLBT children of God think that Christianity is their primary enemy. It isn't. It is those that hide behind it and find comfort in their misconception of what it is like to be GLBT.
I have to agree with you there. I hate to read people on lgbt sites and blogs downgrade Christianity and religion in general because of second hand information.
God never told them that He hates them for being gay or that being gay is wrong. A third party (i.e. the religious right) jumps in with the comments and some of us follow after that mess.
My relationship with God led me to understand and love my lgbt orientation.
Post a Comment