>> believe the point about image and social acceptance goes to the heart of the matter. It's about how mainstream America views us. Among ourselves, we must be willing to talk about morals, to impose them on ourselves and to do so conspicuously.>>

LOL...This presumes we don´t have morals. What you really mean is that we need to self-impose the morals of the conservative dominant culture.

>>As long as our primary image is one of gleeful promiscuity, an image promoted not only by our enemies but also reinforced by our own magazines, our own bars, and our own public behavior, we will still be ostracised by society in general. Until we start imposing honesty, fidelity and emotion on our lives, in other words, until we are willing to talk about moral standards, we will make little or no real progress in social acceptance. >>

Did you read my earlier post? This has no basis in history. All people who find themselves ostrascized by the dominant American culture are accused of being immoral or dependent. Women and blacks didn´t make their strides by trying to look nice. Indeed, it was well understood that the effort to placate by a nice image was part of the problem. You are positing something without any regard for historical context and you´re not responding to its citation.

>>I don't believe you can gain social acceptance in Middle America without facing up to the facts. Working towards that aim means bringing out the best in ourselves and offering something admirable to Middle America. >>

Really? Why? I think the idea that homosexuality, buttfucking as identity, is going to be "accepted" anytime soon is very far-fetched. Most of us would settle for equal protection under the law. I don´t understand how it is that so many conservative queers want to, on the one hand, not be identified on the basis of theire sexual behavior...but want, on the other, to be accepted on the basis of some "other" identity. Sorry, Charlie, what makes you queer is what you do with your dick. The dominant culture, at heart, doesn´t give a shit if you´re promiscuous. Its members care about the nature of your desire and they use the argument about promiscuity (contextualized with AIDS usually) as an effective straw-man argument since it doesn´t condemn sexual identity, over which people have little control, but pathologizes it by creating a false symptom.

>>I disagree with Bongo's assertion that image does not provide effective political leverage for gays. Social acceptance by Middle America is a nessasary condition for removing legal barriers. We don't enhance our image by conducting an assault on mainstream American values and institutions.>>

Honestly, that strikes me as funny. Promiscuity is hardly an attack on american values. We have the world´s largest porn industry, the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the world. I could go on. This business about promiscuity is an absurd screen. Gay men need to open their damn eyes and look at who is calling them promiscuous....and then ask themselves why we are so responsive to being called an offense to the dom culture on that basis by members of our own community.

>>If anything, such assaults isolate us from Middle America. We must show the broad middle of America that gays do not monolithically oppose them on a wide range of important economic and social issues. Winning the trust and support of Middle America is foundational to forging a coalition which will bring equality. >>

Yeah right. I think this contention is naive. It operates on the assumption that our image, not our DESIRE, is what alienates us. I´m just sure the folks who elected Dubya are gonna say: "Well, now that we understand you aren´t all into fucking in toilets, just buttfucking privately, we really want to give you a place at the table."

>>Instead, many of our organizations and leaders have repeatedly taken political stands that are calculated to offend middle America. We cannot expect to enlist their support if they see no advantage in standing up for us. Gay equality is very consistent with the traditional values and institutions of middle America. >>

Gee, I thought we ended up offending American whatever our position. Didn´t Dubya refuse to see them nice Log Cabin boys for the longest time? Yet didn´t Clinton open the doors to the White House to quite a motley assortment of queers? Where are your FACTS, man?

>>My comments on argumentum ad hominem are consistent and correct. If your first and only response is to attack the messenger, then we must infer a person has nothing of substance or relevance to rebut it.>>

Your attack on image, those whose morals oppose yours, is fundamentally an ad hominem attack, like Sun´s calling people neo-Marxists.

>>Admittedly, I am a genetic contrarian, so I will continue to say what I think without regard for whoever claims to be mildly offended. >>

And without regard to the responses you receive either, apparently.

>>No, I'm not Sun or anyone else. I did, however, chuckle to myself when Bongo (assuming he is not Jake) substituted his own odd polemic and aptly demonstrated my previous point on argumentum ad hominem. >>

Your ad hominem ad hominem is another straw man. Anytime anyone disagrees with You the Collective in any sharp way you reply with this ad hominem style of your own. It´s knifing with a smile.




[This message has been edited by musclehead2 (edited April 08, 2001).]