Posted by Penis:
"Well jake you did exactly as I expected: personal attacks & name calling.Logic & reason are not in your vocabulary! Black folk are 95% liberal democrats. Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, naacp, etc. seem to speak for you and represent your ideas.It almost seems as if every black thinks the same way."

Again, I would like you to point out where this alleged nasty name calling you accuse me of is evident in my post, Penis. I disagree STRONGLY with your values as expressed in your comments about Black people and Gays conforming to heterosexist "norms." I am entitled to disagree with you just as Black people and others who cherish diversity have a right to react with anger to your insulting remarks. Perhaps, you are not used to people that you have no time for (like African-Americans, liberals, women, or radical left-wing Gays) speaking back to you. Maybe you would prefer that we remain quietly in our place and do as we were told by guys like you? Your pretense to claims that you are about freedom of speech without personal attacks is laughable. You attack Black people by claiming that you feel they have to get used to not belonging in certain areas, and then you have the nerve to accuse others (like me) of attacking you. Your denial and hypocrisy speak for themselves. Nothing that I could say could implicate you for your nonsensical sense of White superiority and denial about your own Gay identity any worse than your own posts.

Posted by Penis:
"My question to you: Would you allow professior shockley or jensen's theory to be heard, objectively and rationally discussed???? No booing, jeering, heckling, disruptions, etc. Verite means the truth- are you afraid of it??The nation has every right to hear what these scientists had to say.You must learn to attack the message not the messenger!!"

Yes. I welcome people to express their views freely. I think that it is important for all of us to be reminded of just exactlty what is out there. Your values clearly indicate that many of our worst enemies are members of our own gay community (like yourself) who alienate non-White cultural groups. Your comments dismiss the validity of the oppressiveness that many non-White people experience in America. YOU have clearly made comments which attack the integrity of liberal thinkers and non-White cultures. YOU must learn that when YOU attack others, it is not inappropriate for them to react strongly and defend themselves.

There are many Gays who are proud of diversity and cherish the experience of other cultural groups. You are clearly not one of them.

You are also not the type of Gay man who has historically made any difference for Gays in America. It is ironic that it was dark-skinned drag queens who inititated the Stonewall riots so that conservative Guppies like you could have the freedom to speak out. It is precisely the people who you dismiss who made your current freedom to speak out possible, Penis. You would not have this forum or many of the other freedoms that you currently take for granted if it was not for them.

Somehow, the significance of this fact and the reality of Gay history seems to escape you and your other Gay pals who staunchly defend conservative, White, heterosexual values as acceptable norms.

Shockley? LOL...Tell ém who financed Shockley´s study, Penisman. And don´t forget: Sun is African American (and a Libertarian parrot).

Whatta loony bin.

Someday some Sociologist will uncover the signicance of how a website supposedly DEVOTED to Gay cruising and the pursuit of sex (including PUBLIC sex) attracted so many die-hard conservatives on the message boards. LOL!

They say that like attracts like in relationships. So, the question to ponder is what there is about the message boards at CFS that attracts the type who protest sexual fredom and liberal values. It is not a stretch to assume that a site that promotes itself by supporting Gay sex and Gay public sex would attract a lot of Gay people who support these values. Yet, many of the comments on the message boards contradict this assumption.

The next question is whether or not the select few who visit the message boards at CFS truly represent "the voice" of the Gay community at large -- or are they simply a few guys looking for a way to sound off about the world according to them?

The internet breeds strange bedfellows. I do not doubt that some people who post on these boards are genuine about their views. I also have no doubt in my mind that there are probably some posers who simply post in order to provoke and instigate others for the sake of flaming. Some are genuinely educated and politically informed. Others are giving themselves false titles and making false claims in order to promote themselves and their agendas. This happens on the net everywhere. There is no avoiding it. There is also no use getting overly upset over it.

But, the conservative posts here are striking considering what CFS proports to support and promote. That does say something significant. Someday someone will uncover what the contradictions indicate.

I just love it when these hysterical Neo-Marxists get angry and throw a fit. They immediately launch an adhominem attack when somebody lights a fire under their condescending, pompous arses. What is particularly sad about these Neo-Marxists and their outdated revolutionary vision of the world is they have truly marginalized themselves by their socialist rhetoric. What is particularly troubling to these Neo-Marxists (read: Kindergarten Bosheviks) is most gays already are a part of the mainstream in America.

Most gays and lesbians do not view themselves as outside the mainsteam. To the contrary, we are very much a part of mainstream America. Our principled position and focus has never changed. We seek an end to state (government) discrimination and gays are entitled to the same rights in law as straights. The principle here is Civil Equality -- not Gay Rights which are neither human rights nor civil rights.

What the extreme Left has attempted to do is shift the focus from demanding equal rights to special rights -- for Gays only. The Gay Left has sought Anti-Discrimination Laws on the misguided assumption these laws would protect Gays as a special class of people. Quite the contracy. Anti-discrimination laws would threaten civil liberties, society in general, and gays.

Gays and Lesbians are a permanent minority in America and always will be a permanent minority. We have long recognized that discrimination against people simply because of their sexual orientation exists and is morally wrong. But we also recognize that it is not the role of law itself to correct every wrong in our society. We also know that with enough money, it is far easier to cajole and change the minds of lawmakers than it is to change the attitudes of millions of voters. Law is not, and has not been, the solution to sex and racial discrimination and will not be for sexual orientation.

I recognize that many gays on the left get frustrated when you don't share their narrow viewpoint of the world. It's best to keep our squabbles in perspective. As a Gay Conservative, I know the Left thinks we're overbearing or self-righteous. But, at least we're not demanding the state lock up Gays under the rubic of a sodomy law. Just remember the line from an old movie: they may be rancid butter, but they're on our side of the bread.

It's understandable why some on the Left have animosity towards Gay Conservatives. The only people they've ever known as "conservatives" told them they were immoral, unnatural, or worse. This does not, however, excuse the Left for its own lack of understanding of our conservative approach to achieving equal rights under the law. If anything, it underscores our obligation to educate and fill in the large gaps in their understanding of our principled position in achieving the goal -- Civil Equality under the law.

Posted by Sun:
"But we also recognize that it is not the role of law itself to correct every wrong in our society. We also know that with enough money, it is far easier to cajole and change the minds of lawmakers than it is to change the attitudes of millions of voters. Law is not, and has not been, the solution to sex and racial discrimination and will not be for sexual orientation."

Your solution appears to be that "with enough money" Gays will be able to change things more effectively than through the social grass-roots movements that enacted change in the past. Money is not the cure-all, Sun. But, your argument gets to the core of your thinking and those who think like you.

You have bought into the belief that you can BUY your way into the American mainstream. You don't think that those who have the money and the power are not wise to this "bargainig" rationale? Of course they are, Sun! When you make a financial "deal" with the White heterosexual Big Boys who control corporate America, it is never at a greater cost to them. They are not the fool that you are when it comes to bargaining. You may gain some financial profit -- at the cost of an openly Gay identity and as long as you play by THEIR rules. But, bet your sell-out ass that they will NEVER allow you, or any other suspected Gay man, of making MORE than them or taking their place at the royal throne, Sun.

Historically, your way has not been proven effective. It was SOCIAL activism and grass-roots movements that brought about DRAMATIC changes for Gays, African-Americans, and women in America during the turbulent 60's, 70's, and early 80's. Your approach also excludes those who may be blocked out of the financially privileged fold by things like - OH - discrimination, harassment, and higher-paying jobs. Or do those hings exist or get acknowledged in your get-rich-quick scheme for a better world for Gays?

Sun, your games and political posturing have really worn thin. In previous posts you adamently claimed that you did not defend "conservative" values. Yet, here you are contradicting yourself - AGAIN - by coming out as a bona fide, self-professed conservative.

Proof? Allow me to refresh your convenient memory;

SunDogg
Cruiser posted March 05, 2001 01:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun strongly disagrees he defends conservative values.
---------------------------------------------
Now, compare that post to this statement by Sun:
SunDogg
Cruiser posted April 05, 2001 11:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every time I read one of Jake2001's thinly disguised Neo-Marxist renderings, I hear a faint tune in the background that sounds vaguely familiar like the Internationale of a bygone era. What next Jake2001? Storming the Winter Palace in Saint Petersberg (Florida)?
We Gay Capitalists (read: Conservatives) eschew Leftist dogma that proclaims "revolution" in the pursuit of gay rights.
---------------------------------------------
Any other confessions or contradictions while you are coming clean, Mister?




[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 06, 2001).]

Jake2001. I think Sundog is deliberately fucking with your mind. He has baited you several times and you have responded very predictably. He certainly has put you on the defensive based on the tone of your responses. But, that is what happens when you let someone get inside your head.

I do have some practical advice I'd like to offer. Argumentum ad hominem is pointless. There is no doubt you both have firm convictions based on political ideology and principle. This is abundantly clear in both of your postings. It is commonplace in this age of special-interest groups and bitter partisanship to personally attack a person rather than deal with the issue that was raised. On that point alone, I would strongly suggest there should be no topic that cannot be discussed and debated publicly and in full without being subjected to attempted intimidation by character assassination.

In truth, there is no reason why any topic, however contentious, cannot be discussed in a civil manner. It is my belief that whenever people reveal themselves to be uninterested in discussing a topic, they should be ignored. They are following the totalitarian model where one's opponents are not bested in arguments but shouted down, intimidated and, in the end, coerced into silence.

I think you will agree that disagreement is an artform in healthy debate on issues. Argumentum ad hominem is not a suitable substitute for defending anyone's point of view.

I think both you and Sundog need to turn down the rhetoric and stick to the topic.

Posted by Mercury:
"Jake2001. I think Sundog is deliberately fucking with your mind."

No doubt this is probably true. It probably has been true throughout most of these threads.

If you read my responses I think that you will see that I consistently try to affirm WHY I disagree with the POLITICAL stance that Sun and those who share his agenda support.

Some agree. Some do not. But, this IS all part of the point of the discussion. Such posts are completely relevant to any thread discussing Gay politics.

I agree with your point about Sun baiting me and others.

I also think that I understand what you are trying to say about keeping the discussion polite. Well, I see your point to a certain extent. But, politeness did not win wars and politeness was not what Stonewall was all about when the drag queens confronted their oppressors. Sometimes, a little aggression and confrontation is a healthy thing. Personally, I think it is what is lacking in the Gay community today -- which explains why we are being pushed back into the closet again.

Frankly, I am surprised that someone even had to ask a question like, "Are all Right-Wingers homophobic?" Any Gay person should realize at this point in time that, historically, the political RIGHT has consistently supported agendas that encourage financial benefits while ignoring SOCIAL issues. The fact that so many Gays are willing to overlook the SOCIAL aspects of being an oppressed culture because they are blinded by potential financial rewards reflects a return to homophobic standards. Homophobia is a SOCIAL disease. You don't get rid of it with money.

I cannot get anymore direct than that, Mercury.

Posted by Mercury:
"I think both you and Sundog need to turn down the rhetoric and stick to the topic."

In all fairness, your ENTIRE post was about nothing but your feelings about the way you perceive Sun and I in our responses to each other. NOTHING in your post addressed the political aspects being discussed. Is THAT keeping on the topic? I get what you think about Sun and the way that you perceive me responding to him. But, what do YOU think about the topic being discussed?

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 06, 2001).]

Generally speaking, I would probably say that the most organized threat to our civil rights, although not the only threat, comes from the religious right. The religious right is what I call the Moralists because they are anti-gay. These same Moralists also emphasize cultural issues and social issues over economic concerns too.

Specifically, I would not agree that all Republicans must be homophobic just because the religious right or moralists constitute a small segment of that party.

Sad to say, the gay civil rights movement has always been seen as being on the political left, as one more whining special interest group claiming entitlement to all sorts of special treatment from the government. Or we have been seen as having a simply grand old time cavorting at Gay Pride parades and throwing condoms at Catholic services. Whether as crybabies or as Dionysian celebrants, we always appear as outsiders or misfits. I cringe at both images. Most gay men and women do not go around demanding government favors or living a hedonistic "gay lifestyle" which is code for irresponsibility. But just enough of us act out these images, or tolerate them, that they become real in the public mind. I think Middle America feels uncomfortable about this, at the very least. Our right-wing homophobes love it, because it gives them someone to hate and someone to use as a foil for attracting mainstream support to their own causes. In this respect, by accepting, and in some cases cultivating, these negative images of the gay lifestyle, we lose friends and help our enemies.

One last word on the religious right. I don't hate Jesse Helms, Pat Robertson and their allies. Let's leave the hating to them. They will eventually destroy themselves, as Joe McCarthy and other haters did.

I wish I could drop out, go to graduate school and hang out in the Student Union. I would drink coffee and debate issues like whether sexual dissidents are the only real radicals still around. Or whether bourgeois homosexuals exemplify the repressive tolerance that Marcuse wrote about in the 1960's What lively arguments we would have in the mid-afternoon. But alas, my student years are over.

These days I go with what works for me, whether it's intellectually defensible or not. Among my discoveries is that I don't worry about being manly. I was never manly, and now it doesn't bother me. I'm also admitting that not much of an American either. People talk about "our" plane going down over China, and I don't give a rat's ass about it!

It does concern me that I am more likely to be locked up as a criminal when the Republicans are in power than when the Democrats are. That's why I support the Democrats. I am not scandalized that Democrats are politicians. If I was that upset about purity I'd go to grad school!

Mercury and Dwight;

Thank you for those respnses. I will offer my own thoughts later. But, I appreciate what you both had to say about the issues.

>>Sad to say, the gay civil rights movement has always been seen as being on the political left, as one more whining special interest group claiming entitlement to all sorts of special treatment from the government. Or we have been seen as having a simply grand old time cavorting at Gay Pride parades and throwing condoms at Catholic services. Whether as crybabies or as Dionysian celebrants, we always appear as outsiders or misfits. I cringe at both images.>>

What´s the point here? The identical criticism was made of black people during the civil rights movement and of women during their struggle shortly thereafter. Both extremes have their place. We have legitimate grievances and, as sexual rebels because of the nature of our desire (whether inherent or culturally perspectivized), we are comparatively Dionysian.

HOw is it that people forget that "women´s libbers" were called whores or whiners, that black people were called immoral or reparations-seeking welfare scum? This just comes with challenging the dominant culture. You don´t avoid it by trying to clean up your image.

>>Most gay men and women do not go around demanding government favors or living a hedonistic "gay lifestyle" which is code for irresponsibility. But just enough of us act out these images, or tolerate them, that they become real in the public mind. I think Middle America feels uncomfortable about this, at the very least. Our right-wing homophobes love it, because it gives them someone to hate and someone to use as a foil for attracting mainstream support to their own causes. In this respect, by accepting, and in some cases cultivating, these negative images of the gay lifestyle, we lose friends and help our enemies. >>

This is an After the Ball-Place at the Table argument. It assumes that image will effectively leverage us politically. It strikes me as almost amazingly naive that gay people still subscribe to this argument at this time in history. I suspect that in 30 years people will look back at the claim that gay people are immoral sexual lunatics with the same emabarassment we look at the way Gloria Steinem was called a ¨"man-hating lesbian whore."

I have to say, Mercury (assuming YOU aren´t also Sun), that I find your taking Jake to task for ad hominem argumentation a bit odd in view of your fundamentally image-preoccupied polemic.

Oh....We know quite well that Sun, the pinko-baiter, has no cohesive content, only a predictable structural role as provocateur. (The man even claimed to be black one day.) The only way to deal with that kind of oscillation is to respond as you do to a polemical cartoon, the Toon´s Guide to Ayn Rand, if you will.

[This message has been edited by bongo (edited April 07, 2001).]

I 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Okay. This is my response.

First, you assume correctly, Mercury. I am not bongo. The Sun issue about multiple identities? I don't really care anymore. I doubt that anyone else does either. Whether it is a case of multiple identities or a genuine collective group of separate individuals, I do not share the values that they support and encourage.

Poltically, I find the "mainstream" argument archaic. It reminds me of the breed of ANTI-women's libbers who claimed that if women had just stayed in the kitchen instead of joining the work force, we wouldn't have so many divorces or children with problems. First, economically most families cannot afford to have one person working while the other stays at home anymore. Children are smarter and more aware than previous generations that simply did as they were told. They question authority, and they have seen that many authority figures are not what they are cracked up to be. Many teenagers have to start working (even in middle-class homes) while they are still in high school. Many of the problems experienced in straight families have NOTHING to do with breaking with the traditional mainstream roles that were believed to work so well for Americans. The problems are often about economics and a lack of effective attunement to the real needs of the individuals involved. Preaching traditional values to people in these situations doesn't address the conflicts inherent in people who feel stifled and trapped due to economic pressures and middle-class role expectations.

The same principles apply to the Gay community today. Trying to tell Gays to put on a smiley "STRAIGHT MASK" in order to win friends and influence people implies a class system of acceptable behavior. Gay is bad. Straight is good. If you want to be with the "IN" crowd, act and dress like them. Don't make waves. Be glad to be part of the clique instead of the scapegoat everyone picks on in the schoolyard. This argument is the same rationale that THIRD-GRADERS use in order to fit in at the elementary school level. Is that where we are at these days in Gay culture? Has a return to "peer pressure" rationalizations taken over adult individuality and diversity?

Under all the smiles and "play nice" talk, there is a very nasty tone to your arguments, Mercury. Each line of your arguments dismisses Gays who don't play by the IN-groups' rules. What about Gays who don't like suburbia or monogamy or any of the other list of qualifications that you mention in order to make the grade with mainstream heterosexual American? Are they just discards now? Funny. Those "discards" that you suggest give us such a bad rep are the very folks that broke down barriers so that uptight queers like you could have a place like this to speak out.

I don't buy the "civil" crap you are throwing out in the name of intelligent discussions. Ditto for the polite bit about Gays learning to be good little boys just like their Straight buds. There is a very nasty undercurrent to the "love" that you claim to be sending. It dismisses and insults a lot of people who don't "blend" the way that you think they should.

By the way, I consider any comparisons to bongo a compliment. That goes for Swallow as well. Those are at least TWO guys who post at CFS with a political bite that I value.

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 07, 2001).]

You are correct Mercury. I do bait Jake2001. It puts him on the defensive. All you need to do is take a position that doesn't "conform" to his radical viewpoint. His adhominem attacks, frustration and anger speak for themselves.

Like all movements for social change, the gay and lesbian struggle for equality has spawned radical offshoots. Sometimes these radicals supply energy and verve as we saw with the early incarnation of ACT UP. But, sadly, these radicals fall prey to a nihilistic impulse and a counterproductive collectivistic ideology.

To be certain, these radicals are getting attention in the various media. They are getting lots of negative attention. The anti-gay activists on the far right are using the radical's own rhetoric to buttress anti-gay arguments that homosexuals are out to subvert the moral order. The radicals in the gay rights movement have made it a very easy and clear choice for mainstream America to make.

It isn't just the far right who are using the radical's leftist rhetoric against gays. Last year, the New York Times specifically focused on the radical group Sex Panic. The New York Times told America how Sex Panic bemoans the backlash against the sexual practices of homosexuals. The New York Times quoted Sex Panic who argued that "anonymous sex with multiple partners" and "having as much sex as possible, as publicly possible" is the cornerstone of gay liberation. The New York Times also noted that the debate occurs against a backdrop of evidence that homosexuals are returning to what they called 'bareback sex', a practice that's been defended by some Sex Panic activists. If the anti-gay right and not the Liberal Times newspaper were promoting this image of gay life, our media watchdogs would be up in arms.

When radicals, like Sex Panic, presume to speak for the entire Gay civil rights movement, it should not surprise anyone (including radical pinko leftists) why mainstream America rejects us outright. It is also for this reason why it is important for Moderates and Independents to counter the radical image of the extreme left.

So, what do we make of a group of radicals that is in open revolt over efforts to gain acceptance by mainstream America?

It is mainstream America's attitudes, not the far right's, that we must change toward us. When radicals within the gay movement are in open revolt against mainstream America, I can guarantee you that acceptance of gays into general society will not be the choice of mainstream America. And make no mistake about it; Gays will never gain acceptance into society by revolting against and attacking mainstream America.

Back to you ... Jake2001 or Bongo, whatever.



[This message has been edited by SunDogg (edited April 07, 2001).]

You miss the point, Sun.

I do not want acceptance from "mainstream" America. You and others like you are more than welcome to march in that direction. It is not my desire, and it has never been one of my aims. I am not seeking approval from heterosexuals anymore than I would expect African-Americans to seek acceptance from the KKK in an attempt to get the cross-burners to start treating them nicely.

You fail to see that the "radical" examples of Gay "leftist" behavior are no different than the racist "examples" of Blacks and the sexist "examples" of women that were used not too long ago. The "militant" members of those cultures were used to implicate them of going against the grain of American acceptability. Now, the same thing is being done to homosexuals.

Check your history and come to your own conclusions.

Posted by Sun:
"You are correct Mercury. I do bait Jake2001. It puts him on the defensive. All you need to do is take a position that doesn't 'conform' to his radical viewpoint. His adhominem attacks, frustration and anger speak for themselves."

And your smugness speaks volumes about your lack of ability to understand anyone who doesn't "conform."

Sun, you don't get under my skin to the degree that you might like to believe. You are annoying -- childishly so -- because I know that you are simply playing games and lack genuineness in your postings.

'Nuff said?

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 07, 2001).]