"The Gay 90's"
Response By Punkerslut,
Date: August 23, 2010
There is an interesting article published by Leadership U, titled "The Gay '90's: A Response to the Gay Activist Movement," which was available in Critical Issues, Volume 1, Issue 3. There is one particular statement that stands out: "If everyone seriously participating in the debate on homosexuals and society agrees that gays should be vouchsafed all their basic rights, then why does the debate continue?" Apparently, this was followed with the suggestion that gays do not have a right to serve in the military or to be treated equally by employers: "There seems to be some larger fear that lurks just beyond our ability to define it--a sense that we may be about to release some deadly cultural genie." Equality and the right to live without discrimination or freely.
Why is it that gays advocate for gay rights, "when everyone already accepts their gay rights"? You seem to have a very interesting theory here: "The answer, briefly, is that many observers are beginning to realize that the goals of the 'gay rights' movement go far beyond securing basic rights." You describe earlier liberation movements as "the 60's had ushered in real emancipation for blacks, and later fueled the rise of women." These were movements for equal treatment in all spheres of life, social, political, intellectual, economic, cultural, and religious.
As you can see, when you do not want equal rights for homosexuals, such as the right to live without discrimination, then you're not advocating for their basic rights at all. You're advocating against them. Equality means being treated equal, hence, the word equal is in equality. Can you please explain what is equal about unequal treatment of society's participants based on personal tastes that don't affect anyone? It seems, in fact, to be the very definition of inequality to say that one set of rules applies to gays, so that they are marginalized and oppressed, and another set applies to heterosexuals.
"...everyone seriously participating in the debate on homosexuals and society agrees that gays should be vouchsafed all their basic rights...." This is an interesting statement, and it's based on the obscure and unheard-of writings of Roger Magnuson and Tony Marco. These people, whose names bring back less than a total of 1,000 google search results, are apparently the absolute basis of the world opinion regarding Homosexuality. Oh, and there's a quote in there by Thomas Aquinas, how the law is not supposed to repress vice. Nothing about Homosexuality, at all, just "vice." Therefore, after this very basic research, you can make the bold claim, "everyone seriously participating in the debate on homosexuals and society agrees that gays should be vouchsafed all their basic rights."
The African-American Civil Rights movement fought for the right for anyone to marry anyone else, regardless of race. And it wasn't until this right was realized that anything resembling true civil rights could ever exist. But gays today are prohibited from the most basic rights of even having partners, let alone having a spouse. And yet, you seem to think everyone agrees that "gays should be vouchesafed all their basic rights." Basic rights, apparently, does not mean the right to be who you are without being threatened by the law with imprisonment.
Until 2003, the majority of Southern states were actively arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning anyone who may or may be suspected to be gay. It required a Supreme Court Ruling (Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) in order to change this. This article of yours, undated, appears to be have been written sometime around 1993 -- that is, at least a decade before gays were allowed legally to speak their minds without being arrested. And yet, some brilliant, genius, probably imbued with the direct passion of Christ, calls this "basic rights." Yes, basic rights to three hot meals and a six-by-six-ten cell.
Thank you. I patiently await a response...
Date: August 23, 2010
Thanks for your email.
I appreciate your critique of the article.
Normally I refer messages like yours to the author. Since I cannot do that, I am going to take the step of removing it from LeaderU.
I think if we placed an article like this on LU today, the tone would be quite different. I know we would require the author to identify themselves. We would also know how to contact them.
So, the link is now no longer available, though that was not my intention: http
However, if anyone is dying to see the original, grab it here: http://w
Google Directory still links to the original, broken link as one of the priemere websites for its Anti-Gay link directory: http: