tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15275986.post5730336877759100046..comments2023-10-18T09:23:13.050-05:00Comments on QueerToday.com: continued from discussion belowMark D. Snyderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12508873047127283895noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15275986.post-58262322641466488462007-05-11T22:02:00.000-05:002007-05-11T22:02:00.000-05:00Dean, You have put into words my opinions.Trevor, ...Dean, You have put into words my opinions.<BR/><BR/>Trevor, you might have better luck getting people to follow you to your cause if you explain what it is. As an FYI for you, read this:<BR/><BR/>http://bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7113John Hostyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05152742238759546206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15275986.post-61155779957920864422007-05-11T13:27:00.000-05:002007-05-11T13:27:00.000-05:00Alex,You can call me Dean :) Without challenging ...Alex,<BR/><BR/>You can call me Dean :) <BR/><BR/>Without challenging the assertion that internalized racism is a problem within the GLBT community, I would argue that it is a bit of a distortion to view the homophobia demonstrated by black clergy (and rampant within the African-American community) as a response to racism within the GLBT community. Many white Queers are racist. Many straight African Americans are homophobic. We don’t need to play a chicken and egg game here. They are both serious problems that need to be addressed.<BR/><BR/>I would argue that those among the African-American clergy and laity who are homophobic are so because of deep-rooted patriarchy, which developed in part as a response to racism (but not the racism of Queers, who until recently were largely invisible and did not constitute a recognized community). There are outdated and oppressive notions of gender at work, and they are the real culprit here. I don’t even think religion is to blame. Religious fundamentalism may enforce patriarchy, but part of its appeal is that it speaks to deep-rooted patriarchal strains that exist in our culture that have nothing to do with religion. <BR/><BR/>Our notions of gender—and those that exist within the African-American community—may be nurtured by religion, but their roots are elsewhere, formed in the crucible of America’s socio-economic system, its class struggle, and, more recently, the Cold War. For black Americans, so much of their own construction of gender was born out of forced migration, slavery, marginalization, and the subsequent disruption of the family. <BR/><BR/>I’m much more interested in addressing the quality of “immutability” as a criterion for defining a protected category or class. I understand that this is the way the law views race, but, as I’m sure we’re all aware, there are plenty of “mutables” that are also protected. The most important of these is religion.<BR/><BR/>Religion is clearly a choice and is viewed as such by the law, and yet it is clearly protected and inviolate (at least in theory). I myself (and I am not alone in this opinion) believe that freedom of religion is a much better model for legal protections for GLBT people. I’m also aware of the fact that our emphasis on immutability is a response to the oft heard assertion that sexuality is a choice. The whole “ex-gay” phenomenon and so-called “reparative therapy” require that sexuality be changeable. <BR/><BR/>I understand that for me to say that I think rights and protections for GLBT people are much better understood within the framework of religious freedom, rather than within the framework of race, almost sounds like I’m agreeing with our opponents that sexuality is a matter of choice. That’s not exactly what I’m saying.<BR/><BR/>What I’m saying is that sexuality, like race, is a social construct; it’s an invention. To be clear, I’m not saying that a person chooses to be gay or that same-sex desire (generally speaking) is a new phenomenon. Sexual desire in a variety of forms has been around for a long time. It’s sexuality and sexual identities that are new. I suspect that’s not news to you, Alex.<BR/><BR/>I would go so far as to say that under certain conditions, desire itself is mutable, not necessarily within an individual, but within a given society. It might sound strange (or anathema) to say that at the societal level, desire can be conditioned. Classical Greece is a perfect example of this. It would be wrong to assume that pederasty was practiced only by that 10% (or whatever we think it is today) of the male population who by nature were attracted to the same sex. Pederasty was much more widespread than that, and the reason is that the vast majority of free-born men were conditioned to see boys as sexual objects. In a very real way, their homosexual desire was learned.<BR/><BR/>Why am I saying all this? I’m saying it because I firmly believe that our rights, our protections, and our dignity as GLBT people do not depend upon our same-sex attractions (or in the case of a transgender individual, her/his gender identity) being innate and immutable. So, when the Religious Right asserts that we choose our sexualities as a means of denying us access to legislative protection, I would much prefer that we put forward the argument that whether or not sexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Plenty of choices in America are inviolate. For the Queer community to make this leap, it would require that we stop putting sexuality in the same category as race. <BR/><BR/>So to come full circle, I actually agree that we should not attempt to co-opt the experience and strategies of African Americans or any racial minority, because I don’t feel that this is the best fit for Queers, especially as we continue to think about the (constructed) nature of sexuality. We need to be willing to let go of the idea that our rights and protections require that we (or science) demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that sexuality is biological or genetic or whatever. That’s something the Queer community has been incredibly reluctant to do. We recoil at the very thought. <BR/><BR/>Science may one day be able to demonstrate a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but such findings will always be qualified in nature. In other words, I believe that the safest conclusion is that what causes someone to be Queer varies from person to person. More importantly, we’ve ample of evidence of the Religious Right’s refusal to accept scientific findings with which they disagree. Perhaps our strategies need to stop being so reactionary. We don’t need to link sexuality to race simply because our opponents tell us it’s a choice. Perhaps we can develop a strategy that takes into account the diversity of experience within the Queer community and the complex nature of our sexualit<B>ies</B>.Sandouri Dean Beyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04011264634870571789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15275986.post-36741243949901174062007-05-11T10:32:00.000-05:002007-05-11T10:32:00.000-05:00Sandouri, I 100% agree that race is a social const...Sandouri, I 100% agree that race is a social construction and not an "immutable characteristic." I put it in quotes to draw attention to that fact. Race is considered "immutable" by law, which is in part what makes it a protected category against discrimination. So, when the religious right asserts that we do choose our sexualities, it simultaneously intended to deny us access to legislative protection, and to separate us from other communities by pitting us against each other rather than building radical coalitions. <BR/><BR/>I agree that it's not mostly white clergy who explicitly argue against the connections between marriage equality and black civil rights. However, it is straight white clergy who set the framework for such a division by asserting things like the chosenness of sexuality. <BR/><BR/>Also, I don't think black clergy being defensive when it comes to making that connection is such a terrible thing. When most of the LGBT movement is in fact racist, I think it's perfectly rational and necessary for communities of color to be distrustful of the LGBT movement and making allies out of those who appropriate their past and coopt their politics. If we do want to make allies with communities of color and confront the homophobia within those communities, I think we need to start by confront the racism within the queer community.alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09554730332610167851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15275986.post-8918853448948742482007-05-10T23:44:00.000-05:002007-05-10T23:44:00.000-05:00Hi Alex,Two things:1) I would argue that race is n...Hi Alex,<BR/>Two things:<BR/><BR/>1) I would argue that race is not an “immutable characteristic,” but rather a social construct.<BR/><BR/>2) Your point that white clergy “hold the lion’s share of religious power that is being used for heterosexist purposes” is an important one. However, I disagree with the assertion that white clergy are as aggressive as black clergy have been in challenging the connection between GLBT equality (and marriage equality) and the civil rights movement and the struggle against racism. <BR/><BR/>This is simply not true. The idea that Queers have erroneously co-opted the language of the civil rights struggle and civil rights icons like MLK does not form a significant part of the rhetoric of conservative white clergy. I’m not saying that they’ve never made that argument. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t form a central part of their opposition to marriage equality, whereas conservative black clergy have been extremely critical of any attempt on the part of Queer activists to identify with the civil rights movement. I think it’s an important distinction.Sandouri Dean Beyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04011264634870571789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15275986.post-8472944370185720232007-05-10T23:31:00.000-05:002007-05-10T23:31:00.000-05:00With that said....I hope to see you all at the Sta...With that said....<BR/>I hope to see you all at the State House on May 15th to lobby in support of HB 1722.Trevor Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14488644272003433666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15275986.post-86465994004286273512007-05-10T22:12:00.000-05:002007-05-10T22:12:00.000-05:00Tom is right. Let's put aside our protests over th...Tom is right. Let's put aside our protests over the words we use, and let's start looking at our mutual need. <BR/><BR/>Some people think gay marriage is not where we should be spending our time. I disagree, so if there is something more important happening on June 14, please step forward and tell me what that is. If not, let's all work on this together. I will be more than happy to help support another worthy cause, so don't think I am one minded. <BR/><BR/>United We Stand.John Hostyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05152742238759546206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15275986.post-31337734127077473212007-05-10T13:45:00.000-05:002007-05-10T13:45:00.000-05:00Thanks for your insight Alex! I think may of us in...Thanks for your insight Alex! <BR/><BR/>I think may of us in the queer community (certainly myself included!!) are quick to judge and snap at each other and that cuts off any chance for healthy compassionate dialogue, education, and connecting with each other. Let's try to keep that in mind. I know it's hard.Mark D. Snyderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12508873047127283895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15275986.post-48223490065021836422007-05-10T13:42:00.000-05:002007-05-10T13:42:00.000-05:00As John Hosty suggests, if we don't unify and orga...As John Hosty suggests, if we don't unify and organize we are dead.<BR/><BR/>At first, I thought that it was just MEQ and the MGLPC that didn't see the value of each and every member of our community. That is was just MEQ and the MGLPC that didn't realize the importance of education, empowerment, unification, and strengthening of the LGBT community. But it seems many others aren't seeing this either.Tom Langhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13961857187912372894noreply@blogger.com