Thursday, September 19, 2013

The Ghosts of Causes Celebres Past

Wow. The new Book of Matt by Stephen Jimenez really blows a hole in Gay Inc. Matthew Shepard, it turns out, was not a blond cherub killed for being gay. He was unjustly murdered and the victim of a heinous crime. But he was killed by other men he'd had sex with, and with whom he had a drug-dealing relationship.

People are shocked -- shocked! Shocked!

Here's the thing. As I commented in a past American Thinker article -- "Understanding the Viciousness of the Gay Left" -- the LGBT movement is based on one overarching priority: Public image. For various complex reasons, the leaders of this movement did not consider any problem facing homosexuals as serious as the issue of "stigma," i.e., what straight people thought about gays as a class. Individual gays could be viewed as ugly, too effeminate, or embarrassing for their political views -- which explains why Dan Savage has no problem calling Marcus Bachmann schoolyard insults based on conjecture and fantasy -- but the important thing was always for The Gays as a community to be viewed by Everyone Else as good people.

When you systematically ignore the troublesome dynamics within your own community -- i.e., the domestic violence, cruel social interactions, sexual assaults, eating disorders, drugs, suicide, sexually transmitted diseases, economic inequality, pederasty, etc. -- in favor of just talking about "homophobia" all the time, as if all those serious problems are the projections or plots of gay-hating outsiders, you lose your perspective.

You get comfortable, in fact, with just straight-up lying. It's okay to lie, to smear, to live in a world of make-believe, as long as you are somehow making gay people look good to the world. Individual gays can even be misrepresented or jettisoned (Google my name to see how I as a bisexual have gotten trashed for believing that children have a right to a mom and dad), so long as the ultimate goal of making gays as a class look good is served.

So the causes célèbres of Mathew Shepard and Tyler Clementi stand out as ghosts waiting to rise from the dead and haunt the gay movement. Matthew Shepard wasn't really a case of homophobia; he was a tragic victim of violence at the hands of fellow meth users who were tied to him through homosexual connections. If anything, the two men would have never killed Matthew Shepard had they been homophobic, because they never would have had any social ties to him at all.

We haven't seen the blowback on the Tyler Clementi case either, but just wait -- that's coming soon. The facts there are even more evident that Gay, Inc., misrepresented the facts about this tragic suicide case that took place in 2010. Tyler Clementi was eighteen years old and three weeks into his freshman year at Rutgers when he jumped off a bridge and killed himself. He had recently had sexual congress with a thirty-year-old stranger he met on a gay Internet site. His roommate, who had only known him for less than a month, was apparently annoyed at being shut out of his dorm room for a booty call between Clementi and a creepy thirtysomething man trolling around a university dorm. So the roommate, eighteen-year-old Dharun Ravi, used a webcam and broadcast images of Clementi and the thirty-year-old man having sex.

Clementi's suicide sparked a wave of consciousness-raising that indirectly boosted the same-sex marriage movement, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the campaign "It Gets Better." The goal: To fight homophobia so teenage gay boys wouldn't kill themselves.

Here's the problem: Clementi was the wrong poster boy for a narrative of innocent gay boys being driven to suicide by homophobia. The gay community's own structured sex mores had fostered a sexual adventurism in a young man, who was obviously emotionally vulnerable and not equipped to deal with the effects of fast sex with men much older than himself. Our hearts go out to Clementi and of course any decent person would say that it was wrong to broadcast images of him having sex with the stranger he met on the Internet. But Clementi's own judgment was already lapsing severely, and probably perennially. That is to say, a gay subculture that minimizes the significance of sex and dismisses the larger social commitments that come with sharing one's body with another human--a gay culture that shirks the responsibilities that should come with sex--has conditioned and recruited boys into a world of sexual chaos for which they are not prepared.

That's not a problem of homophobia. That's a problem of gay culture.

For the last three years, the official Clementi narrative of "homophobia causes gay teen to kill himself" has held strong against the obvious counternarrative that anyone can glean from the basic facts of the case. Rather than giving gay adults more opportunities to talk to young men and boys who might be gay, we need to keep youth away from the sexual severity of adult gay culture, which is so far gone that most gay readers do not even seem fazed by the fact that Clementi's sex partner was a thirty-year-old who was happy to enter a freshman dormitory and sodomize a boy who was barely even legal, and whom he didn't know, when it was obvious that a roommate had to be put out of his own living space for the duration of their reckless sex.

But it is only a matter of time.

Clementi and Shepard will haunt the gay movement for decades to come, because they aren't merely isolated cases. Over and over again, the LGBT movement has misdirected energies to breaking down stigma and trying to paint the gay community as something it's not, while ignoring the true, serious problems that the community must contend with.

In the 1970s, the goal was to "de-stigmatize" homosexuality by forcing psychiatrists and then the whole medical profession to declare that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, therefore nothing wrong with men having sex with men, ergo no health risks to the kind of sex men had with men, hence no problem with lots and lots of anonymous anal sex.

Half a decade later, there was an AIDS epidemic. Two decades later, gays had a host of other problems -- depression, personality disorders, eating disorders, anxiety, suicidal ideation, adjustment disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder from sexual abuse or domestic violence -- which were diagnosable abnormalities according to the psychiatric profession. So rather than being diagnosed as "homosexual" and then being given medical help to reconcile their desires with life in a world where the desires pose a risk, they were told that their desires posed no risk, then branded mentally ill for experiencing the logical difficulties that come with engaging uncritically in sex acts that do pose health risks to them.

The latest report from the CDC shows that today, right now, the HIV infection rate among boys aged 13-19 is growing, and 95% of such infections result from anal homosexual sex. The gay movement has made the problem worse by demanding that young boys be exposed to information about homosexuality, which doesn't even fairly inform them of the general health and psychological risks associated with starting homosexual activity so young.

But no matter. The goal wasn't to help gay men stay healthy, live long, or be happy. The goal was for gay men to be presented positively in the press. Stigmas are all that matter.

Saturday, July 6, 2013

A Second Look at "American Beauty" (1999)

Remember Kevin Spacey's instant classic, American Beauty?

The film was fodder for much conversation, and chock full of breakout images. Some people remember the flying plastic bag, the roses, or the pistol in a handbag.

I would like to meditate on the Marine colonel dad, however. His name was Col. Frank Fitts, USMC. Remember him? He was raising his son next door to Kevin Spacey's family. Kevin Spacey played the wisecracking, sardonic Everyman named Lester.

Frank Fitts is a bit of a sadist, a fascist, and a homophobic bigot -- everything Hollywood wanted to associate with the Marines during the Clinton era. This was before the War on Terror and the gay movement's momentum against Don't Ask Don't Tell--two Bush era trends that forced the left to feign interest in the military, so they could capitalize on Iraq vets against the war and gay men who just wanted to serve their country openly.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Denmark: No Empirical Proof of Benefits of Same Sex Marriage

This is taken out of one of Oxford's Journals:  THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY

Marriage, cohabitation and mortality in Denmark: national cohort study of 6.5 million persons followed for up to three decades (1982–2011)

1.        Morten Frisch1,2,* and Jacob Simonsen1
+Author Affiliations
1.        1Statens Serum Institut, Department of Epidemiology Research, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark and 2Center for Sexology Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark
1.        *Corresponding author. Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, 5 Artillerivej, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. E-mail
·         Accepted February 1, 2013.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Laurence Tcheng analyzes the religious hearings on gay marriage

This was sent by Pierre Tardy, thank you:

30/11/12 Laurence Tcheng analyse les auditions... by LaManifPourTous

This was broadcast on November 30, 2012. Laurence Tcheng is one third of the leadership of Manif pour Tous, and president of the Left for Republican Marriage.

Announcer: This afternoon, the leadership charged with representing France's major religions appeared for a hearing about the gay marriage bill. Each was given ten minutes to speak. There was Cardinal André 23 for the Catholics, Claude Boitie of course for the Protestants, Metropoli Josephe for the Orthodox Church, Grand Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, [someone] to represent France's Muslims, the President of the Buddhist Union of France. This was a hearing that was quite heavy in proposals and aggression, with elected officials particularly attuned to the dictates of the Catholic Church. With the interjection of the mobilized Catholics, and with the deputy assigned to interface with religious leaders saying, "I call upon you to make an effort to deal intellectually with all of this." In the face of all this, the religious leaders tried to present calmly some evidence that resistance to gay marriage is not primarily a religious front. There are varying reasons to resist gay marriage for social, cultural, and anthropological reasons. We will listen to some clips.

Cardinal 23 (Catholic): Whatever the legislators consider their agenda to be, partners of the same sex will continue to have no access to procreation unless one of them is bisexual. Therefore the identity of their situation as a marriage will remain forever impossible. Is it fair to lead them to believe that legislation can actually erase their differences? In the end, who will remain disappointed and unsatisfied?

Bernheim (Jewish): I do not oppose equality as long as equality is not forcing a modification in the definition of marriage. Yes, it's the definition of marriage that is going to be changed here. It is not the right of man, woman, or straight or gay couples, that is going to be changed here. We have to consider, what will be the effect of this change to marriage? Is this going to create a mechanical nightmare that later we will be unable to stop?

Announcer: So now, on our soundstage, we have Laurence Tcheng, representative of the leftist opposition to gay marriage, spokeswoman for Manif for All. We also have Louis Daufresne, the director and editor of Radio Notre Dame (a Parisian broadcaster with a Catholic mission). Since you both attended the hearings, I want your opinion. Is the debate that we were promised underway, or is there really no debate at all? Tell us what you think.

Louis: This is not a debate at all. It was merely a questioning. It demurs and puts on a different mask, perhaps. The problem is simple. We need to know, who can criticize this? Who has that right? They pose a question and we have to wonder, okay, who's allowed to criticize gay marriage? So then you see the answer. Debate is impossible here. Someone asks a question and they spit out the answer mechanically instantly. All you can do is ask, who's holding the reigns of this system, it's so mechanical, the questions and answers.

Announcer: Laurence, you claim to represent the left in all this. Is this working? What say you?

Laurence: [...] We do not have the necessary conditions for democratic debate here. For something so important, we call for a general state vote. The call from homosexuals for their concessions is very important to consider, but we must have the right answer for them.

Announcer: Well, you say that there's no debate conditions. But there's a court reporter, the deputy, and time allotted for hearings. What went wrong?

Laurence: Well first, the time allotted was shortened. The hearings were not designed to be impartial and did not accommodate conflicting viewpoints. I provide one example. In the hearing for jurists, there were six jurists who supported the law, and the deputy could not scrounge up two who opposed it. But we know there were 350 who signed a petition.

Announcer: Before what seems the government's desire not to listen to you, would you say that the government is inflexible and won't change its mind at this point?

Laurence: Our determination is just as inflexible. We represent a range: Frigide Barjot, the Catholic, and Xavier Bongibault, the gay founder of "gayer without marriage," and me, the left for a republican marriage law. We rallied 300,000 opponents of the bill -- 200,000 in Paris, and 100,000 in Provence. We presented a public profile that was peaceful, diverse, and united, across faiths, political parties, etc.

Announcer: The deputies in charge of the hearings have dismissed the legitimacy of street protest as a way to give voice. But it is precisely because of the representation for all of France that he belongs to the government. Isn't it on the street that the reflection over this law is supposed to take place?

Louis: Well the deputies are ashamed to admit what they're about to do. I am not afraid to say it. They are going to vote by party, not for their conscience. If they vote their conscience, they will lose their job, their investments, everything that makes up their lifestyle. They are not free to vote as they would. The power of the left over this process has turned into the terror of the inquisition at this point. I am not exaggerating the strength of the adversary here. When you listen to Cardinal 23, even though the left as you say is not united, notice how they won't debate him. Why? They know they will lose.

Announcer: According to polls, the feeling is very strong [at this point, the polls pointed toward approving of the law, but that's changed by now -- ROL].

Louis: But wait. [I am summarizing here--ROL] The polls are tricky. People haven't heard all sides. Once we are able to present a full case to the public, it can change. The sacredness of the church is a powerful force in this question, trust me. Think of how the Catholics can mobilize quickly. I hate to pound the Catholic message but in schools, think: 2.6 million students. We're talking about how the Catholic church can send out a powerful message, very clear, including through schools, to launch the debate.

Announcer: At the same time, both the cardinal and the Grand Rabbi have stressed that this is not a case of religions combatting the National Assembly. There are other forces beyond Catholics to mobilize, right, Laurence?

Laurence: As Louis says, we come across many deputies who will say privately that they do not wish to vote for the bill, but they must vote as a bloc. On such a central matter, that's unacceptable. It's the ideology of power running them, not the courage nor intellectual honesty.

Announcer: Is that why you keep saying that it falls upon street protest to apply pressure? That's why you are inviting everyone to take to the streets?

Laurence: [I'm summarizing--ROL] Yes, our point is that we want Hollande to yank out all these ministers and appointees and listen to the people on January 13, 2013, when we mobilize.