Reply #226: Perhaps an adjustment for the times is due, [View All]

[Bluenorthwest]

in terms of your choice of words. I am sure you are a strong allie. I am also sure you put great value on language and words. I also think you realize that context changes the meanings of words, and that you are committed enough to the good fight to consider delving into some nuances and terms of art of which you are not fully aware.

Humbley I offer that there is a large and important difference between describing this prejudice as 'anti-homosexuality' and as bigotry against GLBT people. It is a difference the bigots themselves use as part of their arsenal of attack modes. The very reason they chose such tactics is that to many people the meaning is invisible. But they characterize themselves as hating 'homosexuality' but not hating 'homosexuals' and they do so for obvious reasons, obvious to both me and to them at least. I was raised among these people, I am a native speaker. A world of sorrow can exist in the choice of one word over another, or a world of liberation.

Now I will say that yes, I am being hyper sensitive in taking you to task instead of giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it is not without cause and it is not my actions that call for such picking of nits. I hope I can say this without any faults on my part, but here goes. Senator Obama has as part of his vision something that could be wonderful, if done with care, or if done poorly could be the end of many hopes and dreams. He among all Democrats has brought the anti-gay people into the discourse, and he claims good intentions, and I am still unsure of those intentions. His idea of 'a place at the table' for the Fundy haters is risky, and yet I think he might be able to do such a thing. He, and we, will fail if we are not fully aware of the language and underpinning philospy coming from the side I call the oppostion. If such bridge building is to occur, it must be done with care, and awareness, or it is foolhardy to even try. So I want those who don't agree with the bigots to learn how to make that disagrement clear, not to me but to the bigots. Our side needs to have terms understood in common, and also need to understand the terms the bigots have in common.

Pulling the anti-gay Funies into our Party without proper preperation is like going into Iraq with no plan. It is a huge and bold undertaking, and those who are proposing it need to show they have the skills to pull it off. Learn the lingo of the Evangelicals, and avoid much confusion, don't bother and the Fundies will win. And it is not just homosexuality they are against, it is also homosexuals. See? The are also against choice, sex education, hiv awareness, the teaching of science. They have been opposed by our side for many good reasons. Invite them in without learning the language and all of those issues are put at risk.

Those who come from non Fundy Christianist cultures will not be atuned to this verbiage, but that does not mean it is not there. It does not mean they have to remain unaware of the language to the point they begin to speak in the very terms that are used to bind. If you are going to play with fire for political advantage, at least take the care to learn about the nature of fire.

Bigots hate GLBT people, directly. It is not that they simply don't approve of a form of sexuality. They discriminate against individual Americans in housing and employment, in many places with the full backing of the law. The law made of words. Specific words with specific meanings.

The Fundies used to be only on the GOP side, and much assumption of alliance could be made. Now some have welcomed them to our table. And that means we can not afford to be unaware of the wolves among us. Please consider that some relearning may be needed for those who do not really know the Evangelical world, if we are expected to include them without doing harm to our own. Including them was not my idea at all, it was Obama's. But if it must be done, it must be done with exacting language.

So at least know that a difference is heard by many on both sides of this discussion between being 'anti-homosexuaity' and being 'bigoted against gay people'. They describe that difference as 'loving the sinner, hating the sin'. See how that works? Standing with the evangelicals to grab some votes does put one on the watch list. Speaking in terms of art prefered by the evangelicals will add to that suspicion. Knowing the terms in the first place can help. Doing something difficult is as Bush says, hard work. It may mean we need to speak with care in ways we have not even known about before. You are not an evangelical, and I am sure you don't wish to sound like one when speaking to or about gay and trans people. This former evangelical gay man is hipping you to some poetical power ploys used by the nuts newly invited to our table, by your candidate.

I'm sorry I was so harsh at first. The stakes are very much higher than the average non GLBT person realizes and the time for pussyfooting is well past. The laws made under Obama, with the Fundies along I guess, will determine much of my financial life and my legacy to my family when I die, they will determine if we will have legal equlity or not. Stepping on toes is not something I am much worried about, admittedly. I should think before I speak. In fact Nance, I am begining to think that speaking to the Democratic Party as defined by Obama may be a flat out waste of time. I feel we have already been thrown under the bus. Goldwater warned the GOP about going religious, and he was right, but hey, maybe it will be a tonic for our Party.

"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standing never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas, and bear the consequences." -- Susan B. Anthony