Sunday, February 07, 2010

Why All Homosexuals Are Loosely Moraled Pediphiles Who Don't Deserve Equality

I draw your attention to the picture I have chosen for this article, one of the character Dr. Smith in the 1960's series "Lost in Space" who was portrayed as a cowardly villain overtly, and subliminally as a homosexual. The two independent ideas seemed to be intermingled by society and fueled by both religion and media. This character and image is part of a misconception that needs to be addressed, and one that even in our time today is hard to shake off.

Last week's post here on Live, Love, and Learn elicited an anonymous responder who left no comment of their own other than two hyperlinks for us to visit and draw our own conclusions from. Clearly the person leaving these links thinks along the lines that bring us the character of Dr. Smith.

The first link belongs to an article by Scott James in the New York Times titled "Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret". The article goes on to give the argument that new research shows same sex couples have open relationships, and this seems one ground by which people should disapprove of same sex marriage. The underlying message becomes more clear with this portion of the article:

"As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research."

The flaw in this statement is that heterosexual couples pioneered open marriages, not gay couples, coining the term "swingers" to refer to it. Gay couples obviously cannot be responsible for a condition that existed before their marriages were legal, so couples who decide to open their marriages are far from rewriting what has already been rewritten.

Those who wish to have open relationships, married or not, face the ire society has for them as their penalty, but it is not grounds for dismissing their freedom to marry. In no way does the decision of swingers effect an outside party's beliefs, or lessen the ability of people who disapprove to enjoy their own marriages.

James' article when read fully does attempt to deliver evenness (while still incorrectly assigning swinging as a new creation from gay couples) to the the argument quoting benefits to swinging:

"And while that may sound counter-intuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution."

The second link that was shared anonymously with us was to an article written by Mary Ann Bragg of the Cape Cod Times titled "Cape Activists Support Child Pornographer". The article is about John Perry Ryan, 62, of Braintree, Vt. who was once a gay rights activist in Cape Cod and who is now convicted of disseminating child pornography.

While the facts against Ryan are compelling you need look no further than the title of Bragg's article to see an anti-gay inflammatory statement that encourages the stereotyping of GLBT Americans. I'm on the Cape and I'm also a gay rights activist. I most certainly don't approve of child pornography, and I resent being impugned by Bragg's blanket statement "cape activists support child pornographer" which might as well say "Gays are Pedophiles" since that seems the subliminal value of the title when read at a glance. All the people I know, gay or otherwise, openly and loudly denounce any form of child abuse including child pornography. 

Interestingly, and for reasons unclear Bragg publishes the names of seven of the more prominent people who came to Ryan's defense by writing letters on his behalf asking for leniency based on his former accomplishments as an activist. Bragg does this not once, but two days in a row while reporting on Ryan. While these letters may be part of a publicly heard case and therefore public information it begs the question; doesn't posting their names encourage intimidation and therefore wrong? Isn't this akin to the same argument that has kept from publishing the names of petition signers in Washington state who signed an unsuccessful anti-equality effort? Is it different when the shoe is on the other foot?

Ms. Bragg's article is irresponsible and beneath her ability as well as Cape Cod Times' standards of fair and ethical unbiased journalism because of the article's title. As in the first article cited by our anonymous contributor the title seemingly baits the reader into thinking along bigoted stereotypical lines.

A fundamental ethical principle we can all live by is that we should be viewed as individuals afforded the dignity our own actions and intents deserve. This is an ethic America, in all its diversity needs in order to grow in healthy unity. We as a nation need courage, wisdom, and determination to look carefully at each situation and be sure that we are not hastily judging others and unnecessarily restricting someone rights based on their differences from ourselves. Might does not make right, not in America, not anywhere. The recent voting away of GLBT equality in several states only serves as an example of our discriminatory past and how we will eventually look back at these mistakes with the appropriate shame we do our other hard learned lessons.

My question for the moderate middle is such; When is it ethical to suspend the fairness of equality and view a group of people with only one common bond as a stereotyped threat based on unsubstantiated fears? The answer is never, and more by the day stand with me United.

"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people." Martin Luther King, Jr. 


Anonymous said...

You are aware, aren't you, that reporters don't often write the headline to their article?

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

If the title to an article misrepresents what the writer has to say the writer can and should say so. You obviously missed the point of calling people out on their silence if you think writers can distance themselves from the stench of the title even if it has been written by others.

Anonymous said...

And how, exactly, do you know that Bragg didn't do so? I ask since you profess insight into such processes, so much so that your critcism seems largely focused on a slight that many would not feel.

The fact is that in the next edition the headline was changed to "Supporters Back Child-porn Convict," a fact available to you at the time entry at the bottom of your post.

Using your baseless, shotgun approach to perceived slights, one might accuse you of at the least being sloppy with your facts, if not also willing to contrive a charge where apparently the matter was corrected as you had asked, before you asked.

You are aware that all Cape activist aren't gay, aren't you? Nor were all of the letter writers, the majority of whom I'd suspect are disappointed in being taken in as they were by Ryan's partner.

Please learn more about this case, as I did. I didn't agree to write such a letter.

BTW, rules in US Court for documents in criminal cases are vastly different than rules for state court civil cases. Even state court rules vary greatly, state to state. That's the nature of a federal system - flawed but better than most. Try finding your injustices in like institutions rather than basing it solely, as you've seemed to here, on sexual orientation.

Playing a victim so lamely doesn't make one an activist, just a whiner.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Little sensitive? ;)

Anonymous said...

No. Just waiting for you to hold yourself to the same standard when publishing that you sought, erroneously, to hold an award winning journalist to.

Although you're right in one small sense. I'm a little tired of the self-important bleatings of so-called activists who were still in diapers when I was organizing before, during and after Stonewall, that's all.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Look, either people see that these titles are baiting or they don't. You can whine all you want about how I don't have the right to call this out, but I really do, and that freedom is a healthy part of our society.

As far as your petty attacks against me go, well, they do more damage to your credibility than I ever could. There's nothing self important about this article at all, feel free to cite your evidence if you'd like. The fact that you'd point out that I was in diapers 40 years ago as an attempt to make me seem wet behind the ears and is bizarre at best.

Thanks for sharing though... ;)

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

I openly question your honesty considering you post anonymously. What kind of activist needs anonymity?

Anonymous said...

No one said you haven't the right to call someone out, just that your whining about a slight where no one would normally see one is just that - whiney. Changing the point doesn't make you right somehow.

Again, you insisted that something occur that had already occurred, as though the path to journalistic accountability could only be defined by you. It's all pretty simple. Have the integrity you demand from others and admit it when you've erred, and that way you'll come across less self-important and childish.

I don't care much for today's snide keyboard activists, like yourself. We were more into direct action - action that made it possible for wannabes like yourself to bloviate. It's you who'd pointed to your activist credentials as though that might be taken as some sort of last word. My point to you is that there are still many people who've taken greater risks that can disagree that a wrongheaded, crybaby whine is a true form of activism - whether you like it or not.

Oh, and I didn't set up the identity choices below, you did. I don't have a Google account, OpenID or Name/URL, so that left your last choice. Although now that you bring it up, as I see elsewhere here that you're wont to do when you're on the ropes, you're not someone I'd want to know or to have know me. Given the low level of integrity that you operate at, there'd be little to gain by giving you anything that you seek to know about me and, most likely, a lot more to lose. Here's a hint though: try looking for me in an upcoming PBS documentary on Stonewall and see if you can figure out which one of the few confirmable Stonewall participants still alive it is who's me. If you get it right, this ol'crank will email you.

Or maybe I just made a mistake and posted in a comment area open only to your cheerleaders, who're subject to your shifting requirements for ID's.

In the meantime, we're done here, kid.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

"I don't care much for today's snide keyboard activists, like yourself. We were more into direct action - action that made it possible for wannabes like yourself to bloviate."

You pretend to be a Stonewaller yet I'm the one who is boastful? Please. If you were part of the GLBT community I'd point out that your further fracturing the GLBT with your "US" "THEM" mentality.

You certainly don't speak like a Stonewaller. This sounds more like the prattle of a whiny pseudo journalist whose self importance is shaken by any little questioning of their integrity.

If you are an actual Stonewaller then shame on you. You could have come here and used your influence with grace and made all the points you wanted while keeping the cheap shots off the table. We need to stop attacking each other and unify against our common enemies, or do you still not get that?

So sit back and put on a fresh set of Depends, warm up some Ensure and learn how it should have been done while our generation and those that follow clean up the mess you've left for us through your "activism".

Anonymous said...

"If you are an actual Stonewaller then shame on you. You could have come here and used your influence with grace and made all the points you wanted while keeping the cheap shots off the table. We need to stop attacking each other and unify against our common enemies, or do you still not get that?

So sit back and put on a fresh set of Depends, warm up some Ensure and learn how it should have been done while our generation and those that follow clean up the mess you've left for us through your "activism"."

That's showing us oldtimers how to talk out of both sides of your so-called activist mouth. Most real activists would've sought to at least appear to be graceful by separating the ad hominem attack from the lecture by more than a mere paragraph break. No such attempt for any class here though, eh John?

Still not big enough, er, able to admit that you were wrong when you attacked that award winning Cape Cod Times journalist yet, are you?

Your unwillingness to admit to your mistake, as well as your hypocritical style, speaks volumes to your integrity and credibiltiy as an activist.

Just what the world needs in lieu of any real activism - another bloated troll with a blog.

John Hosty-Grinnell said...

Sorry folks, I should have checked this before. This is nothing more than rantings of the cowardly yet again pretending to be someone they are not. Comment moderation is again in place until our troll-kin decides to go away or step into the light and identify himself/herself ;).

Anonymous said...

Maybe there's a third choice?