Quote:
Originally Posted by Zerbie
As to it informing activism, we aren't going to have that answer (to an adversary's personal struggles or internalized homophobia) up front, so the best anyone can do is frame the issue appropriately all the time. Homophobia is a problem that needs to be solved. Do our best to solve it, generally speaking. I don't see how knowing for a fact if Dobson or whomever has had feelings for men could possibly change our responses to his actions, since we have to respond to action, not presumed thoughts. Muddy 'nough?
|
I see your point. And perhaps I was one of the few people who hadn't already presumed that the stongest ant-gay voices may be borne out of their own personal struggles with what they consider to be "abberant" same-sex attractions.
And even though you are of course correct in sying we may never be sure, in our own activism, who is and who isn't bisexual (or gay), I may begin to make that presumption....
It will inform my activism if I view opposing voices as being borne out of tortured souls... and coming from people who may have more lifestyle choices than they're readily to willingly admit. It will inform my activism in that I may recognize the futility of debating "choice" at all (though "choice" will certainly remain among their most vocalized issues with us). It will also inform my activism in my very understanding of the fact that they may have these choices they claim we all have.
I believe that, in any debate, the motivation of one's "opponent" is the single most valuable bit of information in forming a response. This may not be so remarkable to others, but for me it is fundamental. Undestanding this dynamic changes much in my understanding of our struggle for equality and it is simply this: That the voices speaking against my rights are in reality speaking in order to maintain and preserve the personal walls and masks that protect the speakers' own families! The "Family Values" we hear so much about may very well involve the specific preservation of the personal families of people like James Dobson... so that he doesn't suffer the fate of people like Senator Craig.
Of course their families are "under attack." But they are not under attack by us... they are under attack by their own impulses and attractions and... ultimately.. by their own systems of ultra-conservative enforcements.
Like I said... all this may be "old hat" to many... but to me it seems like a beam of sunshine through the fog... illuminating much about the "conservative agenda" that I've never quite understood.