Ashley Wagner decries Russian anti-gay law

If you look at things from another direction, CSG, one of the great things about the Bible is that the people in it are presented warts and all. Imagine the audacity of the Israelites. They recorded, right there in their holiest book, the fact that their greatest king, David, coveted another man's wife. David married Bathsheba because he was able to station her husband, Uriah the Hittite, in the thickest part of the battle, in effect murdering him. What happened next is the important part: David's actions were rebuked and punished--this was the divinely anointed absolute ruler of Israel, mind you--and even more astoundingly, the incident wasn't censored out of the Bible. It's one of the aspects of the Good Book that makes me even more respectful about it. It's a vast jumble of a book that has more questions than answers, more sinners than saints, and thus more to say to me and a bunch of others. I'm not a fundamentalist, by the way; I don't believe that every word must be taken literally. But if the David story is even an approximation of the historical events of 800 B.C. or so, its very existence in that text is a remarkable statement of what the Jews thought was important to share with posterity.

So as a point of argument, your post doesn't really hold up for me, no matter how many concubines Solomon had. (Somehow it reminds me of that wonderful quote from the chariot owner in Ben Hur: "One God I can understand. But one wife? It is not civilized! It is not generous.") But you don't need to make any comparisons between the Old Testament and the online material Bluebonnet has been citing. They're not at all parallel, and the biased polemics on the Internet sink by their own weight. You have many better and more valid ways of making your case.

Olympia said:

I know a lot of gay people and have never heard a single one tell me that he (or she) lived according to a manifesto. Whereas all the observant Jews I know are happy to explain the writings of the Torah that guide their lives, and the Christians I know are more than willing to share their favorite Bible verses with me. (My favorite is "But be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good," from Romans.)

If this is the central testament (to use a loaded word on purpose) of gay Americans, how come none of them know about it? And who are Kirk and Madsen? I know I'm behind the times, but can I be that far behind? I mean, with gay friends I've talked about opera, science fiction, TV, movies, work matters, nature photography, travel, grandchildren and other beloved family members, and chocolate, but never once has any of them mentioned a paragraph, nor a sentence, nor (to quote Christ in the King James Version) a jot nor a tittle of any such document that gives them a life plan. And I'm sure some of them have marched in a gay pride parade somewhere.

Click to expand...

Of course we don't. But then taking a single example and using that as evidence to say every LGBT person is like that is Bluebonnet's primary rhetorical strategy. Just for the record, the Kirk and Madsen book is already out of print, so I question just how much of an impact it had.

Marshell Kirk

In 1987 Kirk partnered with Hunter Madsen (who used the pen name "Erastes Pill", erastes, Greek for 'lover', being the root word of pederasty) to write an essay, The Overhauling of Straight America,[1] which was published in Guide Magazine. They argued that gays must portray themselves in a positive way to straight America, and that the main aim of making homosexuality acceptable could be achieved by getting Americans "to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders". Then "your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won". The pair developed their argument in the 1989 book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s." The book outlined a public relations strategy for the LGBT movement. After its publication Kirk appeared in the pages of Newsweek, Time and The Washington Post.

Click to expand...

An example that is 20+ years old. Again.
The assumption that since ONE book was published, all LGBT people must be following the dictates of the book all the time in every single thing they do. Again.
Ignoring pertinent facts like said book is already out of print. Again.

In the meanwhile, THIS is the new reality LGBT Russians have to face:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...propaganda-in-action-on-a-moscow-street/?_r=3

Hey, maybe we should track down some copies of the Kirk/Madsen book and send them to Russia...

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

How is it a "tactic" to suggest to other gay people and allies to propagate the idea that LGBT people can live normal happy lives", as a way of combatting stigma and discrimination? You're essentially saying standing up to discrimination is a "tactic".

Click to expand...

Bluebonnet said:

The article has explained it so well. I cannot explain it better than that.

Click to expand...

Bluebonnet, I think you've again used an article that supposedly supports your argument but really doesn't.

Leaving aside the question of whether a specific article speaks to and for all gay people, why do you find it so shocking and some kind of insidious "propaganda" for people to advocate for equality? It's actually quite simple and reasonable: a certain group (namely, homosexuals/LGBT people in general) is the subject of bias, discrimination and marginalization. Members of said group suggest that the goal should be to make the majority understand that they are not some sort of scary "other" but perfectly normal people who deserve equal rights and protections. They then explain how this can be achieved. It's basic social psychology - basic common sense, really - and swaying public opinion is something many groups attempt to do. Most people in western countries will look at this argument and say, "yeah, that's perfectly reasonable", and move on. More and more people are also coming around to the point of view advocated in this 1989 article.

I find your characterization of The Overhauling of Straight America especially unfortunate in light of the uphill struggle gay men faced at the time when it was written and published. In 1987, there was a lot of entrenched bias and even hate toward gay people. The impact of AIDS on the gay community was clear by then, and it was thought of by many as "the gay cancer", something gay people deserved, a further reason to discriminate against them. People were dying and many didn't care, because it was just "the gays". It was vital that society understand that gay people should be treated with respect and compassion; that their lives mattered.

The only way to interpret advocating for acceptance of gay people as some kind of scary attack is if you think that gay people are not normal, do not deserve to be treated with respect, should be discriminated against, etc. Obviously, this is what you believe: gay people are only acceptable if you don't see their gayness, if they essentially stay in the closet. That's not right, and you don't get to demand that people modify their lives in order to respect your biased views. Russians shouldn't do it, either, and I credit any athlete who has the courage to speak out about it, as Ashley Wagner did.

Bluebonnet said:

Marshell Kirk

Hunter Madsen (who used the pen name "Erastes Pill", erastes, Greek for 'lover', being the root word of pederasty

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when you use wikipedia, sometimes the ensemble of authors do not get it quite right. The origin of the word pederasty comes from two words in Greek, not just one. Erastes is just "lover," not a lover of any particular sexual preference.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pederasty&allowed_in_frame=0

pederasty (n.) "sodomy of a man with a boy," c.1600, from French pédérastie or directly from Modern Latin pæderastia, from Greek paiderastia "love of boys," from paiderastes "pederast, lover of boys," from pais (genitive paidos) "child, boy" (see pedo-) + erastes "lover," from erasthai "to love" (see Eros).

Click to expand...

Erastus is from "erastes" lover, from the ancient Greek word for love. Granted, it is the word for love which would be sexual love (for which we really don't have a distinct word in English). In fact, it is the same root as in the name of the Muse Erato, the goddess of poetry, and especially erotic poetry.
http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/MousaErato.html

dorispulaski said:

Unfortunately, when you use wikipedia, sometimes the ensemble of authors do not get it quite right. The origin of the word pederasty comes from two words in Greek, not just one. Erastes is just "lover," not a lover of any particular sexual preference.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pederasty&allowed_in_frame=0



Erastus is from "erastes" lover, from the ancient Greek word for love. Granted, it is the word for love which would be sexual love (for which we really don't have a distinct word in English). In fact, it is the same root as in the name of the Muse Erato, the goddess of poetry, and especially erotic poetry.
http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/MousaErato.html

Click to expand...

Thanks, Doris. I wonder also whether there's any relationship between erastes and the Greek name for Cupid, which is Eros.

Presumably pais, meaning "child," would give us the word pediatrician.

From Los Angeles Times:


Book Review : Provocative Call to Arms on Gay Rights
October 04, 1989|JONATHAN KIRSCH

"After the Ball" is a stubbornly revisionist critique of the conventional wisdom of gay activism over the last two decades ("The gay revolution has failed," the authors announce at the very outset)

Click to expand...

the essential message of the book is an urgent demand for a fundamental change in the very nature of gay activism. The gay community, Kirk and Madsen argue, has resorted to the wrong arguments, the wrong symbols, and the wrong acts of protest. And the authors of "After the Ball' think that they have a better idea.

Click to expand...

"We have in mind a strategy as calculated and powerful as that which gays are \o7 accused\f7 of pursuing by their enemies--or, if you prefer, a plan as manipulative as that which our enemies themselves employ," Kirk and Madsen declare. "It's time to learn from Madison Avenue, to roll out the big guns."

Click to expand...

WeakAnkles said:

Just for the record, the Kirk and Madsen book is already out of print, so I question just how much of an impact it had.

Click to expand...

I have found this book in my local public library. It is also available in several libraries I've checked - the New York City public library, the Boston public library, and the Los Angeles City public library. Even there is a copy of this book in Toronto, Canada public library, and one copy in Vancouver, Canada public library. I did not find it in a few other libraries that I've gone to. I don't think that I need to go on on such search. But seriously, what's the use of that book now?

I'm so sorry that Marshall Kirk has passed away. Such a genius! If he were alive, he'd probably have written another strategic book to guide gay movement in America in the 2010s. At least, his second quide book won't start with, "At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more." Now you are legally appreciating, celebrating, and promoting your lifestyle among young school children! The children were taught to be open-minded to try new vegetables! What a plain brainwashing and recruiting!

Because a book is still in print doesn't mean it's relevant. It's from 25 years ago. And as mentioned Marshall Kirk was an author presenting his opinion, which wasn't necessarily that of all LGBT people (even if I some of the stuff he has said is still relevant today, regarding being proud instead of hiding and letting people make you feel ashamed or force you to accept their discrimination, as well as desensitizing the public to gay stigma through educating them and quashing misconceptions).

Ann Coulter has published a lot of crazy things in her books and said vile comments, but these books/comments don't speak on behalf of all Christians, just because Coulter happens to be a Christian herself. Same with the Westboro Baptist Church and their outrageous demonstrations that most people, even Christians like them, would object to.

Maybe not every single gay person has got the message. The gay organizations had certainly got it. The gay movement in America has soon changed the tone and followed exactly what the book said.

Bluebonnet said:

The gay movement in America has soon changed the tone and followed exactly what the book said.

Click to expand...

Why did you use a laughing smiley if you think that's such a horrible outcome? One would think you'd use a crying emoticon instead, or an angry one, to better represent your views.

Regardless of whether LGBT organizations followed what this particular book said or not, today considerably more people accept and understand that LGBT folk are normal and deserve equal rights and protections. Which deserves both a and a :thumbsup: plus a to all the people whose hard work has helped accomplish this.

Bluebonnet said:

Maybe not every single gay person has got the message. The gay organizations had certainly got it. The gay movement in America has soon changed the tone and followed exactly what the book said.

Click to expand...

There's a logical fallacy called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which is Latin for "after this, therefore because of this." (Be patient with me. I love Latin.) The idea of the fallacy is to point out that just because Event B happens after Event A, it's not necessarily caused by Event A. An example is that someone claps his hands, and then there's a flash of lightning. The lightning wasn't caused by the clapping of the hands. Just because this book laid out a proposal to change the hearts and minds of the general public about gay people, and then the hearts and minds of the general public change, doesn't mean that the book was the cause.

The tone of life in many parts of America has tended toward acceptance of both superficial and profound changes. These days you see people on TV positively covered with tattoos--all up and down their arms. In the old days, that would have been impossible. You see almost graphic love scenes right there on TV. Some mainstream magazines use the F-word, spelled out fully, right there in print. Actresses at televised awards wear dresses cut all the way down to their waistlines. And, thank God, biracial marriages and children have become an ordinary occurrence. Knowing and accepting people who are gay is part of that picture.

In science labs, the quote about similar events is, "Correlation is not causation."

An example of the fallacy given is:

It has been conclusively shown that the crowing of roosters inevitably causes the sun to rise in the morning.

In statistics, the fallacy is described by the story of the length of the Emperor of China's nose, described by Nobel Prize winner Dr. Richard Feymann this way when he wrote an essay complaining how school books were picked by the committee in California, a committee he served on:

http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm

This question of trying to figure out whether a book is good or bad by looking at it carefully or by taking the reports of a lot of people who looked at it carelessly is like this famous old problem: Nobody was permitted to see the Emperor of China, and the question was, What is the length of the Emperor of China's nose? To find out, you go all over the country asking people what they think the length of the Emperor of China's nose is, and you average it. And that would be very "accurate" because you averaged so many people. But it's no way to find anything out; when you have a very wide range of people who contribute without looking carefully at it, you don't improve your knowledge of the situation by averaging.
-- Richard Feynman, Judging Books by Their Covers

Click to expand...

The same principle is the fallacy that is the core of bigotry, bias, and prejudice of all sorts: assuming you know exactly what someone is like because you know one single fact about them (like the color of their skin or their sexual preference), when you have no knowledge of them personally.

Buttercup said:

Why did you use a laughing smiley if you think that's such a horrible outcome?

Click to expand...

Have you chosen the personal attack way to put down me as a poster instead of going into the issue?

Do you want to know why? Because, read the posts, they continue to distance and deny it! I laughed at their continuation of denial for the profound effect of that book. The book has given the detailed strategies in order to manipulate and lie to the American public.

Wait a minute! Before you jump on top of me, the "manipulating" and "lie" were the words the book has used to describe their campaign. They were not my "creation".

Yup, and it is conclusively shown that the crowing of roosters always causes the sun to rise, too.

Please read Olympia's post about the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Just because a book describes what ought to happen does not in any way prove that there was a causal relationship between the book and what happened.

But, having read skyfly's posts, it's clear that Russian activitists should have chosen a less Gay Pride and more Family Values way of presenting their case.

dorispulaski said:

In science labs, the quote about similar events is, "Correlation is not causation."

An example of the fallacy given is:

It has been conclusively shown that the crowing of roosters inevitably causes the sun to rise in the morning.

In statistics, the fallacy is described by the story of the length of the Emperor of China's nose, described by Nobel Prize winner Dr. Richard Feymann this way when he wrote an essay complaining how school books were picked by the committee in California, a committee he served on:

http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm




The same principle is the fallacy that is the core of bigotry, bias, and prejudice of all sorts: assuming you know exactly what someone is like because you know one single fact about them (like the color of their skin or their sexual preference), when you have no knowledge of them personally.

Click to expand...

I didn't know that story about Feynman, but having dealt with the results of textbook committees, I can believe it! James Michener even has a whole passage about the Texas textbook committee in his epic novel Texas. You'd think that in a sweeping novel of explorers, warriors, and ranches from here to the horizon, textbooks wouldn't even come into the story, but obviously Michener felt it was a significant part of the state's psyche.

Bluebonnet said:

Have you chosen the personal attack way to put down me as a poster instead of going into the issue?

Click to expand...

I haven't attacked you personally. I have criticized the opinions you have expressed and the "evidence" you have provided in support of them. I am not sure what you think the issue is, but the only issue I see is that some people think enacting homophobic legislation and demanding gay people stay in the closet is an appropriate form of public policy. You insist that gay people advance propaganda which is dangerous to society. There have been hundreds of posts in multiple threads explaining why people disagree with you, which you ignore or misunderstand. Yet you still demand that people focus on the issues as you perceive them? Fine, let's engage with the topic of this thread: Ashley Wagner expressed her views regarding the Russian laws. 1. Go Ashley. 2. Do you have any credible evidence as to why the Russian laws, and similar laws in other countries are beneficial? Not from kooky websites or discredited research; serious studies with proper methodology and data analysis.

Getting called out for making biased, discriminatory, unsubstantiated claims does not make you a victim of personal attacks. I suggest that instead of jumping into every politics thread with claims that The Gays are trying to destroy society, you step back and really consider what people are trying to tell you about equality and civil rights. If you don't like me and my posts, look at what Doris and Olympia have written. Their patience in addressing these issues deserves a lot of credit.

dorispulaski said:

Yup, and it is conclusively shown that the crowing of roosters always causes the sun to rise, too.

Please read Olympia's post about the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. Just because a book describes what ought to happen does not in any way prove that there was a causal relationship between the book and what happened.

But, having read skyfly's posts, it's clear that Russian activitists should have chosen a less Gay Pride and more Family Values way of presenting their case.

Click to expand...

It has been proved that the crowing rooster is not the cause of sunrise. What is your proof on yours and Olympia's assertion? At the best, yours and Olympia's assertion is equal to mine in creditability without logic. If you call that fallacy, then they are all just that!

OK, let's take a step back, say it might not be the source of this profound campaign method change. Let's just assume that. Hasn't this book reflected perfectly the mindset, the logics, and the reasonings behind them?

As of your quote about the emperor's nose, I do not quite get it. Hasn't that everybody been doing here? I mean to post links and quotes of articles without testing and experimenting the conclusions in the articles by themselves?

I do like to say, though, that I very much appreciate you, Doris, every moderator, and this site for allowing the expression of different opinions even though they are totally opposite from yours. For this, thank you very much!

Buttercup said:

Do you have any credible evidence as to why the Russian laws, and similar laws in other countries are beneficial?

Click to expand...

I believe the Russians have explained the reasons of having this law many times. Acceptance and allowing it to spread are two different things. Considering the Russian population decline, also considering the Russian's traditional moral values that the vast majority of their people hold, it fits in their country.

Buttercup said:

I suggest that instead of jumping into every politics thread with claims that The Gays are trying to destroy society, you step back and really consider what people are trying to tell you about equality and civil rights.

Click to expand...

Now who is kidding who here? Could you please count how many threads have been opened just for this one law in here? And it is not even your country's law. Why don't you step back instead of jumping into their domestic affair, and let the Russians decide what they want to do to their country?