Gay Approval Pusher Tactics

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I'm trying to think of the right phrase to describe a certain class of people. For now I've settled on "Gay Approval Pushers." I differentiate between people who support gay marriage on a philosophical or political level, and people who want gay approval pushed on the rest of society and attempt to smear their opponents to achieve that.

I have encountered approval pushers so many times in the past ten years it's not even funny. I've seen other people who oppose gay marriage have to deal with these people too. The tactics used by all approval pushers are so similar it's almost like they have a blog or something that describes tactics to be used on people who oppose the gay approval push. I'm going to lay out these tactics.

When in a debate with a person who opposes gay marriage:


1. You will run into people who oppose the gay approval push for various reasons. Some will be very religious, some will not. The last kind of person you want to acknowledge is a person who is not religious/moderately religious, does not hate gays, favors civil unions but disapproves of homosexuality, opposes efforts to legislate approval of homosexuality through the courts or via propaganda via public education, but approves of deciding those issues via popular referendum. A person who believes in all those things, must not be allowed to appear to believe in those things. The audience MUST be convinced that she is a religious fanatic who wants to burn gays at the stake. It is difficult if not impossible, to win in a debate against such a set of reasonable and fair beliefs, so it is imperative not to allow people to think about them. The choice must remain stark: approval of homosexuality or a Nazi police state.

2. Avoid legitimate forms of debate such as debating what has actually been said. Focus on character attacks and distortion of what has been said.

3. Vilify him or her. Absolutely under no conditions allow that person to describe their beliefs about the issue. Describe her as a bigot or someone who hates gays. Accept no other reason for their disagreement.

4. Frame him or her as an Evangelical Christian whose only reason to oppose the issue is their religious beliefs. You can also mock Christianity in the process of doing so.

5. Foist an extreme agenda on him or her. Apply the strawman debate tactic on steroids.

Accuse her of proposing to criminalize homosexuality, raid homes, implement a police state, a Nazi state, lynching, and to allow the bill of rights to be put up for a vote.

Assume first, accuse first; never listen. Under no condition allow them be the ones to say what they favor doing. Use of Nazi analogies, faking umbrage about supposed breaches in the Constitution and American values, and personal theatrics are all optional.


The net effect of these tactics is to scare opponents of approval pushers so badly about being called a bigot, that they won't dare voice their dissent. It may work on some but drive others to oppose them even more than they had originally done so.


WEB

[RichardChing]

The last kind of person you want to acknowledge is a person who [...] opposes efforts to legislate approval of homosexuality through the courts or via propaganda via public education, but approves of deciding those issues via popular referendum.

Here is the gaping hole in your argument. The majority does not and should not always rule. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution exists specifically to protect the rights of all citizens, especially when they happen to find themselves the minority category. If we decided all important debates by popular referendum, women would not be receiving better pay (still not equal even today, but better), black people might still be segregated or even enslaved, mentally retarded kids would not be able to get education, etc etc.

The idea with the Bill of Rights is to maximize civil liberties for all citizens insofar as people should not be allowed to "cause harm" (J.S. Mill's harm principle) to one another. That is why the debate around "don't ask don't tell" revolved around combat readiness and not people's moral convictions. Ethics is more than simply taking a public poll, it is about achieving consistency across an entire institution. No one is asking anybody to "approve" gayness, people just need to "tolerate" homosexuality in society; intolerance is the very definition, the very essence of bigotry. Just like at your workplace, you don't have to "like" everybody there, you just have to get along well enough to "work" with these people.

Help me understand what it means to be anti-gay on a policy level. Lay out for me the ethical system which might allow for regulating different levels of "gayness" in society. It is my personal position that the government should not belong in anyone's romantic life at all in the first place, whether he or she is gay or straight doesn't make a difference. I personally believe that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If people want to get married traditionally, they are free to go see their pastor or their imam or their buddha or whoever on their own time, but the State itself should not be involved. Give all citizens the same opportunities for tax exemptions and whatever other benefits that come with marriage. Why should the government treat married couples any differently than two (or more) roommates? That is a long term policy change based on sound ethics that needs to be implemented.

In the short term, the other point is that people who oppose gay marriage must be prepared to institute "gender checks" to ensure that any two people applying for marriage are not the same gender. O wait, in India there are five genders. So what should be the rules for transvestites marrying hermaphrodites? Illegal? On what ethical ground? Further, what should be the penalties if two gay guys or gals happen to somehow obtain a marriage license? The fundamental ethical principle here is that any consenting adult (of sound mind) should be able to engage in any personal relationship that he or she or it chooses, without government interference. Again the idea here is to maximize personal freedoms and civil liberties unless/until someone is "causing harm" to another individual.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Richard,

Your post is a perfect example of the dishonest gay approval pusher tactics I outlined above.


Here is the gaping hole in your argument. The majority does not and should not always rule. The Bill of Rights in the Constitution exists specifically to protect the rights of all citizens, especially when they happen to find themselves the minority category. If we decided all important debates by popular referendum, women would not be receiving better pay (still not equal even today, but better), black people might still be segregated or even enslaved, mentally retarded kids would not be able to get education, etc etc.


The idea with the Bill of Rights is to maximize civil liberties for all citizens insofar as people should not be allowed to "cause harm" (J.S. Mill's harm principle) to one another. That is why the debate around "don't ask don't tell" revolved around combat readiness and not people's moral convictions. Ethics is more than simply taking a public poll, it is about achieving consistency across an entire institution. No one is asking anybody to "approve" gayness, people just need to "tolerate" homosexuality in society; intolerance is the very definition, the very essence of bigotry. Just like at your workplace, you don't have to "like" everybody there, you just have to get along well enough to "work" with these people.



This is tactic 5 from the Gay Approval Pusher Tactics: "Apply the strawman debate tactic on steroids.

Accuse her of proposing to criminalize homosexuality, raid homes, implement a police state, a Nazi state, lynching, and to allow the bill of rights to be put up for a vote.".

I never said (to quote you) it would be better "if we decided all important debates by popular referendum," nor did I mention the Bill of Rights except to anticipate that gay approval pushers would falsely bring it up (as you have) in order to give a counterfeit boost to their weak arguments, or to use your terminology a lack of "ethics."

Furthermore, the above you have labelled as my argument, is not my argument here. My argument here is a listing of specific tactics used by gay approval pushers, which you demonstrated just now.



No one is asking anybody to "approve" gayness, people just need to "tolerate" homosexuality in society; intolerance is the very definition, the very essence of bigotry. Just like at your workplace, you don't have to "like" everybody there, you just have to get along well enough to "work" with these people.

The most vocal part of the activists on gay issues are asking not just anybody, but everybody to approve of homosexuality. Of course people need to tolerate homosexuality in society where it does not intrude on their private lives. The pushers are demanding approval, not tolerance. This demand for approval and the intolerance for disapproval is indeed the very essence of bigotry and dishonesty. No one else is demanding society approve of their sexual preferences.



Help me understand what it means to be anti-gay on a policy level.

Tactic 3: "Vilify him or her."

I wouldn't know what it means to be anti-gay on a policy level as I am not anti-gay.

Help me understand what it means to be pro-pedophile on a policy level.



Lay out for me the ethical system which might allow for regulating different levels of "gayness" in society.

It is my personal position that the government should not belong in anyone's romantic life at all in the first place, whether he or she is gay or straight doesn't make a difference. I personally believe that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If people want to get married traditionally, they are free to go see their pastor or their imam or their buddha or whoever on their own time, but the State itself should not be involved. Give all citizens the same opportunities for tax exemptions and whatever other benefits that come with marriage. Why should the government treat married couples any differently than two (or more) roommates? That is a long term policy change based on sound ethics that needs to be implemented.

In the short term, the other point is that people who oppose gay marriage must be prepared to institute "gender checks" to ensure that any two people applying for marriage are not the same gender. O wait, in India there are five genders. So what should be the rules for transvestites marrying hermaphrodites? Illegal? On what ethical ground? Further, what should be the penalties if two gay guys or gals happen to somehow obtain a marriage license? The fundamental ethical principle here is that any consenting adult (of sound mind) should be able to engage in any personal relationship that he or she or it chooses, without government interference. Again the idea here is to maximize personal freedoms and civil liberties unless/until someone is "causing harm" to another individual.


Tactic 5: "Foist an extreme agenda on him or her. Apply the strawman debate tactic on steroids.

Accuse her of proposing to criminalize homosexuality, raid homes, implement a police state, a Nazi state, lynching, and to allow the bill of rights to be put up for a vote. "

Clearly you are lying when you suggest that I (to quote you) favor "regulating different levels of "gayness" in society." I have told you before that I (to quote me) favor "no action" with regard to gay activism, neither for nor against.

While the misrepresentation and lies you have told have provided an invaluable demonstration of my point on this thread of gay approval pusher tactics, misrepresentation and lying are against forum rules. You continue such actions at your own risk.


WEB

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Rules Violations Dumped (link) (http://politicalforum.net/showthread.php?992-quot-You-think-you-know-everything-there-is-to-know-quot)

[Gunny]

Very good piece, WEB.

I'm mostly conservative and religious. But as far as my politics go there are several issues I don't stand with the GOP on. Gay marriage is one. I used to be against gay marriage. But as I have gotten older my opinions on the matter have changed. Now I think it's time we allow gays to marry. We're in the 21st century now. I think society is ready for it. If two gays love each other and want to walk down the aisle I say let them. besides, gays have every right to be just as miserable as all the married couples out there.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Thanks, Gunny.

I have one considerable issue with gay marriage and the whole movement to legitimize homosexuality: I feel sorry for the parents and the kids. Kids are impressionable, and the result of all this legitimization of homosexuality is that more kids will become gay. I see a straight kid going gay. I view that as a tragedy. I think about what his parents must feel. That's their kid who they put everything into, and he's turned into something that they are ashamed of. Maybe the won't admit it, but they are ashamed and saddened.

I'm open to the possibility that some gays are gay by nature, hard-wired gay. I hold no grudge against any gay person, hard-wired gay or gay by choice. I had a professor who was gay and he was the man. Wrote me an awesome recommendation for grad school and I was cheering for him as he spoke at my classes commencement. He IS the man. I don't see why I can't have the best of both worlds: my looking the other way over a person's homosexuality and not giving my seal of approval to it either.


WEB

[Gunny]

I have one considerable issue with gay marriage and the whole movement to legitimize homosexuality: I feel sorry for the parents and the kids. Kids are impressionable, and the result of all this legitimization of homosexuality is that more kids will become gay. I see a straight kid going gay. I view that as a tragedy. I think about what his parents must feel. That's their kid who they put everything into, and he's turned into something that they are ashamed of. Maybe the won't admit it, but they are ashamed and saddened.

I honestly can't disagree with anything you said there. And it's why I am strongly opposed to gay adoption. If they want to marry then fine. But I am opposed to allowing them to adopt. No way. And there's a few reasons for that which I won't get to, although you touched on a couple of them.


I'm open to the possibility that some gays are gay by nature, hard-wired gay.

I'm not. I strongly believe everyone is born heterosexual. It's natural and instinctive. I believe there are several factors that cause people to become gay which I won't go into here. But being gay is a choice in my opinion. I think those that are gay like to believe they were born that way to give them the excuse that it's not their fault.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I honestly can't disagree with anything you said there. And it's why I am strongly opposed to gay adoption. If they want to marry then fine. But I am opposed to allowing them to adopt. No way. And there's a few reasons for that which I won't get to, although you touched on a couple of them.

I'm basically opposed to gay adoption. I have a less of a disapproving attitude towards lesbianism than two gay dudes. That shit is just nasty.



I'm not. I strongly believe everyone is born heterosexual. It's natural and instinctive. I believe there are several factors that cause people to become gay which I won't go into here. But being gay is a choice in my opinion. I think those that are gay like to believe they were born that way to give them the excuse that it's not their fault.

I guess we disagree there. I think there is scientific evidence that some people are born gay. I believe some are born gay and others choose to be gay. I don't believe in hating on gays. I will admit that when I was in high school I taunted someone for being gay, and it was fucked up. I wish I could take it back. Gay people should not be taunted for being gay, unless it's in good-natured fun. I did a lot of things that were fucked up that I wish I could take back.

In any case, that's my position. Some born gay, some not, gays should be free to be happy in either case, and the ones who are born gay should be happy. However, I am going to try to keep parents happy and kids happy and not recommend that people who are born straight take a wrong turn and be gay.


WEB