Keep Talking
First published at 365gay.com on April 28, 2008
Back in the old days, there were those who supported gay rights and those who opposed them—vocally. There was also a third group whose opposition was so deep that they objected even to discussing the issue. For them, to debate gay rights would be to dignify depravity, and depravity merits chilly silence, not invitations to dialogue.
In the last decade or so, a fourth group has appeared mirroring the third. This group’s support for gay rights runs so deep that they object even to discussing the issue. For them, to debate gay rights would be to dignify bigotry, and bigotry merits chilly silence, not invitations to dialogue.
While the above sketch is somewhat simplistic, I think it captures an important shift in the gay-rights debate. Increasingly, one finds people on both sides who object not merely to their opponents’ position but even to engaging that position. Why debate the obvious, they ask. Surely anyone who holds THAT position must be too stubborn, brainwashed or dumb to reason with.
The upshot is that supporters and opponents of gay rights are talking to each other less and less. This fact distresses me.
It distresses me for several reasons. First, it lulls gay-rights advocates into a complacency where we mistake others’ silence for acquiescence. Then we are shocked—shocked!—when, for example, an Oklahoma state representative says that gays pose a greater threat than terrorism—and her constituents rally around her. Think Sally Kern will have a hard time getting re-elected? Think again.
It distresses me, too, because dialogue works. Not always, and not easily, but it makes a difference. Indeed, ironically enough, healthy dialogue about our issues helped move many people from the “supportive-but-open-to-discussion” camp to the “so-supportive-I-can’t-believe-we’re-discussing-this” camp.
It distresses me most of all because both of the “opposed” camps include families with gay kids. How do we help those kids? How do we let them know that it’s okay to be gay, despite the hurtful messages that they’re hearing from their parents?
True, it is easier than ever to reach such kids directly, through MTV, the internet, and the like. But some of those messages will be blocked or distorted by their parents. And even those that reach them untrammeled will be counterbalanced by painful opposition. I feel for these kids, and I want to help them. Helping them requires acknowledging their important relationships with people whose views I find deeply wrong.
There are those who find my emphasis on dialogue naïve. As someone who has spent sixteen years traveling the country speaking and debating about homosexuality and ethics, I’m well aware of dialogue’s limitations.
Yet I’m also frequently reminded of its power. Recently Aquinas College, a Catholic school in Grand Rapids, Michigan, cancelled a lecture I was scheduled to give because of concerns about my opposition to Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Students angered by the cancellation arranged to have me speak off-campus. The event drew hundreds of audience members, including some who had been critical of my initial invitation. The next day I learned that one of those critics, after hearing my talk, had begun advocating bringing me to campus next year. Over time, such conversions can have a huge impact.
Then there are those who wonder whether the silence I’m lamenting really is a problem at all. My Aquinas cancellation suggests that it is: intentionally or not, the cancellation sent students the message that this topic is literally unspeakable. But the problem is by no means limited to one side. Last year I did a same-sex marriage debate (with Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family) at another Catholic college. A week before the event, my host told me that a student was trying to organize a protest. “Because he doesn’t want a gay-rights speaker on a Catholic campus?” I asked.
“No, because he doesn’t want your opponent here,” she answered. The student thought that opposition to same-sex marriage should not be dignified with a hearing. On a Catholic campus!
That student, like the rest of us, would do well to recall the words of John Stuart Mill. In his 1859 classic On Liberty Mill argued that those who silence opinions — even false ones — rob the world of great gifts:
“If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
The moral of the story? Let’s keep talking.
Comments to "Keep Talking":
Amicus | May 3, 2008, 1:48am | #
Dialogue works.
----------
So do chainsaws.
The Right are the ones not interested in having a debate, being the status quo.
They lecture "liberals" that the courts are horrendous places to settle these matters, but then they yank the carpet out from under a discussion with big-hate SuperDoma amendments to the Constitution.
Indeed, they maintain the "nuclear option" in the debate almost all the time, threatening to punish gays if they 'seek too much', like 'touching DOMA'.
So, yeah, I'd cut some slack for the guy who protests Stanton's sly attempt at 'reasonableness', because he has finally realized that the debate over the debate is just as much the debate as is the debate.
Stanton's material is so thin you know that his only purpose in debating Corvino is to go back to his faithful and tell them that he "regularly debates the opposition", so as to give the false impression that his views are somehow that much more substantive ...
Clay | May 3, 2008, 5:54pm | #
John, your piece reminded me of a very old assertion on the subject of gay rights, one that I think it wise for all to recall from time to time:
“From silence to discussion, even without enlightenment, is progress, for enlightenment becomes inevitable through discussion, and impossible without it.”
Donald Webster Cory, "The Homosexual in America." 1953
The absence of debate, argument, discussion, free inquiry will not work in our favor. Those who oppose our civil and human rights understand this better than we may realize, which is part of why they love the phony victim act they play. It's a passive-aggressive way of shutting down debate.
Craig2 | May 3, 2008, 9:36pm | #
Dialogue doesn't work.
However, civil and rational debate does, as does painstaking strategic preparation and research of anti-gay groups arguments.
Ultimately, our objective should be to discourage the fundamentalist right from political participation and encourage them to return to a quietist faith. If they do so,
they will have the freedom of worship, religious and philosophical belief, conscience and assembly, as well as broad areas of religious practice that is the right of every citizen in a pluralist, democratic society.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
Jorge | May 4, 2008, 12:34am | #
That still leaves the problem of what happens to their own gay children. Ideally the fundamentalist right would become extinct through conversion, but that's a pipe dream. In the meantime everyone's going to try their best to stick to their guns.
It's a little easier for civility and national unity if we all pretended everything was fine, but that hurts gay rights. Treating our opponents like monsters hurts their gay children and prevents us from working together on things that have nothing to do with gay rights but that need to be done.
Craig2 | May 4, 2008, 8:51pm | #
Unfortunately, 'monstrous' is an apt description of the likes of Paul Cameron, Latvia's ghastly Watchmen on the Walls outfit and that odious Phelps clan. Even mainstream conservatives can't stand the latter...
Added to which, sometimes conservative Christian homophobes do monstrous things- like NZ fundamentalist activist Graham Capill, who raped three little girls and is currently serving a prison sentence for that crime.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
Belly | May 5, 2008, 5:36am | #
According to the investigation from biloves.com, The Netherlands, South Africa, United Kingdom, Canada, Spain are the gayest countries. Not sure if true.
Michigan-Matt | May 5, 2008, 5:22pm | #
Jon, I agree with you that dialogue is critical if we expect to make progress on gay civil rights.
But equally important for our side is the issue of WHO is presenting for our side of the dialogue... both with the groups adverse to gay civil rights progress as well as constituencies affecting and impacted by our advancement --like the military ranks & file on DADT, like voters on civil unions, like Congress on federal legislative remedies for the long list of concerns in seeking equal treatment for gay partners.
Frankly, for too long, the voice or face of the gay community on all those issues has been a radicalized, in-your-face, confrontational Left-leaning activist community. The very same community that's sold our interests down the river time and again.
So it isn't just dialogue. Or with whom. But it's also who represents our best interests and presents a positive, constructive engagement for us on those issues.
It's why I continue to be glad that the gay conservatives have found increasing acceptance within our community -albeit, after having their eyes scratched out by the status-quo Left types.
The truth of the matter is that when the black civil rights community started to ditch the Black Panthers approach and move toward moderated, engaging dialogue and advocacy in the MSM, the implementation of many civil rights issues -on the books but impotent in their enforcement- gained credibility with JoeAverageVoter and JoeAveragePolitician.
Dialogue, yes. With all who will engage in a civil discussion, yes. But we need a more engaging face/voice. Our community needs to muzzle the farLeft activists in order to secure progress from the very community of voters turned off by the antics of those activists.
Charles Wilson | May 6, 2008, 3:20pm | #
It's funny to watch gay wingnuts at play. Michigan-Matt, who pretends to be a "moderate" but is actually a self-loathing wingnut whackjob, posts at "Malcontent," a gay fascist site that censors its comments page. If he loves those muzzles, I'm fine with whatever he does behind closed doors. Woof. Damn. But "dialogue" ought to start without censorship. It's a tough issue for the right wing, ain't it?
Guillermo Pineda | May 6, 2008, 9:38pm | #
I think you are aiming too high on this issue right now.
After centuries of law making all over the world, we are still facing with a crisis defending Liberty and the Rights of Individuals. Why is it that we want to have Gay Rights in so little time? I mean, time goes back into centuries.
A much has being said already about gay rights & Rights. I agree, lets not stop talking based on objective reason as a higher mean.
deLuca | May 7, 2008, 7:40am | #
Charles, rather than continue to go off thread and act psychotic, it might be better for you to ponder that you've been barred from many sites for these types of attacks.
Yesterday, you were barred and banned from yet ANOTHER site for unseemly behavior.
When is enough for you? Another dozen sites?
Barred and banned from discussion groups at a variety of TRAVEL-based web sites.
Barred and banned from discussion groups at a variety of MEDICAL-based web sites.
Barred and banned from discussion groups at a variety of COMMUNITY HELP-based web sites.
Barred and banned from discussion groups at a variety of POLITICAL-based web sites.
Barred and banned from discussion groups at a variety of MILITARY-based web sites.
Barred and banned from even web institutions like Wiki for your unseemingly behavior.
When will you have had enough to get the message it isn't the other guy at fault, like you claim, IT'S YOU AND YOUR BEHAVIOR.
I wish there were a troll-be-gone charm that would get rid of your antics... but I guess even the best looking lawns will be threatened by moles, voles and vermin underground.
Michigan-Matt | May 7, 2008, 9:41am | #
Deluca I've chosen just to ignore him; I'd advise you to do the same or he'll start targeting you, stalk around and follow you from site to site, try to revoke your GayCard (lol), send you purient emails (don't open them) and defame you at every opportunity. He's a sick guy -or like you said elsewhere, creepy, very creepy.
Thanks though. Ignore him and stay on-topic; like Malcontent.biz/blog, IGF is a terrific forum for debate and discussion.
Patrick | May 7, 2008, 12:18pm | #
I've been thinking that any type of dialogue with more groups has got to better than our current environment where all we seem to do is throw bricks and hope it becomes a soundbite one day.
But it does make sense, as Michiagn-Matt says, for the right gay group to speak on our collective behalf. We aren't getting anywhere in the debate with Christians, Islamics or other religious people when we attack their faith in God.
Charles Wilson | May 7, 2008, 8:35pm | #
Michigan Matt, the "moderate" whose response to the attempted murder of four people in a gay bar was to "quite playing the victim card," now tells another lie about my sending him "prurient e-mails."
In fact, I have never sent Michigan Matt an e-mail of any kind, prurient or otherwise. And, now that we're talking about "prurience," it's worth mentioning that MM, the Log Cabinette, is on the record saying that his Republican "never gay" anti-gay hero, Matt Sanchez was a "bargain" when he was peddling his aseets for $200 an hour (in) and $250 an hour (out).
Not that "Malcontent," his favorite wingnut site, wants to have any "dialogue" about that or any other Larry Craig-style hypocrisy. "We don't talk about the homosex. We're Republicans!"
Michigan-Matt | May 8, 2008, 6:57am | #
The IGNORE button is still "on".
Charles Wilson | May 8, 2008, 9:15pm | #
Yeah, MM, it really seems like you're ignoring what I write. Woof. Damn. Ha!
Patrick | May 9, 2008, 10:45am | #
M-M you might be trying to ignore him but someone wrote on one of many sites that CW is banned from further comment (among them blogs for travel enthusiasts, forums on medical issues, blogs on military matters, forums supporting the troops, discussion boards on alternative energy, political commentary blogs plus others) that CW is like an STD; he's the gift that just keeps on giving until you snuff it out with a round of antibiotics.
Leave him alone. He's an angry bitter 51 yr old ex-journalist troll, suffering from several medical diseases and feeling very guilty about the death of his promiscuous partner. He deserves our pity, not our scorn.
He's unhinged. Yesterday at a website on travel, he told a group of concerned, empathetic travelers worried about the loss of life in Burma that the weather disaster was just "Asian stir-fry" and implied that there was no need to be concerned because those "gooks will be back to making babies in a flash".
Charles Wilson | May 9, 2008, 6:46pm | #
Yesterday at a website on travel, he told a group of concerned, empathetic travelers worried about the loss of life in Burma that the weather disaster was just "Asian stir-fry" and implied that there was no need to be concerned because those "gooks will be back to making babies in a flash".
Once again, the Log Cabinettes tell their lies. No one (me or anyone else) made those statements. Well, other than Patrick.
He's an angry bitter 51 yr old ex-journalist troll, suffering from several medical diseases and feeling very guilty about the death of his promiscuous partner.
More Republican lies. My partner wasn't promiscuous. I never gave any indication that he was. Nor have I stated or suggested that I somehow feel guilty for his death. To use a 50-year-old line: "At long last, sir, have you no decency?" Even for you people, this is pretty over the top.
Patrick | May 10, 2008, 7:36pm | #
I see what you guys mean when you say leave Charles Wilson alone or he'll stalk you.
Charles Wilson, as "Wet Willy" or "WillyWilson" or "willysnout" made the remark about "asian stir fry" as an appropos nickname for typhons and cyclones on a travel discussion board. I'll get the citation.
What Charles fails to comprehend is that his arrogant, petty vindictive psychotic stalker conduct is coming home to roost and he doesn't like it. Thrown off and banned from many sites for mean-spirited and caustic attacks on others (like he does here), he is still a bitter 51 yr old troll living in his Mom's basement... no life, no future, just bitterness as his constant companion.
I think Charles Wilson should be the last one to cry "foul" when he gets returned all the indecency and flak he's generated toward others. At least Charles, I've remained civil toward your antics. I don't know how guys like Michigan-Matt, Brian, North Dallas 30 or others tolerate your antics. I guess maybe they don't... it's why they tell me to leave you alone.
Charles Wilson | May 10, 2008, 9:35pm | #
Charles Wilson, as "Wet Willy" or "WillyWilson" or "willysnout" made the remark about "asian stir fry" as an appropos nickname for typhons and cyclones on a travel discussion board. I'll get the citation.
Patrick, the Log Cabinette, has now changed his allegation. He has dropped the part about how I supposedly wrote that "gooks will be back to making babies in a flash." What about that, Patrick? Did you think I'd overlook your Republican lie?
As for the "asian stir fry" remark, I never made it. That, too, is another one of your Log Cabinette lies. It must really bug you to be told the truth, just as it bugs Republicans in general and Matt Sanchez, Michigan-Matt, North Liar Forty, and Brian in particular.
Come on, Patrick, try the truth. How hard can it really be?
Charles Wilson | May 10, 2008, 9:36pm | #
Oh, one other thing: I have never posted anywhere as "WetWilly." That's another lie from Patrick, who is rapidly accumulating a track record with the wingnut lies.
Joel | May 10, 2008, 11:24pm | #
OMG corvino... everyone has their own view of an ideal world.. and mine is so parallel to the 'lets keep talking' theme.
"It distresses me most of all because both of the “opposed” camps include families with gay kids. How do we help those kids? How do we let them know that it’s okay to be gay, despite the hurtful messages that they’re hearing from their parents?
"
This really stuck out for me because i can relate.
I've learned, i believe, that when you hear ppl talk like,
"'s funny to watch gay wingnuts at play. Michigan-Matt, who pretends to be a "moderate" but is actually a self-loathing wingnut whackjob, posts at "Malcontent," a gay fascist site that censors its comments page. If he loves those muzzles, I'm fine with whatever he does behind closed doors. Woof. Damn. But "dialogue" ought to start without censorship. It's a tough issue for the right wing, ain't it?"
I think ppl are capable of sifting and filtering through the adjectives and get out what hes trying to portray(however hes trying to portray it). I believe we can only get offended if we let it. Maybe its my background of having a parent saying your sick and confused(PERIOD). But stil.. it would do ppl good to hear what they dont want to hear, it will help for when you dont have any other choice. You will know how to confront them(or at least know what to think).
One gains nothing by tryng to be rude. Ive dialogued with anti-gay(extremists) the sort that would quarantine gays(like Egypt) and dissolve marriage entirely before 'letting perverts desecrate the institution'. i wouldn't trade any minute of it. Like Corvino's quote explains,
"“If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”"
BTW, is wilson against or for gays? And MM? and patrick? Its easier to understand and understand the crux of the issue presented when one has that clear.
I know John Corvino is a pro-gay advocate, one which i admire to his openness to hear the nonsense(or not) of others. Maybe like him, i value what everyone has to say, however imprudent, rude, dishonest, defaming, etc.. it might be.
In order to 'get to' the person, one needs to understand, and hearing them speak(however it is they portray it) brings ppl close to understanding each other.
Everyone has their own base to define and approve or disprove things. For example, atheist might base their moral out of reason and logic. Christians might base their moral entirely on the bible. Since everyone is different, everyone will respond in a different manner, but ultimately, they usually have soemthing to rely on. If, say... one was to try and persuade a change in moral in a fundamentalist christian... no amount of reason or logic will sway them. THus, as imprudent as it might sounds to 'target the religion' it would be the only way(imho) to bring ppl closer to talk in the same language.
PS: Might've gotten way off topic but its all related in the end.
Michigan-Matt | May 1, 2008, 8:09pm | #
A question: Isn't this a piece written in the voice of John Corvino not Jonathan Rauch? To wit, "Recently Aquinas College, a Catholic school in Grand Rapids, Michigan, cancelled a lecture I was scheduled to give because of concerns about my opposition to Catholic teaching on homosexuality."
Editor: Yes, posting typo re: author now corrected. Sorry about that.