From: robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper)
Subject: Re: Gayspace
Organization: Stanford University
	<1992Jul28.014856.4343@macc.wisc.edu> <l79i1qINNlv2@mizar.usc.edu>
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:35:05

In article <l79i1qINNlv2@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

   I was tired and cranky when I started all this.  I'm still a little
   tired and cranky, so forgive me.

Ah.  An ideal frame of mind to have when wandering around in
a minefield...  

   In article <1992Jul28.014856.4343@macc.wisc.edu> 
   anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
   |
   | In article <l78d51INNavl@mizar.usc.edu>
   | adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (Arne Adolphson) writes:
   |
   | >It's my understanding that the city council approved placing
   | >the monument on city property, but that the monument itself
   | >was paid for by gl organizations.
   |
   | To play the Devil's advocate, what's so different about the
   | OCA putting up a monument on city property in Springfield,
   | Oregon, then, if political clout alone is enough to ratify
   | such a step?

   Political clout alone does not justify anything.  

Hold that thought.

   In this particular instance -- commemorating several months' worth
   of demonstrations against bigotry and oppression by the placing of
   a monument on the site where those demonstrations began -- is
   entirely appropriate.  The commemoration, worthy as it is, however,
   would not happen were it not for the fact that we *do* have
   political clout.  It's all very well and good to have a just cause
   -- and that is precisely what the monument will point out -- but
   without clout, without power, where are we?

Worse off than we'd be without it, of course.  However, there are
several things to keep in mind.  One is that we can't win in a direct
power struggle.  The second is that even the small amount of political
power we have can be misused.  The third is that what political power
we have is essential if we are to make progress.  Naturally, these
tend to be contradictory, just to make life interesting.

   The OCA may have clout in benighted townships, but they
   most certainly are not interested in furthering the cause
   of liberty, in promoting tolerance, in bettering this 
   world for anyone but their fellow-travellers.

They say the same things about us.  They claim we are nothing more
than yet another special interest group, with no higher purpose in
mind than fighting for a bigger share of the pie.  They are wrong.
They *must* be wrong about this.

BTW, why "benighted townships."  Surely there are family and friends
who cannot or will not leave these places.  Are they to be written off
because the opposition is too strong?

   | >>>>And if the phobes don't like it, they're welcome
   | >>>>to move to a city 35% of whose residents are not gay.  I'm
   | >>>>sure they'd be able to find such cities. 
   |
   | >>Carl is right to call this a bigoted remark.  It's analogous
   | >>to "If those folks are annoyed by the Stars and Bars, let
   | >>'em get up north."
   |
   | >Perhaps it was a bigoted remark.  I'm not terribly
   | >concerned, though.

I see.  Then the OCA is right.  According to your statements, you are
simply looking out for number one, with no more regard for principles
than our enemies.  What a disgusting attitude.

   | Well, perhaps you should be.  How can you have such a
   | callous disregard for the results of bigotry as to feign
   | being unconcerned at the same time as you complain about
   | being discriminated against?  Being unconcerned about it is
   | to have no moral stature at all.  You're surely not that
   | much of a cynic nor a nihilist, Arne.

   I will not cmpromise when it comes to gl issues.  Quite simply,
   in fact, there *is* no compromise.

Who said anything about compromise?  My point (and, I think, one of
Jess's) is simply that our demands for rights are not based on the
meagre political power we have in a few isolated cities (even though
that power is necessary for progress to occur).  Our demands are based
on the ethical absolute that invidious discrimination is wrong.

So only a hypocrite would complain about discrimination against us and
then spout this "West Hollywood aka Queertown --- love it or leave it"
bilge.  

Avoiding hypocrisy is hardly a compromise.

   There is nothing to argue about; phobes have no position worth
   listening to.  If a homophobe does not like the fact that the gay
   and lesbian community has some power in West Hollywood -- power to
   push through domestic partnership laws, power to insist that the
   city fund HIV clinics, power to insist that the city heirarchy
   respect us for who and what we are -- then he/she can leave town.
   I really do mean that.  Nothing is being taken *away* from said
   homophobes -- their protest is that we exist and that the city
   treats us like human beings.  I say "fuck you" to the phobes and I
   invite them to leave town on the next available bus.

Callous.  Maybe, just maybe, some of the phobes deserve that.  But
what about those of us who are family and who cannot or will not live
in such areas as West Hollywood.  You've just said "fuck you all" to
us as well.  Your vicious, amoral, power-based argument cuts both ways
very nicely indeed, and quite literally gives our enemies a license to
kill (just as long as they don't do it in West Hollywood).  Thanks.

- Bob

Newsgroups: soc.motss