If no one reports on protesters at the Oscars, do they really exist?

Great post, Kim. Another factoid people ignore about Brokeback Mountain: it's the only best pic nominee banned in several countries, such as communist China, Singapore, and other winners. So, its protestors at the Academy and elsewhere have, well, stranger bedfellows than Jack or Ennis.

Reply

Protesters at Brokeback Mountain sites, have only one kind of world in mind.

If they succeed, we'll all be saying this...

First They had them come for the Jews, but I wasn't Jewish so I didn't speak out
Then They had them come for the Catholics, but I wasn't Catholic so I didn't care
Then They had them come for the gays, but I wasn't gay so I didn't complain
Then They had them come for the Buddhists, but I wasn’t one, so I didn’t protest
After all of those were marched off to the gas chambers and death houses-because the Bible (Leviticus in particular) teaches that they must die (look it up), they began looking for anyone else who didn’t believe in their “fundamentalist” beliefs, and rounded them up to be retaught to their way of thinking, and since I didn't agree with them, I was taken too, but there was no one left to speak for me.

Reply

When it first came into widespread use, the term "homophobia" must have seemed a brilliant rhetorical device. It allowed its user to avoid the substance of an opposing argument, and instead to strike directly at the mental state of his opponent. Any objections raised against homosexuality - whether moral, political, or biological - could be branded as a product of fear, and therefore ignored.
The trouble is that it worked too well. The combination of Straw Man with Ad Hominem, so theraputic at first, would eventually prove both addictive and poisonous, to the very people who dispensed it. The result today, is that few gay advocates have more than one medicine in their cabinet. They can accuse their enemies of being afraid, but if that fails they often have nothing else, for the stronger formulations have long since been poured out.

At present, the public debate on homosexuality is neither very public, nor is it properly a debate. The two sides simply do not engage each other on the same field. Those who oppose homosexuality, do so on moral grounds: they call it evil. Those who support it, however, do not argue that it is good: they merely say that to call it evil is a form of neurosis, a "phobia". The outcome is a grotesque logical mismatch, in which psychology struggles vainly to hold its own against ethics.
And what then? The great mass of people, neutral by inclination, are left to chose between two unattractive options. The first one may be a bigot, but he is a bigot offering a clearly stated theory of right and wrong. The second may be a liberal, but he is a liberal whose reply, all too often, sounds more like a medical diagnosis, than a proper defence of his own convictions.
The man in the middle is left with only one certainty: he does not wish to be called a homophobe. He therefore follows what seems the only safe course, which is to strenuously avoid the subject in thought, word, and deed.

So what have you done, those of you who recite the charm "homophobia" in place of reasoned speech?
You have intimidated into silence millions of undecided minds, each one a potential ally. We - for I am one of those minds - are waiting only for you to come and convince us. But to reach us, you would need first to let go that verbal stick you carry.
Tolerance is hardly a fit subject to be taught by a bully.

Reply

"Nobody - nobody - reported on the presence of people protesting Brokeback Mountain.Which begs the question, why?"

This doesn't "beg the question."
"Begging the question," also known as "petitio principii," refers to a specific logical fallacy in which the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premise. It has nothing to do with something that makes one ask a question.

Perhaps it IS better not to give the anti-gay protestors any attention? After all, isn't that what they want?

Reply

To Sean McCarthy, taking you at your word that you are open to the approach of this important topic by those not bandying insults, I'd first recommend you see the film - it's the best place to learn how this subject is approached in art, respecting both its characters and its audience (which, I hate to bring up, cannot in my estimation be said of Crash) without requiring any pro-or-con identification, without confining any approach towards or revolt from the subject as partisan ideology or psychological simplicity. The film is a very serious step forward in the dialogue you are desiring.

But the film is neither the first nor the only sensible, serious, and respectful effort made on behalf of an ostracized minority to an uncomfortable majority. If you truly desire to think and discuss these issues, please acquaint yourself as quickly as you can afford with the organization PFLAG. Their websites - http://pflag.com/pages/siteindex.html AND http://www.pflag.org/index.php?id=12 - offer a variety of resources for honest and sincere and thoughtful dialogue. I don't know if you come from a strong tradition of religious faith, but please note the resources catering to this community.

I am very sorry if you've felt rebuffed or attacked in trying to have this discussion. It is easy to become overly defensive - and you may not be the only person in the conversation feeling attacked. But you are right that bullying is a very grave mistake.

Homophobia is not an insult, but it is a description of a mental state - recognizing the overwhelming impact that fear of difference has on the lives and conversations and achievements of gays and lesbians. It is important to recognize that it is not a means of combining your "Straw-Man & Ad Hominem" tactics as a defense against reason - though I am sure it can be and has at times been used that way. What homophobia is in fact is a individual and cultural and societal stat of thought towards difference, and a powerful and oppressive force preventing equality and achievement of those affected by it - but not afflicted by it. It is something real, and if you want to have an honest discussion, you must reconcile with yourself its existence and power. And if it is misapplied, as you assert, it is important to question its application - not to dismiss it as a phantom or a dodge.

Reply

I can't think of a more appropriate response than ignoring them. We have hundreds of millions of people in this country, and there will ALWAYS be morons, but that's what they are. They aren't dangerous, in my opinion, they are just plain idiots.

There is nothing more entertaining to me than a protester "against" homosexuality. If there was ever something that affects a heterosexual less than homosexuality, I haven't seen it. Wild.

In any case, these sorts deserve less coverage, not more. Whether it's a change from the past or not, I don't care, it's the right direction to head, rather than wringing our hands about a dozen morons that got a hold of some card stock and markers.

Reply

This is precisely the sort of response which I hoped for, but did not expect to get. You certainly have my thanks for that.
It deserves more consideration than I currently have time to give it, but let me leave you with a pair of questions, in any case.

1.) Do you acknowledge the existence of any cause, other than phobia, which might lead a person to treat homosexuals in any manner other than they prefer to be treated?

2.) If other such causes do exist, how do you propose to distinguish them in practice? When faced with a suspected bigot, how will you know whether his bigotry descends from phobia, or from some other source?

Reply

Sean, while I think that homophobia is definitely real, I agree that it describes a specific condition and doesn't cover all the bases of opposition to homosexuality. Brief replies to your questions:

1) a) It's not always about phobia, as in knee-jerk fear or loathing. It can simply be about allowing one aspect of a person's identity to eclipse all others: a "homofixation," perhaps. My close friend, a conservative Christian, has a lesbian sister who's had a partner for the last ten years. My friend is not afraid of them; she keeps contact with them, welcomes them into her home, treats them with respect, etc. But she really thinks that they're only together for the sex. She can't comprehend that two people of the same sex could ever pair off for anything but carnal reasons. They couldn't possibly Genuinely love each other because love is between a man and a woman, etc. etc; LGBT nature is just sexual desire run amok. Here I think the culprit is simply a very narrow, hidebound view of human love and sexuality.

b) Conversely, some acknowledge that LGBT folk are capable of being in love and having rich relationships, and condemn homosexuality strictly on scriptural grounds. These people are odder to me because they allow a text to supersede the evidence of their own eyes. Case in point: a straight male friend, also devoutly Christian, who sang his way through college in an a cappella group that was at least half gay. These men were his good friends, yet in almighty Theory, or on the Eternal plane, or wherever he hangs his hat, there's still something fundamentally wrong with them. This group often softens the blow with lines like, "We're all sinners in God's eyes" or "God will judge, not I."

2) In my experience, bigots or true raving homophobes aren't very good at explaining themselves when pressed for clarification. Members of groups a) and b) (my friends, for example) are much better at at least articulating themselves. I don't agree with them, and I hope that some day they'll change their minds, but I respect them for at least being able to explain their positions. For now, their respectful and graceful behavior toward LGBT people balances their theoretical /abstract opposition.

Reply

And to others on the board - yes, I understand that LGBT folks are not required to fall in love or start families or do a single "normal" thing to validate their lives to anyone. And they shouldn't have to. But I think a large swath of opposition to homosexuality isn't so much about raw shrill phobia as a perception that LGBT identity is incompatible with "normal" life (romance, the family unit, etc.) This would include nonreligious social conservatives who perceive the LGBT community not as "immoral" but as "destabilizing to society." (Sean, you might call this cause #3). For these conservatives it could be a mind-blowing revelation to find out how boring, stable, and "normal" many LGBT folks really are.

Reply

To the 1st person who posted called Ed...Brokeback Mountain is not banned in singapore.I'm one of Brokeback Mountain fans in Singapore and i've watched it so many times so next time if you feel like writing a comment try and find out the details 1st rather than be mr know-it-all....

Reply

Dear Mr. McCarthy,
Let's see how much damage "Homophobia" has done...

You might also be interested to know that worldwide, the U.S. is the ONLY country that considers AIDS a "gay" disease! and that's only because hatemongers like you made it so. An overwhelming percent of the world's AIDS cases are Heterosexual, and are caused and spread by HETEROSEXUAL sex-therefore by your logic straight sex should be outlawed before we all die!
Homophobia and the courts>>>> The next time your wife of 35 years is hurt and ends up in the hospital, what are you going to do if you can't visit her, because the hospital's policy is that you can't. If your wife dies and her family takes the house-which you put in her name for "tax reasons", and all the possessions you've gathered together throughout your life and won't share them, or her life-insurance with you, or even allow you to attend her funeral, because they can, and you can't do anything about it, because the laws won't protect you.

You'd be holding "McCarthy" style hearings in Congress, and be screaming your head off and waving your precious Bible all over the place for "special rights" and you know it.
No one's asking for anything special except what everyone else has and it's hypocrates like you that give Christianity a bad name.

My God is one of Love-what's yours? Yours has to be one that is feared, and is spoken for by judgmental fools like you who try to put words in his mouth.

I and my wife are using YOUR posts to teach our CHRISTIAN children what kind of people NOT to be, but to live in fellowship with all people whom God created.

In God's love, I thank you for helping to accomplish that goal...

Reply

Sean,

Two good questions that are entitled to a brief but serious response:
1) "Other than they wish to be treated" or other than as equals? Unreasonable expectations are universal, but assuming you mean treated as less than equal - or in some other manner with discrimination - then yes, it is possible for there to be causes other than simple phobia. But there are no causes for this treatment wich justify it. None. Not sincere religious belief, nor education and upbringing, nor social pressure, nor any other. All acts of bigotry are wrong. And fear is the primary, but not sole, root of bigotry.

2) Discerning the cause of bigotry is not always simple, but by evaluating the behavior and motives and effects of the behavior, one can speculate as to the cause - not with medical certainty, but with a common understanding and reasonable degree of accuracy. You may be right that the quick application of the term homophobia cuts short a more detailed and thorough examination - and possibly hides those other less-discussed causes - but I think people are generally aware of other causes, and if there is evidence in the behavior of a person to find another cause, beyond the most pervasive and best culturally understood, it will be recognized, by both sides.

Now a couple of questions from me: Do you acknowledge fear, or some other cause, as being reponsible for the majority of instances such as these:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=24206 ?

Do you agree that fear of homosexuals is being cultivated by cultural leaders - particularly from the right - in an effort to encourage intolerance and demonize decent people?

A few years ago, PBS's show Frontline did a remarkable documentary on the murder of a young gay man. The program cannot be viewed online, but the transcript is available. Please note the way the web site defines and addresses homophobia.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/

And thank you, Sean, for continuing this discussion.

Reply

So it all boils down to language huh? The word "homophobia" is the big blockade to masses of understanding and loving thy neighbor (funny how once again it's the queers who are at fault)? I tend to disagree. I think we all know what is meant when a person who hates, dislikes, ridicules, censors, condemns, threatens, beats, kills, and so on, is called a homophobe. A clinical diagnosis is not being made but a label is being applied that, in my mind is fitting for a wide variety of closed minded people. I do not think it is necessary to determine if the homophobia is based on religious theory, family tradition, fear of being outed (i.e., protesting too much), or plain old ignorance. Although there may be degrees of homophobia, or, if you prefer, anti-gay bigotry, I do not think it is the victim's responsibility to determine the source or degree of his/her oppressor. The homophobes, homo-haters, bigots, dumb asses, or whatever, are the one who need to put down their "God Hates Fags" signs and join the human race.

Reply

To quote Genesis
We fear what we don't understand
We kill what we fear

I have the distinct impression that Sean is afraid of being found out, or he's afraid of feelings that he-himself has. Just exactly who is he trying to prove himself to with all this ranting against gays for, unless it's himself?

Reply

Brokeback Mountain is the best film to come out in many a year. Script and screenplay were excellent . Directing unblemished.Cinematography was sweeping and breathtaking, and only added to the love affair as did the musical score.

Actors were actors to the core, and did a wonderful job of putting across the heart breaking , gut wrenching love that could not be satisfied by their distance from each other, but even with that distance they had each other for 20 some years , and that in itself shows their love for each other as not just being physical, but on the level of soul-mates.

As every muscle in your body yearns for the sight of that loved-one and the pain will not subside for want of that person. Ennis and Jack had that forbidden love for each other and it played out like the great love affair it was . If any say that this is a film about gays , then I feel sorry for you. As you have missed a great part of life not to see that this is related to everyone who has gone over to the doorway and retched from the pain in your guts. It is humanity as bad or as good as it gets...

"Brokeback Mountain, E Annie Proulx, ( Short story ) Ennis Del Mar , (Heath Ledger) Jack Twist, (Jake Gyllenhaal) Ang Lee, (Director ) Larry Mcmurty (screen play) ..............I Swear.....whence comes such another

This is your comment, you

Reply

Proteus,

The Frontline article was, as you promised, remarkable, even by the unusually high standards of that show.

And I certainly do agree that "homophobia" is a useful enough concept, when applied to the psychology of an actual hate criminal. Which is to say, I have no quarrel with the accepted profile of the VIOLENT gay basher as a Bible-ridden, repressed homosexual, who imagines he's curing himself with every punch he delivers. Here, we have no dispute.
But what happens when this term, so descriptive in the above application, is used against someone whose only crime is that he did not vote for Brokeback Mountain on his Oscar ballot? Can the same label justly be used in both cases, without being so drastically cheapened, that it loses its most important meaning?

You're a reasonable man, so perhaps you CAN use words elastically, while yet keeping track of their very different meanings. But look at the posts on either side of your own. Do they appear to draw any distinction between me and the street-corner thug who who speaks only through the tread of his Doc Martens?
You can see how, mild as I am, every effort is now being made to shout me down. There is, in some of these posts, an hysteria characteristic of one who wants only to end a discussion, and is ready to do so by any means within his reach. Consider that:
Though a zealous atheist, who said not a word about religion here, I've been labeled a Christian...by those who do not care to imagine opposition from any other source.
Though a heterosexual, who has given no hint of leaning otherwise, I've been called a closet case...by those who do not care to imagine opposition from any other course.
Though I've never questioned the right of homosexuals to equality under the law, I am assumed to oppose gay marriage...by those who do not care to have an ally who concurs in the most vital parts of their agenda, but who dissents in some comparatively minor detail.

What do you make of that, Proteus?

Why do your would-be debating partners seem far more alien to you, than we are to each other?

Reply

I just want to commend Sean McCarthy on his utterly hopeless quest to bring rationality to the internet. Sean, not only can they not understand what you are saying, they do not WANT to understand. Give up, dude. Human beings are not improvable.

Reply

Sean, you're defeating yourself by going into long-winded and endless posts, that frankly no one wants to read past the first paragraph or two. If you're going to make a point, do it succinctly and briefly.
You're obviously a closeted gay who's trying to prove otherwise to God-knows-who (possibly yourself) and your thinly disguised bigotry mascarading as plagiarized textbook drivel is completely wasted on us.

Reply

What is the difference Sean? A homophobe is one who is scared of homosexuals/homosexuality. If a person did not vote for Brokeback Mountain because he or she didn't even care to view the picture simply because it features homosexuals/homosexual acts and that disgusts him or her is he or she not a homophobe? Perhaps that Oscar voter might not tie a homosexual to a fence post and beat him to a bloody pulp but he or she is, in my mind still a homophobe. It is a matter of degrees. Those protesters at the Oscars were and are homophobes - plain and simple. If there was a group of people protesting African-Americans being represented in Crash would we debate whether or not they were racists?

Reply

There are all kinds Tim, you just reminded me of a post on another forum where someone named JB is trying to convince everyone and actually believes that Matthew Shepherd wasn't killed in Wyoming because he was gay!
Sean sounds to me like he belongs to that church the Rev. Phelps runs that's currently picketing our brave soldier's funerals across the country because he claims that God is killing off our troops because the U.S. tolerates gays in our country, and also went to Matthew's funeral with signs the read "God hates fags", and "Matthew deserved to die" quoting Leviticus!
I agree with Brock, "Me thinks Sean doth protest too much!"

Reply