Michael Atherton wrote [in response to Scott Benson]:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Therefore, I was taken aback by the comment attributed to Mark Stenglein in this
>article: "Sooner or later there will be a gay agenda that emerges, and it won't be
>the same as the one for middle-class, two-parent, heterosexual families."
[snip]
>
> Strangely, I find your implication that gay or Jewish individuals don't have
> political interests that differ uniquely from those of middle-class, two-parent,
> Christian families, absurd. If gay and Jewish individuals don't have their
> own agendas, why do they have their own PACs?
-----------
There are at least three serious prejudiced flaws to Stenglein's
statement reflecting homophobic fears of a "gay agenda":
First, there is the errant assumption that a candidate with a personal
homosexual identity, by virtue of his sexual orientation, will
automatically do more to advance the agendas of GLBT advocacy groups
than a competing candidate with a personal heterosexual identity.
(There is also a corrollary questionable generalization that there is a
particular agenda or set of views that represents all gay people. I
will accept hypothetically that there could be a general consensus on
specific positions and priorities). Just like with almost any other
group, there are individual gay people with almost every party
identification, ideological preference, and differing positions on any
given issue. A particualar heterosexual candidate could easily be more
committed to advancing "gay" issues than a homosexual candidate. By way
of comparison, there are examples throughout this country where African
American political officials have not been committed to advancing an
agenda perceived to be favorable to most of the African American
community.
The second and real important prejudiced assumption is that a "gay
agenda" is somehow in conflict with the interests of a "typical"
American middle class Christian family. How does advocating for equal
rights, priveleges, benefits or any other sort of equality threaten
anyone else? It would seem that ensuring equality and justice for all
would ultimately benefit most people. (specific example, the civil
rights movement of the 60s led to legislation not only to prevent race
discrimination but also discrimination based on sex, age, religion, or
national origin). Frankly, the only people that are threatened by such
an "agenda" are a small group of people such as Stengein with
narrow-minded dogmatic prejudices, usually advanced under the guise of
religious beliefs, that lead them to somehow identify other people's
personal lifestyles to be a threat to themselves.
Jordan Kushner
Powderhorn
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
