Pro same-sex “marriage” activists work hard at hiding their radical goal with conservative rhetoric, despite gay spokesmen who occassionally let the cat out of the bag.

Another thing these activists would like to keep from the public is how deeply divided homosexuals themselves are over the push to redefine marriage. But every so often that particular cat makes it out of the bag too.

Several months ago the Courant ran a profile of the host of the state’s oldest gay talk-radio program. The man was something of a legend in local gay circles. But buried deep in the story was a passing reference to his opposition to same-sex “marriage.”

Last Sunday the Courant’s arts section ran a story on EROS, one of Trinity College’s ubiquitous gay film festivals. In the article Suzanne Shayer, vice president of Out Film CT, the sponsor of EROS, expressed her concern to the Courant about the price of “presenting a united front on marriage and gender issues”:

Regarding gay marriage, Shayer says that despite the legislative gains in some areas of the country, some activists are wary of establishing a “homo-normativity” that implies “that a white picket fence and 2.3 children is what everyone should strive for.

“[Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] folks have thrived in opposition to these societal pressures and norms and want to value all individual choices,” says Shayer.

“Boy I Am” [one of the films] taps into that same uneasiness: Are female-to-males promoting social progress, or are they tapping into the sort of traditional male privilege that women in general should discourage?

“Female-to-males,”–for those of us not on the cutting edge of homo-normativity–are apparently women who have had sex-change operations, a practice frowned upon by some lesbian activists. Such controversies are now deemed good fodder for Trinity film festivals and the Courant’s arts section.

But not at legislative hearings, where the false image of a “united front” of homosexuals who view same-sex “marriage” as a desirable goal remains the rule.

4 Responses to “Homo-Normativity?”

  1. on 20 Nov 2007 at 12:01 pmBob R.

    One of the rules of being a liberal, a socialist, a homosexual etc, is to never tell anyone what you really think. For if you do, you run the tremendous risk that the normal, average, run of the mill Jane and Joe American will outright object and refuse anything so blatantly out of the mainstream; the order of normalcy, of decency and of morality.

    Obviously this confession by gay activist Michelangelo Signorile, was a quote given when he spilled his guts, telling the truth about the gay lifestyle in what he perceived to be a safe “Gay friendly Media outlet”. Et Tu Michaelangelo?

    Whether it be a liberal politician talking about raising taxes, or about a school board declaring that they want to teach your children about homosexuality, cross-dressing, or even about the lie of so called “Safe-Sex”….., whenever real people, people with families, mothers and fathers with sons and daughters and grandparents with precious grandchildren hear about such perverse nonsense, whatever it is, it will be outright rejected at the ballot box. This is why people are not trusted to vote on these issues.

    This is why morally bankrupt Politicians, when social rules of law that are destined to change the landscape of society for decades, never trust the people to decide on these issues by a vote. These same politicians hold the avergae American to be too stupid, too backward and socially inept. This is why, the real truth of the gay movement cannot be revealed publicly. For if it was revealed, and good people of conscience are given the opportunity to vote, morality will prevail.

    So the Socialist liberal left, hand in hand with the extreme radical homosexual movement continues to attempt to mandate laws from the bench. It is because they cannot compete with what is truly good for mankind, and they will never win in the arena of ideas or morality.

  2. on 21 Nov 2007 at 11:27 amDavid

    Just wondering, have you ever looked around the ‘net to see how many heterosexual individuals/groups there are opposed to the “traditional” version of marriage? Since there are plenty I guess then there is no united front supporting it and all government involvement in personal/family relationships should be abolished.

  3. on 25 Nov 2007 at 5:36 pmDavid

    Here’s what I don’t understand in both the article and the response above. There seems to be this impression that there is one “group-think” opinion on all issues that everyone in the LGBT communities must have and must communicate to the rest of you. That is a completely ridiculous concept. We are individuals free to make our own decisions. So yes, there are those who disagree with fighting for same-sex marriage, and there are those who couldn’t care less. It is insane to call it deceptive if those who are pro-marriage present a united front on the issue – because “they” all are! No one that I know of has ever said that all homosexuals are behind this push. In fact the whole thing was spearheaded by the conservative factions, the “we should blend in and maybe they’ll leave us alone” crowd. It’s funny they get called activists by the right.
    I feel it is an important issue but many others get lost if that is the focus. I many states we can still be fired simply because of who we love. We can be denied housing, medical care, physical safety and equal protection under the law. These issues are far more important as far as I’m concerned than whether we can get piece of paper that says we are “married”. Marriage is a function of the church, not the state. The state’s involvement is a civil issue, all “marriages” sanctioned by the state are civil unions, nothing more, nothing less.

    I got sidetracked 🙂 Question for you – do all heterosexuals agree on marriage, abortion, birth control, environmental issues etc. And if not, why do you expect that of us? Are those who fight for (or against) these things deceptive if they don’t specifically point out that there are heterosexuals who disagree with them? Perhaps the problem comes from your inability (or refusal) to see us as people, as individuals, as people with feelings, emotions and souls. You see us as an “agenda” or a “sin”. To you we are a large “thing” that you need to fight, not human beings who think differently on ONE (1) issue than you – our right to exist and live freely.

    The history of mankind is filled with examples of the majority singling out the “other” to condemn, fight, despise and at times even attempt to eradicate. Jesus Christ never did that – He came to draw all to Him. His recorded works are largely speaking for, healing and loving those considered the “other”. Why can’t those who follow Him do the same? Look carefully at who He actually chastised and whose actions He condemned and take heed.

  4. on 01 Dec 2007 at 11:47 amDoug


    I need to challenge you on a couple points here. But first, your point that there is in fact no collective mindset on either side of any issue is well taken. In fact, much to my chagrin, we on the right often “eat our young,” so to speak, with our own internal dissention.

    But that said, I am curious, which heterosexual groups oppose traditional marriage, and why?

    And which states, still fire gays from jobs, or deny them “housing, medical care, physical safety”? I won’t address the “equal protection” you cited because I presume you are discussing gay marriage, and that’s a whole other discussion.

    But which hospital ER will deny you, as a gay man, treatment if you walk in there profusely bleeding, short of breath or in severe pain? And how do the doctors and nurses there know you are gay? Do gay people wear signs labelling themselvs as gay that I have never formerly noticed? On which line does a mortgage or lease application ask you your sexual preference? I am not talking about some hard-headed, hard-hearted bigotted idiot with a personal and hateful axe to grind against gays, I am referring to sanctioned legality. Which states do these greivances that you cite officially still occur as matters of policy in the United States in 2007?

    With regard to “physical safety,” I also presume you are talking about lack of legislation and/or enforcement of so-called “hate crimes.” If that is in fact what you are referring to, as far as I know, they are now pretty universal in this country, on the federal and state level. I will also tell you that I have a big problem with them.

    Name me any “hate crime” that is not already addressed by either the federal or any state penal code. They are all there: murder, assault, criminal mischeif, harrassment, threatening, etc…

    Hate crimes are discriminatory and ludicrous.

    They are redundant. They also take a specific group of people, and not just gays, but in crimianal statutes, also minorities, the elderly and the disabled as well, and elevate them to a higher class of citizenship. A more severe penalty is applied to the crimianal, not because his act was necessarily any more heinous, but because his victim was a member of one of these politically correct and politically chosen and created victim classes.

    Also, crime by definition is a hateful act, so what, pray tell, is a “hate crime”? I don’t think I have ever heard of a crime committed out of love; passion perhaps, but certainly not love.

    Last but not least, hate crimes were realistically not created to better enforce the law, but to appease certain groups from whining about perceived discrimination. I do not deny that discrimination exists, but it’s not like prior to hate crimes, these crimianal acts were offically sanctioned by law either. Trust me on this one, any criminal about to committ a crime does not sit down first and conduct a legal analysys about whether he will be fined $100 or a $1,000, or whether he will get 5 years of 10 years. It’s just not a factor. Hate crime legsialtion is feel good nonsense that does nothing more than contradict itself and actually impose that which it is supposedly enacted to thwart; discrimination.

    And I have said this before, and I will say it again. Some fringe misfits aside, which exist in just about any and every group, most Christian, conservative, pro family people and groups, myself included, do not at all view gays as “sin,” or “an agenda.” We oppose the act, not the people committing the act. And that said, abusing the courts as a platform to forward gay activist activities that appropriately are under the purview of the legsilature hardly wins your cause any points with many of us by any means.

    There was only one Jesus Christ, David, and you and I both speak of the same man. Yes, He is loving, and yes, He is healing. He loves you, too and wants you to come home. He misses you like the father to the prodical son or the sheperd missing a sheep. But He doesn’t like what you are doing, and David, that is part of love, too. I don’t hate you, David. You and I disagree on some issues, and at times, perhaps even vehamently so, but make no mistake about, I do not hate you. You are living your life in a state of unrepented mortal sin. I don’t wish any harm to you whatsoever, David, and espesically, I do not wish an eternity of damnation for you either. Eternity is an awful long time with no turning back. Are you a gambling man, David? is Clint Eastwood said in the movie, “Dirty Harry,” “Are you feeling lucky?” Did you hear the one about the guy who decided to commit suicide? He really wanted to do it right, so he jumped off the roof of a 40 story building. The problem is, as he was plummetting down to the ground below, at about the 20th or so floor, he suddenly changed his mind and decided he really wanted very much to live instead. Oops! Don’t be misled by what the Bible refers to as “this world,” David. In “this world,” espesically nowadays, there is (in perception) never a point of no return, hence all the lack of personal accountability. Our present culture has creatd a fantasy, much like the Sirens of Greek mytholgy, that is as destructive and deceptive as it is alluring and seemingly innocuous. There is a point of no return, David, in the “next world,” and it can be an ominous and dreadful thing. But Jesus Christ gave you salvation, not by His mandate, but by your own free choice, through Him. Do I sound like I hate you, David? If I hated you, I wouldn’t care, or I would even be glad about your current state.

    You are correct that in history, as you cited, “mankind,” an oxymoron in this case, has often tried to eradicate certain minority groups. What was that insidious term Rosie O’Donnell used…”radical Christians”? Hey, David, make no mistake about it, there are plenty of folks out there, and yes, maybe even some so-called “Christians” as well, who might gleefully and zealously wish to harm gays, or for that matter, just about any other group of people. Like I said, those fanatics exist everywhere, and on your side as well as mine, but fortunately they are in the vast minority, despite all the attention they get. You strike me as a fairly intellegent fellow. David, do you really think that the majority of those of us really wish to eradicate gays? Come on, David. Are we really on the same level as the Taliban, al Quaeda, etc..? Are we going around, blowing people up or lopping heads off? David, could you and I even have this discourse in Iran right now? Think about it. I know that must make you temporarily feel good to write that, say that, and think that, but deep down inside, I think you really know better. Am I wrong?

    David, I don’t know if you have any praticing religious faith, or if you do, what it is. But I am a practicing Roman Catholic. And I must tell you, that even within my own faith, I am very discouraged nowadays because our clergy has been so infiltrated, watered down and negatively effected by our present culture. Just yesterday in the mail, a Catholic institution that my wife and I often support invited us to a “Holiday” celebration. I guess all our invited to Jesus’s birthday party but Jesus, Himself. Our priests now preach this fluffy, feel good so-called mininterpettd, if not outright bastardized version of our Church’s catechsim from the pulpit on Sunday mornings, no Heaven or Hell, no good or evil, just love, love, love. These “Father Happy” types don’t really want to offend anybody, but they obviously don’t want to save them, either. Facts are like a flu shot or any other vaccination; they hurt a little bit, but their absence can hurt us much more. There is a difference betwen discrimination and judgment, and yes, judgment is a good thing when used appropriately. The whole premise of moral relativism is that we should not judge other people because they might feel that what they are doing is OK. Are you a sports fan, David? How would, or even could we play a baseball or football game without all those pesky lines drawn all over the ground? Boundaries and walls are like cars and guns: they can be used for good or evil, depending on the handler. There is also a difference between freedom and license. Heaven and Hell never went away and good and evil still exist. A good parent disciplines his child when the child misbehaves. That doesn’t mean a lack of love; on the contrary, it shows true love. Yes, David, Jesus does love you, but he hates what you are doing. Can an addict recover unless he decides to cease the substance or act that is hurting him? If you have a heart attack from high cholesterol, medication and maybe even surgery may help for a while, but you’ll soon be back to square one again soon unless you put down the TV remote, get off the sofa and take a walk around the block once in a while and lay off the greasy super-sized cheeseburgers and french fries. You cannot be healed until you repent, David. Don’t fall into the all too common trap of misinterpretting Jesus’s healing and love for some trendy, modern day “Dr. Feel Good.” In the end, you will lose, and then it will be too late. Beleive it or not, David, I frequently pray for people like you, unrepentant mortal sinners. Let me head you off before you come back with the ineveitable: yes, I am a sinner, too, absolutely. None of us are perfect, David. We are all sinners. The key is to be truly remorseful and to sincerely try to repent. Only then will you fully encounter true healing and love. In a spiritual sense, you have willfully separated your soul from God, but the repair is readily available, but only if you want it and seek it. Freedom is eating chicken for supper tonight instead of steak. License is going to a bank to rob it instead of applying for a job as a teller. God, through Jesus, gave you choice, david, and you are choosing license over freedom. You better get used to judgement, David, because some day, you will face it like all the rest of us, and you will be accordingly judged by the hand that you dealt to the loving Creator who loved you enough to give you both the gifts of choice, and reasoning, and then patiently waitd and watched to see how you would use or abuse those gifts.

    I know…who is this sanctimonious schmuck? I’ll tell you who I am, David; I’m your brother. We are all brothers and sisters. We all have a commandment, not a suggestion, but a “commandment” to love our neighbors as ourselves. That means that I have as much duty for your soul as my own. I cannot control what you do or not do. I can only offer you my hand in true Christian love and hope and pray that you will accept it. Or are you waiting for a sign from God? Hello, David. I’m here. It’s me, the sanctimonious schmuck. I am your sign.

    Did you hear the one about the great flood that was about to come as the dam was crumbling? The police came to this guy’s front door, rang the bell and told him to evacuate. He waved his Bible at them and said God would protect him. Then he slammed the door in th cops’ faces. Then came the flood. Soon, it was halfway up to this guy’s split level ranch. Then along came a bunch of firemen in a row boat. They approached his bedroom window and told the guy to get into the boat. He waved his Bible at them and said God would protect him. Then he slammd the window shut and pulld down the shade. The flood worsened. It was now up to the attic of the house. The guy cut a hole through his roof and climbed out, but was still stranded on the roof amidst the rising waters. Then came a loud rumbling noise and a powerful gust of wind. It was a helicopter above. Soon, basket on a rope was lowered down with a Petty Officer from the Coast Guard in the basket. The Petty Officer told the guy to get in, but he again waved his Bible at him and said God would protect him. Th Petty Oficer pleaded with the guy to get into the basket to no avail. The copter soon left, as other people needed rescuing, too. Shortly later, the waters soon rose above the house comepletely, consuming the guy, still desperately clutching his Bible, as he drowned. St. Peter met the guy at the Pearly Gates, and the guy was furious. He shook his Bible at St. Peter an said, “God was supposed to protect me!” St. Peter retorted, “Hey, lay off, pal. We sent you cops on foot, firemen in a boat and even the Coast Guard with a helicopter, and you refused help from all of them. What more do you want?”

    OK, think me a sanctimonious schmuck if you so please, David. But what more do you want?

    Come home, David. You are very welcome. All you need do is unlock the door and come in.

    I wish you well.


Leave a Reply