3/24/99
ldlockman@telplus.net
In just over 725 words, Peter Rees managed in his Bangor Daily News op-ed piece (March 11, 1999) to intone nearly the full range of gay-activist clichés and propaganda buzz words. Where to begin with unpacking this touchy-feely drivel?
Let's start with "homophobia." Nowhere in his piece does Mr. Rees make any attempt to define this term of opprobrium. Yet he claims my commentary is evidence of the dreaded plague that infects society, schools in particular. Oddly enough, he has apparently devoted much of his life in retirement to eradicating this undefined malady.
In my commentary that Rees labeled an example of "homophobia," I never once made any moral judgments about homosexuality, nor did I attack or criticize homosexuals per se. My criticism was directed solely at the politicized Gay Left and its legislative demands for inclusion of "sexual orientation" as a minority class. Rees' invocation of "homophobia" to condemn my remarks only proves that this undefined term is a propaganda buzz word employed to smear opponents and shut down debate.
The truth is that "homophobia" is a garbage term devoid of any scientific meaning. It was coined by queer theorists as pejorative terminology to be pinned on anyone who challenges the goofy notion that homosexuals are an oppressed minority group entitled to the same legal status and benefits as disadvantaged racial, ethnic, and disabled minorities.
Shutting Down Debate, Trashing Opponents
Of course, "phobia" connotes a mental illness or disorder, so the accusation of "homophobia" hurled at an adversary carries the added weight of suggesting that the target of the epithet needs professional help for a mental disease.
At Bates College, all the student protesters had to do was scream "homophobia" and the companion term "hate crime" to make administrators cave in to the campus Gay Left's demands for money and power. (One wonders if some of the protesters were formerly students of Mr. Rees). And what was the spark that ignited gay activists' shrieks of "blatant homophobia"? Why, it was the removal from campus walkways of posters, scrawlings, and graffiti celebrating "gay pride".
Almost invariably, the propaganda term "homophobia" is employed as an offensive weapon to bludgeon society into acquiescence with gay-activist policy demands. For Mr. Rees to toss this word around as if it has any real meaning beyond its propaganda value is an abuse of the English language. For him to be drilling this palpable nonsense into the heads of impressionable school children is educational malpractice.
It's noteworthy that Mr. Rees chose not to dispute my reporting of the Gay Left's stormtrooper tactics at Bates and elsewhere. If he were able to get past his urge to call names -- "Homophobe!" -- it just might be possible to have a real debate about the goals and methods of the gay-rights movement.
The Great Pretenders: Isn't Anybody Gay Anymore?
It's also remarkable that in his op-ed (and apparently in his role as a school psychologist) Mr. Rees promulgates the notion that sexual orientation is an innate biological trait. In fact, Rees fancies himself an advocate for "gay kids." This is the party line of gay activism: "We're born this way, we can't change, and --damn it!-- if we could, don't you think we would have?"
The notion that sexual orientation is fixed -- that gays and lesbians are "born that way" -- is promoted as scientific truth by the Gay Left and its elite media allies. But the genetics theory is strictly for public consumption. The brains behind the gay-rights movement know the "biology is destiny" argument has no scientific basis, and was put into play for political purposes only.
On this score, Mr. Rees would appear to be one of the countless dupes employed by gay activists to advance their counterfeit claim to victim status. To understand just how cynically he's being used, Rees might want to obtain a copy of the June 24, 1997 issue of The Advocate, which bills itself as "the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine." The cover story is titled "The Sexual Blur" -- "with straights falling for gays, lesbians dating men, and gay men in love with women, is anybody anything anymore? Isn't anybody gay?"
The article quotes prominent gay activists and academics who readily concede that sexual orientation is fluid rather than fixed. Longtime lesbian activist and author JoAnn Loulan minces no words: "I don't know why the genetics argument is going to help us....I think it is a pathetic argument to say `I can't help it.' I don't think it exists for everybody, and I don't think it matters....Why is everybody freaking out about it being a choice? It's a great choice."
Amy Agigian, who teaches queer theory at Brandeis University, is no less blunt: "I've never found the `I can't help it' argument very persuasive or very helpful in the politics of sexuality. As a feminist, for me it's about being able to follow your heart and being able to love who you love and desire who you desire."
The article's author traces the origins of the "born that way" theory to the early days of the gay liberation movement. When militant homosexuals adopted the political methods of the black civil-rights movement of the 1960s, it became necessary to present homosexuality as an ethnicity. As radical feminist Paula Rust explains: "In order to use ethnic politics, they [gay activists] had to pretend as if there was a clear boundary between gay and straight."
So there you have it, Mr. Rees. Do you understand now why we refer to the hijacking of the civil-rights movement by a selfish special-interest group? For years, the Gay Left has been pretending to be something it's not. By their own admission, homosexual activists concocted the "biology is destiny" mantra to piggyback on the civil-rights movement and advance their own narrow political agenda. And along the way, legions of useful idiots (many of them with impressive academic and professional credentials) have helped disseminate the fraud.
As for Mr. Rees' attempt to paint me as a paranoid conspiracy theorist, that accusation will have to wait till next time in this space for a rebuttal. In the meantime, think about this: isn't it amazing how frequently gay-rights advocates accuse their opponents of committing the very offenses gay activists are most guilty of?
Lawrence Lockman is chairman of Concerned Maine Families
What's Your View?
Start or join a discussion on The Liars' Bench or email us