But what have these to do with “selfishness and arrogance”? In what parallel universe are those who strive and sacrifice for justice, responsibility, and peace singled out for criticism rather than praise?

A more convincing argument would have pointed to our circuit party lifestyle, dependence on drugs and alcohol, celebration of sexual violence and domination, and demands for instant sexual gratification in public parks and restrooms. These are all too common in our community and surely are the selfish and arrogant behaviors that tear-away at the fabric of society and our values, much less our personal health and genuine “pride”.

Let’s not confuse heroism for hedonism or virtue for vice. Would that the gay community had more “selfish and arrogant” people like those David lists. America should be so lucky.

But I don’t agree that it was morally questionable. It threatened to
get out of hand, but at the end of the day, it stayed pretty much
within the realm of self-defence. A bunch of corrupt thugs, who just
happened to be policemen, attacked a group that they’d set up to have a pretext to attack, and the attackees resisted. Now according to some conceptions of non-violence, there might be an argument for total passivity in the face of violence, and for magnanimously getting
steamrollered, but as far as I’m concerned, (i) that’s a PR call, not
a moral one, and (ii) it turned out to be a pretty good PR call in
that it inspired other gay people rather more than it pissed off
potential allies.

DB: “When Soulforce, an organization devoted to nonviolence, has
special events to mark the anniversary of Stonewall, you know there’s
some moral confusion going on in the gay and lesbian community.”

Well sure, if Soulforce advocates non-violence under all
circumstances, then you’re right to be puzzled as to why it would
associate itself with Stonewall. But then if it advocates that, it
doesn’t speak for me, and, I fancy for plenty of other gay people. See
e.g., the comments at http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11770/stonewall-commemoration-at-fort-worth-tx-gay-club-turns-into-police-raid
.

Mind you, that doesn’t mean I wish that Soulforce would shut up. I’m a firm believer in a mix of strategies. According to the principle of
the Overton window, if Soulforce is the only gay voice out there it
will be perceived as extremist no matter how milquetoast it is. It
needs some people taking a more aggressive approach to compete with to be taken seriously. I don’t think the stakes are remotely high enough to warrant literal bombthrowers going out and initiating violence but some scratching, clawing drag queens and general rioting in response to unjust attacks have their place.

I think part of the misunderstanding about my references to heterosexual AIDS is that I was emphasizing that heterosexual AIDS in America was not and is not and, it appears, never will be an epidemic, not that some heterosexual people don’t get AIDS from straight sex (although often from having sex with bisexual men and IV drug users).

Mark-

The main point is not sackcloth and ashes at pride events, but choosing other episodes and heroes in gay history to celebrate, rather than this morally questionable event. When Soulforce, an organization devoted to nonviolence, has special events to mark the anniversary of Stonewall, you know there’s some moral confusion going on in the gay and lesbian community.

Rusty-

Yeah, I’m writing a weekly review of the shows at the Muny, our outdoor theater here in St. Louis. You can read them at PlaybackSTL.com.

Do Tell

Oh, sure, the NY sodomy law was in effect till 1980, when it was struck down by a state court. But who cares? The public “morality” it sought to uphold was itself immoral, and, retrospectively at least, the law was unconstitutional. Therefore I don’t see that gay people need to be the least bit apologetic for civil disobedience against it.

Also of course, there are the usual issues that arise when we reflect on past injustice. I’m prepared to cut the NY authorities a bit of personal slack for being people of their time, which just happened to be a rather barbaric time as far as gay rights were concerned. But I have no intention of cutting them any slack on the substance - I think their attitudes were wholly indefensible on the merits and the most charitable thing that can be said for them they were merely _thoughtlessly_ vindictive. That’s not something I’m the least bit interested in honouring with sackcloth and ashes moments in gay pride events. And that’s before considering the fact that they were also corrupt and on the take from the Mafia.

I’m guessing that sodomy was illegal at the time, so refusing liquor licenses from “gay bars” would have been a matter of public morality, rather than just a “pretext for harrassment”. In the same way any bar that was notorious for prostitution would be shut down today.

I think even that concedes way too much to the legitimacy of the NY authorities and David’s argument, on two counts:

First, the only reason gay people were drinking in a Mafia-run bar in the first place is that the NY authorities had a deliberate and systematic practice of withholding liquor licences from gay bars, precisely to create a pretext to harass them. I’m not sure if there’s a technical term for that, but morally it’s close to entrapment, which we have laws against. Gay people certainly have no reason to apologize for being placed in a Catch 22 for an immoral reason (homophobia).

Second, it’s not as if it was raided _because_ it was a Mafia-run bar. It was raided _despite_ being a Mafia-run bar, because the police had recently increased their demanded rate for bribes and the Mafia had refused to pay. Gay people certainly have no reason to apologize for that either.

“Stonewall was sparked by a legitimate bar raid on an unlicensed, Mafia-run drinking establishment.”

I think it would be more accurate to say that Stonewall was the culmination of persecution that peaked with a legitimate bar raid…” I think that your statement tries to put light on the fact that gay persecution was a real problem. Maybe I’m wrong, since when Stonewall happened, I was only two weeks old, but everything I’ve read leads me to believe that gay bashing was a real problem that made people say “enough is enough.”

Now the irony here is that the gay-bashers are almost certainly responsible for the current wave of “gay civil rights” that this world has come to. Had there not been people actively persecuting homosexuals, and just letting them be, they would probably have stayed content with their lives and not felt the need to force the rest of society to accept them as “normal.” But now that they’ve been given an inch, they’ll take as much as they can, as any reasonable group would be expected to.

But now that the genie is out of the bottle, I don’t think there’s really any going back to the way things were. I don’t think we, as a society, can say “We promise to stop beating you up for no good reason if you’ll just quietly get back in the closet.” We can only hope that at some point, voices of reason (from both sides of the issue, really) can find effective ways to cut through the mania and propaganda that sinks these issues to the bottom of a sea of social inertia.

What are your plans for correcting the HIV/AIDS public health misinformation contained in your article?