Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Let Straights 'Die for Their Country', Without Our Help. U.S. Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced yesterday that he believes homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone immorality. Hm. Doesn't the military KILL? Let's see how that rates on the scales of morality.
+
The Jewish Ten Commandments, Sixth Commandment says "Thou shalt not kill" or, in more modern texts, "You shall not murder". Murder is unjustified killing of human beings by human beings.*
+
Plainly the military does kill without justification. As made glaringly plain in the case of Iraq, the U.S. military invaded a country that had never attacked us, had no plans to attack us, and had no means by which to attack us. In carrying out that illegal and unjustified invasion, and maintaining an illegal occupation for years thereafter, the U.S. military has without question murdered many thousands of people, and continues to kill without justification — murder — essentially every day. The U.S. military even kills its own members and allies, in "friendly fire". (What a term!) So it is beyond question that the U.S. military, and every military, is immoral, and is in no position to lecture anyone about morality.
+
What about The Golden Rule, commonly expressed, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Do the people the military kills want to be killed? Not the overwhelming preponderance of them, no. So the military violates The Golden Rule every day too.
+
By contrast, homosexual behavior exactly and precisely conforms to The Golden Rule, more precisely than can heterosexuality. Think about it. I don't need to be graffic.
+
So Peter Pace is a murderer who lectures on morality. I'd just as soon listen to Charles Manson.
+
The reaction of the organized "gay movement" — more typically referred to as the "GLBT" (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered) or even "GLBTQ" (add the noxious and offensive "Queer") movement, doesn't help matters by inventing statistics about homosexuals and lesbians — oh, sorry: lesbian and gay people; gay men must never be first, since lesbians are the be-all and end-all of the "lesbigay" movement — in the military:
There has never been a census of gay or lesbian members of the military, and cannot be until and unless discrimination against them ends. Even then, gay and lesbian people are notorious liars when it comes to their actual orientation. Last nite, an episode of the CBS sitcom The New Adventures of Old Christine revolved around precisely that fact. The title character's brother-in-law "came out" to her but asked her not to tell his brother, Old Christine's ex-husband. She goofed up and let the secret slip, whereupon the straight brother confronted his 'gay' brother, who then repeatedly denied it, lying to his brother's face again and again.
+
When I founded Homosexuals Intransigent! as a student organization on April 1, 1969, I provided that no one could become a full (voting) member who did not pledge to tell the truth about his orientation if asked. That was unheard of then, and unheard of now.
+
Lying subverts self-respect, and respecting oneself and each other is the most important thing gay men need to do to live complete and happy lives. Honesty is also the least that society expects of people who aspire to be accepted and even admired.
+
Peter Pace is an honest bigot. He would doubtless deny that he is a multiple murderer (so dishonest there), and is thus not qualified to lecture anyone, much less society itself, about morality. But on this much he and I agree: gay men should never serve in the military (as long as it is hostile to homosexuality). Let straights fite their wars alone, without our help. Let every casualty, every death, be of a heterosexual bigot — because who else joins a bigoted organization but a bigot? There are no racially unprejudiced members of the KKK, who just joined for the benefits, and no sexually unprejudiced members of the U.S. military. Why should we help our enemies?
+
Gay men have never caused any war. All wars are caused by straights, and always have been. Straights can't deal with respecting other people's space or rights or difference. Gay men are comfortable with equality and letting people live by their own lites. Not straights. Straights have to proselytize and convert people unlike themselves. They have growing families to support, so they justify taking other people's food, and land, and wealth as "necessity". Gay men don't have children they can't provide for, and it would never occur to us to steal from other people just because we're stronger.
+
The evil world order that the U.S. military imposes and preserves is not one that gay men should have anything to do with. There isn't even any longer an advantage in entering the military to be surrounded by men, because the all-male military is no more. Women are pushed upon men everywhere in the Communized, Radical Feminist military of today, where men are ordered around by women on pain of being shot dead in the field for disobedience, and even the peacetime military is a super-nasty coed summer camp. Why would any gay man subject himself to that kind of imposition, humiliation, and danger, not least of exposure and dishonorable expulsion?
+
No gay man should enlist in the military. All who made the mistake of enlisting in the past should leave at their earliest opportunity. Leave the bigots and bullies to die on their own. And good riddance to bad rubbish.
____________________
* By extension, the concept "murder" could be understood as encompassing unjustified killing of one's own kind by any species, but could not be applied to the killing of a different species, "justified" or not. Thus, should we ever come in contact with extraterrestrial aliens and they should kill us, our murder statutes would not apply. That's not, I concede, relevant to the present day, but something worth thinking about in terms of sci-fi moral questions and the forms of future relations with alien outsiders, should we ever make contact.
(This is duplicated from my political blog of this same date.)
+
The Jewish Ten Commandments, Sixth Commandment says "Thou shalt not kill" or, in more modern texts, "You shall not murder". Murder is unjustified killing of human beings by human beings.*
+
Plainly the military does kill without justification. As made glaringly plain in the case of Iraq, the U.S. military invaded a country that had never attacked us, had no plans to attack us, and had no means by which to attack us. In carrying out that illegal and unjustified invasion, and maintaining an illegal occupation for years thereafter, the U.S. military has without question murdered many thousands of people, and continues to kill without justification — murder — essentially every day. The U.S. military even kills its own members and allies, in "friendly fire". (What a term!) So it is beyond question that the U.S. military, and every military, is immoral, and is in no position to lecture anyone about morality.
+
What about The Golden Rule, commonly expressed, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? Do the people the military kills want to be killed? Not the overwhelming preponderance of them, no. So the military violates The Golden Rule every day too.
+
By contrast, homosexual behavior exactly and precisely conforms to The Golden Rule, more precisely than can heterosexuality. Think about it. I don't need to be graffic.
+
So Peter Pace is a murderer who lectures on morality. I'd just as soon listen to Charles Manson.
+
The reaction of the organized "gay movement" — more typically referred to as the "GLBT" (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered) or even "GLBTQ" (add the noxious and offensive "Queer") movement, doesn't help matters by inventing statistics about homosexuals and lesbians — oh, sorry: lesbian and gay people; gay men must never be first, since lesbians are the be-all and end-all of the "lesbigay" movement — in the military:
"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.
There has never been a census of gay or lesbian members of the military, and cannot be until and unless discrimination against them ends. Even then, gay and lesbian people are notorious liars when it comes to their actual orientation. Last nite, an episode of the CBS sitcom The New Adventures of Old Christine revolved around precisely that fact. The title character's brother-in-law "came out" to her but asked her not to tell his brother, Old Christine's ex-husband. She goofed up and let the secret slip, whereupon the straight brother confronted his 'gay' brother, who then repeatedly denied it, lying to his brother's face again and again.
+
When I founded Homosexuals Intransigent! as a student organization on April 1, 1969, I provided that no one could become a full (voting) member who did not pledge to tell the truth about his orientation if asked. That was unheard of then, and unheard of now.
+
Lying subverts self-respect, and respecting oneself and each other is the most important thing gay men need to do to live complete and happy lives. Honesty is also the least that society expects of people who aspire to be accepted and even admired.
+
Peter Pace is an honest bigot. He would doubtless deny that he is a multiple murderer (so dishonest there), and is thus not qualified to lecture anyone, much less society itself, about morality. But on this much he and I agree: gay men should never serve in the military (as long as it is hostile to homosexuality). Let straights fite their wars alone, without our help. Let every casualty, every death, be of a heterosexual bigot — because who else joins a bigoted organization but a bigot? There are no racially unprejudiced members of the KKK, who just joined for the benefits, and no sexually unprejudiced members of the U.S. military. Why should we help our enemies?
+
Gay men have never caused any war. All wars are caused by straights, and always have been. Straights can't deal with respecting other people's space or rights or difference. Gay men are comfortable with equality and letting people live by their own lites. Not straights. Straights have to proselytize and convert people unlike themselves. They have growing families to support, so they justify taking other people's food, and land, and wealth as "necessity". Gay men don't have children they can't provide for, and it would never occur to us to steal from other people just because we're stronger.
+
The evil world order that the U.S. military imposes and preserves is not one that gay men should have anything to do with. There isn't even any longer an advantage in entering the military to be surrounded by men, because the all-male military is no more. Women are pushed upon men everywhere in the Communized, Radical Feminist military of today, where men are ordered around by women on pain of being shot dead in the field for disobedience, and even the peacetime military is a super-nasty coed summer camp. Why would any gay man subject himself to that kind of imposition, humiliation, and danger, not least of exposure and dishonorable expulsion?
+
No gay man should enlist in the military. All who made the mistake of enlisting in the past should leave at their earliest opportunity. Leave the bigots and bullies to die on their own. And good riddance to bad rubbish.
____________________
* By extension, the concept "murder" could be understood as encompassing unjustified killing of one's own kind by any species, but could not be applied to the killing of a different species, "justified" or not. Thus, should we ever come in contact with extraterrestrial aliens and they should kill us, our murder statutes would not apply. That's not, I concede, relevant to the present day, but something worth thinking about in terms of sci-fi moral questions and the forms of future relations with alien outsiders, should we ever make contact.
(This is duplicated from my political blog of this same date.)
Sunday, March 04, 2007
More Slime from Slimegirl. When I addressed a gay issue yesterday, I could not know that mere hours later the odious Radical Right agent provocateur Ann Coulter would issue one of the more bizarre remarks so far in the 2008 Presidential race.
Her remark was met with approving lafter within the room, and no sign of disapproval from her Radical Right audience.
+
Hm. I'm unclear as to what exactly that was supposed to mean. Is she suggesting that Edwards is a homo? He's a goodlooking guy, married to a markedly less attractive woman. Ordinarily, if one member of a heterosexual couple is strikingly less attractive, it is the man, women tending to care less about appearance than do men. If Edwards were covering up homosexuality, the appearance of his 'wife' wouldn't much matter, and a relatively unattractive woman might settle for a beautiful 'husband' as trophy, even if he is not really available to her.
+
Or is Coulter merely suggesting that Edwards is impermissibly pro-gay? That seems unlikely, inasmuch as there would be no reason to single out Edwards for that, since there are a number of pro-gay candidates, including the Republican Giuliani. Coulter's attempt to calm the storm of criticism her remark raised was comparably muddled:
But Ann Coulter is nothing but mean. She is a totally evil woman with not a shred of decency, the very picture of the perfect Radical Right woman.
+
If Coulter was "outing" Edwards from some information she has that I don't, and Edwards is in fact gay, he should "come out", finally. I have no patience with politicians who hide in the closet. If he is not gay, he should say that expressly, in a statement along these lines:
I will be interested to see what happens. Will Ann Coulter be repudiated by every decent person now, as she should have been years ago? Or will she weather this storm as the odious Rush Limbaugh weathered the storm over his seeming hypocrisy in denouncing drugs and then becoming addicted to a prescription painkiller that he got illicitly? It seems the Radical "Right" (can't we find another word?) is far more forgiving of sins among their clan (sorry: klan) than people with integrity. Perhaps it will take a careless statement of contempt for the audience, as in the film A Face in the Crowd, for these vile beasts to alienate their crowd of yahoos. But they may be too clever to be caught. The Radical Right will, it seems, forgive anything, as long as the miscreant toes the line on basic bigotries. Witness Ted Haggard, the evangelical leader exposed as a homo , who begged forgiveness for his 'sins', and committed himself to a five-year moral rehabilitation. He emerged mere weeks later claiming to be "100% heterosexual"! Will he regain his place in Rightwing circles? Or does everyone believe he's just a liar who can't face the fact that he's a homo?
+
Rightwingers need to be very careful about their bigotries/politics. It's one thing to hate blacks, because white guys are not about to change race. But when you take a stand against homosexuality or drug use and your heroes turn out to be 'queers' and druggies, you ought to have the integrity to turn against them, not overlook THEIR "sins" but continue to agitate against OTHER people for the SAME 'sins'.
+
(This is copied from my political blog, The Expansionist / The Anti-Post, of the same date.)
Ann Coulter caused quite a stir Friday night at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Coulter, who was asked to comment on former North Carolina Senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, responded: "It turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm kind of at an impasse — I can't really talk about Edwards," she said.
Her remark was met with approving lafter within the room, and no sign of disapproval from her Radical Right audience.
+
Hm. I'm unclear as to what exactly that was supposed to mean. Is she suggesting that Edwards is a homo? He's a goodlooking guy, married to a markedly less attractive woman. Ordinarily, if one member of a heterosexual couple is strikingly less attractive, it is the man, women tending to care less about appearance than do men. If Edwards were covering up homosexuality, the appearance of his 'wife' wouldn't much matter, and a relatively unattractive woman might settle for a beautiful 'husband' as trophy, even if he is not really available to her.
+
Or is Coulter merely suggesting that Edwards is impermissibly pro-gay? That seems unlikely, inasmuch as there would be no reason to single out Edwards for that, since there are a number of pro-gay candidates, including the Republican Giuliani. Coulter's attempt to calm the storm of criticism her remark raised was comparably muddled:
Coulter told the New York Times the remark was meant as a joke. "I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards," she said. "That would be mean."
But Ann Coulter is nothing but mean. She is a totally evil woman with not a shred of decency, the very picture of the perfect Radical Right woman.
+
If Coulter was "outing" Edwards from some information she has that I don't, and Edwards is in fact gay, he should "come out", finally. I have no patience with politicians who hide in the closet. If he is not gay, he should say that expressly, in a statement along these lines:
Contrary to Ann Coulter's implication, I am not homosexual. If I were, I'd admit it, without shame. But I'm not. I don't need to make a show of my heterosexuality to disprove Coulter's assertion, and I certainly am not going to sue her for slander, since being called homosexual is not a slander, just a misstatement or malicious lie intended to harm me among an audience I don't much care about appealing to anyway. Since there's nothing wrong with being gay, there's nothing slanderous about being called gay. It would make no more sense to sue for slander over that than it would to sue if some demented bitch claimed I was black. That might actually gain me some votes, as would being gay. But I'm not black either.
I will be interested to see what happens. Will Ann Coulter be repudiated by every decent person now, as she should have been years ago? Or will she weather this storm as the odious Rush Limbaugh weathered the storm over his seeming hypocrisy in denouncing drugs and then becoming addicted to a prescription painkiller that he got illicitly? It seems the Radical "Right" (can't we find another word?) is far more forgiving of sins among their clan (sorry: klan) than people with integrity. Perhaps it will take a careless statement of contempt for the audience, as in the film A Face in the Crowd, for these vile beasts to alienate their crowd of yahoos. But they may be too clever to be caught. The Radical Right will, it seems, forgive anything, as long as the miscreant toes the line on basic bigotries. Witness Ted Haggard, the evangelical leader exposed as a homo , who begged forgiveness for his 'sins', and committed himself to a five-year moral rehabilitation. He emerged mere weeks later claiming to be "100% heterosexual"! Will he regain his place in Rightwing circles? Or does everyone believe he's just a liar who can't face the fact that he's a homo?
+
Rightwingers need to be very careful about their bigotries/politics. It's one thing to hate blacks, because white guys are not about to change race. But when you take a stand against homosexuality or drug use and your heroes turn out to be 'queers' and druggies, you ought to have the integrity to turn against them, not overlook THEIR "sins" but continue to agitate against OTHER people for the SAME 'sins'.
+
(This is copied from my political blog, The Expansionist / The Anti-Post, of the same date.)
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Not This Film. I received today an email request that I cooperate in a student film:
+
And gay men who know what they are and what they want are also supposed to identify with "bisexuals" who pretend to be unable to decide, because "it's all good". To the extent such people exist, which is highly questionable, they are infantile users of people who can never love anyone because there's always someone else out there that offers some physical something the one they are with at the moment cannot supply. But the reality is that "bisexuals" are just homosexuals without guts.
+
Gay men are also supposed to identify with lesbians (if there is such a thing, and I'm not persuaded that lesbianism is much more than gender confusion in women). What exactly do gay men have in common with lesbians? They are not men. They (supposedly) don't want men. They start as the opposite sex and look in the opposite direction. How are gay men and lesbians alike? It's insane.
+
Yet the wholly artificial "GLBT community" imposes upon people who have nothing in common not only the obligation to socialize and mix, when they never have any reason to be together but very good reason to stay apart, in order not to be confused about what each is (well, the B and T members of that "community" are confused in general, and don't want to become unconfused because that would require them to 'fess up to their actual nature, which they will go to great lengths to avoid). There are actually bars and dances in which people who have nothing in common and want entirely different things from life are supposed to spend all their time together! It's like the Black Panthers and KKK holding joint dinner dances because "they're all racists" so should love each other's company.
+
The special group gay men need to identify with and spend their spare time with is gay men. Period.
+
There's a very simple test for whether someone is gay. If any two gay people have sex together, that sex is homosexual. If someone claiming to be "gay" having sex with any other gay person would be having heterosexual sex, they are not gay. Thus, there is no such thing as a "gay" woman, because a "gay" woman having sex with a gay man would not be having "gay sex", but heterosex. It's really not complicated in the slitest.
+
Gay men do not need lesbians to live a full, rich life. They do not need lesbians to weaken bonds in organizations and incite dissensions, as an organization attempts to reconcile irreconcilable interests. (For instance, lesbians, as feminists, tend to condemn pornography as "exploitation of women". Gay men, as men, like porn, and our porn has no women in it whatsoever, so "exploitation of women" has nothing to do with it. And gay men's organizations thus have no reason to condemn pornography unless it involves violence or abuse of the people in it.)
+
Lesbian feminists have repeatedly pushed into gay organizations outside issues that destroy the organization, and gay men are supposed to accept this "gay man's burden", to accept lesbian guiltmongering about "male privilege" even among men who are profoundly oppressed! The "GLBT" movement has been a monstrous failure in advancing the things that are really important in gay men's lives: self-respect and respect for each other; stable, loving relationships. Of what value is gay marriage if you can't find anyone to marry, because the gay world has been crushed nearly out of existence by the "GLBT" world, a world of madness in which everyone is confused about everything?
Tho I don't want to seem ungracious, this project ticked me off, so I replied thus:... I'm a film student at the State University of New York at Binghamton. I am very pleased with your work and am hoping that you may be interested in mine.
This semester I'm starting a documentary project on GAY & AA in America. I am trying to explore & expose social issues tied into unfair prejudices toward GLBT individuals that may influence drug/alcohol usage. The documentary will consist of many participants in GAY AA meetings, as well as interviewing people who have interesting stories they may want to share about coming out, personal & social experiences, and the community's or society's role in such topics. I will be taking recordings & snap shots of gay clubs/bars in NY and the gay pride parade. And I will also be recording phone interviews from gay advocates around the world--hopefully some big names!!!
I was wondering if it might be possible to record a few phone interviews with you, or some of the advocates affiliated with you. Due to anonminity issues of sexual preference and/or alcohol/drug usage, interviews can be just vocal or written, if needed. I have consent forms for all those who are interested in participating!
So please contact me when you get a chance.
Thank you so much for your time, [name]
I HAVE no contact with AA, and don't approve of either that program or the concept that people who have a weakness or vice can never act in moderation. That is contrary to good sense and the best interest of individuals and society. AA also tells people to put their trust in a 'higher power', but there is no 'higher power' to call upon except society, friends or family, and whatever it is AA calls people who rush to the 'rescue' of people tempted to drink.There is no special relationship between gay men and lesbians, gay men and "bisexuals", gay men and nonexistent "transsexuals". "The GLBT community" is a lie and an insult to well-adjusted gay men. It has no more validity than the idea of a "nonwhite community", as tho all nonwhites in this country are somehow the same because they are not white, rather than that they are what they are in themselves. The fact that blacks and Japanese are not white is not the most important thing in their world, and the idea that they should somehow regard their lack of whiteness as impelling them to identify as each other would be seen plainly by everyone as insane. Yet gay men who know what they are and love what they are, are supposed to identify with insane men who are so ashamed of what they are and so incapable of accepting their nature and fiting for their own place in the sun that they would rather have their bodies ripped to shreds with scalpels and then pumped full of chemicals that can cause lethal cancer than accept the fact that they are men who want men, need men, have got to have men, and they will live their life as they choose, as homosexual men.
+
I highly disapprove of both the artificial construct "GLBT" and the assertion that well-adjusted homosexual men are for all practical purposes identical with maladjusted losers who can't choose a gender, either as objects of affection/desire or as their own identity. There is no such thing as a "transsexual"; "bisexuals" are just weak, bad people who misuse everyone and do themselves no favor; and lesbians and gay men have nothing intrinsically in common. There is no such thing as a "gay woman" any more than there is such a thing as a "lesbian man".
+
To the extent that anxiety engendered by social hostilities influences some weak personalities to abuse alcohol (or drugs), that is a phenomenon that should be explored without any artificial link between people who have nothing in common except outside hostility. Your film is fundamentally misconceived.
+
If you want to show the role of social disapproval in the abuse of alcohol, show it across all outre' groups, be they minorities (blacks, gay men, Hispanics, Amerindians, Orientals, lesbians, South Asians, Arabs, Jews, and on and on), or various types of nonconformists (bikers, people with multiple tattoos and piercings, artists, musicians, nerds, criminals, geeks, etc.), people whom the popular culture does not value or actively disapproves of. That might raise interesting issues, such as whether all outre' groups have similar rates of alcoholism (tho even establishing such a rate for gay men or lesbians, much less transvestites and "bisexuals", is impossible, since most members of those communities are, to this day, hidden, so no reliable statistics exist, only anecdotal evidence) or whether some groups seem inoculated against chemical dependency, perhaps by strong family relationships or by cultural values or peer pressure and similar controls within their own group.
+
You don't say whether you are male, female; lesbian, gay, or straight; and my inclination is to tell outsiders to mind their own business and look into their own lives, not the lives of strangers. Gay men are not zoo animals.
+
As you should by now [have] concluded, there is no way in hell I will cooperate in any such insulting and misconceived project. I am very tired of people telling gay men that what they are isn't good enuf, and they must identify with what they are not and let the preconceptions and values of outsiders control them and mold their identity. I will not personally consent to an interview; I will not solicit friends to do so; I will not put a notice on the Mr. Gay Pride website about your project; I will not in any way cooperate with any project that proceeds from what my friend John Lauritsen might call the "synthetic insanity" of a "GLBT community". No such community exists, any more than there is a single "Asian" community, and no sane person believes for a moment that such a community exists. Cheers.
+
And gay men who know what they are and what they want are also supposed to identify with "bisexuals" who pretend to be unable to decide, because "it's all good". To the extent such people exist, which is highly questionable, they are infantile users of people who can never love anyone because there's always someone else out there that offers some physical something the one they are with at the moment cannot supply. But the reality is that "bisexuals" are just homosexuals without guts.
+
Gay men are also supposed to identify with lesbians (if there is such a thing, and I'm not persuaded that lesbianism is much more than gender confusion in women). What exactly do gay men have in common with lesbians? They are not men. They (supposedly) don't want men. They start as the opposite sex and look in the opposite direction. How are gay men and lesbians alike? It's insane.
+
Yet the wholly artificial "GLBT community" imposes upon people who have nothing in common not only the obligation to socialize and mix, when they never have any reason to be together but very good reason to stay apart, in order not to be confused about what each is (well, the B and T members of that "community" are confused in general, and don't want to become unconfused because that would require them to 'fess up to their actual nature, which they will go to great lengths to avoid). There are actually bars and dances in which people who have nothing in common and want entirely different things from life are supposed to spend all their time together! It's like the Black Panthers and KKK holding joint dinner dances because "they're all racists" so should love each other's company.
+
The special group gay men need to identify with and spend their spare time with is gay men. Period.
+
There's a very simple test for whether someone is gay. If any two gay people have sex together, that sex is homosexual. If someone claiming to be "gay" having sex with any other gay person would be having heterosexual sex, they are not gay. Thus, there is no such thing as a "gay" woman, because a "gay" woman having sex with a gay man would not be having "gay sex", but heterosex. It's really not complicated in the slitest.
+
Gay men do not need lesbians to live a full, rich life. They do not need lesbians to weaken bonds in organizations and incite dissensions, as an organization attempts to reconcile irreconcilable interests. (For instance, lesbians, as feminists, tend to condemn pornography as "exploitation of women". Gay men, as men, like porn, and our porn has no women in it whatsoever, so "exploitation of women" has nothing to do with it. And gay men's organizations thus have no reason to condemn pornography unless it involves violence or abuse of the people in it.)
+
Lesbian feminists have repeatedly pushed into gay organizations outside issues that destroy the organization, and gay men are supposed to accept this "gay man's burden", to accept lesbian guiltmongering about "male privilege" even among men who are profoundly oppressed! The "GLBT" movement has been a monstrous failure in advancing the things that are really important in gay men's lives: self-respect and respect for each other; stable, loving relationships. Of what value is gay marriage if you can't find anyone to marry, because the gay world has been crushed nearly out of existence by the "GLBT" world, a world of madness in which everyone is confused about everything?
