The Ian McKellan thing reminded me of Rufus Wainwright's "Release the Stars," which you almost certainly already know. It's a powerful song that for me resonates beyond critiques of Hollywood, etc.
I do understand the idea that homophobic people could oppose efforts to make children/teens feel more comfortable with homosexuality. The article describes anti-bullying campaigns that go beyond just saying that children shouldn't bully other children about anything, even if they disagree about whether it's right; instead, they do try to "normalize" homosexuality. To me, the "homosexual agenda" is a real and awesome one: item #1, to make the world a safe place for people to openly love someone of whatever gender and to present their gender in non-normative ways. I think we should work really, really hard for that, and that schools should be encouraging it (that's how you cut at the root of bullying, not by telling kids on one hand that it's not ok to be gay and on the other that they shouldn't taunt others for it). But I also think that we should acknowledge that that idea, that change in the world, is very frightening to people who don't want their children to grow up thinking that being gay is fine (who knows, maybe they'd "decide" to "become" homosexual themselves!). Let's face it, the "tolerance" campaigns in the article go beyond teaching kids to be nice to each other and do attempt to change the values their parents might have taught them. It's time to 'fess up to that, to say that it's not that radical, and to not back down.
With regard to I understand, at least abstractly, the trying to save people from hell thing; it's the hastening people's way there business where I get confused. I don't think that the people who object to the "tolerance" campaigns think it's wrong because they want to save the people being bullied. I think they're far more concerned with saving the people doing the bullying, the people saying that homosexuality is wrong, from perhaps being swayed to the other side.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 09:43 am (UTC)I do understand the idea that homophobic people could oppose efforts to make children/teens feel more comfortable with homosexuality. The article describes anti-bullying campaigns that go beyond just saying that children shouldn't bully other children about anything, even if they disagree about whether it's right; instead, they do try to "normalize" homosexuality. To me, the "homosexual agenda" is a real and awesome one: item #1, to make the world a safe place for people to openly love someone of whatever gender and to present their gender in non-normative ways. I think we should work really, really hard for that, and that schools should be encouraging it (that's how you cut at the root of bullying, not by telling kids on one hand that it's not ok to be gay and on the other that they shouldn't taunt others for it). But I also think that we should acknowledge that that idea, that change in the world, is very frightening to people who don't want their children to grow up thinking that being gay is fine (who knows, maybe they'd "decide" to "become" homosexual themselves!). Let's face it, the "tolerance" campaigns in the article go beyond teaching kids to be nice to each other and do attempt to change the values their parents might have taught them. It's time to 'fess up to that, to say that it's not that radical, and to not back down.
With regard to I understand, at least abstractly, the trying to save people from hell thing; it's the hastening people's way there business where I get confused. I don't think that the people who object to the "tolerance" campaigns think it's wrong because they want to save the people being bullied. I think they're far more concerned with saving the people doing the bullying, the people saying that homosexuality is wrong, from perhaps being swayed to the other side.