Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Anti-Gay Nup Site Goes For Youth, But Keeps Old Tactics


Gay marriage foes sure are clever!

For so long this fine nation’s homophobes and other narrow-minded baddies have been associated with stodgy, wholly unfashionable leaders like James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly and the ne’er done-up Shirley Phelps. None of these people speak to the youth of America.

So, in an effort to make themselves more youth-friendly, California’s anti-gay marriage activists have established a new site, iProtect Marriage, a spin-off of the more staid Protect Marriage.

Like its sister site, iProtect urges voters to vote “yes” on Proposition 8, a ballot measure aimed at overturning this year’s gay marriage win. Unlike its sister site, however, iProtect has a decidedly youth-oriented outlook, complete with fresh, concerned faces. See that guy above? He’s so young! His pensiveness really speaks to us.

And no spry site would be complete without to popular sites like Facebook and MySpace. How hip! How media-savvy! Even the intentionally lower-case “i” seems eager to suck the teat of Apple’s ubiquitous iPod and iPhone.

Despite these juvenile measures, iProtect’s inherited the tried and largely untrue tactics employed by their right-wing forefathers. We do some dissecting, after the jump. It’s scary stuff…


1. Assumptions: We’re positively sick and tired of right-wing activists acting as if they know what it’s like to be gay. No, being gay is not like being black – not technically, although there are some similarities between racism and homophobia. That said, no straight social conservative can even pretend to know that homosexuality is a choice. They can’t act as if they have felt the inexplicable alienation millions of same-sex lovers endured while growing up in a society that assumes one to be straight. It’s absolutely one-sided and, more importantly, represents a severe lack of communication with queer communities. Don’t come at us acting like you “love the sinner,” but absolutely to refuse to acknowledge endless years of lived experience. It’s patronizing.

2. Shamefully Short-Sighted Statistics: Too often anti-gay groups use HIV/AIDS statistics against the gays. And iProtect Marriage is no exception:

On Aug. 8, 2008, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that 53% of new HIV infections in 2006 occurred in gay or bisexual men. More infections occurred among young people under 30 (aged 13-29) than any other age group (34%, or 19,200). African Americans, while comprising 13% of the US population, accounted for 45% of the new HIV infections in 2006.

Factually, the movement’s right on the money. Gay folk do acquire HIV more often than their straight counterparts, but iProtect and their ilk fail to recognize some of the most important reasons for these startling statistics.

First, there’s the whole issue of mainstream shaming, which creates an inhospitable environment that can lead people – hello, Larry Craig! – down unsafe carnal paths. If society normalized gay acceptance, there would likely be a drop in such behaviors. Further, if gay relationships were incorporated into the larger fold, gay people may be more inclined to settle down.

Another important factor: a lack of safer sex education, another anathema to the right wing, many of whom think teaching about sex will lead to an entire generation of sexual deviants. They’re wrong. Teens will always have sex. It’s only natural, right Bristol? Without the proper education, of course, these kids won’t know how to protect themselves, thus a higher infection rate.

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Sep 23, 2008
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

  • 36 Comments
    • Alacer
      Alacer

      I especially like the “decide for yourself” quiz. If you answer the question wrong, a person pops up and yells at you!

      Sep 23, 2008 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      zzzzzzzzz…don’t live in california, not interested in ever marrying a guy, just don’t care.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hubbaduh
      Hubbaduh

      It appears that they don’t even know the definition of “ethnicity”…b/c if they did, then they would realise that someone CAN change their ethnicity (it’s cultural, not simply biological).

      Sep 23, 2008 at 4:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jojo
      Jojo

      don’t we redefine marriage every 40 years in this country anyway?

      silly anti-gay people

      Sep 23, 2008 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mj petroni
      mj petroni

      The content’s abhorrent, to be sure. What strikes me, though, is the photos—many of which are stock photos taken from istockphoto.com. What might it feel like as a model to find out your likeness has been used to bar people’s rights?

      Sep 23, 2008 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jenna
      Jenna

      Hey Matt, I think you should read this:

      They came first for the Communists,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
      Then they came for the Jews,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
      Then they came for the trade unionists,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
      Then they came for the Catholics,
      and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
      Then they came for me,
      and by that time no one was left to speak up.

      That poem has a powerful message that everyone should listen to. Speak up for those that cannot, and they will speak up for you. Think about that.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 5:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • reversion
      reversion

      Great post, but we shouldn’t have to read things like this. I get into a rage when reading about people’s stupidity, and especially of those religious nuts with their overly simplistic ideas.

      They just don’t get it.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 5:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zach
      Zach

      For an even crazier look into their site, including a truly disturbing song/video, check this out.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 5:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CitizenGeek
      CitizenGeek

      Nice article, Queerty, but you really ought to start reading over these articles before posting them. There are far too many jarring grammatical mistakes.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 5:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • victor
      victor

      Jenna – that was a nice response to Matt. I was just going to respond with “fuck you, shithead”

      Sep 23, 2008 at 6:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mattymatt
      mattymatt

      The “civil unions are just as good” argument is simply bizarre.

      Let’s try saying the same thing to multi-ethnic couples: “marriage is usually between two people of the same race, so we can’t let you get married. But you can get a special ‘interracial relationship license’ that carries some of the same rights. Enjoy!”

      Sep 23, 2008 at 7:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Brian Miller
      Brian Miller

      That site is HILARIOUS! Especially the “Choose for yourself” quiz.

      The implication that the law would “force” churches to marry gay couples is hilarious, and most of the rest is a really bad set of cliches (“can I marry my sister”) mouthed by starving wannabe hipster actors.

      I’m still giggling. It’s that funny!

      Sep 23, 2008 at 7:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      Good thing the rich is the last they usually come for or i’d be in trouble.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 7:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • marc
      marc

      how sad.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 8:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul Raposo
      Paul Raposo

      Well, Matt, if they come for the douchebags first, you’re fucked.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 9:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      Marriage itself is an institution that is founded upon an extricable bond between religious respect and state-granted legal benefits. It’s kind of fug that a nation which is explicitly against a merger of church and state would have even implicitly assumed marriage in its current form for any couple, heterosexuals included.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 9:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alacer
      Alacer

      Dan, you are spot on. unfortunately, the general public would not be willing to change law so that everyone gets a civil union and marriage is left to the church. Today at least. but I agree with you.

      Sep 23, 2008 at 10:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • gkruz
      gkruz

      What’s really disturbing, and depressing, is that this “hip” cover might work in some cases. I know many young people who look like these models, typical slackers, etc., and some of them do indeed hate gays, yet they all think they’re progressive and avant-garde and “cool”. (Wanna guess who the favored presidential candidate of most of them is? Go on, guess…) As I learned in my own youth, you couldn’t necessarily trust everyone with long hair and a guitar, and the same caveat applies today. Under those earrings, beanies and soul patches lurk enough intolerant bigots, just like their parents.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 12:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      GKRUZ

      unfortunately some of them like the Ron Luce brainwashed fanatics are MUCH WORSE than their parents.
      it makes me sick this clever f*cktard preys on 12 and 13yos, and uses media seminars and christian band contests that are all f*ckin bogus, they won’t get a media job or launch a band through any of the phoney sh*t.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 1:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Azakia
      Azakia

      Sorry but I’m against gay ‘marriage’. Have your civil unions, that’s what marriage is; a type of union, but marriage itself is a holy matrimony designed by the church, recognized by the church and protected by the church. That means 1 man, 1 women. If you want to invent your own union by all means do it. But marriage itself is to be protected by its founders. Hijacking it for your own uses is nothing short of extremely rude, the state protects and respects the church and recognizes that marriage itself has both a legal and Christian basis, that means the state recognizes the churches meaning of marriage and the church recognizes how this agreement fits into the law. If you think the church particularly liberal churches are going to follow suit, then you’re wrong. Those churches are nothing but a minority who think they represent over a billion Christians.

      I don’t hate gays, I’m more or less indifferent to what they do, but an attack on marriage isn’t a fight for ‘equality’ it’s undermining the original invention of marriage.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 5:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • VanHuizen
      VanHuizen

      “Marriage wasn’t meant to sustain civilization, as our friend and author Susan Squire explained, but to insure a woman’s obedience and maintain a pure familial lineage.”

      More feministic propaganda from mislead liberals. Last time I checked, women were always given the ability to accept or decline men. Men were the ones that had to present themselves to women and show their ability to protect and provide for women. If women found marriage so repressive (at least you didn’t use oppressive) then why do many women prefer this institution in it’s ‘repressive’ form:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1050094/Men-want-women-traditional–women-HAPPY-housewife.html

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1050409/As-research-claims-wives-happiest-home-looking-men-womans-blistering-riposte.html

      And no, I’m not saying women need to be housewives whether or marriage or not, I’m simply disproving your point.


      I could feel sexually attracted to a 9 year old and they could feel the same back, should I marry them? no.

      I could feel sexually attracted to my sister and they could feel the same back but should I marry them? no.

      I could feel sexually attracted to 20 women and they could all feel the same back but should I marry them all? no.

      Who makes up these rules? The law? The Church? Actually both, that’s why marriage needs to be protected.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 6:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JESUS IS THE ANSWER
      JESUS IS THE ANSWER

      GOD created ADAM & EVE NOT ADAM & STEVE or EVE & SARAH.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 7:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • polobear
      polobear

      JitA

      There are many instances of animals displaying homosexual behavior. My friend had two male bonding swans on his farm.
      It is natural and I suspect god did create Adam and Steve and Eve and Sarah through the process of evolution… it is a fact, apes are your relatives get over it already
      but as I told someone else on this site maybe you are proof evolution does not occur for some.
      Buddha has my answers

      Sep 24, 2008 at 9:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dave
      Dave

      Marriage has existed before Christianity. It also exists in other cultures. Marriage is a contract. It was a contract for chattel. Marriage was founded on protecting family assets. Up until 70 years ago in most states, one could sue a fiancee for breaking an engagement because our old case law had the view of engagement as agreeing to be bound by a contract.
      Marriage hasn’t any religious implications. It was always a business arrangement. The “Jesus-Freaks”, the same ones who believe this planet is roughly 5000 years old, seem to ignore the fact that marriage existed in ancient times. You couldn’t marry in the time of Jesus without the Roman government blessing.
      As tax payers, we should be afforded the same governmental services as any other tax payer and be able to acquire a licence and be married by the authorized civil authority like any other tax paying citizen. Simple state of facts. It’s a violation of state/church laws that the basis of marriage is justified in the JudeoChrisitan ethos.
      As for diluting the “meaning of marriage”, well that’s been done by heteros who have “starter marriages”, “first wives clubs”, adoration of celebrities who’ve married a half dozen times, waiting for their next divorce to have something else to talk about, or ditzy blonde singers who go to Vegas, marry a child hood buddy to be anulled within 72 hours…
      Marriage is a contract to protect assets and promote the stabilization of society. Homosexuals stabilize the society more than any other group by volunteering more, adopting, and investing our money in neighborhoods and revitalizing cities. Yeah some threat we are to marriage. Please take off the religious blinders and know the facts.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • seitan-on-a-stick
      seitan-on-a-stick

      Matt is a sad unemployed loner from the Midwest bitter about America’s huggy coasts of same-gender loving couples ready to declare their love before friends, each other and God.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 12:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • seitan-on-a-stick
      seitan-on-a-stick

      Jesus is the Answer is a Closet Gay!

      Sep 24, 2008 at 12:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gianpiero
      Gianpiero

      Azakia;

      Don’t tell us you “don’t hate gays” and are “more or less indifferent” and then claim that that by marrying we “hijack” (a word in recent years most commonly associated with terrorists) the institution. Spare us your smiley-faced hypocrisy.

      If you don’t believe in equality under the law and if you truly believe that “the state…recognizes that marriage itself has both a legal and Christian basis,” you obviously missed more than a few days of 8th grade civics.

      This is no longer a theoretical discussion. Across the country, thousands of consenting adults of the same gender are now married. Not sort-of married, not provisionally married, not married with an asterisk beside it, but married. That’s what it says on our marriage certificates and that’s what it will always say in the records of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of California. No one has yet demonstrated how the mere existence of these marriages has undermined or weakened the United States or anyone else’s marriage. Whether one “believes” in it or not is no longer relevant. It is here, it is equality, and it represents a triumph of the principles of reason on which this country was founded.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 12:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      Jesus is the Answer

      Who LOVED St John the divine is the question?

      and go read Ruth and Naomi, and King David and Jonathan…you pain in the a$$ f*cktard!

      Sep 24, 2008 at 1:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      Azakia

      You can believe half truths if you wish, but the early CHURCH had marriages of two men, research St Bacchus and St Serge….dearie.
      http://www.ashejournal.com/five/duffy.shtml

      Sep 24, 2008 at 1:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jonathan Justice
      Jonathan Justice

      As I have suggested elsewhere, these folks know that these assertions would loose a properly judged debate. For them, it is more important that they show allegiance to the powers that they think ought to be and model it for the young people to whom the site is ostensibly addressed. ‘These are the lies you must tell to get the goodies, and not be subjected to our sneers (and worse if we can arrange it).’ Some people might call that a privileged narrative.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CHURCHILL-Y
      CHURCHILL-Y

      “It’s completely unrelated.
      Blacks who endured prejudice can’t wake up in the morning and not be black. None of us can be counseled out of our race or ethnicity.”

      Isn’t this the same line that most blacks in this Country use whenever they want to make excuses for the homophobic and discriminatory behavior shown at large by them?

      Love the first pic, how apropos the face of homophobia and those who will install prop 8 in CA.

      Sep 24, 2008 at 6:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • polobear
      polobear

      and who forced christianity on African-Americans in the first place?

      Sep 24, 2008 at 6:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Bisceglia
      John Bisceglia

      I’ve HAD IT with this immoral discrimination. Republicans – you’re ignorance and fear is KILLING me. Time to fight back; tax resistance is how I’m responding; there is NO OTHER WAY to respond….unless you are willing to wait 20-30 years for your civil rights. (GAY TAX PROTEST)

      Sep 25, 2008 at 12:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      Every LGBT voter in Cali. should vote against this prop whether or not they “ever want to marry another guy” (or another girl, depending) simply for the overall benefit to our entire community the institution of same-sex marriage offers.

      Oct 6, 2008 at 1:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billy Kess
      Billy Kess

      i think gay marriage is wrong and I am happy to know that it will never be accepted. I will never accept it. I refuse to. It’s sick, it’s perverted, it’s wrong, it’s evil. And I have my right to believe so.

      Not only do I believe it, but I speak it. I preach it. I tell people how sick it is and I point out several reasons to back up my beliefs. I use the internet to spread my belief. And I will never be stopped.

      billykess.com

      It’s my website. It will always be my website. I will never stop fighting to keep marriage traditional.

      do what you want in your bedrooms, folks, but don’t put it in my face, understand? Keep your sick, abnormal behavior out of my face and stop trying to get the world to accept you.

      Be tolerant of us. We are here and we do not approve. Please be tolerant of us.

      Billy Kess

      Feb 15, 2009 at 6:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      @Billy Kess:

      “be tolerant of us”, while we are as ignorant and intolerant of you as possible.

      stfu.

      Feb 15, 2009 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.