We are all America’s children, every one of us born here grew up a child in our schools, taught by what adults said of other political minorities. So before you get pissed at us for writing another article with the “i-word”, don’t worry—even though the National Organization for Marriage and the Concerned Women For American have joined official “hate-group” the Family Research Council in denouncing that article, neither they nor any other anti-gay organizations will print a word of this article. We assure you. Every single word would humiliate them and only encourage their members and the media to see their credibility undermined by their own hypocrisy.
We pissed off members of our community by asking “Can We Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Children?” Our critics said that “indoctrinate” is inflammatory word and gives our enemies useful ammo against us. But can we just say:
1) Anti-gay foes have a far better text than our article with which to demonize us decent, hardworking Americans—it’s called the bible. And their ilk has twisted its teachings to keep blacks from marrying whites, Christians from marrying Jews, and other minorities oppressed for centuries. Join the club.
2) Without such deliberately provocative rhetoric, the haters at NOM, the CW4A, and the FRC would never have started paying attention to this blog or our arguments. In the end, their reposts said little more than “SEE?!!! WE WERE RIGHT ABOUT THAT THING WE’VE BEEN SAYING FOR 4 DECADES!.” On the contrary, by reposting that article, they’ve also succeeded in getting their own followers and bigger media outlets to pay attention to every article we’ve posted about them since.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
3) For the record, this is not about page views or personal glory. This is about exposing hate groups for the disingenuous, anti-American hypocrites they are. This is about helping give tools and ideas to local equality organizations so we can all fight together. This is about getting national media to start asking the same tough questions we’ve asked of those groups so American citizens can watch their dishonorable lies crumble in their very living rooms. Our provocative article served as the opening volley in our choice to go after them hard until people start asking the same questions we are.
All this seems especially appropriate to bring up on today which is Harvey Milk Day. Milk took the idea of queers wanting to recruit children and threw it back in anti-gay faces with the rallying cry—”I’m here to recruit you!” By “recruit”, he meant, that he wanted to persuade fair, decent Americans to protect their friends and neighbors from the vicious slanderous attacks and discriminatory laws that groups like NOM would use to harm our churches, our children, our communities, and our very lives.
Before we get up in arms with using the word, “indoctrination” let’s see Wikipedia’s definition:
The term indoctrination came to have awkward connotations during the 20th century, but it is necessary to retain it, in order to distinguish it from education. In education one is asked to stand as much as possible outside the body of accumulated knowledge and analyze it oneself. In indoctrination on the other hand, one stands within the body of knowledge and absorbs its teachings without critical thought.
To absorb teaching without critical thought. Hmmm… NOM, CW4A, and the FRC have repeatedly tried to teach everyone that they are pro-family, pro-religion, and pro-child when they want to keep capable adult couples from raising kids, keep churches from marrying their own members, and keep kids rotting in orphanages on the taxpayer dime. These groups would like Americans to absorb their teachings without any critical thought or questioning. So who’s indoctrinating who?
We say, in the rabble rousing spirit of Harvey Milk, let’s do the same with the word “indoctrination.” It’s NOM’s, CW4A’s, and the FRC’s most powerful word against us because it means we wanna brainwash their children. If they call teaching children about LGBTs “indoctrination”, then we wanna “indoctrinate” every child, adult, and elderly American into questioning their so-called “community values.”
Though we have criticized the pro-gay NY Marriage Equality ad for failing to reach the emotional pitch of our opponent’s propaganda, we fully support the hard work and efficacy of all marriage equality advocates. We need people who work on every level of society and every emotional pitch to keep the tide turning against anti-gay bigots. Senators (not voters) will ultimately the fate of NY’s bill. But with Minnesota’s anti-equality ballot coming this next election, Queerty thinks now is the time to take these groups head on and gloves off.
While getting out ideas like the 10 mailers we should be using for marriage equality and messaging like our 10 easy to answer yes/no questions provide useful templates for Minnesota’s equality organizers to pro-actively use, we also plan on interviewing the state’s marriage equality leadership and publications to figure out what strategies will work best and with gay-friendly churches to get their thoughts as well.
A devastating strategist once said, “The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.” And these groups have lied and slandered their way to ballot box victory too many times already. We’ve passed the time for polite reaction; now is the time for bold invective that strikes at the heart of their lies.
Groups NOM, CW4A, AFA, and FRC like are a dinosaur aware of their own impending extinction. Even Focus on the Family’s president James Daly thinks so:
We’re winning the younger generation on abortion, at least in theory. What about same-sex marriage? We’re losing on that one, especially among the 20- and 30-somethings: 65 to 70 percent of them favor same-sex marriage. I don’t know if that’s going to change with a little more age—demographers would say probably not. We’ve probably lost that. I don’t want to be extremist here, but I think we need to start calculating where we are in the culture.
Their attempts to “indoctrinate” the children of America into voting against equality is losing with each new person who comes out. We hope to help deliver the final blows to unblock our march towards full equality that lets committed hardworking adults care for each other, gives kids loving homes, allows churches freedom of religion, and fosters communities not only in word, but action.
Steve
This is a very dangerous game.
Expect them to quote the headline, but say nothing at all about the content of the article. As far as NOM is concerned, QUEERTY has just admitted that homosexuals do, in fact, seek to indoctrinate and recruit children. They will use it in ads. They will use it in court. And, they will be right, even without their usual tactic of quoting incorrectly or out-of-context.
Please be sure that the content of that add stays up, in archive format, so that it can be found by the lawyers who have to respond to NOM.
Shannon1981
I must agree with Steve here, Queerty. Dangerous. You know what Maggie and the gang will do with this? Use it as exhibit #2 in anti gay campaigns, that’s what, and use the headlines- and omit the rest- to stir up mass hysteria on the dangerous of homosexuality, and urge parents of kids who have said and/or show signs of gayness to send them to Exodus STAT. Are they crazy? Yes. Are they ignorant bigots? Of course. But they will use your tactics against you, and the rest of us. Sometimes being provocative comes at a high price for everyone. Please reconsider your methods of dealing with NOM and other hate groups.
Nick McIntire
This is a contrary point of view, but I completely support it. And it’s for a simple reason: These people, as the article states, work very hard to indoctrinate children and adults alike every day. Religion and propaganda are forms of indoctrination. So to say that ‘we’ i.e. the terrifying ‘other’ are trying to somehow implant own sinful thoughts and desires into children is patently ridiculous because in the act of saying that phrase, someone else is trying indoctrinate someone else. So then, why not? Why not be transparent and say, “Yeah, we are trying to sway the opinion of your kids so maybe they won’t be bigoted @$#%*&$@ like you?” I don’t see an issue with that, and if we as a community are afraid of rocking the social boat to the point that we can’t fight fire with rhetorical in the face of our enemies, what’s the point? We haven;’t gotten very far by riding on other peoples sympathies, and we’re perceived as alternately weak and militaristic/extreme. For as group that ‘control the media’, we haven’t done the best job at crafting our message, although we’re getting better at it. But at the end of the day, I really think it’s ok so to be honest and ever-so-slightly confrontational by saying “UH, yeah, duh, we’re swaying opinion. That’s what indoctrination is. So are you. Except not as successfully as you used to. Get over it.” I also think we need to get over some of our sanctimonious holier-than-thou convictions, stop fighting each other, and start fighting the common enemy, i.e. the deluded hate mongers who act like because they misinterpreted a message from a 2000 year old fairy tale, they have a stamp of authenticity on the truth.
papparon
It’s about time we took this approach – as long as we fear the opposition, we allow them to control us. Calling this “dangerous” is to suggest we should cower. I call it BOLD, COURAGEOUS, and INEVITABLE if we are to ever gain equality!
HAL
OK. Yes, they may try to use it in anti-gay campaigns to make a mass-hysteria. But who the hell cares. They do that anyway, without us saying it. Hell, they already lie and say we DO say it. So maybe they’ll blindly link to this article and people will have an opportunity to actually read the content.
Otherwise, they’ll back it up with about as much merit as everything else they say, fuck all.
Also, I highly doubt it would hold much ground in court. Since Queerty clearly does not represent (or expect to represent) the opinions of every single person in the community. It will hold about as much merit as citing an opinion piece in a newspaper. Queerty doesn’t call itself a news source, it calls itself a blog.
Plus… their slogan has been “Free of an Agenda, except that gay one” for a ridiculously long time.
Jim Hlavac
Ah, the old dreaded “backlash”! If we’re too pushy they’ll hate us more, and if we do nothing they’ll hate us, um, well, they’ll hate us more anyway. Indeed, I doubt they could hate us anymore than they already do — I’d say “get rid of the gays” is pretty far down the hate road, how much further can they go? What, all the way to “get rid of the gays”? Hmm. Of course, if we do something, anything, they say we’re recruiting & indoctrinating, of course, and flaunting and promoting and pushing it in their faces. And if we do nothing then they say we’re ashamed of whom we are because we know it’s wrong. Either way, they want to get rid of us, face that fact.
This is not about denying “marriage” or “civil unions” — these groups are clear — they want us gone. And you can’t get much further beyond that other than to say “they really want us gone.”
Therefore there is nothing that we could ever do that would please those people. When those groups started decades ago they were already out to remove us from society one way or the other; but they never bothered to pay attention to a word we said. And now, well, they seem to be reading gay blogs. Well, good for them. That’s how NOM’s Marinelli changed — he actually met gay people. And lo, we were no horror.
Those whom are against us will never be happy with what we say or do or not say or do and will use it all, no matter what it is, to condemn us and attempt to change us or something. So don’t worry about them, but rile them up so they can show their extremism of “get rid of the gays” program.
And why should we let the opposition decide for us what is “too extreme” for us to say? Some of them are calling for our incarceration, forced cure, or just killing us. I’d dare say that we have nothing to lose by saying anything. And if what we say gives the NO GAYS! movement a heart attack, well, how good is that?
As Admiral Farragut famously said — “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” Well, Damn the NO GAYS! movement, full speed ahead. Give ’em something to think about.
Tom
@HAL:
Other times they steal articles they don’t link it. Gay365 had an article taken out of context & no link was even provided. They also deleted the original authors comments off their comment sections.
You are believing in the falacy that NOM respects the truth. They don’t.
Concerned Christian Mum
Hi. I’ve been reading Queerty for about two weeks now and I have to say that I’m disgusted by some of the articles here. This is one of them.
As a heterosexual Christian mother , I feel it’s my duty to share a couple of hometruths with you.
What NOM and their ilk are doing to the children in your country is called CHILD ABUSE. It is insidious , dangerous and evil. Do not back down , or doubt yourselves , or feel that you have to tiptoe around this ‘ brood of vipers ‘.
The Bible , affirms and validates same- sex relationships. It is through ignorance of the scripture that these ignorant, bigoted people are condemning not only you, but many innocent children.
‘ Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.’
You’re doing what we all should have done a long time ago.
kuy
I say keep provoking them. It makes them more shrill and annoying to everyone around. Plus it’s true that the gay community needs to reach out to kids and make them feel it’s safe to express themselves, and compell them to defend their LGTB classmates. It’s absolutely vital to reach kids, because it is at this stage where homophobia begins to dig deep.
Kev C
meh, why even bother? Nobody takes these phony christian, anti-gay groups serious anyway, and the last thing you want anyone to do is give them attention. And yet some gays in the media give them too much attention and take them serious. And we don’t want that to happen. We all know how these anti-gay groups start, as some two-bit operation in someone’s basement making Youtube videos or prancing around with dayglo signs on street corners. And only when someone takes them serious do they gain power and finances. And if you’ve seen their operations, you know that NOM, FRC, AFA, etc just trolling for their basement hobby organizations. Being a pest, a public nuisance like Westboro Baptist.
Steven B
In a sense Queerty has set up the bigots to to play into equality advocate’s hands. The response, of course, is a series of ads that simply send the message, “It is about education, not indoctrination.” If we point out the difference in our public responses, the bigotry of our opposition will be laid bare.
John Bleakley
My God, the stupidity in this post and the comments is mind boggling.
The original post was untrue and irresponsible. But the worst part about it is that it didn’t merely purport to express the opinion of Mr. Villarreal or Queerty editors. The headline asserted that there is a deep, dark secret that “we all” know and should “admit” to, thereby making it perfect to play into the paranoia and fear of NOM’s target audience. Could you be any more dishonest and irresponsible?
Queerty’s absolutely despicable conduct has without question injured gay families. People will be hurt by Queerty’s callous disregard of the consequences of its actions. This is not about how NOM or its ardent followers will react. Obviously, their minds are made up. This is about what millions of Americans in MN, MD, and other states may conclude after being exposed to Queerty’s vile nonsense. Queerty has helped to add to the burdens of gay families, to increase their pain. Its staff bears full moral responsibility for the consequences. And even now, when they know that their post is being used against gay families, they can’t bring themselves to apologize and do a post to mitigate the harm.
Villarreal, your attempts to spin this as a positive thing are pathetic. While it is true that NOM would hate on gays anyway, using the Bible or statements from their own people, you have helped them by giving them a neatly packaged sound bite, which they will falsely claim to represent the “real” agenda behind gay marriage as it comes from the horse’s mouth. Are you so obtuse as to not see that?
Your other drivel doesn’t even merit a response. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I sincerely hope that Queerty goes under once again and that you, Baume, and all others associated with the site are never hired by any media outlet ever again.
Didaskalos
Congratulations, Dan!
You have now firmly grasped the electric rail, the one topic which every sensibile person avoids. The Recruitment of Our Children to the Homosexual Life-Style. Back in the day, there might have been such a thing as a meaningful initiation and training in sex. Not any more, not in America. There is only the shrill indignation over the Paederastic Menace.
So, Dan, I give you MINER’s LAW, which your “indoctrination” post has just beautifully illustrated:
All internet content aspires to the condition of pornography; all pornography aspires to the condition of child pornography; therefore, all internet content aspires to the condition of child pornography. Those groups started off as Christian, in some sense, telling a glad story of redemption from sin. But now, in swallowing your pedo-bait article, they are reduced from telling the Good News to flogging a crude CSA narrative, namely that SOMEBODY out there is diddling kids and SOMEBODY is going to have to pay for it. This is an enormously attractive story to be telling, for certain people, because of the relief it offers to the teller. In telling that story over and over again, the teller unburdens himself of any sense that HE might be interested in kids, and that HE might be punished for it.
As James Kincaid says, “Can’t we come up with some better stories than that?”
<>
—Didaskalos
ggreen
Stupid isn’t pretty but it sure is verbose.
GreatGatsby2011
I’m all for embracing the terminology of the oposition to throw them off their game but, in this situation, I don’t necessarily believe it’s a good thing. “Without critical thought” is a key part in the definition of indoctrination. And I, for one, want the youth of today to think more critically, not less. I think a better argument would be to distinguish education from indoctrination and show that the opposition is truly the one indoctrinating children. I mean, it’s called religious doctrine, for crying out loud. The protest signs practically write themselves.
ohplease
You actually just compared yourself to Harvey Milk. On Harvey Milk Day, no less. So now we know you have as much shame as you have common sense.
And of course it’s not about page views. It’s not like this site is a business and needs the page views or that it recently re-launched and needs the publicity. Of course not.
I only found out about this post from a link elsewhere. I’d have to because I don’t read this blog any more. I’ll continue to follow this catastrophe, though, but only from afar.
Andre
I’m sure it has been said, but these hate groups have a larger following and better funding than this blog does. Their message will get out (with more effect), and their larger following will have more fodder to denounce us with if we start claiming that our goal is to indoctrinate their children. Regardless of the opposing side’s tactics, we still need to use logic; logic says that using a word that’s so provocative, and that confirms the fears that anti-gay bigots have toward gays, is counterproductive and a misstep at the very least. Shock tactics are the weapons of the other side, and your wording gives them ammo.
IAbuseGays
Thanks Queerty.
Many comments along this thread illustrate why gay rights as a movement has been mostly luck in the last few years rather than strategy. The luck that pop culture showed gay people on TV and in news coverage rather than rather than any systematic effort by the delicate sensibilities of middle class gays. If we left it up to you, we would still be in the back rooms worrying about cop raids.
To the guy who doesn’t get the Harvey Milk reference- go read “The Mayor of Castro Street.” A large part of the book’s thesis about Milk was that he was a believer in confronting rather than hoping denial would work. Indeed, then, as now, there were many a queens arguing for the status quo. Many of them, then, as now, later would profess how they supported the approach once they obtained the rights from the struggles of others.
For the record, NOM is going to hate you no matter what. Queerty is right that by the mere mention of the article that then means more people are going to look up the actual article. That’s how media works. Ideas start as radical, then they become less so, then they become the norm, and then policy. the policy here being that gays are treated as humans deserving of respect in schools.
A few years back, in an interview, I believe it was on The Daly Show, the conservative, Bill Bennett said of gay marriage that he believed its inevitable.
You want to know why he said that? because he understand what some of you cowards do not: That if you want to change how people view things, you have to be willing to take risks by pushing the envelop in the direction you want to go.
I hate the GOP. BUt they excel at this. I mentioned this at Joe My God, which attacked this article. The truth is that if you look at something like Medicare or unions or any number of other issues. The GOP always frame its in the extreme. You want to know why they do that? Its not because they hope to win the extreme in the short term. Its to the politics toward that extreme because they know the Democrats will try to move to slightly to the left of where ever the GOP is. In other words, the GOP is framing the debate because they know that the Democrats will REACT to whatever the GOP says. In the Medicare, they say is a failure and that it is not working. So, the Democrats respond by saying it needs cuts. Thus, the GOP has already won the battle in terms of a war of attrition. By accepting the GOP meme, the Democrats give a great deal of ground to the GOP as far as policy making.
The same holds true here. What exactly do you think led to the win in CA? Polling data by the Los Angeles Times said that it was a lot of late turn of votes because people feared the NOM and conservative arguments about “the children.”
Before you say it, it wasn’t something that the gay groups had mentioned. they indeed, tried to avoid the hold thing. The result of their denying any discussion on the topic was that late breaking voters turned on us in the end because in politics of you don’t define things,a nd you let the other side define it for you- that becomes the definition. This is politics 101.
All Queerty has one is open up an issue that is already on the minds of people who are on the bubble. Did you think that by not talking about it – or that because NOM has more money- that means you would be protected? That’s why I loved the comment by the guy whining about NOMS money. What do you think they are going to do with that money if they have no opposition to the position that they argue? Not talk about it at all. That’s idiotic. They have used the issue in multiple states now. That means- the truth is you got to deal with it.
But hey, keep burying your heads in the sand and waiting for the right to not be nasty. Keep waiting.
Kev C
So what if NOM uses it in an ad? I wish I had 2 million dollars to make a serious ad that everyone laughed at.
Steven Harker
To the investors who have recently re-capitalized Queerty:
The post on the site that you own has now been picked up and touted by the hate group, the Family Research Council, after having already been picked up and exploited by NOM and Concerned Women For America.
This recklessness has imperiled your investment and has created reputational risk. Take remedial action now. Ideally, you should end further funding and let Queerty come to a well-deserved and overdue end.
But at the very least, you should prominently post and disseminate a piece clarifying that the original post did not reflect anyone’s views other than those of Mr. Villarreal, and that the piece was written in the deliberately exaggerated “tabloid” style that characterizes most of the posts on the blog.
This is the absolute minimum that you should do – immediately.
IAbuseGays
@Steven Harker: So you are saying that the articles that no one will read , according to you and others, will now be read because its a disclaimer about the prior article? To say you are illogical is to do a disservice to illogical people.
DavyJones
@Steve: Urm; I don’t think you realize that in a court of law, a blog post cannot be used to represent the intentions or thoughts of an entire group of people. If any lawyer for NOM or anyone else tried to point of any of these articles headlines, the other side would easily object on the basis of ‘hearsay’ (among many other legal grounds).
This isn’t about the courts; it’s about hearts and minds. And the truth is NOM doesn’t need Queerty’s headline to tell people gays are evil. And the people who read their response and actually walked away thinking that’s what Queerty meant; they obviously were already on board with NOM’s message. This is about getting the people on NOM’s mailing list to give the issue a second thought; and to do that, you have to find a way to get them to stop and say ‘Hold on a minute, what?!’ And I guarantee you quite a few people who’ve read these responses have done that, they’ve seen the headline, seen it’s attribution, and thought to themselves, “Wait, even a gay blog wouldn’t be that blunt; there must be more here.” Then they read the article. They might not have agreed with it, but they read it, and that’s a start.
The one’s who accepted NOM’s explanation of the article without a second thought: They would have accepted it if NOM posted and article saying the same things without the Queerty post. Those folks aren’t going to come around for a long time (if ever); and shouldn’t be the people we’re trying to convince…
@Steven Harker: Why do I get the feeling you didn’t read this article at all…
Steven Harker
@IAbuseGays: No, I am saying that a disclaimer will give gay rights advocates something quick and easy to point to when they are forced to explain and/or rebut the lies that will be told about us based on Queerty’s original post.
zach
i think this article is great we need to be more active we need more media attention actually we need to beg gay or gay supporting celebs to start a media smear against these organizations, but thats just the opinion of a 17 year old boy i might not no as much all we can do is be the better people and tell the truth and try to bring their lies to light
IAbuseGays
@Steven Harker:You mean more than the original article which says that children should be taught to see gay people as equal?
I will try to lead you to water: Who will the gay groups be sending the disclaimer to? If those same people are not reading the original article, why would they read a disclaimer about an article that they have no read either?
You do realize that anti-gay hate groups have been using these arguments about indoctrination without any proof at all? I am curious- in your mind- do you remotely understand the conversation or are you just pure emotions? Why, if you believe this is too incendiary, and they have lied in the past, would they suddenly read your disclaimer.
Look, I am bored. I think you are a nutjob. But, at least make this interesting.
Cameron
@John Bleakley:
HEAR HEAR
this was incredibly irresponsible to post to begin with, but the constant back-pedalling is even more pathetic.
ugh… daniel villareal and the queerty folks should really be ashamed. HIRE REAL WRITERS!