Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 7° London Hi 9°C / Lo 5°C

Johann Hari: Almost everywhere is touched by the Stonewall riots now

Homosexuality happens everywhere, so gays fight to be themselves everywhere

It is now 40 years since the start of a riot for freedom in a small tavern in New York City – and the riot has never stopped. It is spreading slowly across the world, to every continent, to Mumbai and Shanghai and Dubai. Everywhere it goes, it wins, in time. Yet on 28 June 1969, it seemed only like another Sixties ruck in the muck against corrupt cops. The Stonewall Tavern was a Greenwich Village bar where gay people huddled together to find friends and lovers in a hostile country on a hostile planet. It was a hangout for everyone from macho bikers to drag queens making the pilgrimage from Ohio and Iowa and Kansas. One of the regulars said that until he discovered the bar "I felt like I was the only one... I only knew enough to hide". The regulars were harming nobody, they were only enjoying themselves, but the local police force was fond of busting the bar and beating and imprisoning the clientele. They only allowed the bar to stay open at all because they were being bribed by local gay gangsters.

But one day, gay people decided they had had enough of cowering and hiding and being told they were sick. On the day of Judy Garland's funeral, the police smashed their way into the Stonewall. The historian Martin Duberman distills what happened next into a single image: "A leg, poured into nylons and sporting a high heel, shot out of a paddy wagon into the chest of a cop, throwing him backwards." The drag queen yelled: "Nobody's gonna fuck with me no more!" And the global riot began.

It was the turning point in the fight for equality for gay people. Within four decades, goals that would have seemed impossible to those fighters that night were achieved: openly gay prime ministers, gay marriage in Europe and parts of the US, legal bans on discrimination. The gay rights movement was a cry for the right to love in the darkness. It is a model of democratic pressure: a minority peacefully appealing to the decency of the majority, and prevailing. It is the strongest antidote to cynicism that I know.

The conversation about gay people has been so soaked in theology for so long that it is important to state some hard empirical facts. Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon that happens in every human society. Everywhere, about 2 to 5 per cent of human beings prefer to have sex with their own gender. It occurs at the heart of nature: only last week, Professors Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk, of the University of California, concluded in a study: "The variety and ubiquity of same-sex sexual behaviour in animals is impressive – many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, molluscs and nematodes."

Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. It doesn't mean anything. It is a harmless genetic quirk. It has always happened and it always will. The only question is: do you want to be spiteful to gay people, or let them express their most natural urges peacefully? In the US and Europe, steadily and remarkably quickly, the civilising voices are winning. There is still a lot to do. Gay teenagers are six times more likely to commit suicide than their straight siblings but the trajectory is ever-upwards. In much of the developing world, gay equality is inching forward too. After extraordinarily brave men and women fought back, India is poised to decriminalise homosexuality this year and China has just seen its first ever Gay Pride parade. But there are three great swathes of humanity still untouched by the spirit of Stonewall – and terrified, terrorised gay people there are screaming for help. In the Caribbean, majority-Muslim countries and most of Africa, being gay is a death sentence, yet many people who should be showing solidarity choose not to see it.

Jamaica is Taliban Afghanistan for gay people. If caught, gays and lesbians face 10 years of hard labour, but they are more likely to be lynched. The cases documented by Dr Robert Carr, of the University of the West Indies, fill whole books. Here are two from a single week: a father found a picture of a naked man in his 16-year-old son's rucksack, so he produced it in the playground and called on the boy's classmates to beat him to death – which they promptly did. No one was ever charged.

In Montego Bay, a man was caught checking out another man, so the crowd lynched him. When police arrived, they joined in. Hospitals routinely refuse to treat the victims of gay-bashings, leaving them to die, yet people who would never have dreamed of holidaying in apartheid-era South Africa still flock to Jamaica's beaches. A heroic Jamaican called Brian Williamson set up an organisation called J-FLAG to campaign for the rights of gay Jamaicans. His body was found stabbed and slashed 70 times. The police did nothing. The most popular song in Jamaica in recent years – by Beenie Man – choruses: "I'm dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays... Take dem by surprise/ Get dem in the head."

Throughout Muslim countries, gay people are routinely jailed, tortured and hanged. Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh denies there are any gay people in Iran, but is happy to have them executed in public squares. In post-invasion Iraq, there has been a homo-cidal pogrom of gay people being led by private Islamist "morality squads". In the past two months, 25 gay men's corpses have been found mutilated in one Baghdad slum, Sadr City, with notes saying "pervert" pinned to their chests. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's leading religious cleric, says gays should be killed "in the worst way possible" – and they are obeying. Men are now being killed by having their anuses glued shut.

In Africa, one country has been a beacon for gay rights. Post-apartheid South Africa even has gay equality written into its constitution. Yet even it is now headed by a man, Jacob Zuma, who brags about beating up gay men in his youth.

The gay people cowering in these countries are asking for our support – by funding their underground organisations, by putting gay rights on the diplomatic agenda, and by consistently granting asylum to the victims of homophobic persecution. Today, some gay people seeking safety are given the right to remain, while others are told to go back and hide their sexuality. But too many people avert their gaze from the murderous, homophobic persecution happening now and, even more shockingly, some condemn the people who are trying to stop it. Peter Tatchell, one of the great figures of the fight for gay equality, has for years been organising practical support for gay Jamaicans, Muslims and Africans. They have been incredibly grateful, but he has been pilloried by people who pretend to be left-wingers here as "racist" and "imperialist".

How is it "racist" to side with black and Muslim people who are being hunted down and murdered by other black and Muslim people? How is it "imperialist" to peacefully support their struggle, as they are begging us to? Should we say to the successors of Brian Williamson – sorry, but we can't help you today, because the descendants of your torturers and murderers were subject to British imperial rape a century ago?

That would be real racism: to cheer a Stonewall for white people on the streets of New York City, but to ignore it on the streets of Kingston or Cairo or Kinshasa, just because the homophobic cops there happen to be black or Arab. Homosexuality happens everywhere, so gay people fight for the freedom to be themselves everywhere. The Stonewall riot, and its high-heeled kick, isn't over; in many places, it has only just begun.

You can support gay rights organisations in the most homophobic parts of the world. To support gay Iraqis, donate here. To support gay Jamaicans, donate here. To support Peter Tatchell extraordinary campaigns against homophobic discrimination everywhere, click here.

To read Johann Hari's latest article for Slate magazine - about the life and death of the Asian babe - click here.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

More from Johann Hari

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Hari Rant!
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 12:08 am (UTC)
It's an odd thing...but I think you're more dangerous than your supposed opposition...you must calm down dear....
Re: Hari Rant!
[info]maxmillerfan wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 12:09 pm (UTC)
Yes, that's right, people arguing against the lynching of gay people are "more dangerous" than the people lynching gay people, because they're passionate. Your logic is unimpeachable, "dear."
Your message is not lost on me....
[info]tinker77 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 12:37 am (UTC)
Johann,
Yet another fabulous article - keep your thought-provoking and society building articles coming. I was unaware of the extent of some of the countries who have homosexuality outlawed, and was even more mortified at some of the horrific behaviours you described.

It is important that every learns to question themselves, especially those who hate homosexuals, and ask the question "what is it about me that makes me want to hate homosexuals so much?" "why do I feel so insecure about this?" and really "why do I want to prevent other human beings from being happy by not allowing them to be their true selves - and isn't this just being mean-spirited and narrow minded in wanting to denigrate another human being?"

The struggle has a long way to go given the rise of religious fundamentalism of all stripes, dangerous at its very core, and so we need to fight for sexuality equality for all in this regard.
Tinks religious fundamentals...of all stripes??
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 12:56 am (UTC)
Tink, you don't live in the real world....like Hari you have a dream......wake up.....
Re: Tinks religious fundamentals...of all stripes??
[info]felipe_segundo wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 01:57 pm (UTC)
Please explain exactly what you mean by this empty rhetoric Mr 321.
Bigger problems
[info]lse_scientist wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 01:05 am (UTC)
People should be mostly free to do what they want including with their genitals. But having sex and having sex with particular types of partners bluntly is not an important problem or right compared to having a full stomach, freedom from violence and basic health care. Yes it would be nice if people in Kingston or Cairo or Kinshasa could have sex with whom they pleased without fear. But no one has to have sex in the way they need food, security and if ill treatment. Sort those out first. Gay rights are luxury rights for those that already have the basics.
Re: Bigger problems
[info]eocine wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 06:42 am (UTC)
They are receiving ill treatment already for something which is instinctive. Looking around at the number of articles on politicians having affairs, it seems that controlling one's sex drive is very hard but most people don't have to worry about being killed over it.

Help people to have gay rights, birth control and reproductive rights and a lot of those issues with food and health care will be alleviated.
Re: Bigger problems
[info]mokie wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 07:08 am (UTC)
lse_scientist: the right that gay people in Kingston, Cairo and Kinshasa want is the right to live--to not be beaten to death in the street. That's not a luxury.
Re: Bigger problems - [info]sickofstupidity - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 05:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Problemo
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 06:36 am (UTC)
"Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon that happens in every human society. Everywhere, about 2 to 5 per cent of human beings prefer to have sex with their own gender."

That would seem to imply that homosexuality is an aboration that occurs in a small part of nature, i.e that it isn't the norm. Just because something occurs "in nature", doesn't make it ok. The article seems to be an appeal to majority in order to justify it's point, holding "nature" as the ultimate standard for all things.

Now, the violence committed against gay people is absolutely horrific. Afterall we wouldn't lynch someone and beat them to death if they lie. And people lie all the time. In fact, everybody lies. You could even argue that many lies are "harmless" and simple "quirks", but this doesn't make lying acceptable even if you lie in private and the lie only involves two individuals.

As someone else said, what gay people are fighting for are not rights but luxuries & privilages. I no more have a "right" to have sex for pleasure and intimacy with someone of the opposite sex than another person has a "right" to have sex for pleasure and intimacy with someone of the same sex. It is not crucial for my survival or to live.

Now personally, I say that if gay people are to be jailed or face fines or labour for their activities, then heterosexuals should face the same punishments for sex outside of marriage, under-age sex, sex with more than one person, adultery etc. If equality is the word, then there should be equal retribution. If heterosexuals aren't jailed for sex outside of marriage or cheating, then I don't see how it can be lawful or just to jail a homosexual.
Re: Problemo
[info]charleslambert wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 10:14 am (UTC)
"I say that if gay people are to be jailed or face fines or labour for their activities, then heterosexuals should face the same punishments for sex outside of marriage, under-age sex, sex with more than one person, adultery etc. If equality is the word, then there should be equal retribution."

This is an excellent argument for gay marriage.

(By the way, the word, in both Italian and Spanish, is not 'problemo' but 'problema'. In both languages, it looks feminine but is actually masculine. I hope that isn't too difficult a concept to deal with.)
Re: Problemo - [info]wer_wind_blows - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 11:11 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]charleslambert - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 11:46 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]wer_wind_blows - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 12:43 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]sickofstupidity - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 05:55 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]wer_wind_blows - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 09:36 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]sickofstupidity - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 02:22 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]wer_wind_blows - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 04:42 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]sickofstupidity - Friday, 3 July 2009 at 11:41 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]wer_wind_blows - Friday, 3 July 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]sickofstupidity - Friday, 3 July 2009 at 02:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]andrea_2 - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 12:32 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]wer_wind_blows - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 12:46 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]sickofstupidity - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 06:00 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]wer_wind_blows - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 09:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]glenjs - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 10:15 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]wer_wind_blows - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 12:54 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]sickofstupidity - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 02:31 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]glenjs - Friday, 3 July 2009 at 06:47 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]sickofstupidity - Friday, 3 July 2009 at 01:33 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Problemo - [info]glenjs - Friday, 3 July 2009 at 07:24 pm (UTC) Expand
who is not gay
[info]guayacan wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 07:46 am (UTC)
You state that homosexuality is genetic. This is not proven and wrong in my opinion. It happens when conscience is awakened, at birth. Every human has had feelings of doubt or temptation to some form of homosexuality, and to deny this is fear (which then causes attack). All humans have some form of balance of homosexuality and hetrosexuality, and it would depend finally on whether your given love is strongest one way, the other, or both..........but all humans have these feelings, not just 2%.
For those people that dislike this, then understand anyone can be gay, like your children. If you attack them, you fear them, because you fear the inner you and you are not educated enough (or have the guts) to explore this.
In most of the modern world, educated people accept this. It is unfortunate that evolution struggles due to lack of education, identity or intelect.
Re: who is not gay
[info]glenjs wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 10:20 am (UTC)
What a load of crap!
Banning Peter Tatchell from London Pride reception
[info]birdlabird wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 08:22 am (UTC)
Hi Johann,

Thanks for another brilliant, timely article.

Peter Tatchell was barred from the Lord Mayor's party to open this year's Pride festival. A pertinent example of what can happen when right wing politicians are custodians of civic LGBT culture and rights.

There have been celebrations and a march to mark the Stonewall Riots this year (organised by TransLondon) but they were underground and definitely not on the shiny Pride program.

thanks for your brilliant words x





We shall overcome this violent hatred against gay people!
[info]samb_uk wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 09:30 am (UTC)
It's not going as fast as one would hope, but we're making progress every day.

All decent men and women must take a stand against homophobia, sexism and racism.
The human race
[info]gf60 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 09:32 am (UTC)
Sometimes when looking at the 'achievements' of the human race, I regret that it's only 2 - 5% and not 62-65%. The planet would be a far better place.
Re: The human race
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 06:06 pm (UTC)
****THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE****

:o)
Re: The human race - [info]glenjs - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 10:23 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The human race - [info]sickofstupidity - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 02:56 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The human race - [info]glenjs - Friday, 3 July 2009 at 06:53 am (UTC) Expand
The Popular Arguments against Homosex
[info]bobav wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 10:45 am (UTC)
The popular arguments against homsexuality, amply represented in the comments about this fine article, that even if homosex is "naturally occurring" it is wrong and that sexuality is less important than hunger or health care, use a variety of reasonings that depend heavily on what passes for colloquial and unsubstantiated wisdom.

Preventing people their predisposed or even learned sexual outlets can certainly be compared to starving people or denying basic access to health if one considers that sexuality is key for human intimate bonding and that this intimate bonding is a necessary and basic ingredient in how humans cement their social relationships, a necessary and basic building block to how humanity is organized and succeeds on the planet.

Anthropologically too, societies have generally been arranged in one way by those that had to produce as many offspring as possible to assure succession in a difficult and dangerous environment, and those that needed to control the number of offspring in order to manage per capita resource allocation. Homosexuality became one tool in how those respective societies managed social cohesion, sex drive and reproduction while containing and/or promoting birth rates. Just as it has been proven that in all male societies (prison etc) that there are a fair and rather large number of individuals who are able to drift into homosexual intimacy as the situation warrants in order to cement bonds and facilitate the ever-present need for the individual to "belong" to the group, societies on the whole have been able to manage populations and resource allocation through the employment of a variety of methods, including homosexuality.

This discussion can get all too clinical-sounding and cold, however, when what it comes down to is love. To prevent people from seeking out and forming the long-lasting intimate partnerships that define our race and the nature and main ingredient of our way of relating to one another and surviving on the planet is cruel and torturous. Inhuman... if it weren't so widely practiced: And largely by those for whom a variety of concepts of love are written into their most sacred literature as the highest aspirations.
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex
[info]wer_wind_blows wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 11:18 am (UTC)
"Preventing people their predisposed or even learned sexual outlets can certainly be compared to starving people or denying basic access to health if one considers that sexuality is key for human intimate bonding and that this intimate bonding is a necessary and basic ingredient in how humans cement their social relationships, a necessary and basic building block to how humanity is organized and succeeds on the planet."

But it isn't key for intimate bonding. Two people can fall in love without having sex. We don't have sex with every person we have social relationships with. Humanity can't succeed if males and females don't reproduce.

"Just as it has been proven that in all male societies (prison etc) that there are a fair and rather large number of individuals who are able to drift into homosexual intimacy as the situation warrants in order to cement bonds and facilitate the ever-present need for the individual to "belong" to the group, societies on the whole have been able to manage populations and resource allocation through the employment of a variety of methods, including homosexuality."

Either that, or they're simply gagging for it and have no other option due to the lack of females. Also, there's a measure of humiliation involved. Besides that, there are other ways to cement bonds and belong to a group.

Indeed love is very important, but it depends on what kind of "love" you are talking about. Is it lustful love? Affectionate love? Love of attraction? Or the love of caring? Are all of these good all the time or only in certain situations and in certain measures?
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]bobav - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 09:13 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]wer_wind_blows - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 09:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]bobav - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 10:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]wer_wind_blows - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 07:00 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]wer_wind_blows - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 07:09 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]bobav - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]wer_wind_blows - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 12:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]bobav - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 05:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]wer_wind_blows - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 08:33 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]bobav - Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 08:53 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]wer_wind_blows - Friday, 3 July 2009 at 06:42 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]sickofstupidity - Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 06:11 pm (UTC) Expand
The Popular Arguments against Homosex
[info]famulla wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 12:54 pm (UTC)
Indeed love is very important, but it depends on what kind of "love" you are talking about. Is it lustful love? Affectionate love? Love of attraction? Or the love of caring? Are all of these good all the time or only in certain situations and in certain measures?
ALL LOVE NO GOT I say love one girl and get kids then talk of love What is LOVE, The child, mother, sister, brother, in laws out laws , pyjama , dog , tree, mother, dada, where does the child me you him her come from. GAYS????? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO One man show never give good play
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex
[info]steerpike66 wrote:
Monday, 6 July 2009 at 08:42 am (UTC)
Incoeherent nonsense. You assuem that gay love is all sexual. Ruibbish: gay love is as much family, fraternal, platonic and romantic as it is sexual.

You are a stupid caveman.
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]famulla - Monday, 6 July 2009 at 09:41 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex - [info]famulla - Monday, 6 July 2009 at 11:02 am (UTC) Expand
Hari Rant!
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 01:41 pm (UTC)
max, you're a plonker. Just take a look at how the Middle East treats homosexuals. Actually look closer to home and the millions of muslims (no doubt Hari approves of them being here), who despise gay people. Hari lives in cloud cuckoo land. His liberal left agenda actually does the gay 'community' a disservice. Shout loudly and shout too much....people will stop listening...and certainly if that agenda supports the very people who despise homosexuality. Maxi babe.....dream on......dear...
[info]carithne wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 02:02 pm (UTC)
Nice work! It is true, gay people are often seen as a farce or openly discriminated against. How idiotic is it to ask someone to hide their sexuality, their emotional freedom so that they can be deported back to a country which never understood them? For the benefit of statistics? Maybe they enjoy the power trip? Perhaps they should be deported themselves.

In the 1900's Isabelle Eberhardt travelled Algeria as a cross dresser. Algeria was a Muslim country at that time and her records show that the people were lovely to her and never challenged her on her decision to cross-dress. Muslim countries have gone downhill now but there was a mystery to it in earlier times when intervention and an imposition of civilisation was not so inherent in its history.
long way
[info]giedre_guedeney wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 02:03 pm (UTC)
unfortunately, there is still a long way to go for both the "western" world and the other part of it.

it is terribly inhuman, those cases you described in the article, and I'm sure there are hundreds more, even worse. it is a shame on those who perform this kind of unacceptable behaviour, even they don't feel it.

but even if there are Prides in NY, London, Rome etc, it doesn't mean everything is alright there as far as understanding and accepting LGBT issues is concerned. every day you can hear someone being called gay in a hope to at least make fun of the other person, but more probably - to offend. and even if nobody is lynched for being who they are here in the "civilised" world, well, there is still a long way to go for all of us humans until we reach a point where we would put someone's sexual orientation on the same shelf with, say, eye colour or voice tone. i wish
Re: Tinks religious fundamentals...of all stripes??
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 02:36 pm (UTC)
felipe babe, I think you'll find the empty rhetoric comes from the ideology of deluded leftist romantics...much like yourself.....but they do have a semblance of intelligence....
Complacent
[info]chiennoir wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 07:57 pm (UTC)
A good article on ther whole. However, I would like to point out that even in the West gays are not completely secure. There is still a lot of homophobia around. And it seems to me that, compared to Harvey Milk days, gays have become, as Cleve Jones argues, just another demographic which can be exploited. This is the chief reason why they are now tolerated, I suspect. Money can be made out of them. Furthermore, what do you think will happen once things go seriously pear-shaped with the economy, or once tensions between the leading economic powers escalates, as they will. Gays are still there as a convenient scapegoat to divert attention from what's really wrong with our society. It seems to me we are still very vulnerable as a group in Western society, as we are elsewhere. There is something a little complacent about this article. Does Hari really believe in uninterupted linear progress?
Hari's Stonewall article
[info]jeyzed wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 09:06 pm (UTC)
Sexual preference, OK. but no more than that. It is not the defining element of a human being. To claim "gay rights" is overstating the case and small wonder those who can't accept it react in the way they do.
yes
[info]xiaoda wrote:
Thursday, 2 July 2009 at 04:48 am (UTC)
right on.
The genetic basis of homosexuality
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Friday, 3 July 2009 at 02:38 pm (UTC)
From the latest issue of New Scientist.

Review of the book "Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the myth of two sexes" by Gerald N Callahan.

"The stereotypical view of two sexes - me Tarzan, you Jane - is not only cartoonish, it limits our understanding and appreciation of our own biology."

"...there is a range of sexual characteristics that stretches from the testosterone-inflated Tarzan to the womanly "perfection" of a stereotypical Jane and all the variations that lie in between. "In truth, we are all intersex," "

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.700-review-between-xx-and-xy-by-gerald-n-callahan.html

Read, digest and understand.
Re: The Popular Arguments against Homosex,You may be admirably educated but hopelessly ignorant.
[info]famulla wrote:
Monday, 6 July 2009 at 11:36 am (UTC)
But one day, gay people decided they had had enough of cowering and hiding and being told they were sick.
Incoherent nonsense. You assume that gay love is all sexual. Rubbish: gay love is as much family, fraternal, platonic and romantic as it is sexual.
"The stereotypical view of two sexes - me Tarzan, you Jane - is not only cartoonish, it limits our understanding and appreciation of our own biology." Read, digest and understand.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.700-review-between-xx-and-xy-by-gerald-n-callahan.html
All seem to consider the lust, the rape, sleeping of men and women side-by-side or top of one another, as love? Is that it? May be you had better see your best psychologist. You are on a mango tree and you want the bananas as fruits, as the mango is a fruit and so is a banana or strawberry. You are man and you want to be a monkey trying to prove Darwin?
You may be admirably educated but hopelessly ignorant.
Let us tear Hari here.
Sex is to produce the babies. Sex has no love. Is this sinful? Sex that does not produce is the GAY or improper male or female foetus.
How is it "racist" to side with black and Muslim people who are being hunted down and murdered by other black and Muslim people? Torturers and murderers were subject to British imperial rape a century ago? So gay people fight for the freedom to be themselves everywhere. The Stonewall riot, and its high-heeled kick, isn't over; in many places, it has only just begun.
Johann Hari: Almost everywhere is touched by the Stonewall riots now. Everyone? Almost?
Hari says we are seeing beginning of the GAY in full force but why do we go to the history of the punishments and GAY and all these useless probabilities that may fizzle out?
Why do we bring the sleeping of women and producing babies created so much fuss?
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla

Columnist Comments

joan_smith

Joan Smith: How can religion not have played a part?

The slaughter of his fellow soldiers by Major Hasan was the result of a clash between his profession and his faith

john_rentoul

John Rentoul: Cameron is the new Blair

The Tory leader has learnt from New Labour not to promise too much. There's little danger of that


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion