please dont' dissimulate here, Milo.
"Gay Party" is a term invented by your hero, Jack Malebranche, to demonize any group or individual that he finds distasteful to his own agenda in his "Androphilia" book. To quote it without attribution as though it is a common term in widespread usage is to attempt to deceive people into thinking there is actually a political party by that name, and there isn't, and never has been. It isn't anyone's "catch-all" and doesnt even warrant an Urban Dictionary entry.
- Malebranche coined the term, and I use it liberally. It needs no a citation. Just like any other "buzzword" that comes into the language, its starts somewhere, people start using it in general conversations a few at a time. Then eventually it enters the wider lexicon. Nothing deceptive about being one of a handful of people using a word.
- You asked me how I used the word. I told you how I use the word: which is consistent with my other explanations of the same term I have given numerous times in various threads here at Bettermost.
- Your characterization of Malebranche's use of Gay Party is dead wrong. He does NOT use it to demonize anyone. He uses it to describe a set of political ideas, and the people agree with them.
There is no such thing as "the Gay Party" and no such coordinated agenda by spooky leftists and drag queens. It's made up.
I would not have characterized the Gay Party as "spooky leftists and drag queens." But there most certainly is a commonality of ideology and approach among the major national gay organizations; smaller local and community gay organizations; and the political positions of tons of people in the gay community and among their friends. So no...its not a formal party like the Democrats or Republicans. But it certainly is an element of the political scene in the US. It is not made up.
And if you clicked on the trailer you would see that the people in the film who are "outing" these public figures are their former lovers, tricks, and members of the general public who have seen them in situations where they either solicited public sex, bought it or contracted for it, and then insisted on secrecy after the fact. Nobody dug through anyone's diaries for this stuff. And Larry Craig is one of them. They outed themselves by going out into the gay community and using people for their own gratification while simultaneously victimizing GLBT Americans by writing and supporting policies that oppressed them and prevented them from gaining their civil rights.
I don't know anything about anyone's diary, but SOMEBODY went digging to find these "former lovers, tricks, and members of the general public who have seen them in situations where they either solicited public sex, bought it or contracted for it, and then insisted on secrecy after the fact." I suspect it was the filmmakers themselves. All these witnesses didn't just get together and decide to make a movie.
And exactly what is your argument against fighting those who are preventing gays from having full civil participation in American life?
You see louise, this illustrates how your POV and mine are so often headed in opposite directions from one another. I don't believe that this is a "fight" There are challenges that need to be overcome, but thinking of it as a "fight" is not where my head is. I look at it more like solving a very complex business problem.
I have no issues with people who contribute to the effort towards civil rights for sexual minorities UNLESS I find that their contributions are strategically flawed, tactically dysfunctional, ideologically oppositional, or just plain devoid of value. In the case of this movie, I would add that (on top of the above) it is dishonorable.
Rx
