Yesterday, DPF put up a letter that’s been doing the rounds on Fb etc for several days (“Nate’s Dad”) that purports to be a template for real love (unequivocally accept homosexuality). This kind of stuff is a bit puerile (if you accept gayness you’re loving, if you don’t, you’re not) because any number of examples can be cited by either side, either way (I have one immediately below to balance things up). The obvious logic is, that a loving Dad also loves his son if he’s a drug addict or a serial gambler. It doesn’t mean he supports drugs or gambling abuse, does it? So how is the “love” relevant other than as a piece of partisan advocacy?
[DPF tried to argue his piece was just about a loving Dad. Yeah right. Timing David, timing, and the tags at the bottom of the photo didn’t help; they relate to a pretty-full on gay advocacy group. Google them].
And that’s the problem with so much of this same-sex marriage debate; appropriating words like “love” and “equality” and polarising them into a semantic war.
It is well-known that gay-advocates do this often (ie write fake propaganda campaigns to discredit the conservative side or write pro-gay stuff that is also fake). There’s screeds of examples all over the net (see opposite) and they do the rounds a lot (almost always promoted by liberal/pro-gay websites; suspicious, much?). There are even examples of gays faking homophobic attacks to beef up the cause, such as the Missoula fake gay bashing to cite one example. [But of course pointing this out would/will be tantamount to agreeing with gay hate-crime, in 3..2..1..]. That’s not to say gays don’t get attacked, like heaps of non-gays do, for all sorts of reasons – you’re black in a white area; you’re white in a black area; you have a Jewish name; they just want your clutch purse).
Radvad points out (March 18th, 2013 at 11:02 am)…
A prominent gay rights activist (who was straight and well known to many on this blog) told me that a favourite tactic during the homo law reform debate was to put out extreme press releases in the name of their opponents. They would create a fictitious entity (eg Catholic Action or similar) and then put out a statement in their name that made them sound like crazies. He also told me the tactic has been used ever since (remember the bumper stickers put out during a conference when the Presbyterians were debating this issue)? There have been other numerous examples.
The end result is that when something like this surfaces, especially if it is anonymous, I take it with a grain of salt. There is every chance the letter is fake propaganda…” especially when the “Nate Dad” letter is very similar to an earlier one, also promoted by FCKH8.
I’ve experienced it myself: secret video or audio recordings, TV coverage of me they promised not to use for other purposes, by single-eyed gay advocates who have used it to try and discredit me and others, rather than debate the merits of their own case. The politics of attempted denigration to achieve tolerance, love and equality.
They do it all the time, and the FCKH8 gay advocacy site this letter first appeared on (the authors refuse to be identified… bells ringing) are well-known for this. Google their site and you’ll see the stock room of paraphernalia shipping out of their semantic propaganda shop.
If you trust these examples of the rather effusive pushes-all-the-right-pro-gay-advocacy-buttons, you’re naive. But then again, if you say it’s “contrived” (which I think it is) you’ll get criticised for demeaning a father’s unconditional love, as DPF said of me yesterday (a bit rich, I’m a dad of 5 including 4 sons).
It seems odd to me, that if he was such a loving Dad, how come:
- he and Nate had never discussed sexuality and relationships since he was six?
- that Nate was wrestling so hard with “Mike” on the phone, about coming out to such a loving unconditional Dad
- that his Dad just “happened” to hear all this (was he eavesdropping)?
- and then why write a note to Nate when he was there, hearing this? Wouldn’t a loving Dad just rush in and hug his son straight away? and clear all that silly caution away?
- Not talk about it face to face?
- And explain why he was writing the note. Yeah Right.
But as I’ve said, so what? What is this trying to prove?
- Loving Dads – gay acceptors?
- Hateful Dads – gay deniers?
Your sexuality has nothing to do with it and should not be the defining point of your entire identity, humanity, sense of community or basis of acceptance. Pushing people to do this alienates them. Just be who you are and don’t wear your sexuality all over society. It becomes fawning and starts to reek of insecurity, political agendas, and validation-seeking.
Immediately below I’ve posted a heart-felt story from a woman raised in a same-sex home, who is opposed to same-sex marriage, as a balance to DPF’s loving Dad letter.