Anthropologists Speak Up
Box Turtle Bulletin has this one. One of the Family Blah Blah groups tried to say that there's a "clear consensus" among anthropologists that "A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female," suggesting that anthropologists are opposed to gay marriage. In an article titled Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink tried to argue that anthropologists agree that "traditional" marriage is best, and that gay people are trying to change the definition of marriage "because they say the traditional definition is irrational and bigoted."
BTB contacted a couple of anthropologists and found that not all anthropologists, you might say, agreed with the Family Blah Blah definition.
Yesterday Focus on the Family got a letter from no less than the American Anthropological Association. Here's the whole thing, this is beautiful
“What does that mean down the road, if the idea that our ideas about marriage and about sexual morality generally make us the exact equivalent of bigots?” [Maggie Gallagher, co-founder and president of the National Organization for Marriage] asked.
BTB contacted a couple of anthropologists and found that not all anthropologists, you might say, agreed with the Family Blah Blah definition.
Yesterday Focus on the Family got a letter from no less than the American Anthropological Association. Here's the whole thing, this is beautiful
Dear Sir:
My name is Damon Dozier, and I am the American Anthropological Association (AAA) Director of Public Affairs. In this capacity, I am responsible for the Association’s full range of government relations, media relations, and international affairs programs. Founded in 1902, the AAA -- 11,000 members strong -- is the world’s largest organization of men and women interested in anthropology. Its purposes are to encourage research, promote the public understanding of anthropology, and foster the use of anthropological information in addressing human problems.
I write to address the gross misrepresentation of the position of the anthropological community on gay marriage in your March 3, 2008 Citizen Link press release, “Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage.” In the release, Glenn Stanton, an employee of your organization who does not identify himself as an anthropologist, asserts that “a family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.”
In point of fact, the AAA Executive Board issued in 2004, the following statement in response to President Bush’s proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
I am alarmed and dismayed at this example of irresponsible journalism and deliberate misrepresentation of the anthropological community. In the future it is my hope that your organization will accurately and honestly convey and communicate the views and interests of the AAA, its 11,000 members, and the social science community at large.
Damon Dozier
Director of Public Affairs
American Anthropological Association
2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22201
posted by JimK at 9:40 PM
52 Comments:
Yawn...Jim, Jim, Jim...anyone can join AAA...short of giving them my credit card number they were ready to sign me up too. LOL!! And having once signed up for an Anthropology class and finding it not enough of a challenge, I frankly not put much stock in what an "association" like this states as "policy".
No, "Anthropologists" did not speak up; rather, an organization that claims to speak for a group calling themselves Anthropologists has made a statement. Have an independent entity poll all of these members, and the leaders may be surprised what its members really do think.
Orin Orin Orin, you are spinning about the FOTF Citizen's Link newsletter for **lying** about the AAA's policy in an attempt to create a factoid in order to gain political support for their desire to continue to discriminate against LGBT couples and their children. If Planned Parenthood had done something similar, you'd be singing a very different tune.
Dobson's rag is not going to impress anyone with its lies except maybe the family blah blah choir, and here you are singing louder than anybody. Shame shame shame.
Just as it is obvious that males and females are physically complementary, it is just as obvious that they are emotionally complementary. Families headed by male-female partnerships are the model structure around which a stable society is built.
Male-male partnerships, particularly, lacking the female complement, tend toward many types of anti-social characteristics. They aren't healthy for society in a myriad of ways.
I've been to 2200 Wilson Blvd. They've got suite 600? Wow, must be a major, major organization.
A little perspectiive on AAA. They have favored expelling any researchers who do any work for the military. At their 2007 annual meeting in Washington D.C., a graduate student speaking suggested that some military-science collaborations could be acceptable. The student was jeered by the "scholars" so intensely that the speech had to be ended and the student left the meeting in tears.
Sounds like TTF's type of scum.
Anon's pro-hate attitude really shines through the above comment. Thanks for sharing, Anon.
You know, AnonFreak, you come across as quite insecure about yourself.
It's sad to watch this tailspin spiral as you make your way down to becoming below scum. Sad, sad, sad.
On that note, I have a church to meet with here in Mo.Co. where I will hold my wedding (with my fiancé of the same-sex) just as soon as gay marriage is legalized (and it will be in less than a year!). You're not invited, AnonFreak.
what's the name of the church, Derrick?
Orin, it was nice to have you away for so long. Shame to see you and your pompous spreading of misinformation back. The AAA knows what its membership thinks in general and if members disagreed with their policies they would refuse to remain members.
Red Baron said "Just as it is obvious that males and females are physically complementary, it is just as obvious that they are emotionally complementary.".
You don't know what you're talking about. Having loved a woman and a man I know from personal experience that either gender can be emotionally complementary. One is not superior to the other.
Red Baron said "Families headed by male-female partnerships are the model structure around which a stable society is built."
Same sex partnerships contribute to the health of each partner and thus to society in general. Same sex relationships in no way detract from opposite sex relationships, in fact studies show opposite sex couples can learn important relationship information from gay couples.
Red Baron said "Male-male partnerships, particularly, lacking the female complement, tend toward many types of anti-social characteristics. They aren't healthy for society in a myriad of ways.".
That's completely false.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/536799/
Psychological studies of lesbian and gay couples reveal two key factors that promote healthier relationships and provide examples for all couples: (1) flexibility about gender roles, and (2) equal division of parenting and household tasks.
“It all comes down to greater equality in the relationship,” says Robert-Jay Green, PhD, executive director of the Rockway Institute and a nationally recognized researcher in both family issues and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender relationships. “Research shows that lesbian and gay couples -- by virtue of being composed of two partners of the same gender -- have a head start in escaping the traditional gender role divisions that make for power imbalances and dissatisfaction in many heterosexual relationships.”
Psychologist Jerry J. Bigner, PhD, of Colorado State University, found that gay fathers are more nurturing than straight fathers. They are also less likely to limit their parenting role to being only a provider. All of these family researchers concluded that the freedom to defy traditional gender-linked parenting roles helped gay men and lesbians take just as good care of their children yet preserve greater feelings of fairness in their couple relationships compared to heterosexuals.
Green believes that heterosexual partners could learn by observing how their lesbian and gay coupled friends share housework, childcare, use softer communication of feelings in conflict situations, and more equally nurturing behaviors toward one another and their children.
“Our research found that the most successful couples demonstrate closeness and flexibility,” said Green. “We found high levels of both characteristics in 79 percent of lesbian couples, 56 percent of gay male couples, but in only 8 percent of heterosexual married couples. Clearly, the more egalitarian approach taken by same-sex couples is an advantage that could benefit straight couples too,” he concluded.
I should add that the success of gay and lesbian couples is all the more admirable given that it happens in a society filled with people like Red Baron who work at every step to interfere with, deny, and diminish those relationships and the people in them. Imagine how much better those relationships would be if fully supported by society as heterosexual relationships are.
“Research shows that lesbian and gay couples -- by virtue of being composed of two partners of the same gender -- have a head start in escaping the traditional gender role divisions that make for power imbalances and dissatisfaction in many heterosexual relationships.”
Your study has as its criterion the promotion of androgyny. There's no proof of that being the best way to raise a family. The genders play different roles and this is only a problem where an unhealthy society has made it a problem. If someone is "dissatisfied" with this "imbalance", they should get counseling. The child is better off with parents that play different roles rather than one where both have exactly the same characteristics.
Your study is worthless cause it starts off by assuming that having both genders play the same role and having the same characteristics is positive per se. If you use that measure, gays will obviously be considered more positive. They are anti-gender lunatics. The result, however, will be an unhealthy society and kids who have been cheated.
Red Baron said "Your study has as its criterion the promotion of androgyny. There's no proof of that being the best way to raise a family.".
Nonsense. The study criteria are that couples be happy and well adjusted. By those measures gay couples do better than heterosexual couples. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence shows that children raised by gay and lesbian couples do as well or better than children raised by heterosexuals.
Heterosexual males are frequently dysfunctional compared to gay males. Heterosexual males are taught to deny the softer side of themselves that's essential to nuturing others. They're taught to suppress their emotions and this results in the common heterosexual male powderkeg personality - many heterosexual males ready to explode in violence. Its no coincidence that many of us growing up in heterosexual households had a violent father figure who could barely control his temper. Gay men accept their softer nurturing side and as such are often better adjusted to raising children and making a relationship work.
Priya, one of your problems is you never read anything critically but instead go ga-ga anytime someone suggests something positive about opting out of the gene pool. Here's part of the quote you posted:
"they have a head start in escaping the traditional gender role divisions that make for power imbalances and dissatisfaction in many heterosexual relationships"
In other words, this guy start with the assumption that gender differences are a source of happiness. Hate to tell you but there's a world of evidence that it isn't true.
There's also a world of people who have rejected the notions of androgynuts.
"Gay men accept their softer nurturing side and as such are often better adjusted to raising children and making a relationship work."
Oh yeah, like that group of gays that used to go around beating up anyone opposed to the Nazis in the early 1930s in Germany.
Well...I see that androgeny and "androgynuts" has now entered the vocabulary of the CRGers (or whatever they are now) along with the ever-popular "anti-gender" epithet. They must be spending their spare time going through the dictionary to find these words and phony words...now that they have nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs until the next "crisis" merits their attention. I can't wait to see what tomorrow's word-of-the-day will be!!
Anonymous (is that you Theresa?) said "Oh yeah, like that group of gays that used to go around beating up anyone opposed to the Nazis in the early 1930s in Germany." Sort of parallels the heterosexual thugs that have donned robes and pointy hats in our country I guess.
RT
Red Baron said "In other words, this guy start with the assumption that gender differences are a source of happiness.".
No, they started out looking at what makes couples happy or unhappy and they found the inequality often inherent in opposite sex relationships and traditional gender roles leads to power imbalances, unequal sharing of duties and makes people unhappy.
Red Baron said "Oh yeah, like that group of gays that used to go around beating up anyone opposed to the Nazis in the early 1930s in Germany.".
As I've shown you before those were all heterosexuals. Its a well accepted fact that gay men are non-confrontational and non-violent, hence the "sissy" sterotype. It is virtually exclusively heterosexual males who are into cultivating the violent macho image - there's never been a gay boxer, martial artist, or Ultimate fighter, those guys are all heterosexuals. You're a classic example yourself, you have no sympathy for others, you are self centred, you seek to maximize your gains at others expenses - men like you don't make for healthy relationships.
"No, they started out looking at what makes couples happy or unhappy and they found the inequality often inherent in opposite sex relationships and traditional gender roles leads to power imbalances, unequal sharing of duties and makes people unhappy."
No, they didn't. They accepted the politically correct notion that there is something wrong with traditional gender roles. It's a faulty assumption.
"As I've shown you before those were all heterosexuals."
You've shown nothing of the kind. The activities of the gay dominated SA is promoting the early rise of Nazis in 1930s Germany is a historical fact.
"Its a well accepted fact that gay men are non-confrontational and non-violent, hence the "sissy" sterotype. It is virtually exclusively heterosexual males who are into cultivating the violent macho image - there's never been a gay boxer, martial artist, or Ultimate fighter, those guys are all heterosexuals."
Priya, where is homosexuality the most unbrideled and able to display its true nature in full flower?
San Francisco, of course.
Go over to www.folsomstreetfair.org and check out the annual festival where gays take to the streets and demonstrate how the treat one another in private. It's all whips, chains, leather, humiliation and who knows what else.
Looks pretty violent to me.
"You're a classic example yourself, you have no sympathy for others, you are self centred, you seek to maximize your gains at others expenses - men like you don't make for healthy relationships."
Yesterday, you were saying I was gay. Could you make up your mind?
Red Baron said "No, they didn't. They accepted the politically correct notion that there is something wrong with traditional gender roles. It's a faulty assumption.".
Absolutely not, read the article for a change. They looked at the health and satisfaction of relationships and found that traditional gender roles lead to inequality, power imbalances, an uneven distribution of duties and hence to dissatisfaction.
Red Baron said "You've shown nothing of the kind. The activities of the gay dominated SA is promoting the early rise of Nazis in 1930s Germany is a historical fact.".
No, its perfectly clear that all the Nazis were heterosexual. The Nazi party called for the death of the gays early in its existence and persecuted them immediately with their taking power in 1933. You're just repeating the lie of christian reconstructionists who seek to demonize gays as a prelude to executing them.
Red Baron said "Go over to www.folsomstreetfair.org and check out the annual festival where gays take to the streets and demonstrate how the treat one another in private. It's all whips, chains, leather, humiliation and who knows what else. Looks pretty violent to me.".
The folsom street fair is actually dominated by heterosexuals - most gays stay away from it in droves. BDSM is with consenting partners and the objective is to ultimately bring pleasure unlike the violent sports heterosexual men engage in.
Red Baron said "Yesterday, you were saying I was gay. Could you make up your mind?".
You're a Ted Haggard, or Larry Craig kind of gay. You struggle to be heterosexual, do what you can to play the role including behaving as a self-centred emotionally suppressed powderkeg who seeks to dominate others for his own gain, but who can't escape his inner gay. You're extemely mixed up. Get help.
"They looked at the health and satisfaction of relationships and found that traditional gender roles lead to inequality, power imbalances, an uneven distribution of duties and hence to dissatisfaction."
It's not like they're the first to consider such an idea. They are flat-out wrong.
"No, its perfectly clear that all the Nazis were heterosexual. The Nazi party called for the death of the gays early in its existence and persecuted them immediately with their taking power in 1933. You're just repeating the lie of christian reconstructionists who seek to demonize gays as a prelude to executing them."
Oh, OK, Priya. All the world's historians are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy and so is glbtq.com, the pro-gay encylclopedia that discusses this.
"The folsom street fair is actually dominated by heterosexuals - most gays stay away from it in droves."
I guess it's just a strange oddity that all the pictures on the website from last year's festival are all of gays.
"BDSM is with consenting partners and the objective is to ultimately bring pleasure unlike the violent sports heterosexual men engage in."
Really? So you think BDSM is normal behavior? Do all your gay friends think that too?
Answer carefully. Remember, posterity may read your words.
Andrea- not anon
Oh, Orin, you and your little friends are so sad. Bigots can say what anthropologists believe but an anthropology organization can't. The AMA doesn't speak for Drs and the APA doesn't speak for psychologists- Ruth Jacobs speaks for all Drs. and the Wild Thornberry(sorry, I know that ins't his name) from Grove City speaks for psychologists. Does any organization speak for all its members- no- but certainly your sad little friends don't speak for hardly any of the people in any field. You people never believe any independent entity-unless it supports you. ogjdi heck, the Showernuts can't believe the continuing election results here in MC-they keep talking anbout a right wing backlash as MC gets more and more Democratic
Andrea-not anon
Missed Moron anon's story on the AAA. I guarantee that no members of an organization that relies on federal funding as do most college and university researchers would ban research for the military. Perhaps someone suggested it, perhaps someone would personally not accept it. The military funds many other federal agencies to make grants. Let me guess- you read this somewhere on the internet - a blog - say Freeper? or that Worldnet thing. Stick to accounting or whatever you do- leave the reality of research and research funding to those of us who actually know what goes on.
I did indeed read it on the internet, Andrea. It's from TTF's favorite online encyclopedia, wikipedia. Here's an excerpt from their entry on AAA:
"Recently the AAA has been criticizing the ethics of collaboration with the military, specifically in regard to the Human Terrain System. It has even been suggested that scholars who work with the military be expelled from the organization. The intense anti-military sentiment was clearly seen at the 2007 AAA Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., when a graduate student attempting to justify certain forms of academic–military collaboration was brought to tears due to the intense jeering from attending scholars."
"They looked at the health and satisfaction of relationships and found that traditional gender roles lead to inequality, power imbalances, an uneven distribution of duties and hence to dissatisfaction."
Red Baron said "It's not like they're the first to consider such an idea. They are flat-out wrong.".
Wishful thinking on your part, unfortunately all the science disagrees with you. The facts speak for themselves, you've got nothing to back up your wishes.
Red Baron said "I guess it's just a strange oddity that all the pictures on the website from last year's festival are all of gays.".
LOL, you can't tell a gay from a straight by looking at them you fool. Most of the people attending folsom are straight.
Red Baron said "Oh, OK, Priya. All the world's historians are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy and so is glbtq.com, the pro-gay encylclopedia that discusses this.".
No, all reputable historians agree the Nazi party was virtually entirely heterosexual just as were all of history's criminals, tyrants, and psychopaths. That's indisputable.
Come out of the closet, AnonFreak!
(I am not saying that because I am interested in you, of course. I am a happily engaged man-- and would never date someone with sever depression and self-loathing issues).
Priya, you have an impregnable wall around your views. Preconceived and close-minded, you simply dismiss any evidence that doesn't confirm your already established view. It's all a conspiracy. The denial of reality is not only breathtaking, it's psychotic.
I assume the guys on the Folsom were gay since all the acts they were engaging with, in broad daylight no less, were with other men. How stupid do you think the readers of this blog are anyway?
BTW, no answer to the question: How many of your gay friends agree with your view that BDSM activity is normal? Just an informal survey.
"No, all reputable historians agree the Nazi party was virtually entirely heterosexual"
Ah, you've now tweaked your claim ever so slightly. Before you were denying historical evidence and stating that all Nazis were straight. Now, you've amended that to virtually all. Well, we an argue about what virtual means. Indisputable, however, is that the gays that were involved were indispensable to the Nazi movement. Most historians believe that without the intimidation of opponents conducted by gay-dominated SA, Hitler wouldn't have achieved power.
Red Baron the idea that gays were indispensible to the Nazi movement is absolute nonsense. No reputable historian agrees with that. These are lies made up by your Christian reconstructionist bedmates to demonize gays as a prelude to executing them.
And talk about an impregnable wall and close-minded ness - you've repeatedly been presented with huge volumes of evidence showing gay couples are better adjusted than straight couples with traditional gender roles and gays are as good of parents as same sex couples and yet you continue with your delusion that somehow the opposite is true. Your bigotry knows no bounds. Gays and women nuture all and that is the essence of humanity that you and emotionally stilted heterosexual males like you are totally devoid of.
And as to folsom, one picture doesn't show the vast majority of the attendees, so your assertion that they were all gay is bunk - how stupid do you think the readers of this blog are anyway?! The vast majority of attendees at folsom are straight
"And as to folsom, one picture doesn't show the vast majority of the attendees, so your assertion that they were all gay is bunk - how stupid do you think the readers of this blog are anyway?! The vast majority of attendees at folsom are straight"
Priya, the front page of that website has a slide show that continually goes through a couple of dozen pictures. They're all gay. Some have pictures of guys making out in the background.
Do all your gay friends agree with you that BDSM is in good fun for normal folk?
"Red Baron the idea that gays were indispensible to the Nazi movement is absolute nonsense. No reputable historian agrees with that."
Sorry, Priya, I've posted the views of several very reputable historians. While few would put it quite so bluntly as I, all agree that:
1. the SA was indispensable to the success of the Nazis
2. the leadership of the SA was dominated by gays
Rather than deny history, you be well advised simply to point out that all gays can't be blamed for the actions of a few- and then to stop doing the same to other groups.
"These are lies made up by your Christian reconstructionist bedmates to demonize gays as a prelude to executing them."
There are no Christians that want to execute gays. That would be unbiblical. They want to convert gays.
uh anonymous
how do you know that all of the pics are of gays? folks who castigate gays for folsom always conveniently omit the fact that the fair is attended by many heterosexual couples.
so the question to you is "Do all your straight friends agree with you that BDSM is in good fun for normal folk?"
see the pendulum of that silly question swings BOTH ways.
"how do you know that all of the pics are of gays? folks who castigate gays for folsom always conveniently omit the fact that the fair is attended by many heterosexual couples."
Interesting that you and Priya are so familiar about the composition of attendees at this sado-masochistic festival. How do you know who the people are that attend?
The event is held in a gay section of San Francisco. All the pictures shown on their website are of guys acting like gays. Gee, in one picture, a guy is kissing another guy and a third guy is standing behind with his hands down his pants. They appear to be spectators. Apparently, the promiscuous nature of homosexuality is also on display. If this is secretly a straight party, they're doing a pretty good job of making everyone think they're gay.
In other words, your assertion is preposterous.
"so the question to you is "Do all your straight friends agree with you that BDSM is in good fun for normal folk?"
see the pendulum of that silly question swings BOTH ways."
Not really. I never said it was an acceptable activity and don't know of anyone else who would say it is, although, admittedly, it's not a regular topic of conversation.
Priya was quick out of the gate with a ready apologetic for BDSM:
"BDSM is with consenting partners and the objective is to ultimately bring pleasure"
My question was: do most of the gays Priya knows also think BDSM is an ultimate way to seek "pleasure".
The reticence of the response may actually be an answer.
So, AnonFreak... let me guess! You also blame gays for 9-11, hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war??
Your friends down in Wesboro are calling...they have lost one of their idiots (you!)!
And if you look at several other pictures (you can always go on that Americans for Truth page), you will see that many of the couples there are heterosexual.
And you accuse me of being presumptous, but I find it highly hilarious that in every almost every post you enter, no matter what the topicprlv is, you seem to want to direct everything to
a: how gays "helped" the Nazi party
b: how those "nasty gays spread AIDS"
your act is getting old. Maybe that is why Priya is choosing to ignore you.
Red Baron we've heard your lies before and repeating them won't make them true. You can't tell from a picture whether or not someone's gay and only a few of the people in the pictures you mention are same sex coupels hugging or kissing, etc.
Your idea that gays were indispensible to the nazi party is absurd and rejected by every reputable historian. If gays were indispensible to the Nazi party they would have recognized this and refused to call for the death of gays and persecute them as they did from the very beginning. You're like a holocaust denier with your preposterous conspiracy theories.
Red Baron said "There are no Christians that want to execute gays. That would be unbiblical. They want to convert gays.".
LOL, that couldn't be more untrue. Your Christian reconstructionist friends and Huckabee supporters are calling for the death of gays as we speak:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/01/06/1249
Modern Christian Reconstructionism (sometimes known as Dominionism) was founded by the late R.J. Rushdoony and his son-in-law, Gary North...According to Rushdoony, this meant that the Bible must necessarily replace all civil laws and constitutions with the Old and New Testaments, including the revival of the death penalty for homosexuality"
These are core beliefs among several leading figures in Huckabee’s circle. One such prominent figure is George Grant, a well-known Reconstructionist who appeared with Rushdoony in the video, God’s Law and Society. Grant was the co-author for Huckabee’s 1998 book, Kids Who Kill: Confronting Our Culture of Violence. That was the book where Huckabee and Grant lumped homosexuality with pedophilia, sadomasochism and necrophilia as “institutionally supported aberrations.”
That line, which Huckabee defended, may well have come from Grant’s 1993 book, Legislating Immorality: The Homosexual Movement Comes Out Of The Closet. In that book, Grant compares homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality. He also calls for the death penalty for gays, saying “[t]here is no such option for homosexual offenses” except capital punishment."
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5628&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=cs_
"Some activists in the movement, including Rushdoony and Atlanta-area leader Gary DeMar, who runs a group called American Vision (www.americanvision.org), have asserted that the Bible mandates the death penalty for homosexuals and doctors who provide abortions."
andrea- not anon
WIKIPEDIA- BWHAHAHA. My kid used to post stuff there. Anyone can post anything and anyone else can take it off or change it. I know some people think it is a good starting point - I do not buy into that. I could find out the real story about the grad student- if there is a real story-but I don't need to bother- I know that the part about the AAA banning members who work for the military is bunk
"WIKIPEDIA- BWHAHAHA. My kid used to post stuff there. Anyone can post anything and anyone else can take it off or change it."
Yes, they can. Associations monitor websites and correct information negative to their cause. PR is a big concern. The AAA story is correct.
AAA has a history of liberal disdain for the military going back to the Vietnam War.
I've been to San Francisco. Folsom Street is not a "gay section." You're thinking of the Castro. Folsom Street is in Soma.
Do you realize what a cretin you sound like by trying to assert through reference to unnamed historians that the Nazi party was dominnated by gays. It just makes you look like such a fool.
BTW, Derrick, I was once depressed and self-loathing. We need to be patient and tolerant even of LGBT people who just can't stand themselves. People progress. That doesn't of course, mean that we countenance their attacks on other queer people or the queer community, it just means that we be patient with them. Even Paul recommends that.
rrjr
"Do you realize what a cretin you sound like by trying to assert through reference to unnamed historians that the Nazi party was dominnated by gays. It just makes you look like such a fool."
Robert, I didn't say "the Nazi party was dominnated by gays". I said the leadership of the SA, which paved the way for the rise of Nazism by harassing, violently if necessary, any opposition to the Nazis, was dominated by gays. You can find this out by looking it up. Virtually any reference in historical research to Ernst Rohm and his deputy, Edmund Heines will tell the story. No historians have an opposing view.
What is more controversial but, I think, has some strong circumstantial support is that Hitler was gay. The case for this is summarized in Machten's 2001 book, The Hidden Hitler. Machten is a well-regarded and published historian from Bremen University in Germany.
Red Baron Machten is the anti-gays version of a holocaust denier. No reputable historian believes gays dominated any portion of the Nazi party. It is well known fact that all the Nazis were devoute heterosexual Christians. Hitler's heteresexuality is well established as well. Take your anti-gay fairy tails to your Christian reconstructionist friends where you can fantasize together about putting gays to death.
"Red Baron Machten is the anti-gays version of a holocaust denier."
This is a lie.
"No reputable historian believes gays dominated any portion of the Nazi party."
This is a lie.
"It is well known fact that all the Nazis were devoute heterosexual Christians."
This is a lie. Bad spelling too.
"Hitler's heteresexuality is well established as well."
This is a lie. Bad spelling too.
Some comments by reviewers of Machtan's book on Amazon:
"From Library Journal
The first of Machtan's works to be translated into English, this is certain to be controversial. A professor of modern and current history at the University of Bremen, Germany, and the author of several scholarly books on 19th-century Germany, Machtan here presents a documented study of Hitler's homosexuality and its impact upon his life and career. Machtan asserts that Hitler's homosexuality was known to some of his associates by the beginning of World War I and later in Vienna. As he became prominent, some of his associates in homoerotic circles of the Nazi movement attempted to blackmail him. These homoerotic undercurrents and Hitler's response to blackmail provide a hitherto neglected perspective on the questions surrounding the origins and development of Nazism. Although documenting homosexuality is a difficult task for historians of periods in which gays were oppressed and repressed, Machtan is able to provide evidence for his assertions as well as a nuanced and readable study of Hitler's sexuality. Libraries that own Joachim Fest's seminal Hitler (LJ 7/74) and Ian Kershaw's Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris (LJ 1/99) and Hitler, 1936-1945: Nemesis (LJ 11/1/00), as well as a selection of the works of George Mosse on Nazi culture, should acquire this work. Barbara Walden, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc."
"From Booklist
This professor of modern history at Bremen University in Germany argues, with persuasive power, that to fully understand the Third Reich, one must realize that Hitler was homosexual and understand the homoerotic nature of the Nazi movement. No question--this book will be heavily requested and stir much debate.
Brad Hooper
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved"
"Amazon Book Description
Lothar Machtan makes a compelling case that Adolf Hitler was homosexual, and that one cannot begin to understand him, his entry into politics, and the early Nazi movement without a clear understanding of this aspect of his identity. Recent books on the Nazi movement have argued that the Third Reich was a fundamentally sordid regime. Machtan provides powerful new evidence in support of this view. This side of Hitler and his "Munich clique," as Goebbels put it, has never been so vividly evoked. As an intimate portrait of Hitler and as a surprising portrait of the homoerotic nature of the early Nazi movement, The Hidden Hitler is a major and certainly controversial contribution to the biographical literature."
Anon, I can't imagine why this seems important to you. If some other dictator, say Stalin, was heterosexual, does that reflect on all heterosexuals? Because, you know, most of them are straight. Do you think that finding someone who says Hitler was gay means something -- anything at all -- about any other gay person in the world? You can find an academic source to support any ridiculous belief in the world, this citation doesn't mean anything, and I have to say it worries me to think that somebody -- you -- would think this was relevant to anything in the world. The Nazis tried to eliminate homosexuality, that's possibly relevant to a discussion on this blog, but whether Hitler himself was gay is a matter of pure speculation that requires dismissal of most of the available evidence, and the answer to the question, either way, adds nothing at all to any discussion of any interest to us here.
JimK
Red Baron, there are no shortage of Holocaust deniers just like theirs no shortages of liars for your viewpoint. Hitler was a straight devout Christian as were all the Nazis. That a handful of people agree with your lies means nothing.
"Do you think that finding someone who says Hitler was gay means something -- anything at all -- about any other gay person in the world?"
Jim, I first brought this up because your supporters here have incessantly compared the opposition to the gay advocacy movement to early Nazis. It's ironic therefore that a group of gays were indispensable to the rise of Nazism in Germany and opened many doors for Hitler. I've mentioned the accumulating evidence about Hitler as an aside.
"You can find an academic source to support any ridiculous belief in the world,"
We see that all the time as TTFers cite unreplicated studies on sexuality to claim scientific validation for their opinions.
"The Nazis tried to eliminate homosexuality, that's possibly relevant to a discussion on this blog,"
That's true but not in the early stages and the question of why is important too.
"but whether Hitler himself was gay is a matter of pure speculation that requires dismissal of most of the available evidence,"
It doesn't require the dismissal of any evidence and I'd have probably moved on had Priya not kept saying the same thing, attacking historical researchers as liars.
Here's an online interview with Machtan, conducted by the Washington Post:
"The Hidden Hitler
With Lothar Machtan
Author
Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2001; Noon EDT
In "The Hidden Hitler," German historian Lothar Machtan, Ph.D. delves into the personal and private life of Adolf Hitler. He presents extensive evidence that Hitler was a homosexual and that his fear of his sexual identity being exposed shaped several of his political decisions and key historical events during the Nazi era.
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D., author professor and social scientist, was online Wednesday, Oct. 17 at Noon EDT to discuss the personal life of Adolf Hitler. The book will be published in over 15 countries.
For 23 years, Machtan has researched German history, politics and socioeconomic. He currently is an associate professor at Bremen University in Germany. His internationally published books, reviews and essays include "Bismarck's Death and Germany's Tears: Report of a Tragedy" and "Courage to Have Morals: From the Private Correspondence of Social Reformer Theodor Lohman." He has been featured in newspapers and magazines such as Der Speigel, radio broadcasts, international conferences and symposiums. He has also been involved in German feature films such as "Varzin - Warcino - An Uncomfortable Legacy." Macthan has appeared on The Today Show (NBC) and The Early Show (CBS).
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
washingtonpost.com: Why did you decide to write this book? How did you find the resources to write about Hitler's private life? Was it difficult?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: Because no one had done it before. I think that Hitler's private life merits more than a sensational interest because it might explain something about his career.
Some sources I came across by accident but most of them I found by reading all the important biographical books and articles about Hitler again. And the greatest difficulty was making the sources "speak." That meant a lot of hard work evaluating the reliability of the sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunnyvale, Calif.: Did you find evidence of a sexual relationship between Hitler and Ernst Roehm? Did you find new evidence of the scope and history of the "Final Solution" as it was applied to the gay community (pink triangles)?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: There were some contemporaries who say that there was a relationship, but there has been no contestable proof of that. In my eyes, they were two different types of homosexuals. But anyway, they were very close friends.
The book is not meant to explore the issues of the pink triangles. But, there is a lot of research on this topic going on right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria, Va.: I've read that Hitler had only one testicle as the result of contracting syphillis from a Jewish Viennese prostitute. Is this true?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: This has never been anything but a rumor. We have no reliable sources about that. To know for sure is not important.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arlington, Va.: Dr. Machtan,
I preface my comments by admitting that I have not read your work, thus do not know the extent of your claims.
You are probably aware that there is a theory among historians that the "cause" of the terror in the Soviet Union was Stalin's desire to eradicate all those who had direct knowledge of his collaboration with the tsarist police, a process that trundled out of control in the hands of the state bureaucracy. Skeptics point out that if this is true, one needs to show that, but not for this factor, Stalin would have been a fundamentally different type of leader, and the nature of the Soviet state would have been of a different cast.
So I would ask, are you arguing that Hitler would have been a fundamentally different type of leader, and that the nature of the Nazi state would have been of a different cast, but not for Hitler's confusing sexual identity?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: Hitler would have been a different kind of leader, but maybe he would never have gained the leadership because his homosexual relations with certain men helped him a lot at the start of his career. Without this help, he might have failed to become a politician.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhere, USA: What is the proof that he was gay? Why haven't the Germans spoke about this?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: There is a lot of evidence like diaries, letters, and files, but the strongest evidence comes from two sources that have never been analyzed before. And they are the so-called Mend protocol, some kind of testimony of a former war comrade of Hitler, and the memoirs of Eugen Dollman, who was a very influential collaborator of Himmler and in personal touch with Hitler, as an interpreter.
Some scholars tend to focus only on Hitler's public life because they believe that he did not have a private life of any significance. So they missed something crucial and didn't go into the relevant sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia: Is your book pro-Hilter or anti-Hitler? And what is your opinion of revisionist Irwing's works?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: It is not apologia of Hitler's crimes in any way. My goal is to figure out how his personal life influenced his political career and even some of his decisions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowie: Did he actually have a sex life, or was he celibate? If the former, why hasn't history heard from his lovers?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: We only know about his sex life up to the mid-30s, before he became a dictator. But we have to take into account that he could hide everything much better when he was in the posession of this mighty power. There should be more research about this. My book is foremost focusing on the years 1907-1935.
Some of his lovers were intimidated to stay quiet. Some were even bribed, and some remained loyal to Hitler even after the war. I go into detail about this in the book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling, Va.: How could you belive Hitler was a homosexual if he persecuted homosexuals as well as other groups (Jews, for example)? I think homosexuals in general are more tolerant of other people's faiths, sexual orientation, and perspectives. Hitler sure wasn't.
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: First of all, Hitler was not the driving force of the persecution of homosexuals. He himself never publicly commented on questions involving homosexuality. The driving force was Himmler and his SS. On the other hand, the dictator did have a very personal interest in bringing the homosexual milieu under police control and clipping its wings. Why? Because he sensed that it posed a constant threat of denunciation and blackmail to himself and certain members of his immediate circle. So it was part of his egomaniac attempts to preserve his power.
Anyway, the fact that homosexuals were persecuted and even killed is inarguable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arlington: As I'm sure you are aware, many of us in the gay community are pretty wary of your conclusions. I can just hear Jerry Flawell and Pat Robertson now. Do you worry that your book might be exploited by those conservatives who like to repress and oppress gay people?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: The first thing I want people to understand is that I'm not blaming the attrocities of Hitler on his homosexuality. The gay community of today does not share anything with the homosexual milieu that shaped Hitler. Those people were intolerant and even in a certain way homophobic. So Hitler is not at all some kind of ancestor of the gay society of today.
There is a clever saying from Klaus Mann, the son of Thomas Mann: "That sharing homosexual tendencies with a criminal, does not mean at all to become a criminal oneself." My book is not about homosexuality as such, but about the social and mental history of a certain type of homosexual of the past. This historical dimension is very important to be aware of.
I certainly hope that the intent of my book does not get distorted by the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons because there is nothing in the book that could be interpreted as homophobic. I'm doing interviews with gay media who I know will get the facts out correctly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arlington, Va.: Did Himmler, Goering, Goebbels and the rest of the inner nazi "thugocracy" know?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: Yes I think they did, but especially Goebbels and Goering kept quiet about it because they were vulnerable themselves. Himmler seems to be the only one who tried to put pressure on Hitler in this concern in 1943 when the war seemed to be lost for Germany. But there has to be more research in this area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, D.C.: So why did Hitler have Ernst Rohm killed? Lover's quarrel?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: Rohm was the one who knew all about Hitler and especially about the beginning of his career. So in his struggle for power, he was always reflecting on that knowledge. And in 1933 he was quite sucessful. He became the most powerful Nazi besides Hitler. So to establish his absolute dictatorship, he made it necessary for Hitler to get rid of him. So without having done this, Hitler would have always been insecure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, D.C.: What has the response from the gay community been?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: Certainly the information the information is shocking to the gay community but I make clear in my book that there is no relationship between the homosexuality of Hitler and the homosexuality of today's gay community. I've been doing interviews with the gay media as well as general media. I have not always been pleased with how some of the stories in the general media have distorted or oversimplified the facts in my book.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria, Va.: Don't you find it a little weird that none of the other scholars on the subject (John Toland, William Shirer, et al) have never touched on this topic? And how do you explain Hitler's affair with his neice? And was Eva Braun just willing window dressing? It all seems quite unbelievable.
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: Of course women like Geli Raubal and Eva Braun played an important role in Hitler's life, but what my research really shows is those relationships were not emotional, indeed not sexual, but rather for the sake of appearances. Hitler wanted to show that he was not a man without a woman. And at last he needed the marriage of Eva Braun for his legacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York: Hello, professor. Were there any archives open in the former East Germany?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: Most of my archive material I indeed got from former GDR archives, but the sources that most contributed to my evidence came from Bavarian archives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaumont, Texas: How do German youth of today perceive Hitler as a leader and to what extent do they disregard the holocaust and Hitler's role in its evolution?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: I'm absolutely sure that the vast majority of the German youth is aware of Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust, and doesn't see a hero in him at all. But there is still some neo-Nazi movement from a very small minority who would like to adore Hitler and deny any responsibility. What I stress in my book is that Holocaust has nothing to do with Hitler's homosexuality at all. The driving forces behind the Holocaust and WWII were Hitler's racism, his will to destroy, and his hubris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington, D.C.: You said Himmler "pressured" Hitler beginning in 1943 when it started to become clear that Germany would lose. Can you amplify this point?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: There is some evidence that Himmler might have intimidated Hitler in 1943 in order to make him agree to some peace plans that Himmler suggested at that time to avoid this catastrophe. But as I said before, more research has to be done in that area to find out what all this was really about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh, Pa.: What was Hitler's first specific move toward gaining acceptance and consolidating power: to court churches, businesses, military or other?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: My research shows that some of his homosexual friends in Munich were the ones who opened many important doors for him. Especially Ernst Roehm, Dietrich Eckart, Ernst Hanfstaengl. Without the help of those influential friends, he would not have had the support that he got from bourgeois circles and even from intellectuals and artists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago, Ill.: I think one of the hardest ideas for non-academic audiences to understand is how homosexuality and milder homosocial bonding can co-exist with homophobia and the persecution of gays. An American example of this phenomenon might be J. Edgar Hoover. You seem to address this contradiction in your comments by alluding to different types of homosexuals, including some that are self-loathing or contemptous of effeminate homosexuals. Is that correct?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: Homophobia and homosexual relations certainly have always coexisted, but again I must reiterate how different it was homosexual during Hitler's time as opposed to now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silver Spring: What about Eva Braun? Was she a decoy?
Lothar Machtan, Ph.D.: Yes, you could say she was a decoy. They had a comradely relationship, but it was meant to be a cover. It wasn't a sexual relationship.
In my eyes, Eva Braun was, after some irritations, quite aware of the role she had to play. And as I show in my book, she played that role very well."
"Red Baron, there are no shortage of Holocaust deniers just like theirs no shortages of liars for your viewpoint. Hitler was a straight devout Christian as were all the Nazis."
This is what I'm talking about, Jim. You can argue about the relevance of whether Hitler is gay but calling any researcher that says so a Holocaust denier is slanderous.
And Priya was on this "Nazis are devout Christians" falsehood long before I brought up Hitler's possible homosexuality.
Red Baron, its undeniable that the Nazis were devoute Christians:
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
They didn't have "god with us" on their belt buckels for nothing.
Just like there's no shortage of holocaust deniers there's no shortage of Christian reconstructionists lying about how gays were key to the rise of Nazis. That's as likely as Jews being key to the rise of the Nazi party. No reputable historian thinks Hitler was gay or that gays dominated any portion of the Nazi party. Like your Christian reconstructionist friends you just keep repeating that in a vain hope you can build up support for executing gays.
Unbelievable.
You said it Red baron - it simply isn't believable that Hitler was gay or that gays dominated any aspect of the Nazi party. The Nazis called for the death of gays from the very beginning and persecuted gays immediately upon taking power in 1933. Hitler kept his relationship with Eva Braun a secret and the german people didn't know about it until after the war - obviously he wasn't using her relationship as a decoy, the only reason for having a relationship with her was genuine attraction.
The evidence that Hitler and the Nazis were devout Christians is overwhelming and no reputable historian disputes this. You and your anti-gay author are the equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
You have no idea what the word "devout" means. Hitler wasn't a Chrsitian.
He may have been gay. It would explain a lot. He definitely had a lot of gay friends.
Aside from his nonchalance about the homosexual sin, he also was attracted to a occult group and atheist philosophers. He never married until a few hours before committing suicide. He had a gay roommate while living in the artist community in Vienna as a young adult. He became good friends with another gay in prison and later named him to head up the largest Nazi military unit.
"Aside from his nonchalance about the homosexual sin"
Aside from Hitler's nonchalance about sin...
Hitler's nonchalance about sin...
Hitler's nonchalance about sin...
Hitler's nonchalance about sin...
Hitler's nonchalance about sin...
Hitler's nonchalance about sin...
Hitler's nonchalance about sin...
Hitler's nonchalance about sin...
Hitler's nonchalance about sin...
The evidence that Hitler was a devout Christian is overwhelming and undeniable.
In 1941 Hitler told Gerhard Engel (one of his generals) that he (Hitler) regarded himself as a Catholic by stating. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Throughout his live he affirmed his Christianity in all manner of speechs, radio addresses, prounouncements and writings:
http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
The idea that he or the Nazis were gay was made up by Christian reconstructionists hoping to raise support for executing gays by demonizing them.
"http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm"
That should come in handy:
The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations
Post a Comment
<< Home