 
|
|
Hardcover
Publisher: Prometheus Books
Many conservative religious groups insist that homosexuality is a plague on society, that AIDS is the result of unnatural behavior, and that organized homosexual movements have some grand scheme to spread ungodly ways throughout all areas of society, thus subverting moral values and the family. In this book, columnist Jack Nichols sets fundamentalists on the run, exposing their lies, threats, and the misunderstandings fostered and multiplied by the hosts of the religious right.
| Customer Reviews: |
|
| |
| Reviewing the Gay Agenda |
| Customer Rating: 4 out of 5 |
 |
|
|
The Religious Right's attack on homosexuality has been one of the largest obstacles in obtaining equal rights for lesbians and gay men. Fundamentalist claims of a "gay agenda" seeking "special rights" prey (and pray) on people's fears of homosexuality as an attack on morality and an undermining of traditional family values. In his book - "The Gay Agenda," Jack Nichols exposes the critical flaws in the religious right's attacks and how the lesbian and gay community can win against fanaticism. Nichols begins with a critique on fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity and illustrates the absurdity of a completely literal translation of the bible. For example, an order to stone disobedient children should be followed with as much enthusiasm as fundamentalist treatment of homosexuality. Of course, it is not. Nichols also goes on to illustrate how homophobia and its underlying sexism hurts all people, not merely lesbians and gay men. The main criticism of "The Gay Agenda" is that it does not offer any positive contributions of religion or religious authorities to the advancement of lesbian and gay rights. A clear line needs to be made with those who are religious and those who are religious fanatics. Gay and lesbian friendly churches can be a major ally to the lesbian and gay communities through their broad-based community involvement and their influence on perceptions of family values and morality. That being said, "The Gay Agenda" is a quick but informative read about a major roadblock in the advancement of gay and lesbian rights. Let's hope that it gets to mainstream America!
|
| Comprehensive look at fundamentalists arguments |
| Customer Rating: 4 out of 5 |
|
|
The Gay Agenda by Jack Nichols is a comprehensive review of not only the religious fundamentalists argument against gay rights and contention that there is a "gay agenda", but also a valid argument against it. Nichols successfully, in my opinion, tears apart the arguments of the fundamentalists, by stating each of their claims and then argues why they are invalid.
Other good parts of the book include Nichols careful analysis of our societies views of the sexes, the autonomous self, and ends with a self integration proclamation that advises everyone to look not only at homosexuality as one part of the sexual continuum, but also how we need to be a society that is inclusive, not exclusive.
Nichols definitely has a love for poet Walt Whitman, and uses his words often throughout his book, devoting an entire chapter to his ideals.
The only problem I have with this book is in the beginning. Nichols leans on the preachy side of gay rights, which is exactly what fundamentalists do: preach. While I believe strongly in Nichols argument, I felt that he was a bit repetitive at times.
I enjoyed this book immensely, and feel that it presents the views of fundamentalists thoroughly. This book is a good tool not only to learn about their major points, but also to learn about how to combat those arguments.
|
| Religious Right is not Right in the Head ! |
| Customer Rating: 4 out of 5 |
|
|
This book illustrates what I already knew from experience in being married to a Promisekeeper. The whole order of their thinking is male dominance, specifically sexual usage of women, so the gay order infuriates them, since it depowers the man. Anyone female who has lived among the relgious right has to give up education, jobs and serve her man with the church. Gays are a threat to that, since it basically means equality for all people regardless of gender. Also, the relgious right has many divorces, unstable homes and has no right to Judge happy gay couples when religious right women live in misery.
|
| Bill errs: homosexuality still controversial for cause... |
| Customer Rating: 3 out of 5 |
 |
|
While this reader can agree with Bill's enthusiasm, there are other reasons to object to the books third part. First, the research Chandler Burr hass conducted (or else relies on) is problematic: either the gay gene studies haven't been reproduced, or else its author's are being investigated by the federal government for science fraud! These alarms were sounded not by mainstream press (except in San Francisco), but came to my attention in a well documented critical neswpaper-magazine review that appeared in Forbes (quarterly) MediaCritic (last year, or earlier..). Furthermore, there is rampant evidence that the gay gene hypothesis has been popularized because of a political agenda, both left-wing and pro-gay! Hence the inflated numbers of homosexuality Bill accepts, 9% instead of a more likely less than 5% (i.e., 3-4% gay, and 1-2% lesbian). Even the perverted agenda of that old noble standby, the founder of sexology, Alfred Kinsey, has been exposed as a pederast, a child molester! If the there is no "gay gene," then the floodgates of morality are indeed opened, or at least moralism. And here, of course, is where moralists of faith (whether religious or secular) put there money down, draw a line in the sand, proclaiming differences and objections. I support their right to do so, well knowing that I disagree with them. Why? Because I realize the great universal relgions, such as Chritianity, imposed strict moral codes because they sanctified the human requirements for sustaining the (once fragile) agricultural revolution. Today we're still accomodating such old moral codes to the social and political requirements of much more recent urban and industrial revolutions, historic changes that have made much of them, if not exactly obsolete, then seriously challenged (e.g., Islam's codes, such as the sharia -- full covering of women in public, etc.). Belief has declined in most industrialized countries, and one can well read Nichols' third part as indicative of the very "gay threat" to families many Chritians already perceive. Why? Because procreation does involve delayed gratification (spending), self-discipline (work whatever one has to for the money, no mater how dirty or dangerous), (sexual and social )compromise, an almost selfless investment in the spiritual future (for one's offspring) -- things which few homosexuals either participate in or grasp. Thus, a lifestyle of decadent pleasure seeking (whether "gay," or straight bachelorhood),is easy enough to denigrate, and plausible enough to hold rational moral objections about. To both sides, this skeptical puritan counsels toloerance: sexuality, like identity itself, is a great mystery -- we simply don't know much with any definiteness. What I can fault both Bill and Nichols for, however, is not taking their opponents position seriously enough. This is a disservice to constructive dialog. Remember: while it seems unthinkable today, civilization once did die out in Europe. It's called the middle ages, and within that period was another called the Dark Ages. I could happen again; civilization has already proved fragile, and could be again if only because we forget why we want, or else need, to form real families; it's not clear gays can or even will do the job alone. And finally, there is one sense in which procreative straights, which traditional religions strive mightily to reward with, remain (in some important ways) superior to nonprocrative-homosexuals: family people invest themselves in raising future generations, lengthening the time horizons of their concern, and thereby retain or conserve usefull traditions, e.g., faithfulness, leaving them substantially untouched by AIDS -- which, as Michael Fumento showed, favored the promiscuous environments of "liberated" gay culture.
|
| Excellent |
| Customer Rating: 5 out of 5 |
 |
|
|
The Gay Agenda by Jack Nichols provides an excellent rebuttal to the myriad propaganda tracts published by the religious right. Nichols, a long time activist and advocate for equal rights for gay people, provides as well a unique historical perspective for this subject.
The book effectively explodes the myth of a monolithic gay cabal by providing evidence of the great diversity of opinion, lifestyle, philosophy and theology among gay and lesbian people. At the same time the book traces the history of the opportunistic conservative attacks on gay and lesbian people. The book provides overwhelming documentation of the abuse of political power by conservative and right wing religious groups who use gay and lesbian people as scapegoats in order to achieve political power and raise funds for their divisive political agenda. More importantly, the book states and then exposes as deception all of the major propaganda of the right, ranging from same gender marriage to AIDS to employment.
Mr. Nichols also analyzes the basic belief system of the right and especially the religious right. He not only points out the contradictions in this belief system, but goes on to show how many of the philosophical and theological tenets of fundamentalism are destructive to social order. For example, Mr. Nichols discusses in detail the fundamentalist notion of atonement, demonstrating how this doctrine discourages self reflection and contemplation. Mr. Nichols points out fundamentalists want believers not thinkers, and goes on to argue effectively that this is largely due to the fundamentalist notion of atonement. Mr. Nichols dissects other fundamentalist doctrines, from Biblical literlaism (which is actually selectively applied, as Mr. Nichols shows by example), to Armageddon, to evangalism.
I found my head nodding in agreement at nearly every paragraph through the first two thirds of this book, often stopping to read entire sections out loud to my spouse. After such an auspicious start, I must confess that I was disappointed in the final third of the book. The basis for much of the discussion at the end of the book deals with the author's views on the origins of sexual orientation and his apparent belief that everyone, or at least very large segments of the population, would be gay or lesbian if only society were less repressive and homophobic. This premise is disturbing on two counts.
The first reason this premise is disturbing is that it is almost certainly incorrect. The review of the scientific literature in Chandler Burr's recent book "A Separate Creation" clearly shows that the percentage of persons who are gay or lesbian in orientation is fairly constant across cultures (about 6% of the male population and about 3% of the female population). It is certainly true that the percentage of a population exhibiting gay or lesbian behavior - as opposed to orientation -- varies according to cultural tolerance of diversity, with intolerant societies showing a lower incidence of behavior. However, contrary to Mr. Nichol's assertion, there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that increasing cultural tolerance would result in the gay/lesbian population ever exceeding the 3-6% range. Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is not culturally instilled but is biological in character.
The second reason that the premise that sexual orientation is somehow a learned behavior is that it repeats, in different form, the erroneous argument of the right that sexual orientation can be changed if we only "want" to change badly enough. If a less repressive society would result in a vast increase in the number of gays and lesbians, as Mr. Nichols argues, then the right must be correct in its argument that a more repressive society would result in fewer gays and lesbians. The fact of the matter is that there will always be a relatively fixed and small minority who are gay or lesbian. A less repressive society liberates this minority, with all the positive social consequences Mr. Nichols records in the first two thirds of his book. A more repressive society not only destroys unnecessarily the lives of this minority but is also destructive of the fundamental social fabric, again as Mr. Nichols so cogently argues in the first two thirds of his book.
On balance, however, I highly recommend this book. The expose of the right, the insightful dissection of the fundamentalist belief system, the carefully crafted rebuttal of the propaganda of the right, and the author's writing style, which is often humorous and is always clear and concise, make this book a worthwhile read.
---Bill Ray, Norman, Oklahom
|
|
