While matters concerning the LGBT community are of great concern to me I find it repulsive that NAMBLA is accepted as apart of the LGBT Project. No matter how objective the LGBT Project proclaims itself to be inclusion of NAMBLA is perceived as de facto acceptance, if not approval, of what NAMBLA endorses. Though it is true that NAMBLA is pretty much a dead organization, the current system of inclusion (ie article tagging method) doesn't sufficiently distance the LGBT Project and its members from the stigma still attached to NAMBLA; all neutrality not withstanding. --Avazina05:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I am disappointed you withdrew from the project because of this issue. First, I agree with you that NAMBLA should not be more than footnote in this project. But they are a footnote, and one that can't be erased. Footnotes often become major points of contention, and icite more passion or consideration than they may merit. NAMBLA is a footnote. It's glory days can claim during the initial, radical, gay rights movement post-Stonewall. But remember: we were still beyond repressed. We were afraid of our landlords, our employers, our peers, the government, the police. We feared them, but unlike the African-American]] community, we also felt little sense of moral righteousness. Blacks knew they were human and equals. We wondered if it was true, we were just a perversion. In the 70's, nobody knew. But with liberation, nobody cared. Carnal instincts took over. During all this confusion, NAMBLA asserted itself. It wasn't until AIDS and how our excess came back to "put us out of business", as one gay disco owner claimed AIDS would do, which the police never did do. My point is this: NAMBLA was a part of the early movement, but were peripheral. They simply rode the tide of Stonewall, Harvey Milk, and gay lib. By the time we figured out what had happened, and what we had achieved, only then did the larger society confront our more extreme movements. In other words, we had achieved such acceptance we demanded a response: our radical fringes came to light. Like NAMBLA. The thing is, NAMBLA was there, but nobody really knew who they were. Think about it: How many gay rights organizations can you name that belong to the ILGA and what they stand for? Right. Since NAMBLA hit the headlines, it was not only beyond rejected by straight people, but also by gay people. Straights said this proved we were moral deviants, all of us delving into any well of moral depravity with impunity. But the vast majority of gays, when confronted with NAMBLA and it's status in ILGA, agreed with the harshest of its critics. This is what is spinned today: NAMBLA advocates assert gays only abandoned NAMBLA when the society-at-large used it against the gay rights agenda. Morre accurately, when gay-identified people began to hear their concerns addressed, they also assessed what their movement was about. The right for an older man to violate equalized, same-as-heterosexual age-of-consent laws was not seen as a gay issue. In fact, upon examination, was consider repugnant by most gay-rights activists. So, yes, NAMBLA belongs in history. As a footnote. Not as a movement abandoned in the wake of popular resistance. --DavidShankBone05:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
DavidShankBone I appreciate your comments and my decision to withdraw was based upon the lack of a sufficient disclaimer to distance and protect LGBT members, which at that time there simply wasn't; however, I have since noticed that a suitable disclaimer has been added, with emphasis placed on the fact that LGBT doesn't endorse NAMBLA. This new tag is perfectly acceptable to me and I hope it is acceptable to everyone else as well. While I doubt the new tag is the direct result of any issue I raised I do, nonetheless, appreciate Jeffpw's hard work in this endeavor. If no one objects I would like to rejoin the LGBT Project. --Avazina17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hon, we'll appreciate any assistance you want to give in whatever capacity :) Besides, I don't think we have a way to keep anyone out of the project that wants to join! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
