Irreconcilable Differences?
In recent year, pro-gay and anti-gay rights activists have engaged in a struggle to sway public opinion in their favor through the use of ideologically charged rhetoric in an effort to win support from an undecided public. The author contends, however, that the debate is stalemated precisely because each side stereotypes and pathologizes the other's perspective, thereby becoming perfect enemies divided on every issue and with such intensity that consensus seems nearly impossible. Providing a...
Search in google:
Examines the rhetoric used on the both sides of the gay rights debate. Booknews The gay-rights debate is stalemated because each side oversimplifies and pathologizes the other's perspectives, finds Caramagno (English, U. of Nebraska-Lincoln). Assuming both sides bring something of value to the debate, he shows how each marshals evidence to muster public support, but without addressing the conceptual changes needed to conduct a more profitable dialogue. He looks at areas that can be settled by science or scholarship, and at those that cannot. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)
Preface1The New Cold War12Group Affiliations and Post-Consensus Politics11Pt. 1Religious and Sexual Diversity213Religious Views: Past and Present234Biblical Scholarship: Texts, Errors, and Methods355Textual Ambiguities and the Scriptures476The Theological Meaning of Sex75Pt. 2Science and Uncertainty957The Etiology of Homosexuality: Biology and/or Culture?978Diversity within Diversity: Postmodern Sexual Identities1199Define "Illness": Rival Theories of Pathology and "Ex-Gay" Ministries141Pt. 3Politics and Sexual Diversity16310Demonizing the Enemy16511Gay Bashing and Social Control17912Pluralism versus Dogma: Public Spaces and Private Beliefs191Works Cited207Index229
\ BooknewsThe gay-rights debate is stalemated because each side oversimplifies and pathologizes the other's perspectives, finds Caramagno (English, U. of Nebraska-Lincoln). Assuming both sides bring something of value to the debate, he shows how each marshals evidence to muster public support, but without addressing the conceptual changes needed to conduct a more profitable dialogue. He looks at areas that can be settled by science or scholarship, and at those that cannot. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)\ \
