|
In [[neuroscience]], the '''Morris water maze''' is a behavioral procedure designed to test [[spatial memory]]. It was developed by [[neuroscientist]] [[Richard Morris]] in [[1981]], and is commonly used today to explore the role of the [[hippocampus]] in the formation of [[spatial memory|spatial memories]].
{{controversial}}
*[[Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association/archive1]]
*[[Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association/archive2]]
== Recent editsOverview ==
In the typical [[paradigm]], a [[rat]] or [[mouse]] is placed into a small pool of [[opaque]] water—back-end first to avoid [[stress (medicine)|stress]], and facing the pool-side to avoid bias—which contains a escape platform hidden a few [[millimeter]]s below the water surface. Visual cues, such as colored shapes, are placed around the pool in plain sight of the animal.
There have been recent edits that have been made to include a number of questionable statements.
The pool is usually 4 to 6 feet in diameter and 2 feet deep. The pool could instead be half-filled with water at 1 foot deep. Some sidewall above the waterline prevents the rat from being distracted by lab activity. Mice are less cooperative in the water maze, but the bonus is that they are available as ‘knockout’ [[mutant]]s.
One is that "[t]here is an annual gathering in New York, and monthly meetings around the country." Really? From whence did the editors pull this information. A reference is in order here, lest the addition be reverted out of the article.
When released, the rat swims around the pool in search of an exit while various [[parameter]]s are recorded, including the time spent in each [[quadrant]] of the pool, the time taken to reach the platform ([[Latency (engineering)|latency]]), and total distance traveled. The rat's escape from the water reinforces its desire to quickly find the platform, and on subsequent trials (with the platform in the same position) the rat is able to locate the platform more rapidly. This improvement in performance occurs because the rat has learned where the hidden platform is located relative to the conspicuous visual cues. If the rat does not escape within 1 to 2 minutes, it is rescued. After enough practice, a capable rat can swim directly from any release point to the platform. This ability is attributed to a spatial map in a [[brain]] area called the [[hippocampus]].
Also, a later part of the paragraph was recently amended to read, "...but an undercover [[FBI]] investigation in 1995 discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls." Again, where was this information obtained?
== Pharmacological manipulation ==
I strongly encourage the continued efforts of those who strive to improve the quality of this article. Adding to the article specific information regarding reports and group activities without any sort of verifiable reference is not the way to do this, however.
Various [[drug]]s can be applied to test subjects before, during, or after maze training, which can reveal information about spatial learning and its underlying mechanisms. For example rats treated with the [[NMDA receptor]] blocker [[APV]] perform poorly in the Morris water maze, suggesting that NMDA receptors play a vital role in spatial learning [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1345945]. And since [[long-term potentiation]] -- a potential [[biology|biological]] mechanism for behavioral learning -- also requires NMDA receptors, spatial learning may require LTP.
Additionally, I noticed that our hostile editor has decided to remove a clause from one of the intro paragraphs that mentioned a common criticism of the group (that is a front for the sexual exploitation of minors). The stricken clause was the group's response to this criticism. Whether somebody personally believes that this response is valid or not is irrelevant. It is the way the group responses to the criticism. Full stop. As such, I reincorporated it into the article because if criticism of the group is introduced in the first paragraphs, so should the group's response to that criticism.
Liang et al reported in [[1994]] that spatial learning requires both [[NMDA receptor|NMDA]] and [[AMPA receptor]]s, consolidation requires NMDA receptors, and the retrieval of spatial memories requires AMPA receptors [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7796636].
[[User:Corax|Corax]] 00:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Water maze vs. Conventional mazes ==
=== Recent edits restored ===
Watermaze has advantages over conventional mazes (e.g., [[plus maze]]). There are no [[local cue]]s such as [[scent trace]]s; no fixed escape-fomula; the rat makes good progress in the trials because it wants to escape. Rats are natural swimmers – they are not distressed but they do want to find that platform. Mice have an option to float, and maybe this is why they are not so cooperative in watermaze. It has been suggested that they don’t aim to find the platform, but trick the technician into rescuing them.
Sources: Dan Dzwilewski, head of the FBI's San Diego office, quoted in San Diego Union-Tribune, 2-18-05. Also, Fairfax County, Va., detective Tom Polhemus, who went undercover and joined the organization's governing board.
== Watermaze analysis ==
The clause I struck WAS NOT the group's response to the criticism. It was their response to OTHER criticisms (of sex with boys in general, not to the group's promotion of it.) When you ignore this distinction, the opening paragraph suggests that they do not deny promoting criminal acts, and only deny the shamefulness OF those acts. They deny BOTH.
The earliest and classic measure of learning is ''[[Latency (engineering)|latency]]'', which refers to the amount of time it takes to find the platform. However, rats can cheat. They might guess an area and swim a search pattern, getting to the platform quite quickly. There is a whole bunch of further analyses, which can tease out true spatial learning. The same swim is used, but a [[video tracker]] is required. Professional systems come with a suite of analysis features to extract measures such as time and path in [[quadrant]]s, near platform, in any specified area. The [[Gallagher measure]] looks for average distance to platform. The [[Whishaw corridor test]] measures time and path in a strip from swim-start to platform.
They advocate changing the law. They do not admit breaking it.
Mice are smart
== Atlantis platform ==
Rather than re-strike the clause, I've put "and further" inside it. I'm out of time, I hope someone else can improve it. [[User:68.229.240.32|68.229.240.32]] 10:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Thank you for sourcing the material. [[User:Silsor|silsor]] 11:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
A more advanced way to stop the rats cheating is the [[Atlantis rising platform]], which stays deep in the water and only rises when the rat lingers at the right place.
==The Revere case==
== References ==
I would like to know more about the Revere case from which NAMBLA developed. Corax's original version of this article presented the 24 men arrested in Revere as innocent victims of a homophobic prosecutor, and much was made of the fact that 21 of the men were acquitted. The article has been considerably modified since then, but it still conveys the view that the prosecutions were in some way unjust. The first question therefore is, what about the three who were not acquitted? What were they convicted of? What do these convictions tell us about the innocent victims theory?
* Davis S, Butcher SP, Morris RG. "The NMDA receptor antagonist D-2-amino-5-phosphonopentanoate (D-AP5) impairs spatial learning and LTP in vivo at intracerebral concentrations comparable to those that block LTP in vitro." ''J Neurosci''. 1992 Jan;12(1):21-34. PMID 1345945
Secondly, [http://www.predator-hunter.com/NAMBLA_BS.htm this article]'s opening section makes it clear that the house in Revere ''was'' being used as a venue for men to have sex with underage boys, so that while the allegations of a "sex ring" may have been exaggerated, they were not completely unfounded. The question then is - what were the men charged with? What defence did they offer? Why were they acquitted? Were they acquitted on grounds of ''fact'' - ie, that they had not been at the house or had not had sex with boys under the age of consent? Or where they acquitted on some technicality or other? Someone who has access to contemporary accounts or records might like to do some research on this. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 12:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* Liang KC, Hon W, Tyan YM, Liao WL. "Involvement of hippocampal NMDA and AMPA receptors in acquisition, formation and retrieval of spatial memory in the Morris water maze." ''Chin J Physiol.'' 1994;37(4):201-12. PMID 7796636
[[de:Morris-Wasserlabyrinth]]
===More revere===
==External links==
To the first point: the three convictions tell us NOTHING about the other twenty-one men, regardless of what they were convicted of. But I agree: the information should be included.
* [http://www.hvsimage.com/papers/index.htm Watermaze publications 1966-2002]
* [http://neco.mitpress.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/73 Information on the hippocampus]
* [http://www.mailtalk.ac.uk/archives/watermaze.html The UK Academic Watermaze Discussion Group]
[[Category:Mazes]]
To the second: The house was indeed used for sex with underage boys. there were two documented cases of 15-year-old hustlers paid for sex. I'm sorry I can't find the article right now to cite this.
[[Category:Neuroscience]]
So I suppose, yes, declaring that 24 arrests are just the "tip of the iceberg" of a "sex ring" was not completely unfounded. Similarly, calling me an "unpredictable driver" with a "documented history of reckless behavior" would not be completely unfounded -- since I have two moving violations on my record. And since I was passenger once in a DUI arrest, what does that say about me? [[User:68.229.240.32|68.229.240.32]] 15:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Page move ==
FYI, changing an article title is done by using the "move this page link." This article was cut-and-pasted into "North American Man/Boy Love Association" (Note slash instead of dash). That's probably the right name but the wrong way to get there as it loses the edit history. I've undone the move and posted a note asking for an administrator to do it properly. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 07:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Dbenbenn|dbenbenn]] | [[User talk:Dbenbenn|talk]] 17:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks very much. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 20:52, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
== I am disgusted ==
As a gay man I was both disgusted and offended that somebody added this article to the category "LGBT organizations". You need to understand that a LGBT relationship means two adults of either gay, lesbian, bi, or transsexual orientation and has no connection to these disgusting perverts at "nambla". I removed this article from that category.
:I think you left out the words "to me". [[User:Silsor|silsor]] 00:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Leaving aside the anon editor's pejorative language, he is perfectly correct. NAMBLA is not a LGBT organisation, it is either (by its own account) a group which lobbies to repeal the age-of-consent laws, or (by its critics' account) a group of pedophiles and/or pederasts. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 00:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
:If it were not a LGBT organization, it would be the NAM'''G'''LA, NA'''W'''BLA, or NA'''AC'''LA. It does specify "Man" and "Boy" though, which makes it a LGBT organization. [[User:AlbertCahalan|AlbertCahalan]] 21:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Is the YMCA an LGBT organization? Is Big Brothers and Sisters an incest organization? [[User:Eyeon|Eyeon]] 09:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Worst argument ever. Do you remember what the "MBL" in NAMBLA stand for? Here's a hint: <big><big><big>MAN/BOY LOVE.</big></big></big> [[User:Silsor|silsor]] 03:32, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
<br>
:::LGBT organization? Irrefutable '''yes'''.
:::Mainstream LGBT organization? Apparent '''no'''.
:::Perhaps it deserves a separate [[:Category:Radical LGBT organizations]] or "extreme" or whatever would be least POV by consensus.
:::--[[User:67.142.129.10|67.142.129.10]] 05:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::So now we're going to create sub-categories within larger categories based solely on one subjective criterion like the radicalness of a group? Let me guess who gets to choose which groups are and are not radical. You? And to what other groups, pray tell, would you grant the esteemed honor of residing in the same category as NAMBLA? My guess is none of the groups you support, which is why you have suggested this ridiculous idea in the first place. Such an exercise reeks of the kind of POV that Wikipedia tries to avoid.
::::I would sooner suggest you come to grips with the indesputable fact that NAMBLA is an LGBT organization, rather than continue with the charade of creating categories that allow you subtly to convey your disapproval of NAMBLA. I don't think I am being too harsh when I say that nobody cares what you think of NAMBLA, and that no reasonable person is going to endorse your attempts to distinguish perceived good gays from bad gays. [[User:Corax|Corax]] 19:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes, if it was the [[North American Man/Girl Love Association]] or (NAMGLA) than it would '''not''' be an LGBT organization <s>(and I might consider joining it)</s>. As "Man/Boy" it is, in fact a organization in self-acknowledged support of homosexual relations. The ages (of the people in the relationships that [[NAMBLA]] refers to in its name) are not relevant to the discussion. Other controversial organizations, such as [[ASFAR]], specifically support abolition of age-of-consent laws, but do not specifically promote any particular sexual orientation. Therefore, ASFAR, though it supports some of the same things as NAMBLA, '''is not''' an LGBT organization, but NAMBLA '''is'''. Besides I think everybody knows that not all LGBT people are pedophiles. Perhaps the category we need is [[:Category:LGBT pedophile organizations]], but that might be too narrow. Are there other groups like NAMBLA? {{User:Freakofnurture/sig}} 12:50, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes, the ages are relevant. "Gays" are men who are attracted to other men. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 20:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:::::I believe your logic to be facetious, [[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]]. Are you saying that two young boys who are sexually attracted to '''each other''' are ''not'' gay? If the mainstream gay community completely disowns NAMBLA fearing (understandably) the extent to which NAMBLA can hurt its credibility, this should be, and is, noted. Denying that NAMBLA is a gay organization simply to paint a brighter picture of gay organizations in general is highly POV. A hotel not approved by [[American Automobile Association|AAA]] is still a hotel. {{User:Freakofnurture/sig}} 05:34, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::::There's a "girllove" group too, would it be appropriate to categorize it as a "heterosexual rights organization?" I don't think so. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 06:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Interesting you mention that. Why wouldn't we characterize a "girl love" organization as part of a heterosexual rights movement? Because such a movement does not exist. You know what society calls a man who thinks teenage girls are hot? Normal. For example, I used to hear adult males make comments all the time about what they would like to do the Olsen twins when the Olsen twins were still around 15 years of age. This was in public, and nobody so much as batted an eye. Now imagine if a twenty-five-year-old man made salacious remarks about Haley Joel Osment at his current age. There's a reason man/boy love faces so much hostility, and guys talking dirty about the fifteen-year-old Olsen twins does not. It's because of homophobia. [[User:Corax|Corax]] 14:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Whoa, a strawman! Goody! Personally, I've expressed disgust at grown men who lust after the Olsens, or Hilary Duff, or whoever the jailbait star du jour is these days. So have many other people. Ignoring that fact is intellectually dishonest. Additionally, NAMBLA "targets" not only teenage boys, but prepubescent children, as well. Just a hunch, but that might have something to do with the strong rejection it faces. Hardly homophobia, as I doubt anyone would not be hostile to an adult lusting after the likes of Dakota Fanning.--[[User:RicardoC|RicardoC]] 04:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
:::NAMBLA was originally founded by men who are sexually attracted to adolescent males as an organization promoting the right of men and legally designated minor males to engage in sexual relationships so as long as the relationships are harmless.
:::In light of this, the gay community - including the contributors to this article who love removing the LGBT category from the bottom of the page -- needs to do some clarifying. It cannot on one hand continue to prove the richness of gay history by citing historical figures like Plato, Hadrian, Von Goethe, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Beethoven, and others who were predominantly or exclusively attracted to adolescent males, while on the other hand it anathemizes an organization which argues against criminalizing the variety of "gayness" these men experienced and cherished. To do so would be nothing short of hypocritical.
:::Which is true? If NAMBLA is not an LGBT organization according to gays, gays had better stop using historical pederasts as evidence of gays' contributions to our shared Western history. According to the opinions of the majority of the gay posters here, these pederasts, who would probably be supporters of NAMBLA if they were alive today, are actually "child molesters" and thus "not gay." [[User:Corax|Corax]] 06:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:::(AHD)
::::'''gay'''
::::''n.''
::::#A person whose sexual orientation is to persons of the same sex.
:::(Medical)
::::'''gay'''
::::''n.''
::::#A homosexual, especially male.
:::(Wordnet)
::::'''gay'''
::::''n.''
::::#Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.
:::[[User:24ip|24]] at 16:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::::The name of NAMBLA is just a clever way of getting grouped with homosexuals. It might as well be "adult/child love". The fact that they specify that it's men and boys and not men and girls or women and girls or whatever is ludicrous - their aim is to abolish all consent laws - not consent laws for boys - which effectively makes them advocates of pedophilia. Now, they can shield it behind some flimsy homosexual pretence all they want but it dosn't change the fact that the most significant part of their profile is sex with children and not specifically homosexual sex although they surely would prefer the debate to take place on those grounds. [[User:Celcius|Celcius]] 08:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Eliminating age-of-consent laws is not the same as setting the age of consent at 0. Thus NAMBLA's calls for the elimination of age-of-consent laws should not be interpreted as calls to legalize pedophilia. All the elimination of age-of-consent laws would do is force the legal system to replace the current rubber stamp regarding the sexuality of minors with a case-by-case mechanism for adjuciating the quality of relationships. Sex with prepubescent boys or girls (which is what a pedophile desires) would presumably and rightfully remain illegal under rape laws, even without age-of-consent laws.
:::::Again, you should remember the context in which NAMBLA formed (by reading the history section of the page). At the time of NAMBLA's establishment, police were harassing teenage boys who had not reached the age of consent but who had been participating in consensual relationships with older partners. This campaign, of which Byrne's round-up constitutes an excellent example, was part of a crackdown on gays in general, fanned by the likes of Anita Bryant. The "boylove" gay subgroup (men who prefer sex with adolescent males) was their obvious target (and still is) because most people had (and still do have) a reflexively negative response to the idea. NAMBLA was formed by the most radical of gay rights activists as a response to this campaign. Many of them stated quite openly thier belief that NAMBLA's battle was a part of a larger battle for gay liberation, claiming that an attack on any gay minority was an attack upon them all.
:::::Only after the right wing was been permitted to relabel everything (for example, renaming the millionaire estate tax the "death tax"), was NAMBLA painted as a trade union of pedophiles. [[User:Corax|Corax]] 02:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
== RE: The introduction of the history section ==
Unfortunately, it seems that Adam Carr has picked up the habit of reflexively reverting every addition I make to the article without taking the time to consider whether the material enriches the article.
Currently, the history portion of the article is incoherent. It mentions that NAMBLA was founded as an extension of the more radical elements of gay liberation, then it makes a disconnected leap to a discussion on how rejection of age-of-consent laws was a part of some gay rights groups' platforms.
Some improvements were obviously in order. I revised the opening section to make the existing fragments of information about radical gay liberation and the 1970s MORE relevant to the article as a whole. The revised version I submitted explains how the gay radicalism which was the more active and vocal strain of the gay rights movemenat the time created an environment in which NAMBLA could emerge. None of it was "self-serving" or false. And if an explanation of how NAMBLA issued forth from the gay rights movement is "irrelevent" to the topic of NAMBLA, then I suppose criminal charges against individual members acting outside of their official capacities with the association are also extremely inappropriate and should be removed from the article as well.
If Adam objects to particular parts of my revision, I would suggest that he discuss which parts he finds unacceptable and why. My revisions were made in earnest with the intent of improving the article. I do not appreciate his penchant for disregarding them by attaching snide little criticisms about their quality, both which are clearly absurd and denote nothing but the hostility Adam has had about anybody who doesn't agree with him on this topic.
[[User:Corax|Corax]] 03:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Another view is that you removed one source and added some unsourced info. How about providing an explanation for why the one source was inappropriate, and why the other info does not need any source. Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 03:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
::I looked back at the edit, and I did unintentionally remove a source which, ironically enough, I myself had added months ago. I have reinstated it.
::As for your comment about my adding unsourced info, I was not aware that it would be disputed that one of the most pivotal arguments in the incipient years of the gay rights movement was whether gay culture ought to emulate and be absorbed into the status quo alongside straight culture, or whether gay culture ought to remain distinct. (The debate is apparent in an article I read a few days ago [http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/viewpoint/011700vi.htm here], coincidentally.)
::The Stonewall Riots were propelled by those who ascribe to the latter point of view. Any doubts about this can be assuaged by simply consulting some of the seminal gay works of modern gay history like Don Teal's "The Gay Militants." Regards, [[User:Corax|Corax]] 03:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Thanks. Can you please copy in a relevant quote from Teal about the militant support for lowering the age of consent? That'd be a useful contribution. Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 04:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
::::Why would I need to provide a quote from Teal about "militant" support for lowering the AOC when the article already mentions that a number of gay rights organizations around at the time of Stonewall openly opposed AOC laws, not just supported lowering them to whatever age? Among the groups mentioned is GAA, which was founded directly as a result of Stonewall. The connection between the radical gay liberation mentality and the opposition to AOC is obvious.
::::The argument was not just what Peter Tachell writes when he implores gays not to abandon "young queers," but that AOC laws empowered the authorities to harass gays. To the gay community, the Revere incident, the raid on the Canadian gay newspaper "The Body Politic", and the roundup at the Boston public library. all confirmed that the "establishment" was out to persecute them.
::::Of course, it is also important to remember that at the time, the radical right had yet to reframe the issue so that opposition to the existing AOC laws meant that you supported prepubescent children jumping into bed with Uncle Chester. It was understood within these gay organizations that the liberation being fought for was not liberation for molesters or pedophiles, who would still have been subject to rape, incest, and assault laws. [[User:Corax|Corax]] 04:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Corax -- I don't agree with your recent edit that removed significant contextual information about the formation of the NCGO. Your recent edit removes properly sourced information I placed earlier in the article that helps to place the NCGO and its formation in proper context. The way it reads now one might assume it was a long-standing national organization of some stature rather than an ad hoc organization formed at the Chicago convention. You also removed important information about who comprised its membership -- it was not primarily GAA and its satellite offices, it was GAA and its satellite offices and numerous small college groups. All of this is important in placing the NCGO in proper context. I am restoring the information. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 16:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
**Your addition: ''Rather than fighing to mainstream itself into the status quo, the gay liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s focused more on highlighting and championing the differences between gay culture and the status quo (what some gay rights advocates contemptuously labeled "straight culture"). Consequently, it was not unheard of for these groups to take positions which gay rights groups today reject.'' I don't know enough about it myself, but since it seems to be controversial and these two sentences make a number of assertions of fact, can you please provide specific sources? Thanks. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 16:48, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
::::I am not really sure which of these assertions you believe to be so controversial that they require sources. That gay rights groups back then held positions that gay rights groups today do not? All one needs to do to verify this statement is to look at the position of the GAA and the other groups, and view the platforms of gay rights groups today. Notice any difference?
::::Is there doubt that the gay rights movement has had in the past and continues to have a debate about what form the gay community ought to take -- one that defies convention or one that embraces it? Is there doubt that the early gay rights groups, especially the ones who would adopt positions against age-of-consent laws, would be classified among the more radical former category?
::::Please tell me which assertions in particular you have difficulty accepting as true, and I will do my best to provide corroborating evidence. [[User:Corax|Corax]] 04:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Personally, I have no knowledge of the veracity of any of it (this is not meant to pass judgment -- I'm agnostic; I simply don't know). All assertions of fact on Wikipedia should be either sourced or sourceable, or if they are in doubt should be attributed to a source claiming something to be the case. Since this paragraph was challenged in its entirety, it's fair I think to ask for you to provide sources for its assertions. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 14:12, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
::''Rather than fighing to mainstream itself into the status quo, the gay liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s focused more on highlighting and championing the differences between gay culture and the status quo (what some gay rights advocates contemptuously labeled "straight culture").''
::The early gay liberation movement consisted mainly of two organizations: GAA (whose president, David Thorstad, was a founding member of NAMBLA) and the highly Marxist GLF. As I mentioned earlier, there can be no question that their goals, their orientation, and their platforms were much different than the gay rights groups of today:
::''There were two major gay liberation groups in 1971, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF), created shortly after Stonewall, and the Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a more moderate group that broke away just a few months later.'' [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4053/is_200212/ai_n9149052/pg_5]
::''The “conservative” wing of the gay and lesbian liberation movement today is still largely assimilationist: it seeks little if anything more than acceptance and toleration of its “lifestyle” — a “lifestyle” largely parallel to and not very different from the straight mainstream. Conservative gay and lesbian liberationists still contend that “homosexuals” are “just like” heterosexuals in every way but the biological sex of the choice of with whom they “prefer” to “have sex.” This conservative wing is willing to accept and tolerate its own marginalization and subordination in exchange for a limited, fragile, and ultimately elusive and illusory toleration and acceptance by straight society. ...'' [http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n4_mth.html]
::And, in one of the more lucid and succint descriptions of how the gay rights movement in the US has evolved...
::''The 1971 GLF Manifesto set out a far-sighted, radical agenda for a non-violent revolution in cultural values and attitudes. It questioned marriage, the nuclear family, monogamy and patriarchy. Making common cause with the women’s, black and worker’s movements, gay liberationists never sought equality within the status quo. We wanted fundamental social change....Oh dear. Look what’s happened now. Whereas GLF derided the family as “a patriarchal prison that enslaves women, gays and children”, the biggest gay campaigns of the last two years have been for partnership and parenting rights. The focus on these safe, cuddly issues suggests that queers are increasingly reluctant to rock the boat. Many of us would, it seems, prefer to embrace traditional heterosexual aspirations, rather than question them.'' [http://www.petertatchell.net/history/longway.htm]
::[[User:Corax|Corax]] 15:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**Ok. Thanks Corax. Instead of stating some of these items as statements of fact (particularly the last portion attributed to Tatchell), it may be necessary to attribute them to the authors of these texts as interpretations of events. Adam, do these sources satisfy you, or what is your opinion on their presentation? Thanks all. · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 18:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
== Adds -- question for Corax ==
''It would also later spawn GLAAD and NAMBLA'' -- Did the GLAAD addition also come from the source you added at the bottom? Thanks · [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> July 1, 2005 14:55 (UTC)
:Sorry about that. It seems I misread a source. I've reverted the sentence. Regards, [[User:Corax|Corax]] 1 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
| 