You are here:
SOCM167 SITE > FIELD STUDIES LINK > FINAL PROJECT > ANTI-QUEER POLITICAL SITES   > ANALYSIS (americanguardian2.htm)

Analysis #2 of the American Guardian Site

The American Guardian's website is located at the internet address www.thundernet.org.  This site is sponsored by The American Guardian organization whose president is Don Ellis and its vice president is Jeff Davis.  The website has been in existence since 1993, and it seems to be privately funded as it does not allow advertising, does not sell products, and
does not accept donations.

In its own words, The American Guardian "asks very little from its viewers and net friends, it seeks only reports of child-porn and child-abuse...The American Guardian will never accept money for what it feels is its duty as Parents and Americans."  It identifies its primary mission as the removal of child pornography from the web.  Towards this end, The American Guardian
provides a return link so that viewers can report child pornography websites and child abuse incidents; it claims to have shut down over 2000 child pornography websites to date.

The elimination of child pornography may be the self-identified goal of The American Guardian, but the majority of the website is dedicated to identifying, labeling, and condemning various other forms of "perversion".  It seems that, in the name of children, The American Guardian further claims a right to act as God-appointed guardians of sexual morality.  In its efforts to rid the country of what it deems sexual depravity, The American Guardian labels homosexuality as an offensive and threatening form of perversion.

This website fundamentally represents the Christian Right and its stance against homosexuality in a contemporary social debate discussed in class and better known as the "Culture Wars".  In fact, the homepage has an announcement that this website won the "Best of the Christian Web" award in 1998.  It takes a very hostile and aggressive position towards homosexuality and calls for its complete elimination.

In fact, one-third of the website's homepage is dedicated to a section titled HateWatch of America which focuses on homosexuality.  This page features an article called The Homosexual Agenda which will be discussed and analyzed later in this paper.  In addition, this section of the homepage provides nationwide list of "Parks of Perversion" which are apparently frequented by homosexuals.  Furthermore, it condemns forty-six entertainment celebrities as "Celebrity Trash Who Support Homosexual Marriages" including Norman Lear, Whoopi Goldberg, Antonio Banderas, Meg Ryan, Harvey Fierstein, Ellen DeGeneres, and Phil Donahue.  In addition to its homepage coverage, several of the website's subtopic menus are dedicated to discussions on homosexuality. Some of these subtopics include "The Homosexual Agenda," "Homosexual Facts," and "The Anti-Homosexual Activist."

In addition to targeting homosexuals as social deviants, it names President Bill Clinton as "America’s Pervert of the Year" and derides him for his personal promiscuity, his support of homosexual views, and his advocacy for abortion rights.  While the site does not specifically name its political affiliations and supporters, it seems clear that The American Guardian represents, and appeals to, the politically right-wing segment of the populace.  The organization’s president, Don Ellis, is self-titled as the site
pastor which perhaps accounts for the site’s heavy religious overtones.

Let us now consider the basis for the site’s attacks on homosexuality to uncover their theoretical orientation and potential effectiveness.  In the previously mentioned piece, The Homosexual Agenda, the author (who remains unnamed) claims majority status.  In the comment "…most of America is not gay and most Americans still figure homosexuality for the perversion that it is" we see the assertion of majority power as a justification for the oppression of homosexuality in two ways.  First, this argument seems to rest upon sheer numbers, as in  minority/homosexuality to majority/heterosexuality; it suggests that heterosexuals need not address the needs and rights of homosexuals simply because gays are outnumbered.  Secondly,  in labeling homosexuality as perversion, The American Guardian utilizes its majority power to create the bipolar opposition of normal/moral/heterosexual versus deviant/perverse/homosexual.  A critical power-reflexive perspective illuminates that this assumption of the right to define what is "normal" is a fundamentally oppressive and hegemonic way of ordering society.

Furthermore, the article explains that homosexuality is a "learned behavior, an acquired appetite."  This reveals the social constructionist viewpoint of the author who goes on to say that the essentialist understanding of homosexuality is the "great homosexual lie."  This perspective is further asserted in the website’s subsection discussion on origins and causes of homosexuality in which biological or genetic explanations are firmly denounced.  The American Guardian takes the position that homosexuality is learned, conscious, and willful behavior.  To support its argument, it cites medical professionals who have successfully "treated" homosexuals such that they no longer engage in homosexual activity.  These homosexual "success stories" are used to justify The American Guardian’s right to further impose oppressive and intrusive judgments and practices on homosexuals.

Building upon this notion, they claim that gays can be "created" through exposure to and acceptance of homosexual lifestyles.  The American Guardian erroneously claims that homosexuals have the power to pervert children and draw them into homosexuality simply through exposure.  Therefore, they call for the removal of homosexuals from situations in which they would be in contact with children, primarily in classrooms, child care agencies, and parenting.

In addition, they claim that homosexuals actively "recruit" and molest children to increase the homosexual population.  By citing false or out-of-context statistics pertaining to crime, they instill unwarranted and irrational fear in the non-critical viewer.

The American Guardian further cites incorrect or manipulated "facts" to contest what it has identified as the homosexual agenda.  Among the goals of homosexuals, according to the website, are special minority status, repeal of laws concerning adult consensual behavior, anti-homophobia training, acceptance and legal recognition of homosexual partnerships.  The agenda
itself is not that different from the general pursuits of homosexual movements, however, each issue is distorted such that homosexuals are consistently depicted as immoral, deviant, and potentially criminal.  For example, The American Guardian contends that anti-homophobia training in education would advocate homosexuality and encourage gays to work in education
where they would prey on children - molesting and indoctrinating them to perversion.

Another example of this insidious persuasion tactic is the documentation of homosexual practices and frequency of sexually-related illnesses in great detail and out of context; the website dedicates two and one-half pages to these "facts" with the intention of characterizing homosexual lifestyles as promiscuous, deviant, and disease-infested.

While a critical approach to the website reveals the information and attitudes as manipulative, specious, grossly unrealistic, and offensive, its influence and impact should not be underestimated.  With its sophisticated website design and authoritative commentary on homosexuality, it is quite possible that one could internalize these myths as truths.  Adding to its impact, The
American Guardian has voiced its God-driven interest in protecting American children from harm and exploitation; taken at face value, few would challenge this goal.  While its work in minimizing or eliminating child pornography may be socially valuable, the majority of its ideology needs to be challenged.  To challenge these ideologies, we must create a realistic and comprehensive
picture of homosexuality and alternative lifestyles.  To examine how this may be accomplished, we can start by creating venues in which oppressed voices can be heard and validated.  We must speak up in the political arena, in professional settings, in religious institutions, and, yes, in classrooms.
 


Last updated by Sophia Paek on 3-18-99 and by Gina M. on 6-9-99, Copyright by UC Regents