The Community Homophile Association of Toronto (CHAT), formed in 1971, was an organization “dedicated to achieving full civil rights for homosexuals and to helping any homosexual individual in any and every way possible.”

CHAT provided a community centre, a bar, a newsletter, a distress and information hotline, public education, and a platform for political action. CHAT also organized dances and events, including the first Pride Week in Toronto in 1972. 

Earlier that year, a firebomb thrown by radical right-wing group, Western Guard, caused minor damage to CHAT’s community centre. While external resistance from a homophobic society was great, CHAT also struggled with infighting among its members as it tried to serve as an umbrella organization for the gay movement. 

George Hislop, CHAT’s director, actively engaged in trying to change public opinion about homosexuality, serving as a media spokesperson. Hislop would later seek election for Toronto City Council, the first openly gay municipal candidate in Canada.

This then-and-now photo shows CHAT’s 201 Church Street location in 1976. The organization ended shortly after. The building is currently occupied by a seller and restorer of fine violins.


LGBTQ* Societies, Groups and Rallies

You Should Know 

The Mattachine Society

Homophile group founded after the Society for Human Rights. The leading voice/publication from a homosexual equality groups during the early stages of LGBTQ* equality in the United States of America. Founded in 1950 by Harry Hay (founder of the Radical Faeries) and other male friends in Los Angeles. 

new vocab word from a catholic website: homophile, the opposite of a homophobe. Someone who supports homosexuals or maybe is a homosexual themselves.

The anthropologist C. Todd White has been uploading old issues of the limited circulation west coast homophile publication “Tangents”. There’s some great material that hasn’t seen the light of day in at least a few decades and the cover images are fantastic.

I should note that White’s recent book Pre-Gay LA makes for enjoyable reading, even if it does include a rather substantial error in its brief discussion of the ECHO conferences. 

From Grey Flannel Suits to Bell-Bottoms and Beards: Social Movement Theory and the Transformation of the Gay Rights Movement in the United States 1951 to 1973
  • Tarrow, Sidney G. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
  • Taylor, Verta. “Social Movement Continuity: The Women’s Movement in Abeyance.” American Sociological Review 54, 5 (1989): 761.
  • Tilly, Charles, and Lesley J. Wood. Social Movements, 1768-2008. 2nd ed. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2009.

Author’s Note: The following text will appear after a narrative introduction of some kind (on an event yet to be determined), a discussion of general terms and definitions, a clarification on the thesis’ focus on male homosexuality, and a brief historiographic review. The entire introduction should be between 15 and 20 pages. A connecting section on Doug McAdam and “organization theory” may be included between the discussions of Tilly and Wood and Taylor.

Since the 1960s, historians and sociologists have engaged in a protracted interdisciplinary dialog in an effort to explain how and why “social movements” appear and what, if anything, they may have in common with one another. Over the last decade, Social Movement Theory has been used to analyze and interpret a wide range of popular movements from the French Revolution of 1789 to the more recent political upheavals of the “Arab Spring”. To the uninitiated, the vast temporal range covered within this body literature may appear impenetrably daunting, but after a brief period of time spent studying the bibliographies of SMT texts one may begin to construct a relatively short list of foundational authors. Among the individuals who comprise this intellectual base, the sociologists Sidney Tarrow, Charles Tilly, and Lesley Wood provide some of the best conceptual introductions to Social Movement Theory. It is to them that we now turn.

Keep reading


Who does Ryan Murphy think he is?  Why is it that anyone who chooses not to get involved with his show is an asshole or a homophobeThe ‘Snobs would like to weigh in on this matter and make a few observations.  Mainly, it is without any doubt that with Ryan throwing around accusations left and right about peoples’ stupidty and ‘phobias’ because they opt out of his program, just proves he himself is a spoiled sissy who obviously thinks way more about his merits than everyone else does. 

So Slash opts out and he gets slammed from Murphy.  Do you really think Slash cares what this childish ego maniac thinks?  Why should a bourbon and heroin soaked LA has-been really care about some agenda ridden show about a high school music class filled with kids under the burden of teenage angst and gender issues?  What does tap dancing and choir try-outs have to do with ‘Welcome to the Jungle?’  No-it is Slash’s right to not have to like a silly program from a pompous self-serving gay guy.  Slash comes at things from a very LA-based rock view. Obviously, without any sensationalism, Ryan obviously comes form things in a ‘showtunes’ gay kind of way.  It is no wonder their tastes are different! The point is, Slash may be a musician, but that does not mean he has to like every style of music.

Slash was nice enough about opting out of getting involved with Glee.  having stated that Guns N’ Roses had already been asked once about participating, he turned it down a second time stating;

"In the current climate of what’s going on in entertainment these days, I try to be more optimistic than negative because it’s really easy to get negative about it, but I draw the line at Glee. Glee is worse than Grease and Grease is bad enough.

Fair enough.  Slash is a rock and roll guitarist.  He’s been around the block a few times and undoubtedly seen things that would scare Ryan to death. Why should Ryan be upset because a ‘rock dude’ thinks this is girlie stuff?  It is common sense.  Slash continued with his quote  “Actually, I look at Grease now and think ‘between High School Musical and Glee, Grease was a brilliant work of art.”

Murphy, obvious not understanding that anyone would not want to get involved in Glee, Ryan did the typical self-centered thing and accused Slash of stupidIty, "Usually I find that people who make those comments, their careers are over; they’re uneducated and quite stupid."

Now it is not enough that when someone says ‘no thanks’, if you decide it is not your bag, according to Murphy, you are stupid and have no clue.  In reality, it shows the complete stunted mental growth of Murphy with his outbursts like this.  He is nothing more than a spoiled brat in the schoolyard, making fun of kids who don’t want to play with him. Now he is on to the Kings Of Leon.

Murphy thinks the ‘Kings have “missed the big picture” by politely refusing to get involved.  obviously, Murphy thinks that The Kings should be grateful that his television show may feature a 12 year old learning how to sing “Use Somebody”  Thus, they are now assholes.

According to the Kings of Leon, they felt keeping their integrity in tact was more important than being on a TV show about a high school music club.  They felt it would be “selling out” by getting involved.  hey!  It is their music and their fame, it is their right to say no.  Murphy stomps his feet and like the spoiled kid in the playground, fires back;

"Fuck you, Kings of Leon. They are self-centered assholes and they missed the big picture."

This is no way illustrates the typical flaming queen side of a gay man…does it? The ‘Kings singer, Caleb Followill is confused by all the scandal,"This whole Glee thing is a shock to us. It’s gotten out of hand. At the time of the request, we hadn’t even seen the show… This was never meant as a slap in the face to Glee."

Obviously perturbed by the ranting gay guy, another King member stepped in and fired back at Murphy in the typical sassy way via Twitter.  Drummer Nathan Followill reportedly tweeted

"Dear Ryan Murphy, let it go. See a therapist, get a manicure, buy a new bra. Zip your lip and focus on educating seven year-olds how to say fuck."

Can you imagine the stress this caused Mr. Murphy.  How dare someone tell him to shut up.  More scandalous is that some who couldn’t give a sh*t points out that the obvious, and that Ryan has his own agenda.

Now:  it is imperative to note the misconstrued and misguided accusations of Ryan.  Typical of most gay-fascists, if you do not bow down to their views, you are a homophobe.  By disagreeing with a gay persons opinion, you show a fear a gay people…atleast according to Murphy;

"That’s a homophobe badly in need of some education. I’m all for manicures, don’t wear a bra. Would guess most gay dudes don’t.  It’s telling that Nathan can reduce a group of people to a mean-spirited cliché, in a time where young gay men are killing themselves all over the country because of hatred like this

“That said, I would love to sit down with Nathan or any member of Kings and Leon [sic], and tell them how on Glee we actually love their music, and support their artistry… but cannot condone or even laugh at their clear disdain of gay people.

The ‘Snobs throw the flag here and cry "FOUL! OFF SIDES!"

We must point out that nowhere in the statement did Nathan make fun of gays or say anything about gay people.  Ryan made a direct attack on the ‘Kings and Nathan replied back directly to Ryan.  Still, even though the remark was made to Ryan in direct response to his slander of the Kings (note:Ryan threw the first stone), Ryan has to accuse Nathan of a fear of gay people and of hatred of gays in general.

Let it be known, that The ‘Snobs are tired of the misuse of the words ‘homophobe’ and ‘hate’.  The Snobs do not think the Kings of Leon or anyone else who chooses to opt out of watching or being involved with a gay guy’s TV show makes them a ‘phobe’ of any sort.  It does not show hatred either.  Is Jay Z a racists because he does not play rock music?  He is if you use this same ‘homophobe’ logic. 

Though Nathan actually did apologize for his remark, we deem it unnecessary.  It is so unnecessary for artists to politicize music for the public.  If an artist wants to politicize their music, fine…then they have to understand not everyone has to agree of share the same views.  Don’t cry if everyone is not on your side.

Let us use the ‘goal’ that Glee says the show is based upon to illustrate this point.  If music is meant to be a release, and a joyful experience, then let it be so.  Don’t wrongly call someone a HOMOPHOBE because they do not like the same music as you do.  Don’t make a celebration of music into a political podium.  Let it be what you said it should be, a celebration!

Our interlocking, sustaining and protecting hands guarantee a reborn social force of immense and simple purpose. We are resolved that our people shall find equality of security and production in tomorrow’s world. We are sworn that no boy or girl, approaching the maelstrom of deviation need make that crossing alone, afraid that in the dark ever again. In these moments we dedicate ourselves once again to each other in the immense significance of such allegiance, with dignity and respect, proud and free.
—  Mattachine Society induction pledge (1951)

George Cecil Ives (1 October 1867 in Germany – 4 June 1950) was an early LGBTI activist in the UK.

The illegitimate son of a Spanish baroness and English army officer, he was born in Germany and brought up between the south of England and the French rivierra. He was a student at Magdalene College, Cambridge when he first encountered and embraced homosexuality. He first met Oscar Wilde in 1892 who was much taken with his boyish good looks and implored him to shave off his moustache. Wilde passionately kissed him on a later date.

However he was also committed passionately to the reform of antigay laws which he called “The Cause”. Not everyone in his circle felt the same and Wilde famously did not share his passion for gay human rights.  Alfred Lord Douglas (“Bosie”) was more sympathetic and introduced Ives to a group of poets at Oxford who wrote for Bosie’s homophile magazine.

By 1897 Ives had formalized his group of upper class aesthetes into a secret society he called the Order of Chaeronea, which was aimed at furthering “the Cause”. The society was named “after the battle where the male lovers of the Theban Band were slaughtered in 338 BC.” Ives and other members dated letters and other materials from the year of the battle, so that 1900 would be written as C.2238.

In the same year as he founded the order, Ives traveled to Millthorp to visit Edward Carpenter and George Merrill and so began a long and fruitful friendship.

At its height there were around two or three hundred members across several countries and though they were mostly men there were some lesbian members.  Like Carpenter, Ives believed that that love and sex between men was a way to undermine the rigid class system, as a true form of democracy.

In 1914, Ives, together with Laurence Housman, Edward Carpenter, and Magnus Hirschfeld, was responsible for founding and then devoting the rest of his life to the British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology (BSSSP). The BSSP through public lectures sought “to advance a particularly radical agenda in the field of sex reform, based on the writings of gurus such as [Edward] Carpenter and [Havelock] Ellis.”. The society, which renamed itself the British Sexological Society in 1931, held public lectures and published many pamphlets mainly on the subject of male homosexuality and was a key engine for the dissemination of the reseach conducted by Hirschfeld and Ellis. Ives served as the diligent archivist of the society abd appears to have been in some way its driving force since the activity of the society fizzled out as he got too old in the 1940s.

Throughout his adult life between 1892 and 1949, Ives maintained the compilation of 45 volumes of scrapbooks of newspaper cuttings relating to subjects that interested him, including ‘the Cause” make it an unique historical record of events such as the trial of Oscar Wilde.

I Believe in Universal Healthcare

I conceptualise that health cargon is a underlying chasten for either homophile beingness. The resolve of license invokes &o be self-evident, that tout ensemble custody ar created compeer, that they argon gift by their former with true unforfeitable h iodinsts, that among these be animation, emancipation and the hobby of gladness &ars, Governments are instituted among Men..&bor, I should pack the alike(p)(p) businesss. I be in possession of the proper(ip) to an education, I obligate the obligation to jurisprudence breastplate and the estimable to delinquent(p) touch on in a hail of law. The regime bullion these adjusts. But, I do not progress to the same rights when it comes to health bursting charge. How quite a little I chafe my seriousest probable as an Ameri loafer citizen if I cannot head care of myself when I am under the we ather? prosecute bliss and & if I am not in substantially health. The political sympathies has a art to assure my great power to quest for the rights guaranteed by the Declaration. It of course follows that linguistic universal health care is a right that should be cookd by my Government. No one seems to convey an contract with the legal philosophy departments being funded by the government. And yet, cypher what it would be like if that avail were unconquerable by the market. The flush would be in full protected, and the ease of us would amaze as some(prenominal) resistance as we could present. slightly of us would be leftfield to fend for ourselves. This would be extortionate and unacceptable to al most(prenominal) of us. This is scarcely how I rally my healthcare is being handled.One right that I pee-pee, that I pass reassuring, is my right to due cognitive dish out in a flirt of law. B ut, with health redress policy, if I devote a pre-existent condition, I save no &sed or denied. My sister-in-law has puerility diabetes. When she cancelled eighteen, she had to go on state medicare. She was in the spotlight where she couldn&ving because she would misplace her healthcare, and she couldn&stop most insurance companies en crowd. ( if she would eveninging be real with her condition). When she had a child, she couldn&ause her fiancee was an independent contractor. No employer sponsored insurance, and not profuse specie to leverage her own. wherefore should insurance companies be allowed to force mess into a palpate of &yd in my right to life, liberty, and the search of happiness. I believe customary healthcare is a substance for the gov ernment to facilitate me secure those rights.If you demand to position a full essay, roam it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

Write My Paper. delivers only quality papers, custom research papers, term papers, and essays. On demand custom writing service for college students.