Stonewall Riots

Before the 1850s, the official definition of “homosexual” didn’t exist; people engaged in homosexual activity, but the overall nature of the community was commonly seen simply as atypical behaviors that stemmed from confusion rather than an identity. Then, despite the efforts of early advocacy groups like The Society of Human Rights and The Mattachine Society, the negative theme was only further strengthened into society once the gay community started to become recognized. This was due to that fact that the efforts were shy and attempted to gain recognition slowly with minimal attention--causing them to appear as more isolated and unconfident.
However, although there was a negative association before the Stonewall riots, the harsh connections
between the community rose at a drastic rate after the event took place--causing discrimination stemming from influential groups that deployed tactics that fall under the category of “scourge rhetoric.” This tactic was effective in asserting the view of the gay community as “evil” and “dangerous” to the general public through the use of moral, medical, and other devastating images to convey condemnation for homosexuals and homosexual behavior.
This rhetorical strategy was introduced and popularized by religious groups who used scripture to evoke moral transgressions onto the gay community. One leading figure of this movement was Anita Bryant--a singer and former pageant celebrity who strongly opposed the gay rights movement due to her deep commitment to Baptist beliefs. One aspect of her particular belief system was the principle that homosexuality was inherently wrong, proscribed Biblically, and a crime that ought to be fought legally. Armed with her immense following and and her faith, Bryant dedicated herself to opposing a series of gay rights ordinances like the gay rights legislation in 1977. Most notably, she disputed a Dade County, Florida law which was
intended to prohibit bigotry against gays in contexts such as public establishments and housing. When first opposing gay rights, Bryant adopted the straightforwardness of scourge rhetoric and began to openly embed her language with religious banter--proposing the religious community and society to question: "why does such an abomination to God as homosexuality exist? It's Satan on the move." She also engaged in scourge rhetoric by emphasising her belief of a dark influence an openly gay individual would have on school children; she claimed that the gay community would often molest or "recruit" children in schools into gay community and force them into homosexual acts. Shortly after this announcement, and in order to further push this opinion, she started an organization named "Save Our Children" that twisted the notion that the Dade County ordinance was proposed to make children vulnerable to attacks rather than protecting homosexuals from discrimination. Due to her immense following from her fans and the Christian faith, Bryant’s message against homosexuals resonated effectively; in 1977, 72% of Americans agreed that homosexuality was "always wrong," and by 1989, the percentage grew to 74%.
Therefore, because the moral arguments of scourge rhetors like Bryant resonated with the majority of Americans at the time, gay rights activists had a difficult time finding acceptance due to the fact that there weren’t any Biblical materials that could negate the moral claims used against them.
Religion is a key source of social knowledge, and in 1977, religious acceptance of gayness was merely a glimmer in the eye of progressive theologians. Gay rhetors lacked the necessary religious materials to rebut scourge rhetors, and the dialogue came to an inevitable dead end. The scourge/affirmation polarity was beneficial to the position espoused by Bryant and her allies, and the inevitable dead-end reveals the danger that polar opposition poses to pro-gay rhetors. Scourge rhetoric incorporating references to children presented a troubling persuasion dilemma for lesbian and gay rhetors. First, reference to child molestation is a powerful visceral weapon in the fundamentalist arsenal. Second, it plays into traditional stereotypes of gays, recalling old social knowledge of lesbian and gay persons to stymie the attempt to create new knowledge. Third, the focus on the consequences of gayness enabled anti-gay rhetors to move the discourse from an argument about the need for a particular antidiscrimination measure back to the affirmation/scourge opposition. It gave citizens a rationale on which to premise their distaste for gays without directly expressing distaste for the moral worth
of lesbian and gay persons. Political tolerance research has demonstrated that Americans are much more likely to support the civil liberties of any social group in the abstract than they are when consequences are attached to the granting of such liberties. Given a proposed consequence to the extension of civil rights, popular reluctance to extend the liberty highly corresponds to the negative valence placed on the group. The efforts of gay rights goes to refocus the debate on historical fears about gays thus made Americans reluctant to embrace gay claims.in the percentage of Americans who were willing to allow gays to teach in colleges.' The constancy of disapprobation for gays but increase in concern over gays as teachers strongly suggests that Bryant won by tapping into existing anti-gay sentiment, a sentiment which was experienced by some citizens as concern about particular consequences of gay civil liberties. With the conversation about lesbians and gays truly joined, success would not be forthcoming for pro-gay rhetors until the development of rhetorical types that would move into new, more favorable oppositions. Such oppositions would give the gay community a fighting chance in later discourses and would reconstruct the category comprised of lesbians and gays in the public psyche.