Sexual Orientation

[Teddymonster]

OK Im Gay but I toatlly don't do the whole lets make a big public deal about it ughh..

 

Hey there, what gives you the right to say "ughh" to other people's activism? I mean, I respect your right not to do nothin', and I'm thinking maybe you don't know squat about gay history, anyway. But as a gay geezer who's seen a lot, let me politely inform you that what rights we queers do possess were achieved largely because people made a "big public deal about it."

 

Yeah, you're only 15. But you happen to live in a state where you can legally be fired or evicted just for being gay. And someday when you grow up and move out of your parents' house and look for an apartment and have to get a job and maybe find a partner you want to form a legal bond with, or even adopt kids, maybe you'll understand things a little better and stop saying "ughh."

 

Shepp, I think you may have misconstrued what he was originally saying, but in regards to what he was saying--I don't see eye-to-eye with it either. Nicely put in your last paragraph, BTW. Like I said in another thread...it's really easy to judge/criticize other people when you don't walk in their shoes.

[Nrthwnd]

yeah, it helped me bag a great guy . Plus he's also a coaster enthusist so that's also double brownie points, hehe.

 

Is he The One to the left in that posted pic of you (and others) you recently put up on the "Picture of Me" Thread?

 

Just curious of me.

 

[Token Yankee Guy]

yeah, it helped me bag a great guy . Plus he's also a coaster enthusist so that's also double brownie points, hehe.

 

Is he The One to the left in that posted pic of you (and others) you recently put up on the "Picture of Me" Thread?

 

Just curious of me.

 

 

Yeah, that's him

[BiCoastal Kid]

OK Im Gay but I toatlly don't do the whole lets make a big public deal about it ughh..

 

Hey there, what gives you the right to say "ughh" to other people's activism? I mean, I respect your right not to do nothin', and I'm thinking maybe you don't know squat about gay history, anyway. But as a gay geezer who's seen a lot, let me politely inform you that what rights we queers do possess were achieved largely because people made a "big public deal about it."

 

Yeah, you're only 15. But you happen to live in a state where you can legally be fired or evicted just for being gay. And someday when you grow up and move out of your parents' house and look for an apartment and have to get a job and maybe find a partner you want to form a legal bond with, or even adopt kids, maybe you'll understand things a little better and stop saying "ughh."

 

I'll just reiterate that I think the whole seperation thing is pointless. I think i may have alluded to it previously in this thread, fi not blatantly proclaimed my hatred for adding clarifiers onto histories. I mean, if "we" are trying to be accepted into the rest of the whole, why would "we" clarify what is "our" history as opposed to it being a part everyones?

[erinys]

Clarifying identity (perhaps through separateness) can be an important part of the process towards inclusion in the larger whole. Would Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and Frederick Douglas be mentioned in American history if they had not first been championed within black history and culture? Or Betty Friedan via feminist culture? (Oh, please, SOMEONE recognize these names.) Dominant society isn't automatically or rationally inclusive - if anything it's territorially exclusive, preserving it's own importance and domain. Until a group stands up and makes itself heard, it's ignored.

 

I can only compare this to the prevalence of young women today NOT considering themselves 'feminists' & thinking all doors are already open to them. But doors are still closed, women's pay is still lower, and they don't even realize it. The women's movement wasn't perfect and mistakes were made, but the pioneers made great strides that may be sucked away if the younger generation doesn't stand firm to maintain or extend them.

[BiCoastal Kid]

I'm not saying that clarification is bad. I'm saying that a lot of people make too big of a deal out of it. They get so attatched to their little sect that even after they are granted "admission," they still seperate themselves, thusly making that little struggle seem entirely pointless.

[erinys]

I'm not qualified to fully respond, but I get your point. I believe you've said it already, but basically the goal should be mixture and acceptance, not isolation or assimilation. But as a woman sometimes I NEED the company of women, and as a social science person and a grad of X school, I sometimes need the company of those people. It gives me a sense of belonging and the comfort of familiarity. Perhaps it's possible for society to be so open it's not necessary, but it may be as simple as coaster fanatics always seeking interaction with other coaster fanatics.

[BiCoastal Kid]

Well, there's a big difference between assocaiting with groups of similar interest and seperating yourself. Everybody seeks the company of similar others, but to limit yourself to that group, and say that it is "your group" in such a manner that implies that no other sect of society could possibly strike your fancy is just ridiculous. I agree that there are sect and different facets within society, but now it seems that people are going away from simply having variety, and more toward having large societal cliques.

 

Just my observation, at least.

[Blue0ctane]

I'm pretty confident that I'm straight, seeing as in December I went to 3rd with my ex-girlfriend (that bitch).

 

Outpost Nine shoutout.

[speedracer]

Clarifying identity (perhaps through separateness) can be an important part of the process towards inclusion in the larger whole. Would Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and Frederick Douglas be mentioned in American history if they had not first been championed within black history and culture? Or Betty Friedan via feminist culture? (Oh, please, SOMEONE recognize these names.) Dominant society isn't automatically or rationally inclusive - if anything it's territorially exclusive, preserving it's own importance and domain. Until a group stands up and makes itself heard, it's ignored.

 

I can only compare this to the prevalence of young women today NOT considering themselves 'feminists' & thinking all doors are already open to them. But doors are still closed, women's pay is still lower, and they don't even realize it. The women's movement wasn't perfect and mistakes were made, but the pioneers made great strides that may be sucked away if the younger generation doesn't stand firm to maintain or extend them.

 

Very well said! Younger generations forget that the rights and protections some take for granted today weren't always there, and weren't just given because of passivity, content and hiding quietly in the closet. Just because those rights exist today doesn't guarantee an ignorantly run society won't rip those rights out from right under you at any given time as they see fit.

 

I'm not saying that clarification is bad. I'm saying that a lot of people make too big of a deal out of it. They get so attatched to their little sect that even after they are granted "admission," they still seperate themselves, thusly making that little struggle seem entirely pointless.

 

Now this is where you're missing the whole point. Although it is 2006, Gays are far from being accepted and "granted admission" in this bible thumping homophobic society. We've never been, and I can assure you will never be in my lifetime.

 

As far as the separating and excluding, you can thank all the religious right wing fanatics for that division. Ask yourself who really are the ones passing laws and having constitutions amended to separate and deny a certain segment of society equal rights and protections, all because of nothing more than a personal belief. For us to just all stand by silently and invisibly as you'd like and let them continue to spread their ignorance and hatred about who and what I am to further their agenda, to me that would be equivalent to genocide (something more than one religious leader has wished upon us).

[shepp]

 

Shepp, I think you may have misconstrued what he was originally saying, but in regards to what he was saying--I don't see eye-to-eye with it either. quote]

 

I think, upon rereading it, that you're probably right...that he most likey referred not particularly to political/social activism, but to something else. But - frankly - I'm still not quite sure what.

[coastercub]

 

As far as the separating and excluding, you can thank all the religious right wing fanatics for that division. Ask yourself who really are the ones passing laws and having constitutions amended to separate and deny a certain segment of society equal rights and protections, all because of nothing more than a personal belief. For us to just all stand by silently and invisibly as you'd like and let them continue to spread their ignorance and hatred about who and what I am to further their agenda, to me that would be equivalent to genocide (something more than one religious leader has wished upon us).

 

Couldn't have put it better myself.. so, erm i won't.

 

I'm not one to shout all around the houses about my sexuality but I appreciate the struggle it took to give me the rights I have today and I'll support anyone who wants to change things to give us true equal rights

[shepp]

I'm not saying that clarification is bad. I'm saying that a lot of people make too big of a deal out of it. They get so attatched to their little sect that even after they are granted "admission," they still seperate themselves, thusly making that little struggle seem entirely pointless.

 

Wow...you live in Georgia, dude.

 

In your great, sovereign state, there's no antidiscrimination law protecting gays. You can be legally fired or evicted or otherwise discriminated against just because you're queer (or perceived to be). You're currently not covered by either federal or state hate crimes legislation. There's no state domestic partners law, so even if you spend the rest of your life with someone, you'll have no automatic right to his health insurance or estate, the way it is for married hets. And, of course, you couldn't marry him under civil law. You wouldn't get the tax benefits of being a couple, or inherit each other's social security. Chances are you won't be able to adopt kids. You can't be openly queer and serve in the armed forces. Georgia actually went to the Supreme Court to sustain their bust of a gay male couple for "sodomy." (It's only thanks to a later court case that gay sex in your home town isn't a criminal act.) Oh, and how many Georgia state legislators are openly gay men? Um, zero.

 

So when you say we've been granted "admission" (and thank you, massa, for letting us in), just what are you talking about? The Club of Second-class Citizens? Or do you think that the whole world is like high school, where the point is to fit in by acting like the cool kids, and once you get to hang with them at the mall, your life is complete?

[BiCoastal Kid]

Hmm, or maybe I should ask that, hypothetically, you were just handed all of the rights and things that you are so adamantly fighting for. Would you or would you not still hold prejudice toward the people who, because of their own beliefs, didn't want you to have those rights that, according to your beliefs, you are entitled to?

 

You people twisted my words around. I was in no way even talking about laws in any fashion, but now that you brought them, I'm going to say it again. EVEN AFTER all these rights are granted, if they ever do get granted, it won't change anything when it comes to actually being "accepted" or "equal," in my opinion, because my idea of equality and acceptance is being respected, mutually, not having to feign or force respect through laws or ordinances which, in my opinion, is the only thing these desired laws is going to do.

 

And please, go ahead and pick apart my juvenile opinions, because I'm such an idealist there must be something wrong with the way I think. Please bring politics and laws into my sociological posts. Heaven forbid I don't hold such things as tax benefits in such high esteem.

 

EDIT: Also, to clarify, I'm gonna quote what I said on another forum here just not to risk any confusion.

 

....but really I guess my main problem is failing to see why marriage determines who gets those priviledges? I mean, there so many things you have to list off who gets what if you die, like buying a car, or your will. I don't see why insurance and hospital visits aren't determined through personal choice too? Also, if somebody is in a hospital, why can't a family member say,"Hey, it's okay for them to come in?" or if you're the person with them, not even as in "with them," but are who they live with and such, why can't they? I'm not saying I don't think that all of it isn't important, I'm just saying that I don't see why marriage is such a determining factor in it.

 

I guess I just think that they're trying to get the right thing in the wrong place, or going about it in the wrong way?

[shepp]

^ Answering your last question first - yes, through sometimes involved legal strategies, things like inheritance and medical power of attorney can be granted to an unmarried partner. Gaining other rights, like hospital visitation, is more iffy. However, in California, many of those rights are automatically granted to registered domestic partners. That legislation on domestic partnership only came about as the result of several decades of labor by openly queer activists, and in most states - like yours - though some employers may provide some domestic partners benefits (e.g.., sharing health insurance), partners' rights are otherwise limited or nonexistant. Rightwingers are even pushing legislation that not only bans gay marriage, but domestic partnership laws as well.

 

So...even if I had full legal rights, would I dislike those who'd seek to rescind them? ("Prejudice" is the wrong word, I think, to describe a person's rection to oppression.) Well, let's put it this way: I'm Jewish, too, and Jews have full legal rights in this country. Are Jews justified in hating neoNazis? Or is that somehow idealistically wrong? After all, except for the debatable limiting of free speech rights, Jews are not seeking to oppress neoNazis, except in the fascists' own sick minds. Likewise, I don't give a damn if the Pope gets married or not. He, however, is adamantly opposed to my doing so, and is using the power of the Catholic Church to prevent that. Is it "prejudice" for me to resent his actions? Sure, resentment and hate can eat up a life. But, hey, I'm not bound by the strictures of Christian love. I get to hate the Reverend Fred Phelps with a clear conscience.

 

As to me (and others) miscontruing you...

 

To paraphrase what I think you said: you believe that once a queer person is accepted by his or her peers (all one's peers? or just those one craves "admittance" from?), they should stop identifying as "queer" all the time, and stop hanging around disproportionately with other queer people. Otherwise, their "little" struggle to be accepted would be "pointless." Correct? Yes, social acceptance is important. Because your generation is more socially accepting of queers than people in mine, we can expect widening support of queer rights (including marriage) in the future. Great thing.

 

But nobody likes everybody (unless they're on certain substances), and that's human nature. Hell, there are plenty of queer men I can't stand. I really don't care if the evolution-bashing, speaking-in-tongues fundamentalists around the corner find me distasteful or not...There are plenty of other folks in the world to relate to, and I doubt the parties they throw are that great, anyhow. However, I would like to know that should they buy my apartment bulding, they wouldn't have the right to throw me out of my home because I'm a "sinner."

 

I live in San Francisco, where queers are more accepted than anywhere else in the country, and most places in the world. But I still hang out more with queers than straights. (And more leftists than Log Cabin Republicans, more bohemians than bankers, and more atheists than Mormons.) Beyond the possibility of a little slap-and-tickle, I just plain find them more sympatico, with more similar worldviews, aesthetics, personal histories, and attitudes about a whole range of things. Is part of that a result of us queers spending our earlier years in more oppressive circumstances than we do now? Well, sure, I guess. Is hanging out with people you have a lot in common with somehow self-defeating? Um, don't think so.

 

To go back to the Jewish thing: After spending most of their lives in a mostly Christian suburb, my parents, born New York Jews, chose to retire to South Florida in large part so they could be around other Jews. (Despite their proximity to the Dania Beach Hurricane, I'd never want to follow suit, btw.) Was that self-limiting? Should they have been just as happy to move to Salt Lake City or the Bible Belt?

 

Yes, fifty years from now, this may all be irrelevant, there may be no difference between growing up queer and growing up straight, and it may be a small world after all. Political gains may simply wipe out "queer culture" and "gay sensibility." Or maybe not. Since you're iinterested in sociology, I'd recommend reading "The Rise and Fall of Gay Culture" by Daniel Harris. It's quirk and infuriating, but it tackles these issues head on.

 

Sorry to be so long-winded. Peace out.

[BiCoastal Kid]

Think prejudice is a nice word for what I was speaking about. To me, it seems like if you were to hear somebody say they don't agree with homosexuality or gay marriage you would probably repeat half of this thread or simply walk away iwth a "whatever" face on.

I, on the other hand, when somebody tells me they don't agree with my being gay, I always like to ask why. I ask why until I understand where they're comming from, as illogical as it may be, and then, if possible, I like to discuss such things. A majority of time, I find they aren't so much opposed to the things that would come along in the little package deal that is gay marriage, but they are mostly opposed to the whole "ruining the sanctity of marriage" thing. (Although, they aren't always well versed enough to state it as such.)

 

That's just why I think it more logical to get court cases or laws to try and change the individual laws of hospital visitation, social securty, health care, etc, than it is to shoot for the whole shebang.

 

Maybe one day, when I have the time or ability, I'll go out and start lobbying for these things personally, currently I can just sit back and state my opinions on others' activism. I'm not saying that what they've been fighting for is wrong, I just think it's happening inefficently.

[shepp]

^No, I think that's a great tactic, talking to people. Studies show that once people get to know queers, they're much less likely to espouse homophobic views.

 

What complicates matters, though, is that so much of current anti-gay stuff is faith-based, and faith is, by defiinition, not amenable to rational argument.

 

Let me pick on Mormons for a minute. (I'm paraphrasing here, so if there are any errors in nuance, please excuse me. But I think the basics are pretty true.) They believe - based on a scripture that an angel delivered to Joseph Smith in the form of a golden book that he could translate with the help of magical crystals - that the fundamental unit of the universe is the heterosexual (though not necessarily, in the original doctrine, monogamous) family, husband and wife or wives, that god himself is married, and that Mormon families are destined to be reunited in the Celestial Kingdom. Now, there are all sorts of points at which Mormon doctrine bumps up against inconvenient facts. But they believe what they believe, and no amount of discourse will convince most of them otherwise. (And those who voice strong doubts are excommunicated.) So no matter how nice you are, no matter what you say, they might admit you're a nice guy, might even invite you in for a dish of Jello, but - unfortunately - you happen to stand in opposition to god's plan, and if you expect there to be same-sex marriage in Utah, you're sadly mistaken.

 

(Try talking to some pair of Mormon missionary boys about queer stuff sometime. Loads of fun.)

 

Neither does the Vatican "hate" queers. It just points out that, unfortunately, we're "intrinsically disordered." Since it took 400 years for the Church to forgive Galileo for pointing out the earth went around the sun, one might conclude that change, though possible, will come slowly. Right now, the hot Church debate is whether it's okay for husbands who are HIV-positive to use condoms with their uninfected wives to save their lives. Sure, plenty of Catholics do use condoms. Plenty of straight Catholics are okay with queers. But those with the most orthodox views are the least likely to value logical discourse.

 

And boy, are they pissed that Spain legalized same-sex marriage.

[Nrthwnd]

And not entirely off topic....

 

Me and my Random Synergy here:

 

333 Guyz who like Galz! now posted.

 

(It's a 'thing' I have with the number 3 and derivatives thereof?)

 

You may now resume discussion.....

 

 

(Edit: And post #33 from me this month! Gotta love those 3's...)

[sfmmFREAK]

well, i haven't had sex with a girl or a dude, so i guess i'm not sure what i am yet, haha.

#

 

You dont need to have had sex to know if your gay or not.

I am sort of confused now. I dont know weither I am straight or gay. Just over the past few weeks or so. So I would classify myself as bi now, instead of straight.

 

rephrasing: i haven't hooked up with a dude or a chick, so i guess i don't know which one i preffer

[Blazen_AZN]

^ Well that's what the internet is for!

[shepp]

NEWS FLASH: The Pope says homo-love is "weak."

 

Oh yeahhhh? I'd like to see Miss Benedict, white dress fluttering, take the pretzel loop on Tatsu!

[Krazykral10]

And not entirely off topic....

 

Me and my Random Synergy here:

 

333 Guyz who like Galz! now posted.

 

(It's a 'thing' I have with the number 3 and derivatives thereof?)

 

You may now resume discussion.....

 

 

(Edit: And post #33 from me this month! Gotta love those 3's...)

 

I have a thing with threes too!! haha i LOVE the number 3.

BTW I'm bi, but not to my parents, they're homo-phobes, and so is most of my school, so on ly a few of my friends know. Haha, but my rents suspect my "disease" argh!! i hate when its referred to as that, but yea, my mom watched RENT with me and said, "Karl, I don't know what I would to do if you are gay. But you might as well come out now if you are!" i laughed REAL hard, but its best, for all of us, that she doesn't know. haha just thought i'd throw that out, watched the topic for a while but never posted. and the whole Pope thing, i really could care less what the pope thinks. My church is UCC and has this new advertisement campaign with the whole "God is still speaking," thing, and there are ALOT of recruitment posters and one says, "If Jesus embraced, gays, prostitutes, and lepers....why can't we!?" THANK YOU!!! There is nothing in the Bible or what not against homosexually.

[Blazen_AZN]

^Maybe im reading this wrong but...

 

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

 

Yeah, but honestly, it's crap.

 

 

I'm SOOO glad my parents don't suspect anything about me, and if they do, im glad they know how to keep their mouths shut! I don't know what would happen if they found out.

[Hurricane]

I do NOT want to think about what my mum would do if she found out! So this is just my lil TPR secret

[Stitch]

Just come home with a naked man and tell them he is your husband. That's an excellent way to come out to the parents