As best I can from this distance, I try to follow the progress of gay rights movements abroad. And I feel great admiration and sympathy for the brave men and women who are trying to promote gay legal and social equality in many countries of Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and South America.
But most of them face a much harder time than we did in North America and Western Europe. They face very different social situations from the ones we did so I am not sure if the activist model they have adopted in part from us can work as well for them as it did for us.
An effective gay rights movement in America followed, it did not precede, the sexual revolution of the 1960s which liberated heterosexual sexuality. In addition, the late 1960s and 1970s were a time of growing economic prosperity and the growing autonomy for individuals that that prosperity facilitated. There was-if not exactly a growing secularization-at least a gradual decline in the Cold War-inspired Christian religiosity that gripped the country in the 1950s. And finally, prestigious reports-the Wolfenden Report (1957) in England, and the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code (draft c. 1954; final version, 1962))-both recommended decriminalizing homosexuality.
Most countries outside North America and Western Europe have few or none of these things to aid their efforts. After decades of official homophobia by atheist Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, once Communist oppression was removed, people returned to religion with the attendant hostility to homosexuality of both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. How gays can find any institutional support, lessening of hostility, any wedge point at which they can begin to build power and influence is far from clear.
Contrast this with Spain, where the Franco regime's military authoritarianism tied itself to a conservative Catholicism. A growing economic and religious liberalization began in the last years of Franco's reign and now Spain is one of the most gay-friendly nations, even allowing gay marriage. You have to wonder if there is some general law that people react against whatever supported that oppression.
In China, there has been a gradual reduction of economic controls and, resulting from that, some social controls so long as there is no organized opposition to the government. The official psychiatric organization, influenced by international psychiatric groups, declared gays no longer sick. This has allowed gays to meet unobtrusively in public places with only sporadic harassment prompted by officials at the local level.
It will be interesting to see if, with China's growing capitalism and economic liberalization, a kind of gay liberation can occur without organization and leadership, or if, alternatively, a cautious, non-political gay movement can manage to work within the government strictures. We can view with concern the rise of Christianity and Falun Gong spiritual exercises in China since both are hostile to gays, but on the other hand perhaps their growth will pressure the government to further reduce social controls-which would also benefit gays.
Africa presents a dismal spectacle except for South Africa. There the country has recoiled from the conservative, segregationist regime with its Dutch Reformed religious support and embraced gay equality in its constitution-another example of the rebound thesis. This has been aided by prominent pro-gay spokespersons within the Anglican Church and the government itself.
But in most of the rest of Africa gays are officially harassed and threatened, their sexuality and organizations criminalized. Religious leaders of both an aggressive, ignorant Christianity and an equally aggressive, ignorant Islam compete for legitimacy and followers by loudly promoting their hostility to homosexuality.
South America presents a mixed picture. Chile remains sexually conservative, while Brazil's Sao Paulo has the largest Gay Pride parade in the world. With its pervasive Catholicism, South America should be socially conservative, but its Catholicism seems to have more to do with ritual and festivity and a worship of saints and the "Blessed Virgin" than with sexual morality. Growing evangelical Protestantism should be a concern except that so far its social agenda has focused on literacy and economic self-help. Neither seems to pose a threat to gays.
One major obstacle to gay progress seems to come from South America's obsessively macho concern with gender roles and the social construction of gays as feminine. There is harassment and even murder of gays by youth gangs in several countries. But the targets seem often to be transvestites, often transvestite prostitutes. It seems doubtful that most of these are genuinely transgendered males. Instead many seem to be gay men dressing to signal their sexual availability to other, ostensibly heterosexual males.
I offer these perceptions and analyses only tentatively and welcome better-informed thoughts by others.
52 Comments for “Gay Movements Abroad”
posted by Ashpenaz on
So, are these gay movements abroad about men loving men who want to have legal status for lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships and the right to adopt/raise children? Or are they about “queers” who see themselves as transgressive and exotic who want to shock and undermine the oppressive patriarchy?
Just asking.
posted by DUMP on
There are both, James. Not everyone is as myopic and stunted as you. Gone out on a date yet?
posted by Ashpenaz on
Yeah–with your MOTHER! oh…I mean…umm…with your FATHER! or…uh…That’s what SHE said!. . .(snap!)
posted by Richard on
Actually, the American gay rights movement started up in the late 1940s and the first major movement arose — in Europe — in the 19th century.
For many — mostly white middle class — Americans the late 1940s – 1960s was indeed a time of great economic prosperity and expansion of consumer goods and services.
This carried onto the 1970s, but was hit with serious economic problems; i.e. gas shortages, and inflation.
The Wolfenden Report (on homoexuality and prostitution) was only tepidly and partly endorsed by the Labour Government in 1967,
Equal age of consent and equal definition of privacy did not come about until the late 1999s, by a EU lawsuit.
Few people — outside of the academic and legal profession were probably aware of the American Model Penal Code — heck even the ACLU avoided gay issues back then and aside from one state, legal reform was rarely even seriously talked about.
European cinema also helped, to a similar extent, with a slew of rather daring films coming out of Europe in the 1950s and 1960s. Hollywood itself changed because it got 1st Amendment protection and the studio monopolies were busted.
That Communists were — generally — homophobic is not too shocking given the comments their founders said. One of the divides between Communists and Socialists was the question of sexuality.
Although near the end, East Germany was becoming much more liberalized. Cuba and China seem intent on at least making some minor changes when it comes to gay rights.
Whether or not a gay rights movement exists, probably depends on several factors (including); will the law allow it? can people afford to be involved in such a movement? are their Socialists and Libertarian organizations that will lend some support?
For various — shady reasons — we left at least one fascist power in place after WWII; Spain. Franco’s regime certainly oppressed gays, although some loyalists may have been overlooked, but he handed power over to a royalty and brought back liberal democracy when he died..1979 I think.
Again, China — like Cuba — is willing to make some changes with gay rights that keep it off the American six o’clock news.
In China its basically; don’t condemn, don’t condone and don’t talk about. It is not a crime or a mental illness and gays may be able to meet, and there is a female University scholar who supports gay rights.
Also, much of China’s ‘free market’ reforms are not really ‘free’ or based on true capitalism. Its social and economic ‘openness’ is often very cosmetic and contradictory.
South Africa, was ruled by a fascist government, that slowly gave up its power in the 1980s.
Its got a great constitution, but there is still a tremendous amount of poverty and misery that lends itself to people wanting scapegoats and turning to ‘traditional’ religious institutions with simple answers.
Again, where you find widespread poverty, disease and misery you are probably not going to find much of a gay rights movement and lots of deep rooted hostility directed at various unpopular minorities.
Interestingly enough, the author avoids dealing with the Middle East. Why I am not surprised.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’m not sure why the gay community can’t simply admit that there are 2 separate and mutually exclusive factions: There are “transgressive gays” who believe that gay movements are dedicated to undermining society and freeing society from the shackles of patriarchal oppression. They promote genderlessness and complete sexual freedom. There are “traditional gays” who believe that gay movements are about getting the right to marry and adopt children and who see being gay as having a role to play in sustaining and nurturing traditional society.
We can’t work together–we can’t work for sexual freedom and marriage rights. We can’t support rebellion against the government and gays in the military. We can’t support adopting children and outrageous public sexual behavior. We can’t be Ellen Degeneres and Rosie O’Donell at the same time.
So, in order to make a decision about movements in other places, I need to know if they are rooted in transgressive or traditional gays. I don’t support transgressive gays here or elsewhere. But I do support traditional gays–those gays who want to marry, raise children, and help build society.
You can’t be Bill Cosby and Louis Farrakhan at the same time.
posted by David Skidmore on
The division of gays into categories of “traditional” and “transgressive” is not particularly useful. It also seems to categorise gay people into those deserving of human rights and those who don’t. Such a division is actually useful to the enemies of gay people who don’t give a rat’s arse whether you are into monogamy and adoption or not. Divide and rule is an old tactic but still works for anti-gay forces.
I support same-sex marriage AND sex-on-premises venues. I don’t want to marry and I don’t expect everyone to go to saunas. But we should have the choice. In countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE no such choice exists and all gays are regarded as transgressive.
In the US (oddly enough) demands for same-sex marriage and adoption are transgressive. The right to have promiscuous sex may seem transgressive but gays have been doing that for ages. Gay night clubs, backrooms and sex venues flourish in every major American city. This is not cutting edge stuff.
In many Third World countries, gay human rights’ organisations are often in the position of justing wanting the government to stop killing gay people and allow them to socialise unmolested. Same-sex marriage and adoption are too ambitious to demand. Nor do they asks themselves whether they are “traditional” or “transgressive”. They much more urgent issues to worry about.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Here is the point you seem to miss–if gays are seen as synonymous with transgressive and a threat to society, then, naturally, those in power will want to oppress them. Gays are not being oppressed for private sexual acts–gays are oppressed because a loud, visible, and irresponsible segment of the community is seen as trying to undo the social fabric and crush the moral order. Those in power oppress what they see as a threat to their power. Transgressive gays want to be a threat to power so they’re oppressed. This seems so transparently simple that I have a hard time understanding people who don’t see it.
Nobody is oppressing anyone, anywhere for what they do privately in their bedrooms. Because, frankly, they are doing the same things privately in their own bedrooms. They don’t care about same-sex love–they care about keeping the social order intact. Do you really need me to list all the gay characters in Jane Austen’s novels?
There is nothing in the gay gene which requires being gay to be a threat to anyone. Those of us traditional gays who want to help build society by creating families, raising children, joining the military, teaching, nursing, and nurturing are getting tired of being caught up in the oppression we didn’t create and don’t deserve. We aren’t a threat to those in power–we want to guard their harems and mentor their princes and nurse their wounded soldiers. Just like traditional gays always have.
posted by David Skidmore on
In seventeenth century France, where no gay movement existed, where those we would call gay socialised in hidden cliques, where not marrying an opposite sex partner was indeed regarded as transgressive, homosexual acts were punishable by burning at the stake. Regimes today which still have anti-sodomy laws make no distinction between private and non-private sexual acts.
The only way oppressors of gay people will be appeased is for gays to disappear. I am not in favour of appeasement particularly when it comes to appeasing vile organisations such as the Family Research Council or Christian Coalition. Anyway it is useless to grovel to people who’ll kick you in the teeth regardless.
According to Asphenaz:
“Those of us traditional gays who want to help build society by creating families, raising children, joining the military, teaching, nursing, and nurturing are getting tired of being caught up in the oppression we didn’t create.”
That statement sounds reasonable and it illustrates precisely why gays are hated. Try telling the Taliban you are not a transgressive gay and all you want to do is get married and maybe teach children. And speaking personally, I don’t want to nurse the Taliban’s wounded soldiers. I want to see them annihilated as I do every anti-gay outfit on the face of the earth.
posted by DUMP on
Ash: “Those of us traditional gays who want to help build society by creating families, raising children…”
Wait a minute, have you done any of those things? Have you ever had a long-term relationship with another man? To be a “traditional” gay, don’t you think you should have at least gone out on a date with another man? Is it “traditional” for a gay man to go through x-gay therapy and dwell in unhappiness for decades?
posted by Ashpenaz on
I would guess, and this is just a guess, that the Taliban has rather a large share of men who play “drop the soap.” Or the equivalent since I suspect anal sex plays a larger role in their lives than soap. It’s probably the gayest group outside the Seattle Mixed Chorus. It’s not worried about sodomy, or frankly, bestiality–it’s worried about maintaining a certain vision of society which flamboyant, transgressive behavior threatens.
The laws against homosexuality were not against private sexual acts–they were against public behavior which threatened the social order. Gays who nursed, taught, nurtured, and quietly lived as beloved friends and devoted uncles were never oppressed. Traditional gays work for the preservation of the social order–transgressive gays work to undermine and destroy the social order. They’re complete different visions.
P.S. Not only have I dated, I’ve been beaten up! If I started seeing someone now, who would take care of Mrs. Whiskerpuff?
posted by Pat on
Gee, Ashpenaz, I don’t know if your perception of the actions of the gay Taliban is a good model for us. But let me know how well they succeed when these “traditional” gays do when they petition their leadership for same sex marriage and adoption by same sex couples.
The laws against homosexuality were not against private sexual acts–they were against public behavior which threatened the social order.
That’s simply not true. What is true is that if you were a good boy, kept your mouth shut, recognized your inferiority, and not be open and proud as your straight counterparts, you were less likely to be caught committing “sodomy.” In other words, if you played the funny uncle role well enough, you might have been left alone. That might have been acceptable in the 1800s and most of last century. But today, at least in most of blue states, I have more respect for the person who is open and perhaps even flamboyant, than the one who just sits back and accepts second class citizenship.
Traditional gays work for the preservation of the social order–transgressive gays work to undermine and destroy the social order. They’re complete different visions.
I don’t get the necessity of applying extremes. Sure, there are people in both extremes, but many more are in the middle. For example, many people, when younger, went out to clubs more, pride parades, perhaps sowed some wild oats to one degree or another, and now have settled down, but not purely traditional. In other words, perhaps some will go to pride events now and then. Heck, I still haven’t been to New York Pride, and would like to attend it once.
Oh, there are straight persons that belong to the same equivalent extremes. I guess the transgressive straights somehow don’t undermine the social order than gays do.
would take care of Mrs. Whiskerpuff?
Whoops, that was rather transgressive. I don’t think the gay Taliban would have approved of that.
posted by Ashpenaz on
It’s like the Puritans in England–nobody cared about people sitting around their little churches and praying. But when the Puritans started to undermine the monarchy and the established church, they were oppressed. Transgressive gays are just as annoying as the Puritans. And they have the same goals–to force everyone to accept their vision of a City on a Hill which can only exist based on their Divine Vision (Divine having a slightly different meaning for Transgressive gays and Puritans). In fact, in that way, transgressive gays are just like the Taliban.
I would have been a royalist Anglican who went to church regularly, prayed the public prayers, and believed whatever the hell I wanted to believe in private. I would’ve worked to preserve the existing order. And I would have happily pushed the nutty Puritans onto the Mayflower and sent them off with a good riddance.
posted by Ashpenaz on
And before you say, “Well, the Taliban are terrorists who kill innocent people and transgressive gays aren’t,” let me ask–has there been some decrease in high-risk sexual behavior I haven’t heard about? What’s the difference between a suicide bomber and a gay man who doesn’t reveal his status to his multiple partners?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
But today, at least in most of blue states, I have more respect for the person who is open and perhaps even flamboyant, than the one who just sits back and accepts second class citizenship.
It always amuses me how people will insist that, in order to be respected by other gays, you must be flamboyant, out there, and avoid restraint — and then wonder why on earth gay people are going out and engaging in patently-stupid behavior.
Along those lines, to Ash’s question about high-risk activity, no; in fact, there’s been the exact opposite.
The study found that homosexual men were the only risk group in which the number of new infections rose annually from 2001 through 2006. (Epidemiologists prefer the term “men who have sex with men,” or MSM, because many of them do not identify themselves as homosexual or gay.) In contrast, injecting-drug users, homosexual men who injected drugs, and heterosexuals each showed declines in new infections over that period.
The reason why is pretty obvious.
But then again, they’re going out and being proud and flamboyant, instead of accepting sexual responsibility, decent behavior, and the other signs of “second-class citizenship”.
I guess the transgressive straights somehow don’t undermine the social order than gays do.
You’re right, they don’t — mainly because their behavior does not generate respect in the vast majority of the straight community, nor is it supported as a sign of their “pride”, nor are they out demanding legal recognition of their multiple partners or whatever.
posted by David Skidmore on
“What’s the difference between a suicide bomber and a gay man who doesn’t reveal his status to his multiple partners?”
(1) The partners can protect themselves or refuse sex.
NB: the suicide bomber doesn’t care whether you call yourself transgressive or traditional.
posted by Pat on
I would have been a royalist Anglican who went to church regularly, prayed the public prayers, and believed whatever the hell I wanted to believe in private. I would’ve worked to preserve the existing order. And I would have happily pushed the nutty Puritans onto the Mayflower and sent them off with a good riddance.
If the Puritans are being persecuted, it might have been better for them under those circumstances to pray quietly, etc. But I see that you were willing to also engage in the despicable actions against the Puritans. How nice. Well, Ashpenaz, at least your honest and proud about your character flaw.
It always amuses me how people will insist that, in order to be respected by other gays, you must be flamboyant, out there, and avoid restraint — and then wonder why on earth gay people are going out and engaging in patently-stupid behavior.
NDT, it amuses me that you continue to mischaracterize my point and how you insist the world consists of only two extremes. I guess there are people who insist that gays MUST be flamboyant. Of course, that wasn’t my point. I’ll reiterate. We don’t live in a world of extremes. There’s always some middle ground. I’m going to be supportive of someone who doesn’t fit someone else’s warped view of what masculinity is or should be.
But then again, they’re going out and being proud and flamboyant, instead of accepting sexual responsibility, decent behavior, and the other signs of “second-class citizenship”.
Perhaps you’re operating under the assumption that when I said flamboyant, that I automatically meant sexual irresponsibility. If that’s the case, let me make it clear that those are two separate issues. Also, if flamboyant does really connote sexual irresponsibility, I’ll try to come up with a term that makes it clear they are two separate issues.
Also, let me make it clear that one “accepting second class citizenship” and “being sexually irresponsible” are not opposite concepts. All combinations of both characteristics exist in the gay community.
When I say “accepting second class citizenship,” I’m talking about the person who believes they are inferior, who believes they should just be a good boy and accept other persons’ bigotry and homophobia, that they should accept their status as the “confirmed bachelor” or “funny uncle.” That he and his “roommate’s” relationship is not worthy or deserving of the same respect that other relationships are. That they are not deserving of the same rights as others.
I have always stated that everyone should be sexually responsible. No matter whether they accept their second class status, whether they are out and proud, whether they are flamboyant or not.
You’re right, they don’t — mainly because their behavior does not generate respect in the vast majority of the straight community, nor is it supported as a sign of their “pride”, nor are they out demanding legal recognition of their multiple partners or whatever.
Yeah, okay whatever. I’m tired of untwisting your logic.
posted by Pat on
What’s the difference between a suicide bomber and a gay man who doesn’t reveal his status to his multiple partners?
Ashpenaz, what’s the difference between a gay man who doesn’t reveal his status to his multiple partners and a straight man who doesn’t reveal his status to his multiple partners?
posted by RIchard on
It is amusing to me, how ‘effeminate’ gay men often view ‘masculine’ gay men as being emotioanly repressed or something negative. Likewise, this sort of petty name calling also comes from masculine gay men. Why can’t they respect each other?
Being masculine or feminine is, largely, product of gender roles, which are socially constructed and often change as if they were a fashion or fad.
Their was once a time when a man cooking or wearing an earring or having long hair was deemed to be effeminate behavior.
On foreign rights; the status of LGBT people in each nation is oftentimes unique and often outsiders wish to simply it to aid their own political agendas.
I.e. gay conservatives point out the vicisious homophobia in Iran, probably to gear up support for an invashion but tend to get a tad silent when it comes to the vicious homophobia in Iraq.
Or gay liberals who show solidarity with Palestinian people or Cuba, but tend to overlook such nations homophobic polices.
posted by Pat on
It is amusing to me, how ‘effeminate’ gay men often view ‘masculine’ gay men as being emotioanly repressed or something negative. Likewise, this sort of petty name calling also comes from masculine gay men. Why can’t they respect each other?
Good question.
Or gay liberals who show solidarity with Palestinian people or Cuba, but tend to overlook such nations homophobic polices.
Speaking only for myself, I don’t overlook it.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Let’s say there’s this group–a group who publicly and visibly wants to break down what it sees as an oppressive society; a group that wants to impose its vision of society on others because they are absolutely certain their vision is absolutely right; a group which plots to undermine the foundation of society; a group whose antisocial behavior leaves many innocent people dead and then blames those innocent people for not protecting themselves.
Let’s see–if I were a government, would I want this group in my country? Might I want to oppress it? Just a little?
You can call this group the Taliban, Al Queda, or the transgressive Gay Pride movement. All these groups are the same. They use their sense of victimization as fuel for their anger and justification for all their crimes.
posted by Pat on
shpenaz, your argument is all over the place. First of all, I’m not sure what you mean by transgressive. If you’re saying that a gay person who attends pride events, is flamboyant, and doesn’t fit your notion of masculinity (even if they are responsible individuals) as transgressive, and because of this you would want to oppress a little, is frankly unAmerican. Read the Bill of Rights.
Even if all gays are transgressive, they themselves cannot impose their will on the remaining 95% of the country. So if there are antisocial behaviors exhibited by gay persons (and by the way, any such behavior is also exhibited by straight persons as well), then the majority can pass laws, within the framework of the federal and state constitutions to curtail it, and perhaps apply it to all persons, instead of just singling out gay persons.
a group whose antisocial behavior leaves many innocent people dead and then blames those innocent people for not protecting themselves.
Explain how antisocial behavior of transgressive gays leave many innocent people dead. Are you talking about a gay person who has multiple partners, is now HIV, and then has sex with an “innocent” adult? First of all, I agree a person should disclose their STD status. Unfortunately, this doesn’t happen far too often. So an adult with an IQ over 75 who consents to sex with someone else must realize this and protect themselves or decide not to have sex with person, or at least until they know more about this person and still protect themselves. Wouldn’t an “innocent” person who indiscrimately chooses to have unprotected sex with someone who may have had numerous sexual partners also be transgressive?
If you are saying that the innocent person is not an adult, I’m more agreeable to your position. However, this is not a gay/straight thing. Instead of oppressing a whole group of people, simply advocate enforcing the laws that prohibit such actions.
The other problem is a 15-year-old should be smart enough to not engage in sex with a 35-year-old.* This in no way excuses the 35-year-old, because his (or her) actions are despicable no matter how smart the teen should be. There are many reasons that a teen would have sex with a 35-year-old. With gay teens, one of the reasons, unfortunately is because they have parents who have excoriated them for being gay, and then look for what they wrongly deem as a positive role model, who in fact is a pervert. So instead of being told by their parents that being gay is okay, that they accept their sexuality, should be very careful about sex, and better yet, wait until they find someone special (i.e., the same things that parents would tell their straight children), they are demonized. And we have people wonder why a higher percentage of younger gay persons end up being sexually irresponsible.
*Frankly, I believe that children should not have sex at all, but that’s for another discussion.
Anyway, Ashpenaz, if you think the gay community should all be nice little boys, and act like it’s the 19th Century, then push for it. But more and more people (gay and straight) like the idea of liberty for all, as long as they are within the law.
posted by Ashpenaz on
No, silly, I’m talking about those gays who want to overthrow traditional society and replace it with their own vision; those gays who see themselves as queer and subversive and transgressive and who want to undermine moral values with total sexual freedom; those gays whose sex with multiple partners is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people (if, as you say, the victims of AIDS are all knowing, consenting adults, who were aware of their partner’s status and went ahead and had unprotected sex anyway, exactly why should we offer them any kind of help?)–
Wait a minute–I guess I am talking about the gay community after all! At least the transgressive, Pride, Rainbow, Pink Triangle community. Please explain to me exactly how the transgressive gay community is different from the Taliban. Look up the goals and tactics of the Taliban in their society, and then look at the goals and tactics of the transgressive gay community in our society–then explain to me why one is evil and the other good.
posted by Richard II on
I remember a trip I took to SF back in 1998. During my little ‘tourist’ walk, I picked up a newspaper from the ‘Freedom Socialist Party’. Gay pride was coming up, or just happened.
One article was on gay pride, socialist style, and the other one — right below it — was about how socialists came together to support Castro and oppose racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of oppression.
Now, for the record, I am probably a moderate Social Democrat, of the original moderetly libertarian sort, but I wondered if the people writing this simply did not note the irony of showing solidarity with Castro, while also opposing homophobia and oppression.
I did write them an email about this, and they sidestepped the entire question. Hmm.
It would not have been soo bad, if they at least were critical of Castro’s dictatorship and anti-policies.
It almost reminded me of the last time I went to a local Democratic Party caucus and pushed for the state to endorse IRV and fair ballot access laws. My litte speech on how Democrats need to support voting rights, equal rights, did not go over so well.
posted by Richard on
Again, I think that effeminate gay men and masclinine gay men often need to show each other a bit of respect and civility.
I do not think that I am effeminate, but I do things (or used to) that were once seen as such –i.e. cooking, performing arts, etc.
I have dated men who have been effeminate and masculine. Trust me, these gender roles have little to do with a person’s character or likelihood of being a good boyfriend material.
Yes, I suspect that most gay men — like straight men — are more masculine then not — gender wise — but if a sterotype does exists, it because effeminate gay men were willing to be out, while some mascluine men wanted to stay and hide.
Again, sex/affection between men or sex between women is often seen as ‘transgressive’ by the heterosexual majority.
Gays who are having unprotected sex, or not able to have stable, healthy relationships or have problems with drugs are probably not really ‘transgressive’ as much as they are stupid, foolish or in need of treatment.
Or, they might be young…Remember lots of gay men tend to get a very different high school, then their peers and college is not always a great liberator.
Those that come out, to themselves and others, later in life tend to go through a period of what might as well be their teen/college years.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I don’t think that gays in lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships are seen as transgressive by straights. I really don’t. Do you have any examples? I don’t think straights care about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. And, if what I read in Maxim is true, then even staight men are beginning to discover the pleasure of a variety of orifices. They can hardly begrudge us our method of prostrate massage when they are coming up with such clever ways to do it in their own relationships.
Straights see the flamboyant, subversive, antisocial, amoral displays of the transgressive gay community as, well, transgressive. And, I think, rightly so–I can’t imagine anyone walking away from a Pride rally thinking “Those are the people I want adopting children.”
posted by Richard II on
Um, yeah. Straights certainly do see anyone who has same-sex affections or a same-sex sex life or engages in cross-dressing as being ‘transgressive’. If you think otherwise then you are just being really, really silly.
This mutual bashing of feminine or masculine gay men (by feminine or masculine gay men) is entirely counterproductive and frankly really, really sexist and mean-spirited.
It is sort of like calling — as some feminists do — women, “sellouts” because they chose to be a housewife or “selfish” if they chose to have career.
Or — from my experience — when some people in the black straight and gay community tell me that I was betraying my race or a sign of a white man’s disease or oppression for being gay and — at one time — had a boyfriend who was not (gasp) black.
You are not more or less gay or a person because you are masculine or feminine in your gender mannerisms. Such sexist c-r-a-p should not be peddled by the LGBT community.
Some straight men are more comfortable with effeminate gay men becauase it reinforces their own stereotypes about “real men” and “those people”.
Some are not.
Given the public controversy and outrage that occurs — among straight people — over gay marriage and gay people adopting or having custody of children, I really do not see how you can argue that they do not view gays in “lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships” as somehow not transgressive.
What is a gay man doing reading Maxim? For the articles? Good God! Most of the stuff in that magazine is poorly written trash and the rest of it is very sarcastical trash.
Straight men can certainly begrude you, no matter what they may bead in a quasi-porno mag.
That is one of the benefits of being the powerful majority; your oppressive arguments do not have to make sense or be consistent.
Being flamboyent is not the same thing as being politically subversive or anti-social or immoral. A can think of several notable gay or bi men who were not the least bit flamboyent, but slept around and were decadent whores and I known many flamboyent or effemiante gay men who have been pretty conservative when it came to their politics and personal behavior.
posted by Richard on
I am not entirely how this issue came up, but to suggest that a minor should be ‘smart’ enough not be be sexually abused or molested is somewhat like suggesting t hat an adult should be ‘smart’ enough not to get raped.
If 15 is below the age of consent, then an adult attempting or engaging in sex with that minor is morally akin to child molestation or rape. The entire point of age of consent laws is to protect youth for sexual exploitation, violence and manipulation.
True enough, LGBT youth do need more positive role models, but they are not going to get it from vicious sexual predators.
No doubt, homophobia and sexism play a role in many of the developmental-mental-physical health problems of many LGBT youth.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Here’s a link to an interesting article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080209-aids-infections-undersestimated,0,2481549.story?track=rss
53% of all new HIV infections are from the gay community–the Taliban and Al Queda can only dream of having that many adherents who want to commit suicide for nothing.
posted by Pat on
No, silly, I’m talking about those gays who want to overthrow traditional society and replace it with their own vision;
Ashpenaz, you’ll have to forgive me if I’m not correctly characterizing what you are saying, but you seem to be conflating issues.
One is your view of how you believe gay persons should comport themselves publicly. This includes gay persons acting masculine (according to your view of masculinity), not act flamboyant, not attend pride parades, and glorifying the second class status of gays in the 19th century. And those that don’t behave that way are transgressive. Then you are talking about gays with multiple sex partners as transgressive. So I’m not sure what group of persons you mean as transgressive, or if you believe both groups are one and the same. Richard II explained how these groups are not one and the same so I won’t bother to repeat it.
What we have are people like Dobson, Robertson, Schlafley, etc. and their followers who despise homosexuals and homosexuality, or, at best, barely tolerate it. Schlafley tolerates her homosexual son not because he is masculine, doesn’t have multiple sex partners, etc., (actually I don’t know how “masculine” he is or how many sex partners he has), but because he behaves like a good little boy and keeps his mouth shut and accepts second class citizenship. He doesn’t use his God-given temerity to demand and expect equality, freedom, and justice that is enjoyed by his fellow straight peers.
They don’t care about the flamboyance, the pride parades, the masculinity, the sexual partners, etc. They care that we are not being quiet about it, and seeking what all other Americans have, enjoy, and take for granted. Sure, these people will show clips of pride parades, and HIV statistics that play on the fears of their flock and favor their agenda. But they won’t show clips of the average gay person going about his daily business that reflects the average straight person. I don’t hear them saying, “Well, I would be fully supportive of gay persons who are sexually responsible and want to find that special someone.” The best we get from this group is the same old “love the sinner, hate the sin” crap. We don’t hear them condemn the quacks who are coercing young gay persons to undergo “reparative” “therapy” which has been exposed as a complete fraud by any rational, qualified individual. We don’t hear them condemn parents who excoriate their gay children simply for being gay, and not connect this with some of the worst they emphasize from the gay community.
those gays whose sex with multiple partners is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people (if, as you say, the victims of AIDS are all knowing, consenting adults, who were aware of their partner’s status and went ahead and had unprotected sex anyway, exactly why should we offer them any kind of help?)–
Maybe I’m missing your point here. What makes a person who has unprotected sex with a person who has multiple partners “innocent”? Sure, if a person is forced by gunpoint or some other harm if they don’t submit, I get the innocent point. But I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant.
Which brings up your comparison with what you refer to the transgressive gay community. First of all, I’ve never encountered any gay person, even one who has had multiple sex partners insist to me that I should have multiple sex partners, where sex is protected or unprotected. But for sake of argument, let’s say I encounter one, and compare him to the Taliban.
A member of the Taliban knocks on the door who wants to kill me for being gay. I’m dead whether or not I can convince them I’m not “transgressive.” An HIV+ gay person who knocks on my door so he can intentionally infect me with HIV. I don’t have to try to convince of anything. I simply tell him to get the f&ck out and call the police. If he starts brandishing a weapon, then and only then can we start thinking of making comparisons to the Taliban.
I am able to survive these “transgressive” gays very easily, while fighting for equality, justice, and freedom, without becoming HIV+. And it’s not by luck. If I was in a land controlled by the Taliban, survival would depend on keeping my sexuality to myself, not demanding equality, justice, and freedom for all persons. The best I could hope for is second class citizenship “glorifying” the pathetic 19th century model of the “confirmed bachelor.” Even then, my life would hold in balance every single day.
You sure want to stick with your comparison?
posted by Ashpenaz on
Yep. Please read the linked article. After all this time, gays are still killing themselves and others. At the least the Taliban is up front about its tactics–transgressive gays kill silently and secretly.
Gays in the 19th Century were not second-class citizens. Confirmed bachelors made up many high-ranking political, literary, artistic, military, and athletic figures.
I don’t think that most straight people realize that there are any gays, anywhere that want lifelong, sexually exclusive partnerships. I really don’t think that anyone, including James Dobson, would have a problem with gays seeking church-blessed, lifelong, sexually-exclusive relationships–but they don’t see them, and when they do see them, they are so used to the transgressive gays’ tactics of deception, they don’t believe them.
Find me one example, anywhere, of an attack on gays in church-blessed, lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. Stop making statements without giving examples.
posted by Craig2 on
Judging from my own context (NZ), here’s a look at what might happen if the US Christian Right were ever to confront the spectre of accelerated mortality and illness amongst its leadership: It might not survive.
Down here, we have civil unions already, and will probably obtain inclusive adoption reform and same sex marriage proper within the next decade or so.
Apart from a few insignificant troglodytes, our Christian Right has given up on opposing LGBT rights altogether, preferring to expend their energies on issues that they can win, like opposition to decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia/physician
assisted suicide.
We also don’t have fundamentalist ‘universities’ and
sizable ‘televangelist’ ministries to fund them.
Our situation is different to that of Australia, as I think David S will acknowledge. We have a Bill of Rights, which was useful in shooting down an NZ same-sex marriage ban private members bill. Unfortunately, Australia has a history of conservative Catholicism that New Zealand doesn’t- and it has infected both their Liberal and Australian Labor Parties. For some reason, women’s reproductive rights aren’t affected, but they’ve banned same-sex marriage at the federal level there.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Pat on
Yep. Please read the linked article. After all this time, gays are still killing themselves and others. At the least the Taliban is up front about its tactics–transgressive gays kill silently and secretly.
And yet I can protect myself very easily against these transgressive gays, and I can’t against the Taliban even though they are “up front” about it.
Gays in the 19th Century were not second-class citizens. Confirmed bachelors made up many high-ranking political, literary, artistic, military, and athletic figures.
And yet these “confirmed bachelors” were still second class citizens. Unlike their straight counterparts, they had to keep quiet about their relationships, and play the asinine and highly undignified “confirmed bachelor” game.
I don’t think that most straight people realize that there are any gays, anywhere that want lifelong, sexually exclusive partnerships.
That’s probably true. But then again, it’s probably still the case that most straight people don’t know someone who is openly gay. We’re getting there though.
I really don’t think that anyone, including James Dobson, would have a problem with gays seeking church-blessed, lifelong, sexually-exclusive relationships
Yes, I’m sure his church would be willing to do it. Don’t think so. I’ll agree to disagree on this issue.
Find me one example, anywhere, of an attack on gays in church-blessed, lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. Stop making statements without giving examples.
I have no idea what statement I made that you are talking about. Let me know, and I’ll clarify.
In the meantime, I’ve asked
What makes a person who has unprotected sex with a person who has multiple partners “innocent”?
I’m still trying to understand your point here. Thanks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ashpenaz, what’s the difference between a gay man who doesn’t reveal his status to his multiple partners and a straight man who doesn’t reveal his status to his multiple partners?
The straight man goes to prison.
Next up, emphasis mine:
I’m going to be supportive of someone who doesn’t fit someone else’s warped view of what masculinity is or should be.
Interesting, Pat, considering your attitude towards this:
Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday’s kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall.
Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.
The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.
Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off.
“They will see more than the kids with moms and dads in Iowa,” said Beuschel, who wanted to expose his children to San Francisco’s diverse community. “Every parent has to decide for themselves what is right for them. And I respect that. And we decided that this is right for our children.”………
Father of two, John Kruse said it is an educational experience for children. He said there were conservative parents against having kids at the event.
“Those are the same close-minded people who think we shouldn’t have children to begin with,” he said.
In short, they think the worldview of people who oppose taking children to sex fairs is “warped”. Therefore, you support them, since you insist that you will always support people who don’t fit other’s “warped view” of behavior.
And finally:
When I say “accepting second class citizenship,” I’m talking about the person who believes they are inferior, who believes they should just be a good boy and accept other persons’ bigotry and homophobia, that they should accept their status as the “confirmed bachelor” or “funny uncle.” That he and his “roommate’s” relationship is not worthy or deserving of the same respect that other relationships are. That they are not deserving of the same rights as others.
Sort of like the usual left, “If you don’t go firebomb professors’ houses, you’re not a real supporter of animal rights,” or, “If you don’t vote Democrat, you’re an Uncle Tom and not really black”.
Here I thought the whole point of the “gay movement” was being able to live your life as you choose without being shamed by others. However, if you don’t do what the radical gays demand, they loudly proclaim how you’re nothing but scum in their eyes, a “good boy” who thinks he’s “inferior” and whatnot, a hideous and shameful creature.
posted by Ashpenaz on
19th century confirmed bachelors did not have to keep quiet about their sexuality–have you read the poetry of Walt Whitman or Tennyson? Have you read Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Lawrence of Arabia? The writings of Ruskin? None of these men hid anything.
Gays have their little codes to indicate they’re gay–family, girlfriend, etc. In the 19th century, if you were in a “Boston marriage” or “sharing a room” everyone knew exactly what you were talking about. No one was hiding anything. Social fictions aren’t lies, anymore than calling someone a “friend of Dorothy” is a lie. It’s a way of indirectly identifying yourself which allows all sides to keep their privacy.
I think it would best for these oppressed gays in other countries to figure out some kind of social fiction which would allow them to indirectly identify themselves and still participate in traditional society.
Or they can keep on acting like victims, march in the streets, dress funny, throw condoms at the patriarchy, wave dildoes at society, and get themselves oppressed.
posted by DUMP on
NorthDallas30 us a professional troll.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?ref=magazine
posted by Pat on
The straight man goes to prison.
NDT, I’m not sure about the laws in Kansas and Sweden. You’ll have to ask the authorities there and see if the assailants were gay, if they would have got away with it. I certainly don’t believe there should be a double standard.
Also, you forgot to add that the Kansas man claimed that his act wasn’t criminal. Therefore, using your own Bleskavichlike logic, you should conclude that the straight community supports his actions.
In short, they think the worldview of people who oppose taking children to sex fairs is “warped”. Therefore, you support them, since you insist that you will always support people who don’t fit other’s “warped view” of behavior.
Freaking unbelievable. I’ve stated several times, in no uncertan terms, that I unequivocally condemn the actions of parents who dressed their children as slaves and bring them to sex fairs watching people have sex. Yet, you somehow concluded that I supported exactly those acts without even asking how my statement does not contradict my previous positions.
If you ask nice, I’ll explain it to you. It’s really very easy.
In the meantime, your logic sense as displayed here is abhorrent. I mean it’s REALLY bad.
Sort of like (some dribble that comes out of nowhere)
Okay, now we’re back in the world of which only two extremes exist. If I say it’s not one extreme, you must conclude it’s the other, without any possibility that I could have meant something in between. Come on, NDT, can you at least pretend that you’ve put some thought in your posts. This is unbelievably ridiculous.
Here I thought the whole point of the “gay movement” was being able to live your life as you choose without being shamed by others. However, if you don’t do what the radical gays demand, they loudly proclaim how you’re nothing but scum in their eyes, a “good boy” who thinks he’s “inferior” and whatnot, a hideous and shameful creature.
1. Perhaps I’m not in full agreement with your perception of what the gay movement is.
2. When I said freedom, this includes those who want to live the “glorified” 19th century of “confirmed bachelorhood.”
3. This freedom includes me expressing my opinion that I have less respect for those who are able to attain freedom but choose to live as a “confirmed bachelor” or “funny uncle” and cater to the homophobes that would oppress them if they didn’t accept second class status than those who are open, want freedom, equality, and justice for all and live responsibly. You are free to disagree with that opinion.
4. You’ve had no trouble shaming those who disagree with you, and further, mischaracterizing my own arguments by trying to show them in the worst possible light. I have pointed this out several times, but yet you repeat it.
5. I don’t give a rat’s @$$ what radical gays think or demand, and I’m certain that their notion of “good boy” and “inferior” is different than mine, though it appears you tried to lump them together, again trying to put my statements in the worst light.
posted by Pat on
Gays have their little codes to indicate they’re gay–family, girlfriend, etc. In the 19th century, if you were in a “Boston marriage” or “sharing a room” everyone knew exactly what you were talking about. No one was hiding anything. Social fictions aren’t lies, anymore than calling someone a “friend of Dorothy” is a lie. It’s a way of indirectly identifying yourself which allows all sides to keep their privacy.
Exactly, Ashpenaz. And why do you think that there were codes. So that the homophobes can still think that the “confirmed bachelor” is still straight, “just waiting to find that special woman.” If codes were so great, why didn’t straight people have to go through this same crap.
Even as recent as 30 years ago, we’ve seen this. I’m sure you remember Paul Lynde, Liberace, and Rip Taylor. These people were as flamboyant as anything, and had ripped double entendres one after another, and many people cracked the code. But most people thought they were straight, and despite their flamboyance, were accepted, because it was assumed that they were straight. Look, it was fine, and some of Paul Lynde’s lines are an absolute hoot. But I’m of the opinion that, in this day and age, to have to play these games are undignified, and unfortunate for those who believe they still have to do that.
I think it would best for these oppressed gays in other countries to figure out some kind of social fiction which would allow them to indirectly identify themselves and still participate in traditional society.
And if that works for them, fine. Again, it’s a shame that anyone would have to go through that, especially when they see how their straight counterparts have freedom.
Or they can keep on acting like victims, march in the streets, dress funny, throw condoms at the patriarchy, wave dildoes at society, and get themselves oppressed.
I guess my problem here is your lumping of things that don’t need to be lumped together.
Also, Ashpenaz, could you address the two points I’ve asked in a previous point. I copied the relevant portions of that post. Thanks.
Find me one example, anywhere, of an attack on gays in church-blessed, lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. Stop making statements without giving examples.
I have no idea what statement I made that you are talking about. Let me know, and I’ll clarify.
In the meantime, I’ve asked
What makes a person who has unprotected sex with a person who has multiple partners “innocent”?
I’m still trying to understand your point here. Thanks.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NDT, I’m not sure about the laws in Kansas and Sweden. You’ll have to ask the authorities there and see if the assailants were gay, if they would have got away with it. I certainly don’t believe there should be a double standard.
Actually, I can show you even more specifics, especially around California’s law — which, compared to other locations, is virtually meaningless, thanks to lobbying by leftist gay organizations who didn’t want people to be criminally convicted for lying to their sexual partners and giving them lethal diseases.
Also, you forgot to add that the Kansas man claimed that his act wasn’t criminal. Therefore, using your own Bleskavichlike logic, you should conclude that the straight community supports his actions.
The fact that he is in jail should demonstrate quite nicely that the straight community doesn’t support his actions. Bleskachek, on the other hand, still has a job and her seniority — mainly because the city of Minneapolis didn’t want to risk a lawsuit by her or gay leftist groups that, under Minnesota’s so-called “antidiscrimination” law, that would demand she be put back as chief
Freaking unbelievable. I’ve stated several times, in no uncertan terms, that I unequivocally condemn the actions of parents who dressed their children as slaves and bring them to sex fairs watching people have sex. Yet, you somehow concluded that I supported exactly those acts without even asking how my statement does not contradict my previous positions.
What on earth are you worried about? It’s not as if you’re going to get in trouble in the gay community for supporting these parents who take children to sex fairs. After all, it’s only supporting those who don’t conform to society’s “warped view” that children don’t belong there.
Furthermore, your doing that qualifies as “catering to homophobes” by agreeing with them that children don’t belong at sex fairs. Obviously that means you aren’t “open” and that you don’t want “freedom, equality, and justice for all”. You are “accepting” and supporting bigotry and homophobia, as these real gays make clear by stating publicly that anyone who disagrees with them is “close-minded” and that “those are the same close-minded people who think (gays) shouldn’t have children to begin with”.
That includes you, Pat; since you don’t support taking children to sex fairs, you are one of “the same close-minded people who think (gays) shouldn’t have children to begin with”.
posted by DUMP on
NorthDallas30 is a professional troll. He is not being serious. He is playing a game. Don’t play the game with him. LULZ
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?ref=magazine
posted by Ashpenaz on
Straight people did have little codes–what do you think all those Jane Austen characters were doing when they “took a turn around the garden?” Where do you think George Eliot got her name? Have you read any Kate Chopin about how people talked in code about adultery? Or, in “The Story of an Hour,” how they talked about orgasms? The point is–nobody is HIDING anything. Everyone KNOWS and because no one is shoving it in their face, acting like victims, and trying to overthrow society, NOBODY CARES. It is widely assumed that one of my great-aunts was a lesbian. Nobody ever said that word. Nobody cared, nobody commmented on her “close friendships.” She wasn’t oppressed.
I suggest that people in these traditional societies adopt the strategies of the 19th and early 20th century in order to find a place in their culture. They need to throw out the post-Stonewall Pride strategy, which doesn’t work for anyone.
posted by Pat on
Actually, I can show you even more specifics, especially around California’s law — which, compared to other locations, is virtually meaningless, thanks to lobbying by leftist gay organizations who didn’t want people to be criminally convicted for lying to their sexual partners and giving them lethal diseases.
And straight people let this happen as well. I don’t know what to tell you. Again, I’m assuming the law, in its current version, does not favor a gay person with HIV to a straight person with HIV. If it does, again, that’s something your state government will have to work out. Unfair or stupid law or not, I urge people to protect themselves. People lie. Or as the story mentioned, people don’t get tested and assume wrongly they’re HIV-. And besides, even if one gets tested regularly, there’s always a window between contracting HIV and being tested positive.
The fact that he is in jail should demonstrate quite nicely that the straight community doesn’t support his actions. Bleskachek, on the other hand, still has a job and her seniority — mainly because the city of Minneapolis didn’t want to risk a lawsuit by her or gay leftist groups that, under Minnesota’s so-called “antidiscrimination” law, that would demand she be put back as chief
Now only people of the same orientation gets to decide who of their goes to jail? With Bleskavich, what can I tell you. The city dropped the ball. With all the evidence, they obviously had a mile long paper trail. It would have been very unlikely that they would lose any frivolous lawsuit. But then again, since she wasn’t charged, then maybe, like Mr. Davis of Florida, she didn’t do anything wrong. Right? Of course, I don’t believe that. Both of these despicable individuals belong in jail.
That includes you, Pat; since you don’t support taking children to sex fairs, you are one of “the same close-minded people who think (gays) shouldn’t have children to begin with”.
I don’t know, NDT. Maybe it’s because I don’t take my cues from extremists. This includes not pandering and apologizing to homophobes and irresponsible gay persons.
After all, it’s only supporting those who don’t conform to society’s “warped view” that children don’t belong there.
Okay, here’s the “warped view of masculinity” that I referred to. I was having a discussion with another poster who believes that gay men should comport themselves a certain way. We weren’t talking about multiple sex partners, or being civilly disruptive (at least I wasn’t). We were talking about some gay men who don’t fit this poster’s definition of masculine, who may be flamboyant, are open and proud as any straight person, and is responsible. I was simply pointing out that this person is as deserving as rights as anyone else. That this person shouldn’t necessarily be thrown in with other gay persons who are sexually irresponsible or civilly disruptive. This poster apparently believes that these persons are part of the reason that gay persons are not accepted. I tried several times to have him address it, but he continues to conflate non-masculine gays with transgressive gays.
I’ve also stated what my view of second class citizenship is. And you conflate that with what your perception of what extremist gays think it would be. I’m not sure why you did that. I guess you were making some irrelevant point that had nothing to do with what points I was making. Now that I’ve told you it’s not the same what gay extremists might think it is, if you still aren’t sure what I mean by it, feel free to ask.
Furthermore, your doing that qualifies as “catering to homophobes” by agreeing with them that children don’t belong at sex fairs. Obviously that means you aren’t “open” and that you don’t want “freedom, equality, and justice for all”.
Again, I’m giving my opinion. Not of someone else. I don’t normally quote Dick Cheney, but I did agree with him when he was asked about his position of same sex marriage, which he apparently supports personally. He mumbled something like “freedom means freedom for all” meaning that his daughter should be able to marry her partner if she chose to. I’m going out on a limb here that he didn’t mean that parents should bring their children to sex fairs. By the way, as much as I dislike people like Dobson, Robertson, LaBarbera, etc., I’m sure we do agree on some issues. These include your famous thing about drinking Drano, that the sun rises in the east, and that parents shouldn’t bring children to sex fairs. Too bad they don’t agree with me that gay persons should be encouraged to live happy, responsible lives as gay persons.
You are “accepting” and supporting bigotry and homophobia, as these real gays make clear by stating publicly that anyone who disagrees with them is “close-minded” and that “those are the same close-minded people who think (gays) shouldn’t have children to begin with”.
My statements are my statements. Not gay extremists, not Dobson, Robertson, etc., but mine. If you want to state what you believe these persons believe, please do so in the appropriate forum. But I would appreciate it that when you address me, question or criticize my statements, that you criticize mine, not someone else’s, not your perception of what other person’s believe, not your opinion that you believe my opinion is or should comport with someone else’s.
So, for example, when I talk what I believe “second class citizenship” is, feel free to question or criticize what I say it is, not what you think others think it is. Our discussions will be more productive. Thanks.
And one more thing. It’s frustrating when one assumes that only two extremes exist. It’s hard to keep one’s patience when a discussion goes like this.
Weather observer: It’s not going to be sunny today.
Inhabit of only two extremes exist world: Hah, so you believe there’s going to be a monsoon. You’re just like those weather extremists who want everyday to be a monsoon.
posted by Pat on
Straight people did have little codes
Today, and even back then, they didn’t have codes for their spouses and their children.
Everyone KNOWS and because no one is shoving it in their face, acting like victims, and trying to overthrow society, NOBODY CARES.
I’m not sure why whether using code word for orgasm (which you contend everybody knows means orgasm) or simply using the word orgasm has anything to do with victimhood or overthrowing society. Since everybody does know, what difference does it make?
This is not the same as using “confirmed bachelor” or “roommate.” Because in that case not everybody knows. That’s why they use the code.
Straight person: Hi, this is my wife.
19th century “confirmed bachelor”: Oh, he’s just a roommate.
Gay person: Hi, this is my husband.
So the last person is a victim and wants to overthrow society, even though you contend that the last two statements mean exactly the same thing to everybody?
It is widely assumed that one of my great-aunts was a lesbian. Nobody ever said that word. Nobody cared, nobody commmented on her “close friendships.” She wasn’t oppressed.
Reread this Ashpenaz. “Nobody cared.” “Nobody commented on her ‘close friendships’.” Yet, you claim she wasn’t oppressed. Despite the clear contradiction, perhaps you’re right. But how do you know? Because she was a good girl and kept it quiet? It seemed like it was a matter of survival for your great aunt. Did her sister or sister-in-law (i.e., your grandmother) keep quiet about your grandfather? Call him a “roommate” or a “close friend” because everyone “knew” what it meant anyway? Did she keep her children and grandchildren a secret, because hey, “nobody cared” or “nobody commented”?
I have a gay great uncle. I found out after my grandmother passed away, that she, in fact, knew her baby brother was gay, and met his ex-long time partner several times. Now, back then, I’m sure he kept things quiet and used codes. I even remember at my grandmother’s funeral some woman commenting about his being a bachelor. But now he’s retired and enjoying life as openly gay, and wouldn’t have it any other way.
They need to throw out the post-Stonewall Pride strategy, which doesn’t work for anyone.
Speak for yourself. It’s helped me and many others I know. Note: In case this is somehow not obvious to some, this does not mean that I agree with, or endorse, every aspect of pride. Far from it. But as the cliche goes, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
By the way, my first ten years as an adult, I lived the “glorified” 19th century gay life. It was fine, and I got by. But it is nowhere as free, happy, and liberating as living an openly gay life, where I don’t have to use demeaning code words with people I know, where I believe that my life, my sexuality, and my relationship is equal and valid as anyone else’s. And again, for the obvious challenged, this does not mean I have multiple partners, wave dildoes, or throw condoms at people. Far from it, in fact.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, any reason why you are failing to address the two points I referred to in yesterday’s post? Again, for convenience I copy and paste the relevant portions.
Find me one example, anywhere, of an attack on gays in church-blessed, lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. Stop making statements without giving examples.
I have no idea what statement I made that you are talking about. Let me know, and I’ll clarify.
In the meantime, I’ve asked
What makes a person who has unprotected sex with a person who has multiple partners “innocent”?
I’m still trying to understand your point here. Thanks.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Most straights don’t say “This is my wife.” They say “This is my better half” or “This is the ol’ ball-and-chain” or something like that. And yet, though they use code, everyone seems to understand the relationship.
If you take a poll of straight couples over 25, you’ll find that most are in relationships that are intended to be lifelong and sexually exclusive, and which have been blessed by their churches. This is what we like to call “married.” By going in front of their church for a blessing, and seeking the support of their families, friends, pastors, and congregation, these couples create an air of legitimacy to their union which leaping up the courthouse steps dressed as a dildo doesn’t create.
If I an my partner, Jason Statham, were to stand in front of James Dobson and say, “We are Christians in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship which as been blessed by your friend, Pastor Smith, in the Emmanuel Lutheran Church. Here are the pictures,” sure, he might not be happy, but there’s not a lot he could say, because he’d see that we have the support of our church community. But I doubt if Rev. Dobson has ever seen that–when he thinks of gay marriage, he sees two people in the same bridal gowns throwing a boquet of condoms.
So, if gay couples had their unions blessed by their churches and struggled with the issues that come with lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships in a congregation where everyone is struggling with those issues, there would be less chance of them being attacked. So–find me an example of a gay couple in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship which has been blessed by their church and is supported by their congregation–how often have they been attacked?
If a person has unprotected sex with multiple partners, then I think he loses the status of “innocent victim.”
Not only did no one care, but my great-aunt adopted children, who became my cousins. You seem to confuse “keeping quiet” with “allowing oneself a zone of privacy.”
posted by Pat on
So–find me an example of a gay couple in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship which has been blessed by their church and is supported by their congregation–how often have they been attacked?
Thanks for the clarification. Now to answer you question. Examples: Every gay couple (including ones whose union is blessed by a church) is attacked by the religious right or others who maintain that homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexuals should just be celibate. At best, they tolerate their “sin” and ask them to keep quiet about it, and maintain their second class citizenship.
Until these people make a clear distinction on their opinions of gay persons, and only criticize the same behaviors that they do with straight persons while encouraging gay persons to engage in similar behaviors as straight people, it doesn’t matter if Jesus Christ Himself came down to bless the union.
Obviously, these couples are not attacked by most in their congregation, since they have implicitly agreed with such unions. My relationship has not and may not ever be church blessed, but we have plenty of support from people. But my expression of my sexuality and relationship is attacked by people such as Dobson, LaBarbera, etal, as well as the mindless persons that belong to their flock and others who agree with them on homosexuality.
If a person has unprotected sex with multiple partners, then I think he loses the status of “innocent victim.”
No, Ashpenaz. That wasn’t my point. You had said “those gays whose sex with multiple partners is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people”
My question was, what makes a person who chooses to have unprotected sex with someone who has multiple partners innocent?
I’m not saying I disagree with you, as there could very well be some scenarios in which a person was really innocent. It just seems to me that, in the majority of the cases, the person infected was just as indiscriminate as the guy with multiple partners, and despite what the HIV+ person said or didn’t say, should have either protected himself, wait to get to know him better before having sex (but still protect himself), or simply choose not to have sex with him. I just don’t get your point here.
Not only did no one care, but my great-aunt adopted children, who became my cousins. You seem to confuse “keeping quiet” with “allowing oneself a zone of privacy.”
Not at all, Ashpenaz. Gay or straight, silly codes or not, everyone should be allowed a zone of privacy. If your great aunt was allowed to be just as open and proud as your grandmother was, and didn’t feel she had to demean any relationship by saying, “oh, she’s just a close friend” (since I’m sure that’s not how your grandmother referred to your grandfather)” and be able to comport herself with her partner in exactly the same way as your grandparents without having to use ambiguous codes, but still would have preferred playing the role of second class citizen, then she certainly deserved that right. But somehow I doubt it. I do understand in her time what and why she did what she did, and that under those circumstances, it was probably best for her.
Further, I doubt your great aunt would have been able to call her “close friends” her “better half” or “ball and chain” or whatever euphemisms that were used back then. Because, unlike the ambiguous “close friend”, EVERYONE knew what “better half” meant.
posted by Ashpenaz on
When a gay man has unprotected sex with multiple partners, he risks the lives of innocent people–the various people, such as wives, his partners have sex with; the people to whom those people might donate blood; the children they might have; and all the people who are in danger just because the virus keeps spreading. 53%. Wow. After all this time. Again, the Taliban can only dream of that many willing to commit suicide.
posted by Pat on
When a gay man has unprotected sex with multiple partners, he risks the lives of innocent people–the various people, such as wives, his partners have sex with …
I’ll grant you his wife, since there is a clear expectation there. But what about the men he was sex with? Why on earth would these “innocent” men have unprotected sex with another man? Because he says he HIV-? If you choose to have sex with a stranger or an acquaintance, it’s not rocket science to treat this person as if they were HIV+ no matter what they say, then act accordingly. No, this does not excuse someone who intentionally tries to infect another, or is negligent about their HIV status to a potential partner. However, I don’t regard a person who is (as of the last test) HIV- who chooses to have unprotected sex, and now decides to have sex with someone who doesn’t disclose his positive HIV status, as innocent. Because for all he knows, he could have become HIV+ since his last test and may be infecting someone else with HIV. In other words, all those involved choosing to have indiscriminate, unprotected sex are part of the problem.
Regardless of the circumstances, HIV is an awful disease, and I don’t wish it on anyone. But the fact remains that, except for rare instances, a person can easily protect themselves from getting HIV.
Taliban can only dream of that many willing to commit suicide.
And yet I still feel over 1,000,000 times safer when confronted with an HIV+ male who has multiple partners than a member of the Taliban.
posted by Richard on
“Gays in the 19th Century were not second-class citizens.” — Sounds kinda of like some one say, “blacks [Jews, women, etc] were not second-class citizens in the 19th century”. Total BS.
Homosexuality and cross-dressing were always serious crimes across Europe — except in France, parts of pre-unified Germany and Italy.
This was generally the situation in the United States, although their was a rather interesting legal dispute over what a particular sodomy law did and did not cover.
Their were no civil rights laws, no same-sex marriage or gays adopting or having custody of children. Harassment was commonplace. Gay bars tended to be brothels. Discussion of LGBT issues was illegal.
Yes, if you had money you might be able to bend the rules, a little. Their were women who lived together in what were called ‘Boston marriages’. A confirmed bachelor, if assumed to be straight, might be tolerated.
Things have certainly gotten better, but they are far from just or ideal. I know many gay and straight people who are in healthy, committed relationships and have or want to raise kids.
By all means, straight people should be told this, and I support the work of groups like PFLAG and ‘Families Like Mine’.
I think that LGBT pride festivals should reflect the cultural, socioeconomic and political diversity of the LGBT community.
This means gay Republicans and Independents and gay parents. When I go to such events I almost always march with PFLAG and then find their space at the park festival.
However, you have to undertsand that young men — straight or gay — tend not to want to settle down or have much responsibility. We live in a culture when men are taught to..well..er..umm.how shall I put this? Think with the secondary brain below the waist..
The popular culture — in terms of gay couples and families — has come along way in this regard. LGBT characters almost never existed in films, tv, liteature, or video games, beyond vicious stereotypes or dirty jokes.
Things slowly got better, but the LGBT characters were initially a rare guest appearence and the issue of same-sex couples and families was avoided as being too controversial.
Yet, in recent years their have been a handful of gay people people on tv and even in films (albeit often indepenent) who enter into health, long term relationships and start up a family.
Find me one example, anywhere, of an attack on gays in church-blessed, lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships. Stop making statements without giving examples.
posted by David Skidmore on
In terms of attacks on gays, gay bashers really don’t care whether their targets goes to church and votes Republican or if they’re atheists and belongs to NOW. In that sense homophobes aren’t judgemental.
However, if I am actually approached by a gang of thugs and I have no way out, I might try pledging my allegiance to the flag, telling them I’m in a life-long, church blessed relationship and proclaiming adoration for George Bush. I’m sure they’ll leave me alone.
posted by RIchard on
Gay bashings can and do happen even in so-called liberal nations or neighborhoods. The UK has many policies that are ahead of the US, but a horrific gay bashing and possible murder occured just recently.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
David, your “plan” for self-protection is almost as flawed as most of your other silly ideas.
If those gay bashing bullies confront you, you should remember they may be actually Democrat skinheads and radical Phelps Democrats who dishonor America’s war dead at every chance.
Telling them you’re a Bushie –not that anyone would believe that one with your lisp– might get you a few extra blows from those Democrats… and not the blow you normally seek.
posted by David Skidmore on
Richard, what you say is true which just goes to show societal prejudice can lag behind even the best legislation. Likewise, South Africa is a homophobic society despite some excellent laws there. Iran wouldn’t become suddenly gay-friendly if (by a miracle) anti-gay legislation was abolished overnight.
Nonetheless, dismantling anti-gay legislation is essential if only because having it there gives homophobes an excuse to beat us up ie: we are considered criminals in law.