Thoughts On Homosexuality...

[florduh]

God hates fags. It sez so right in the Bible!

 

I think attitudes towards homosexuality "evolved" quicker than they should have in the USA because of the extreme idiocy of well-publicized Bible thumpers like the late Rev. Fred Phelps. The preachers/politicians who are still drum-beating that the apocalypse is near because girls are going down on other girls now sound hopelessly archaic and out-of-touch. 

Yessir! This right here! The high visibility of ignorance and hate from a small but vocal group of idiots has done nothing but help the cause. Thanks, bigots! Real life Archie Bunkers have an impact when normal people see how stupid they look.

[rjn]

 

My whole life will be heterosexuality in my face all day every day, so when I stumble on something or someone who is finally relatable to me I don't agree that it's not important.

 

Indeed, and I'm not trying to take that away from anyone. Just one question though: does sexuality need to be that central to ones identity? Even though I'm male, white and straight, I can rarely relate to anything that goes on in this world, whereas a homosexual who otherwise conforms to the norms of society might be able to. There's more to identity than sexuality. I understand however, that it has become central because of discrimination and marginalization, but once that is removed, what remains? Just another human being, and everything that entails.

[Lilith666]

I guess everyone has different experiences, so for one person sexuality might be a significant part of them (even for straight people, maybe), while for another it's not a big deal. It doesn't bother me too much. I used to feel weird about African-Americans having their own cultural identity; I couldn't understand how that worked as we all live in the same country, and thought it was ethnically divisive. Then I figured as long as being human comes first, it doesn't really matter. Most important is caring for each other regardless of identity.

[BeauCat]

 

 

My whole life will be heterosexuality in my face all day every day, so when I stumble on something or someone who is finally relatable to me I don't agree that it's not important.

 

Indeed, and I'm not trying to take that away from anyone. Just one question though: does sexuality need to be that central to ones identity? Even though I'm male, white and straight, I can rarely relate to anything that goes on in this world, whereas a homosexual who otherwise conforms to the norms of society might be able to. There's more to identity than sexuality. I understand however, that it has become central because of discrimination and marginalization, but once that is removed, what remains? Just another human being, and everything that entails.

 

 

Your sexual identity isn't just about sex, it's about your relationships and it sets the tone for how you navigate socially in this life. It may even navigate what family you have, who your friends will be, what jobs you can get (or keep), where you will be able to live, who you can marry, who will bake you a stupid cake, and who you'll get in a fist-fight with. That stuff shapes you. It's a huge part of your life and who you are, even more-so than a hobby, or a job, or a religion, etc.. You can conform to every other norm in the world, but there's always going to be a significant divider between you and everyone else- emotionally, physically, socially, all "not by choice". I think orientation is central to one's identity, and if you removed it, you'd be removing a chunk of a person's life.

[Ellinas]

 

 

 

My whole life will be heterosexuality in my face all day every day, so when I stumble on something or someone who is finally relatable to me I don't agree that it's not important.

 

Indeed, and I'm not trying to take that away from anyone. Just one question though: does sexuality need to be that central to ones identity? Even though I'm male, white and straight, I can rarely relate to anything that goes on in this world, whereas a homosexual who otherwise conforms to the norms of society might be able to. There's more to identity than sexuality. I understand however, that it has become central because of discrimination and marginalization, but once that is removed, what remains? Just another human being, and everything that entails.

 

 

Your sexual identity isn't just about sex, it's about your relationships and it sets the tone for how you navigate socially in this life. It may even navigate what family you have, who your friends will be, what jobs you can get (or keep), where you will be able to live, who you can marry, who will bake you a stupid cake, and who you'll get in a fist-fight with. That stuff shapes you. It's a huge part of your life and who you are, even more-so than a hobby, or a job, or a religion, etc.. You can conform to every other norm in the world, but there's always going to be a significant divider between you and everyone else- emotionally, physically, socially, all "not by choice". I think orientation is central to one's identity, and if you removed it, you'd be removing a chunk of a person's life.

 

Isn't that precisely my point?

 

Is it not a big issue simply because people make it a divide?  And will it not continue to be a dividing issue until it becomes one that doesn't matter any more?

 

In one sense, all I'm saying is a statement of a bloomin' obvious.  Prejudice makes the various "...isms" matter because one set of people regard others as outside the norm in some way.  Seems to me that the day that the words "I'm a...(insert issue of choice)" habitually elicit the response "Why is that even an issue?" is the day prejudice is finally dead, and identity ceases to be a matter of sensitivity.

[Lilith666]

I don't think differences between people and recognizing them is necessarily a bad or divisive thing; it depends on the context and how seriously the differences are taken. Most people feel patriotism toward their country or pride in wherever they happen to live, such as a certain region or city, but they don't feel prejudice against people who don't share in that identity. What bothers me is people deciding that different standards apply to them because of who they are, or they claim others can't understand something, can't have a certain opinion or do a certain thing because of who those people are. Like that woman from SFSU who told somebody to cut off his hair because he was wearing dreadlocks, and dreadlocks are from "her" culture. Or "racism is prejudice plus power," and people of color are oppressed, so only white people can be racist. Having no identity is boring and erasing it altogether seems to be swinging too far in the other direction, but those are some examples of taking identity too far.

[BeauCat]

 

 

 

My whole life will be heterosexuality in my face all day every day, so when I stumble on something or someone who is finally relatable to me I don't agree that it's not important.

 

Indeed, and I'm not trying to take that away from anyone. Just one question though: does sexuality need to be that central to ones identity? Even though I'm male, white and straight, I can rarely relate to anything that goes on in this world, whereas a homosexual who otherwise conforms to the norms of society might be able to. There's more to identity than sexuality. I understand however, that it has become central because of discrimination and marginalization, but once that is removed, what remains? Just another human being, and everything that entails.

Your sexual identity isn't just about sex, it's about your relationships and it sets the tone for how you navigate socially in this life. It may even navigate what family you have, who your friends will be, what jobs you can get (or keep), where you will be able to live, who you can marry, who will bake you a stupid cake, and who you'll get in a fist-fight with. That stuff shapes you. It's a huge part of your life and who you are, even more-so than a hobby, or a job, or a religion, etc.. You can conform to every other norm in the world, but there's always going to be a significant divider between you and everyone else- emotionally, physically, socially, all "not by choice". I think orientation is central to one's identity, and if you removed it, you'd be removing a chunk of a person's life.

Isn't that precisely my point?

 

Is it not a big issue simply because people make it a divide? And will it not continue to be a dividing issue until it becomes one that doesn't matter any more?

 

In one sense, all I'm saying is a statement of a bloomin' obvious. Prejudice makes the various "...isms" matter because one set of people regard others as outside the norm in some way. Seems to me that the day that the words "I'm a...(insert issue of choice)" habitually elicit the response "Why is that even an issue?" is the day prejudice is finally dead, and identity ceases to be a matter of sensitivity.

Even if everyone accepted the LGBTQ, I am still divided by numbers alone. It's easiest to see on the subject of dating- my dating pool is near non-existant. I would have a drastically different romantic life if I was straight. Discrimination is not our only challenge or the only thing that sets us apart from the straight population.

[BeauCat]

I don't think differences between people and recognizing them is necessarily a bad or divisive thing; it depends on the context and how seriously the differences are taken. Most people feel patriotism toward their country or pride in wherever they happen to live, such as a certain region or city, but they don't feel prejudice against people who don't share in that identity. What bothers me is people deciding that different standards apply to them because of who they are, or they claim others can't understand something, can't have a certain opinion or do a certain thing because of who those people are. Like that woman from SFSU who told somebody to cut off his hair because he was wearing dreadlocks, and dreadlocks are from "her" culture. Or "racism is prejudice plus power," and people of color are oppressed, so only white people can be racist. Having no identity is boring and erasing it altogether seems to be swinging too far in the other direction, but those are some examples of taking identity too far.

You're not suggesting you would say something like, "you're being too gay", or "you're taking your identity of being transgender too far", to me, are you? Am I misunderstanding you?

 

And admittedly, I find the idea of someone who isn't transgender telling me they can understand what being transgender is like extremely difficult. I think you could sympathize, but that's not the same as understanding what it's like.

[rjn]

 

Even if everyone accepted the LGBTQ, I am still divided by numbers alone. It's easiest to see on the subject of dating- my dating pool is near non-existant. I would have a drastically different romantic life if I was straight. Discrimination is not our only challenge or the only thing that sets us apart from the straight population.

 

Yes, straight people find romantic relationships growing on trees.     

 

It's not like people are individuals, irrespective of their sexuality, race or gender. But by all means, let us regress and define people only by things one can put down to static categories in a poll. I reiterate my previous statement: a homosexual person who conform to other social norms - provided that person lives an a society that tolerates homosexuality - have it far easier than a straight person who doesn't.

 

Just my two cents, of course.

[BeauCat]

 

 

Even if everyone accepted the LGBTQ, I am still divided by numbers alone. It's easiest to see on the subject of dating- my dating pool is near non-existant. I would have a drastically different romantic life if I was straight. Discrimination is not our only challenge or the only thing that sets us apart from the straight population.

 

 

Yes, straight people find romantic relationships growing on trees.     

 

It's not like people are individuals, irrespective of their sexuality, race or gender. But by all means, let us regress and define people only by things one can put down to static categories in a poll. I reiterate my previous statement: a homosexual person who conform to other social norms - provided that person lives an a society that tolerates homosexuality - have it far easier than a straight person who doesn't.

 

Just my two cents, of course.

Yes, straight people do find romantic relationships much easier than homosexuals, because they have more opportunities due to sheer numbers. Even if I do find someone in my area, I'm starting with someone who *can* be attracted to me and vice-versa, not even touching on if we actually find each other attractive and have chemistry or the myriad of things that make a relationship work. We're just focusing on the "can" here.

 

I never said being LGBTQ is all that a person is, I did say that it's a huge part of our identity and wrote to explain why.

 

I really couldn't care less about an "easier" pissing contest. So what if some hypothetical person has something harder or easier? If I was a total freak that pissed my drawers talking to strangers I'd have it harder than a flaming queen in Alabama, but what does that matter?

[rjn]

 

Even if I do find someone in my area, I'm starting with someone who *can* be attracted to me and vice-versa, not even touching on if we actually find each other attractive and have chemistry or the myriad of things that make a relationship work.

 

And this is different from straight people how? Bar the numbers that is. The gay dudes I've known have had far more relationships than many straight people I know, including myself (but maybe that's because I'm a terrible person ). I don't really care for no pissing contest either, I simply object to the notion that a person will always face harder odds simply because they are LGBT (or belong to an ethnic minority for that matter). I think you've been missing the point I'm trying to make: that we should regard people as people, and not get too stuck on what sets them apart, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, gender or whatever. To me it seems like it doesn't matter what we straight CIS-men do though. If we do see people as different, we're bigoted racists/sexists/whatever, and if we don't, we need to check our "privilege".

 

Funny you mentioned Alabama, I was going to use that as an example in my previous post but decided not to, as I thought that was succumbing to my prejudices

[Lilith666]

BeauCat: Yes, you are. I was speaking of other people who have done this, not of you. But if you choose to decide that I directed it at you, go ahead.

[BeauCat]

BeauCat: Yes, you are. I was speaking of other people who have done this, not of you. But if you choose to decide that I directed it at you, go ahead.

 

The question wasn't a formality, I really did want to be told I was mistaken. And I choose to decide you're not capable of stooping to such scum-fuckery.

[BeauCat]

 

 

Even if I do find someone in my area, I'm starting with someone who *can* be attracted to me and vice-versa, not even touching on if we actually find each other attractive and have chemistry or the myriad of things that make a relationship work.

 

And this is different from straight people how? Bar the numbers that is. The gay dudes I've known have had far more relationships than many straight people I know, including myself (but maybe that's because I'm a terrible person ). I don't really care for no pissing contest either, I simply object to the notion that a person will always face harder odds simply because they are LGBT (or belong to an ethnic minority for that matter). I think you've been missing the point I'm trying to make: that we should regard people as people, and not get too stuck on what sets them apart, regardless of their sexual orientation, race, gender or whatever. To me it seems like it doesn't matter what we straight CIS-men do though. If we do see people as different, we're bigoted racists/sexists/whatever, and if we don't, we need to check our "privilege".

 

Funny you mentioned Alabama, I was going to use that as an example in my previous post but decided not to, as I thought that was succumbing to my prejudices

 

 

Gay guys. Hm.

 

Yeah. Gay guys won't date me because I don't have a penis. Straight women won't date me because I'm a man without a penis. And even chanting, "regard me as just a person" like some optimistic Dumbledore ready to award you the House Cup of Inclusiveness still hasn't made straight men like you want to date men like me. I think you're flying a little too high on your broomstick if you can't see my odds are slightly lower than your average cis-mans on something as basic as romance. I'll even suggest my odds of finding romantic affection are at "people who find Voldemort charming" low. But I could be wrong? Maybe this is a common issue amongst my straight bros, and the rock-bottom odds of me not spending the rest of my days writing Harry Potter fan fiction to fill the gaping hole of intimacy that I'll never receive in life is actually all in my mind...?

 

 Ha ha ha ha ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... 

 

So...the "trans panic defense" is outlawed in one state, which is nice...

[rjn]

I'm sorry, I forgot you were trans. Perhaps you mentioned it before in this thread, but if so I must have missed it. I seem to recall you saying as much in the chat once though. You'll have to forgive me, (or perhaps not) but even though I'm all for tolerance, I'm quite old fashioned in that I view men/women as biological categories, with an XY/XX-chromosome set up. It's just how I have come to know the world, and personally, I don't think that's something bad or "bigoted", as long as one doesn't discriminate those who decides to go against the grain. I guess that is a game changer though, so yeah, I might be wrong, and you might be right. I wasn't really trying to argue, just provide a different perspective.

[BeauCat]

I'm sorry, I forgot you were trans. Perhaps you mentioned it before in this thread, but if so I must have missed it. I seem to recall you saying as much in the chat once though. You'll have to forgive me, (or perhaps not) but even though I'm all for tolerance, I'm quite old fashioned in that I view men/women as biological categories, with an XY/XX-chromosome set up. It's just how I have come to know the world, and personally, I don't think that's something bad or "bigoted", as long as one doesn't discriminate those who decides to go against the grain. I guess that is a game changer though, so yeah, I might be wrong, and you might be right. I wasn't really trying to argue, just provide a different perspective.

Do you often ask for a karyotype mark-up before addressing someone as sir or ma'am, or is it something you feel like you can just tell? Maybe you're less old fashioned than you think. Most trans-men pass as male easily because testosterone is very effective. Transwomen have a harder time passing, because again, testosterone is very effective.

 

I wouldn't wish gender dymorphic disorder on my worst enemy, much less "decide" it for myself. I really don't like anything about being transgender, and it's weird when people (maybe not you) insinuate I choose to completely fuck my life up with it.

 

I know it's hard to tell the tone of these things over the internet, but I'm not arguing with you. I really don't think you have any idea what it feels like to be part of the LGBTQ, so when you asked questions or made statements I was telling you my perspective.

[rjn]

Of course I don't know what it's like to be LGBTQ, how could I? That wasn't really the point I was trying to make, but fair enough, you're right, and I will never be able to relate to your experiences on any deeper level bar the general human one, which is kind of what I was trying to emphasize: that we are individuals, irrespective of neat little boxes like gender, race or sexuality. That is not to say that these categories are not important to ones identity, because they are, no question about it.