Gay Self Governance

[snaketat]

like many others here, i have felt the sting of discrimination for my sexual preference and my sexual practices.   i have lived in a variety of places and have found wide ranging differences in attitude.  but in no place, have i found a fully accepting spot.  additionally, i believe that the gay community is guilty of some of the same discrimination that the same group complains about.

 

i do not want a suburban house, an attractive spouse and 2.5 kids.  But it seems as if that is the image some gay groups are trying to achieve...middle america of the 60's and 70's.  and i have been held at arms length in some gay settings because i have said that.

 

digging deeper into my soapbox material, i really do not think this is a gay issue at all.   rather it is the development of human behavior based on media and religious based hate.  anything other than my people who are a clone of me are something to fear...and if i fear them i will attempt to destroy them seems to be the mantra of the day.

 

sure there are open religions and a good part of the media is liberal enough to put a more positive spin on gay issues.  but if it is not us, it is islam, if not islam it is jews, if not jews, it is blacks.....and on and on.  in a world were we do not do enough to accept responsibility for our own actions....it is easier to feel good about ourselves if we can demonize others so we look/feel better.

 

all the gay rights efforts will never fully succeed----due to human nature....not the nature of homosexuality.....some body has to be hated...so why not hate the queers.....  i wish it was otherwise, but i am not sure that is part of human nature.

[Brain&Brawn]

Look, I sympathize with how you feel.  As I've said above, I miss having that kind of community myself.  But neither you nor I individually get to make that decision for all gay men as a whole.

 

And, as someone who's been in and around this community for a few decades now, in a variety of different places, the trend seems unquestionably to be towards assimilation.

 

That's not to say that plenty of gay guys don't want to live in or near their gay community, but they no longer have to.  And many of them are choosing not to.  And that's a valid choice.

 

Look, if you want to make your orientation the defining characteristic of your life, you're free to do that.  Plenty of guys still do.  But plenty of guys now find they can have their relationships and be out of the closet without having to do that anymore and so are choosing to do just that.  There's nothing wrong with that choice.

 

Nobody's "denouncing Gayness" when they choose to live a quiet life in the suburbs and maybe hit a bar once or twice a year.  They're just opting out of the scene.  Which is fine; it's not for everyone.  There's no reason every gay guy has to act in a particular way or live in a particular place.

 

I would point out that the entire idea of a separate gay identity is itself extremely ahistorical.  Different cultures have been more or less tolerant of sexual relationships and acts between two men at different times, but really, the idea of a person being gay (as opposed to just engaging in homosexual acts) is really quite new, within the last 150 years.  And the idea of there being a separate gay culture to go with that identity is newer still, say in the last 50 years, give or take.  Given the span of human history, there's no reason to think that assimilation wouldn't be a reversion to the mean, quite the opposite.

 

As for the culture changing back, I know history isn't linear and things can move backwards.  After all, the progress we've made in the last 20 years has completely taken me, at least, by surprise.  So feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but I look around the culture and see where people's attitudes have changed, especially among younger people.  I look at the drivers of the change, which includes things like more and more people coming out of the closet and raising awareness, and I just don't see a big clampdown coming.

 

What would it take to take marriage away from us again?  It's basically been established by the Supreme Court that a Constitutional amendment would be needed, something conservatives simply don't have the numbers to do (and which, given the shift in public opinion, they'd be unlikely to try).  I suppose they could try to pack the Supreme Court and get Obergefell reversed, but that's a process that would take years if not decades, and that assumes a long string of Republican Presidents, a Republican Senate and a Supreme Court that is inclined to revist the question.  I can't see right now how the normal political process could bring about a reversal, at least not in my lifetime.

 

Which tells me that, barring some catastrophe, like a coup or a revolution or the physical disintegration of the country, things seem unlikely to change back in any meaningful way.

“…neither you nor I individually get to make that decision for all gay men as a whole.”

 

Never have I once said anything about trying to make decisions for all Gay men. What leads you to make that assumption?

 

“And, as someone who's been in and around this community for a few decades now, in a variety of different places, the trend seems unquestionably to be towards assimilation.

That's not to say that plenty of gay guys don't want to live in or near their gay community, but they no longer have to.  And many of them are choosing not to.  And that's a valid choice.”

 

Indeed. So are alternative choices.

 

“Look, if you want to make your orientation the defining characteristic of your life, you're free to do that.  Plenty of guys still do.  But plenty of guys now find they can have their relationships and be out of the closet without having to do that anymore and so are choosing to do just that.  There's nothing wrong with that choice.”

 

Again, I never said otherwise. On the contrary, plenty of people tell me and others like myself who choose differently, that there is something wrong with our choices.

 

“Nobody's "denouncing Gayness" when they choose to live a quiet life in the suburbs and maybe hit a bar once or twice a year.  They're just opting out of the scene.  Which is fine; it's not for everyone.  There's no reason every gay guy has to act in a particular way or live in a particular place.”

 

Isn’t that what your very lengthy critique of my preference for alternative choice does? In fact, it seems you have invested considerable time in denouncing my choice and position while defending assimilation and deconstruction of Gay culture and identity.  

 

“I would point out that the entire idea of a separate gay identity is itself extremely ahistorical.  Different cultures have been more or less tolerant of sexual relationships and acts between two men at different times, but really, the idea of a person being gay (as opposed to just engaging in homosexual acts) is really quite new, within the last 150 years.  And the idea of there being a separate gay culture to go with that identity is newer still, say in the last 50 years, give or take.  Given the span of human history, there's no reason to think that assimilation wouldn't be a reversion to the mean, quite the opposite.”

 

I would point out that this is not true. The belief that Gayness is ahistorical, which you cite, is part of a fading postmodern paradigm that has only been around for a brief time. You may want to consider Rictor Norton’s latest on this: http://rictornorton.co.uk/fuckfouc.pdf 

 

“As for the culture changing back, I know history isn't linear and things can move backwards.  After all, the progress we've made in the last 20 years has completely taken me, at least, by surprise.  So feel free to take this with a grain of salt, but I look around the culture and see where people's attitudes have changed, especially among younger people.  I look at the drivers of the change, which includes things like more and more people coming out of the closet and raising awareness, and I just don't see a big clampdown coming.”

 

No “clampdown” just religious freedom to discriminate, which could very easily lead back to square one. 

 

“What would it take to take marriage away from us again?  It's basically been established by the Supreme Court that a Constitutional amendment would be needed, something conservatives simply don't have the numbers to do (and which, given the shift in public opinion, they'd be unlikely to try).  I suppose they could try to pack the Supreme Court and get Obergefell reversed, but that's a process that would take years if not decades, and that assumes a long string of Republican Presidents, a Republican Senate and a Supreme Court that is inclined to revist the question.  I can't see right now how the normal political process could bring about a reversal, at least not in my lifetime.

Which tells me that, barring some catastrophe, like a coup or a revolution or the physical disintegration of the country, things seem unlikely to change back in any meaningful way.”

 

Should Obergefell be the sole means of measuring progress? Reminds me of the abundant declarations that we had entered a “post-racial society” when Obama was elected. The media heralded the end of racism and Amerika celebrated. Then Ferguson happened. Then Baltimore, so on and so forth.    

[Brain&Brawn]

like many others here, i have felt the sting of discrimination for my sexual preference and my sexual practices.   i have lived in a variety of places and have found wide ranging differences in attitude.  but in no place, have i found a fully accepting spot.  additionally, i believe that the gay community is guilty of some of the same discrimination that the same group complains about.

 

i do not want a suburban house, an attractive spouse and 2.5 kids.  But it seems as if that is the image some gay groups are trying to achieve...middle america of the 60's and 70's.  and i have been held at arms length in some gay settings because i have said that.

 

digging deeper into my soapbox material, i really do not think this is a gay issue at all.   rather it is the development of human behavior based on media and religious based hate.  anything other than my people who are a clone of me are something to fear...and if i fear them i will attempt to destroy them seems to be the mantra of the day.

 

sure there are open religions and a good part of the media is liberal enough to put a more positive spin on gay issues.  but if it is not us, it is islam, if not islam it is jews, if not jews, it is blacks.....and on and on.  in a world were we do not do enough to accept responsibility for our own actions....it is easier to feel good about ourselves if we can demonize others so we look/feel better.

 

all the gay rights efforts will never fully succeed----due to human nature....not the nature of homosexuality.....some body has to be hated...so why not hate the queers.....  i wish it was otherwise, but i am not sure that is part of human nature.

I agree with you. That's a big part of why I think the assimilation strategy has limits at best. 

 

Someone made an ahistorical claim above. Speaking of ahistorical trends, isn't that what the attempt to imitate Cold War Amerika is? That whole middle class suburban lifestyle has been dying a slow death for decades now.  

[Brain&Brawn]

 

I would point out that the entire idea of a separate gay identity is itself extremely ahistorical.  Different cultures have been more or less tolerant of sexual relationships and acts between two men at different times, but really, the idea of a person being gay (as opposed to just engaging in homosexual acts) is really quite new, within the last 150 years.  And the idea of there being a separate gay culture to go with that identity is newer still, say in the last 50 years, give or take.  Given the span of human history, there's no reason to think that assimilation wouldn't be a reversion to the mean, quite the opposite.

 

 

It's not just Norton who refutes this. Historian Martin Duberman does as well: