: : Rosenblum and Travis (2000) suggest that "flaming" behavior becomes uncommon in situations where the minority group comprises 15% or more of the total population. In this particular case, however, I expect that when tolerance for homosexuality hits "critical mass," flaming will disappear. This trend is already evident here in Seattle, as well as in New York and San Francisco. When gay couples don't need to fear that there will be repercussions (physical, social, political, or otherwise) as a result of their expressions of affection, then the overt sexuality you've complained about will probably atrophy, just as overt European ethnic enclaves in the US homogenized rapidly when generalised tolerance of European immigrants reaced critical mass. The same has yet to happen in African, Latino, and gay American "ghettos," but it's comming.: So we are agreed then, very glad to hear it.
Not sure what you're refering to here, but OK, if you agree with that statement, then yes, we're agreed. Are you saying that you accept the notion that when gays no longer feel persecuted (either physically or socially) that they'll probably stop the exaggerated expression of their sexuality? Or are you agreeing with some other point?
: : : render love worthless,
: : No, not really. Again, witness the 1960s, and we mustn't forget Emma Goldman (dear Emma...)
: Well I think they do because they debase relationships my making them amount to nothing more than physical gratification or carnal knowledge, although that said, I've had a fair share of unrequited love in the past so that perhaps explains my view.
Hmmm. I'm not sure why you think that gay relationships are any more inherently based on physical gratification than are straight relationships. I doubt that this is the case, frankly. Gays enjoy sex with other gays, and preferentially pick other gays as romantic partners, true, but straights preferentially pick romantic partners on the basis of sexuality as well, so what's the deal? You're making it sound as though sex was not an issue in straight relationships at all, and I can assure you that this is most certainly not the case! ;-)
Many gay relationships are based on romantic, rather than physical love. In fact, in the age of AIdS, many gay relationships have become exclusively non-sexual. A sizable proportion of HIV positive gay men are romantically involved but do not have sex with their partners at all. The same is not the case for most straights, AFAIK. In other words, I think your assumption that gay relationships are based entirely on sex, rather than on love, is mistaken.
Earlier, you'd complaned about sex in public parks, and I'll agree with you that this is inappropriate. However, it's far from an exclusively gay phenomenon. The appropriate comparisson for the park-sex people is not stable straight relationships, but het-prostitution. I'd agree that this phenomenon is unacceptable, but that has nothing to do with the sexuality of the participants.
Rather, it's unacceptable, regardless of the sexuality of the participants. It is just as inappropriate for straights to have sex in a park as it is for gays, don't you think? If so, your complaint is with public sex, and not with gay sex. The vast majority of gays don't do this either. As I've suggested in otherposts, your understanding of homosexuals is based on a non-representative sample. The park-sex people are not a good representation of gays in general, any more than hookers are accurate representatives of straight sexuality.
: : : and profundly anti or asocial affairs.
: : Arguably. As revolutions are always reactions against the established social order, yes, I can see your point. The question is whether or not the established social order is legitimate. Many would argue that, insofar as some groups face discriminatory treatment, the social order is illegitimate, and anti-sociality, sensu stricto, is a good thing.
: arguably, what I was suggesting is that they emphasise individual goals etc. rather than social ones, well conventionally they do, on single issures they do.
Again, some straights do this as well. There is nothing inherently individualistic about homosexuality, these are distinct issues. (in fact, here in Seattle, a large proportion of the gay community is very active in leftist and socialist politics. The same is true in San Francisco, although to a somewhat lesser extent in the past few years.) Reagan and Thatcher emphasised individual goals over social issues as well, remember? Some do, some don't. If you only see those that do, your understanding of the whole population will be biased by your non-representative sample.
: : Great! If, sometime in mid-June, you see a tall, thin, handsome Yank on his fourth or fifth pint, aks if it's me. If he laughs and falls off his bar stool, it probably is! ;-) The student union sounds pretty likely, as the people I'm visiting are students. Maybe I'll see you there!
: I'll probably not see you, Belfast is far away from me, but I hope you have a great time anyway. Queens Union bar turned me away once, turned my brother away last week, so I wish you luck getting in.
Oh. Are they a "snooty" bar? I probably wouldn't be let in either then. Oh well, I'm sure my friends will find a nice place, and I'll be traveling around a lot anyway, (surveying prehistoric monuments) so who knows? Maybe I'll see you after all. Best;
-Floyd
None.
