: : Well, yeah, Lark, this is what I was trying to say before. The people that you recognize as gay are the people who exhibit the stereotypical behaviors. You are recognizing them as gay as a result of their conformity to your preconceived stereotypes, rather than as a result of their sexual activity. Not all gays fit the stereotypes. When you say "all the gays I've seen...subscribe to every stereotype in the book," what you're really saying is "everyone who fits all the stereotypes fits all the stereotypes," since you are not recognizing any person who does not fit the stereotypes as being gay. See the problem? If you only know someone is gay because they fit the stereotype, then you will classify anyone who doesn't fit the stereotype as straight by default, regardless of what they do when they're at home, and it will appear to you that all gays fit the stereotypes. Once again, there's a recognition issue here that needs to be addressed.: All I could say in response to that is that the normal ones must be alright. What I cant understand is how every lefty, regardless of whether they are a liberal or an anrchist, looks at a chavinistic or self-important sex obsessed heterosexual and tries to castigate them on patriarchy or whatever, yet the same type of behaviour is excusable among homosxuals. Isnt that a double standard?
Yes, that is a double standard, and yes, as such it should be resisted at all times. I think that among the points we've (by "we," I mean SDF, Farinata, myself, etc.) all been trying to make is that chauvinism and self-righteousness are not necessary aspects of homosexuality, and it is chauvinism and self-righteousness that should be critiqued, regardless of the sexual behavior of the chauvinist.
Another point that's been raised is that, because homosexuals tend to face oppressive and/or coercive situations at a greater frequency than do heterosexuals with whom they share other defining criteria (e.g. class, education level, so-called "race," religion, etc.), homosexuals can be forgiven for lapses more readily than can people who do not regularly experience such oppressive/coercive situations. IOW, gays can be forgiven for assuming that straights are trying to oppress them on the basis of their sexual behavior, whereas straights can not, since gays do not have the social or political power to impose their mores and values on straights. There is a differential access to social power, and "leftists" and anarchists have an historical tendency to side with the oppressed. It's easier to forgive someone for being angry when they've suffered indignities.
: Should we, on the same principle, not support the repression of palestinians by the Israeli government becasue the Jews have hard a raw deal for the most part of history?
well, that's kind of twisting it a bit, mate. It's more analogous to being unimpressed when the US complains that Rwanda is not playing nice. There is a differential access to power at issue. It's not wholely explained by historical events, obviously; it's best understood in a contemporary context. Gays are still getting a raw deal, even though it's not quite as bad as it once was.
: : My mother's church has retreats for married couples. I'd say the US republican party is (with a few exceptions) pretty damned close to a het's only society. The southern Baptist convocation definitely is, and vocally so.
: Ah yes but they organise on the basis that het behaviour is Christian, Conservative whatever, is there purely a het organisation anywhere?
That I don't know. Is there a "purely" gay organisation that you're comparing this to? If so, I can try to find an analogue for you.
: : : No they are definitely oppressed but I would appreciate more social rules of engagement, I know that's not always possible but would you want an advocate of black power to adopt an all whites are evil approach?
: : It was very effective for the Panthers and Malcolm X.
: Cant say I supported either of them. I'm not so sure about the Black Panthers though didnt they have a white contingent called the white panthers?
Not really. As N.J. mentioned, they had strong ties to other socialist groups (e.g. S.D.S.) and they weren't "racially exclusive," as such.
: : : I disagree there mate.
: : OK, on what grounds? The primate data is unequivocal. I'll provide you with ample references if you're interested.
: I'm not really interested, so you may be wasting your time, the whole it's natural, here are the stat's, it predates civilisation arguments dont wash with me,
That's a valid comment. The argument is a reaction to claims that homosexuality is not "natural." The obvious counter argument is "it occurs in nature, and is therefore natural." It's not a moral argument, but an evidentiary one. Some people assume that "natural" is a claim of morality, and use the phrase "it's not natural" when they mean "it's not acceptable according to my personal moral code." The second of these (personal moral code) is an evidentiary statement that can't be refuted, the first (natural) can be, and has been refuted. To say something is "not natural" is to make an evidentiary statement that X does not occur in nature. The response (demonstrating that X does occur in nature) falsifies the claim. An argument that X is not "moral" is an assertion of an entirely different kind. (and "normal" is another term that some people, mistakenly, believe has moral or ethical connotations.)
: the human race used to be big on human sacrifice it doesnt mean it's natural does it? Anyway, that is a red herring, I mean no one hears sadists or mascohists arguing that their are bio-scientific-evolutionary prcedents for their behaviour do they?
Mainly because there are not really evolutionary arguments for sexual sadism or masochism (although there are apparently evolutionary reasons for some responses to imposed social roles that could possibly be interpreted that way, but I'm not going down that particular slippery slope, thankyouverymuch! :-).
In any case, I don't consider you a homophobe or a bigot. You have shown considerable willingness to accept that your previous beliefs might warrant further thought, and that is something that bigots don't do. I hope that you can see my points and that you recognise that it's not homosexuality, per se, that is bothering you, but the inconsiderateness of some behaviors, regardless of the sexual orientation of the people behaving that way. peace.
-Floyd
--
McSpotlight: A *purely* gay organisation; hmm - the Vatican, maybe?
None.
