The Even Gayer than the Gay thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
iron yuppie said:
This is actually something I have been wondering about: do you think that, as LGBT rights become more mainstream both socially and politically, that the culture will be homogenized to some extent? And is that a problem if it is?
Click to expand...



Yes, it will. As something is gained, something will be lost. We should remember what that was while realizing that it's choice and self-determination that are the overriding values.

I have an interesting article on this I'll post tomorrow.
 
DaveC said:
I think there's a lot to be said for the community not to have just settled with "civil unions" back when that was being shoved down all our throats (no pun intended :sexywink: ) in the name of "compromise". I admire your (our?) tenacity in standing up for legit, honest equality. Why the fuck did it take so long?
Click to expand...



I think it too me years, as well as being in a long term (10 years now) relationship that helped me come to realize that I'm different but not disordered. There's a long history of self-loathing (conscious or not) and acceptance of lesser-than status in the LGBT community. You do grow up internalizing that something is wrong with you, that you may be ridiculous and defective, whether you ever admit it or not. Gay Pride is a meaningful term, since shame is a widely held feeling that must be overcome.

I don't think that's nearly as true anymore. It will never be easy, but it has gotten easier.
 
Last edited:
iron yuppie said:
I'm no expert on gay culture, but I'd say I'm pretty familiar with it for several reasons, one of which being that I have a gay sibling, and it seems to me that a good deal of gay culture was/is rooted in embracing the otherness, for lack of a better term, and making a statement out of the way that particular community was viewed. A gay person coming of age now in the United States is going to have a different experience - sometimes radically different - than someone coming of age 20 years ago. I imagine that has to have some ramifications for the culture as a whole.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we're in agreement, I meant that while there will always be cultural differences, it won't be as obviously pronounced.
martha said:
I don't understand what you're saying. People have had courthouse marriages for decades (centuries?) without having a religious ceremony. Did you want a marriage to be exclusively a religious construct? And straight couples who opted for a civil ceremony to not have a marriage?
Click to expand...

When I was a kid, I was basically raised with the idea that the civil marriages in court houses didn't "count" the way ones in churches did. They weren't in the site of God, so they weren't ordained by God, basically. They were still totally legal though in the eyes of the state, and it was kinda just frowned upon because, hell, at least it was a man and woman, right? (Tongue in cheek here). When I was in high school and the idea of Civil Unions for Same Sex couples was introduced to me, I thought that was a perfect solution. Over the course of time in posting in this thread, this hypocritical situation was pointed out to me, and I have, in time, come to the realization that, yeah, it would have to be one or the other. And there's no way in hell straight couples were going to be made to settle for Civil Unions, because white privilege and straight privilege are a lot alike. So, in some fantastical dream world I had at one point, I'd have liked to have seen a separation between the two, where marriage stayed a religious entity and civil unions were the exact same standing in the eyes of the government, but were not conducted in churches. Of course there are a MILLION problems with that, the first being that many religious branches (of Christianity especially) have no problem officiating same sex marriages. So what of that? Basically it wouldn't work, so I'm just, honestly, really relieved this happened. It's not the first step, but it's HUGE one on the path to people just treating each other as equal human beings. I keep trying to write off other things I've said in the past because I feel like posters in here who have seen me post in here before are going to think I'm being a hypocrite for being glad this happened, so, I'm gonna shut up about past stuff and the CU word, because it's irrelevant at this point.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
That article got really offensive when it said that CLAUDE Lemieux was just as gay as Wayne Gretzky and Patrick Roy.
Click to expand...

Of course I thought that was absurd.

Who could forget Game 6 of the '93 Finals? The way those two were just lost in their own universe of perfect gay harmony late in the third period was the finest example of athleticism in sport since the ancient Greeks.

EDIT: Although one could argue for the beautiful gay ballet that was the 87 Canada Cup - the way MARIO and Wayne kept going back and forth with each other, getting the rhythm just so, and with such soft hands - the best passers in the game.
 
Last edited:
bono_212 said:
When I was a kid, I was basically raised with the idea that the civil marriages in court houses didn't "count" the way ones in churches did. They weren't in the site of God, so they weren't ordained by God, basically. They were still totally legal though in the eyes of the state, and it was kinda just frowned upon because, hell, at least it was a man and woman, right? (Tongue in cheek here). When I was in high school and the idea of Civil Unions for Same Sex couples was introduced to me, I thought that was a perfect solution. Over the course of time in posting in this thread, this hypocritical situation was pointed out to me, and I have, in time, come to the realization that, yeah, it would have to be one or the other. And there's no way in hell straight couples were going to be made to settle for Civil Unions, because white privilege and straight privilege are a lot alike. So, in some fantastical dream world I had at one point, I'd have liked to have seen a separation between the two, where marriage stayed a religious entity and civil unions were the exact same standing in the eyes of the government, but were not conducted in churches. Of course there are a MILLION problems with that, the first being that many religious branches (of Christianity especially) have no problem officiating same sex marriages. So what of that? Basically it wouldn't work, so I'm just, honestly, really relieved this happened. It's not the first step, but it's HUGE one on the path to people just treating each other as equal human beings. I keep trying to write off other things I've said in the past because I feel like posters in here who have seen me post in here before are going to think I'm being a hypocrite for being glad this happened, so, I'm gonna shut up about past stuff and the CU word, because it's irrelevant at this point.
Click to expand...


This clarifies a lot, so thank you. Also, you don't have to shut up. Thoughtful reflection and consideration are good things.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
DaveC said:
Of course I thought that was absurd.

Who could forget Game 6 of the '93 Finals? The way those two were just lost in their own universe of perfect gay harmony late in the third period was the finest example of athleticism in sport since the ancient Greeks.

EDIT: Although one could argue for the beautiful gay ballet that was the 87 Canada Cup - the way MARIO and Wayne kept going back and forth with each other, getting the rhythm just so, and with such soft hands - the best passers in the game.
Click to expand...


Now I think I should start watching hockey.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
bono_212 said:
Yeah, I think we're in agreement, I meant that while there will always be cultural differences, it won't be as obviously pronounced.


When I was a kid, I was basically raised with the idea that the civil marriages in court houses didn't "count" the way ones in churches did. They weren't in the site of God, so they weren't ordained by God, basically. They were still totally legal though in the eyes of the state, and it was kinda just frowned upon because, hell, at least it was a man and woman, right? (Tongue in cheek here). When I was in high school and the idea of Civil Unions for Same Sex couples was introduced to me, I thought that was a perfect solution. Over the course of time in posting in this thread, this hypocritical situation was pointed out to me, and I have, in time, come to the realization that, yeah, it would have to be one or the other. And there's no way in hell straight couples were going to be made to settle for Civil Unions, because white privilege and straight privilege are a lot alike. So, in some fantastical dream world I had at one point, I'd have liked to have seen a separation between the two, where marriage stayed a religious entity and civil unions were the exact same standing in the eyes of the government, but were not conducted in churches. Of course there are a MILLION problems with that, the first being that many religious branches (of Christianity especially) have no problem officiating same sex marriages. So what of that? Basically it wouldn't work, so I'm just, honestly, really relieved this happened. It's not the first step, but it's HUGE one on the path to people just treating each other as equal human beings. I keep trying to write off other things I've said in the past because I feel like posters in here who have seen me post in here before are going to think I'm being a hypocrite for being glad this happened, so, I'm gonna shut up about past stuff and the CU word, because it's irrelevant at this point.
Click to expand...

I don't see one iota of hypocrisy from you.

I see open-mindedness and maturity. People evolve. :up:
 
martha said:
Now I think I should start watching hockey.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

3.jpg


:cute:
 
*Pokes head in*

Erm, hello :). Been lurking recently, and just popping in to read the reaction to this news. I want to officially extend congratulations to Irvine, as well as all others who will be able to benefit from this fantastic news!

I'm not even going to rant about the dissenting justices' thoughts or the "9/11" BS or "defend the Duggars" Huckabee. I'm just going to focus on celebrating this news, and enjoy seeing news photos of people smiling and hugging and having a good time and all that good stuff :D. It's about damn time, and I'm thrilled our country finally made it to this point. Hooray!
 
It's been quite a day. A very good and important one, I think. I wanted to mull everything over and make a substantial post instead of saying some stupid shit like "this ruling made me gay (happy)!" After reading through some of Ashley's musings, as well as a word or two from the conservative wing, I think I can do that.

As many of you know, I was raised Christian and have clung to that faith to this day, albeit with some tweaks. It's days like today that convince me that such tweaks are necessary if I'm going to be a decent, well-adjusted Christian.

One of the best things my father ever told me, one of the most freeing things, was that as much as he tried to teach me about life, ultimately I would leave home and have to find out what parts of his advice worked for me. Even though I was fed a judgmental attitude toward them all my life, condemning homosexuals and homosexual marriage does not work for me. No matter how many times I turn it around in my head, the idea of a loving God creating homosexuals (yes, conservatives; sexual orientation is biological), only to condemn them for expressing the love they feel is backward to me. I don't get it.

The idea that a country built on freedom and equality could only recognize a marriage of two individuals in certain states also rings false. We're by no means perfect, and we have a long way to go with regards to equal treatment of minorities, but making the statement to allow gay marriage on a federal level is a big step toward being the welcoming, humane country that we purport to be. It's a damn shame that it will require a generation or two of new parents to take the controversy out of this issue. Alas, some people don't change. Some people do progress, albeit at a very slow rate. Evolve, if you will.

I was on ChristianForums.net a long time ago (Axver had an account there too, in fact, though he probably hasn't been there for the better part of a decade), and I remember reading debate after debate involving "evolutionists" and creationists, just going at each other like they're in court or something. Funny shit. Eventually, I realized that the creationists always lost because literally all the evidence was on the other side. Then I saw boatloads of evidence that sexual orientation was a biological matter and not merely sinful people making sinful choices.

So I stepped back and had to decide what really mattered to me as a person, as a Christian, etc. Why am I religious at all? In what way am I benefiting myself and the world as a whole if I'm going at this from such a confused mindset? Am I forbidden from change? Do I always have to be right? The truth is, the only reason someone should be a Christian at all is that they want to get people excited about Jesus because he was the son of God and a great example of how to live a good life and treat people with respect. If you're only interested in spreading condemnation, you need to get the fuck out and move on with your life. You're making an utter mockery of everything you claim to follow. I believe that one can have a strong moral compass regardless of religion, but nothing would help a person like that.

And I'll just come right out and say it: I hate what the evangelical right represents, more so today than ever. It's a hateful hive mind that is so far from Christ-like that they might as well be following a different messiah altogether. In fact, I wish they would. A Glenn Beck cult could be fun. He's a wacky motherfucker. Could make for some laughs. I just wish that they would stop pretending they had any interest in morality, progress or the greater good. All I see are a lot of hateful goons thoughtlessly applying a specific, TBN-approved reading of the Bible to all situations. No respect for historical context, only surface reading. I used to be like them and have made several embarrassing posts on this very site with such a mindset, but I like to think I've grown up.

Honestly, if those are the sorts of individuals making a fuss today, I think the US made the right choice. I'm so happy for the gay members of Interference that are able to call their loved ones "husband" or "wife" in all 50 states and garner the respect they deserve as adult citizens that are free to make their own decisions. It's a great feeling, on your wedding day, to stand beside your spouse with a crowd of people behind you that sincerely wish nothing but happiness and success to you and I'm thrilled that everyone interested in such an experience will have that opportunity. No asterisks, no strings attached. Just love.

And in case you were wondering, no, my heterosexual marriage hasn't been diminished in the meantime.
 
Last edited:
This thread makes me happy, and everything on facebook right now as well. Many of my straight friends also support it and everybody's happy about it.

Irvine, I think that it has indeed gotten easier. But perhaps there's a difference per country as well. I don't really feel different, well I do but that has other reasons, but not because of my sexuality. Between all my friends and coworkers, it's just accepted. Whenever one person comes out, everybody goes "Okay, whatever makes you happy" and it's no big deal anymore. And it really isn't. That's pretty great. :) Hope it ends up being that way in the US as well.
 
Oh and I just saw this on 9gag, heh.
aBr3zrx_460s_v1.jpg



Only downside to the whole thing? Keep hearing that horrible Macklemore track on the radio all day. :lol:
 
Oregoropa said:
... he was referring to the ACA decision. He had no idea what this morning's ruling was when he said it.
Click to expand...

as6lt05sluhpcizqgkbl_zpsuafabdpq.gif


(edited to clarify, just in case: that's toward Cruz, not Oregoropa. ;) )

Lovely post, LeMel.

I don't cry easily anymore (I used to cry at every semi-sappy commercial and movie; I've become cold in my advancing age), but hearing a bit of the men's chorus singing the anthem, and then seeing the NYT front page on Twitter did get me a little choked up.
 
Last edited:
Hell, take Mary Lambert's song. (She's the one singing the nice parts of the song. i.e., anything not by Macklemore.) It's gorgeous, and she's actually gay, not some dude who's like "I thought I was gay in third grade because I liked to keep my room neat" or whatever.

I might be the only Seattleite who finds Macklemore insufferable. (Although the Thrift Shop song is fun.)
 
bono_212 said:
When I was a kid, I was basically raised with the idea that the civil marriages in court houses didn't "count" the way ones in churches did. They weren't in the site of God, so they weren't ordained by God, basically. They were still totally legal though in the eyes of the state, and it was kinda just frowned upon because, hell, at least it was a man and woman, right? (Tongue in cheek here).
Click to expand...

I'll say this about civil unions: I really wish a federal version were available so that an option for a binding relationship existed in purely secular terms. As someone considering making that type of commitment, I would strongly prefer it not to be mired in thousands of years of social and religious context that I find distasteful at best. I have to imagine there are gay people who feel the same way.
 
iron yuppie said:
I'll say this about civil unions: I really wish a federal version were available so that an option for a binding relationship existed in purely secular terms. As someone considering making that type of commitment, I would strongly prefer it not to be mired in thousands of years of social and religious context that I find distasteful at best. I have to imagine there are gay people who feel the same way.
Click to expand...

You make your marriage what you want it to be.
 
What?

Just go down to a county office and get a license and have the clerk do the act on a weekday afternoon. Nothing religious about that. I'm sure atheists don't have a problem calling themselves married and do not consider themselves participants in a religious activity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
  • Locked
The Final Countdown - U2 at Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part 3
18 19 20
Replies
574
Views
25K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
51 52 53
Replies
2K
Views
63K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
332
Views
10K
gump
gump
W
Detective needed: Bono’s old car
Replies
0
Views
563
wjc1979
W
N
  • Locked
NBA 2022-23 Thread
46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
45K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom