The Even Gayer than the Gay thread

[LuckyNumber7]

Gay marriage, I went to the NHL draft (none of them were gay though, *sigh*), and I got an internship with NASA. What a day.

[Irvine511]

What strikes me is how many people in my FB feed said they were moved to tears by the decision. And that so many people at the White House tonight said that, at last, they felt included. Part of the conversation. Part of the culture. Part of the family.

I think there is value to be apart from the mainstream, to forge your own identity and way to live apart from societal norms.

But not everyone wants that. My guess is most LGBT people want lives that are, basically, "normal." They want to be a part of the mainstream.

At least now they have that option. At least in the eyes of the government.

It's a good day. I'm still concerned about housing and employment discrimination, and HIV, and suicidal teenagers, and abusive parents. But today we can say to everyone that you are not a second class citizen.

I would not have thought this possible 10 years ago when I started posting on here with regularity and was totally fine with civil unions. Now, I wonder about how I viewed my own self-worth back then.

And it's our allies who make this possible. Thank you.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I think there is value to be apart from the mainstream, to forge your own identity and way to live apart from societal norms.

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?

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

(none of them were gay though, *sigh*)

have you ever been within 50 feet of a hockey team's dressing room? If so you must know that ain't true.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I would not have thought this possible 10 years ago when I started posting on here with regularity and was totally fine with civil unions. Now, I wonder about how I viewed my own self-worth back then.

And it's our allies who make this possible. Thank you.

I very much see what you are saying, and I am happy and pleased at your relief. I'm glad that it has helped you feel better about yourself.

I always wanted a separation between the religion and the state, but I see now that doing so just leads to a separation between people. No matter what you do, if you use a different word, it's going to make someone feel different.

It's time to put my wants on the shelf on this one, as I've tried to convey many times today. I'm nothing but happy for you, having also posted right here alongside you, I know you're not just passionate about your topic, it's your life, and it's who you are. Which leads me to:

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

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?

I hope I won't be remiss in comparing this with the situation of blacks in America post 60s, but it's hard not to do so, to me. While there's certain to be cultural shifts, I imagine that the LGBT community will always be their own community. The same seems to be the case in the former situation, where things have obviously gotten better (with dips back into worse, obviously this year being one of them), but there's no doubt that culture is culture and we all have unique ways of embracing life.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

What strikes me is how many people in my FB feed said they were moved to tears by the decision. And that so many people at the White House tonight said that, at last, they felt included. Part of the conversation. Part of the culture. Part of the family.

I think there is value to be apart from the mainstream, to forge your own identity and way to live apart from societal norms.

But not everyone wants that. My guess is most LGBT people want lives that are, basically, "normal." They want to be a part of the mainstream.

At least now they have that option. At least in the eyes of the government.

It's a good day. I'm still concerned about housing and employment discrimination, and HIV, and suicidal teenagers, and abusive parents. But today we can say to everyone that you are not a second class citizen.

I would not have thought this possible 10 years ago when I started posting on here with regularity and was totally fine with civil unions. Now, I wonder about how I viewed my own self-worth back then.

And it's our allies who make this possible. Thank you.

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 ) 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?

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I hope I won't be remiss in comparing this with the situation of blacks in America post 60s, but it's hard not to do so, to me. While there's certain to be cultural shifts, I imagine that the LGBT community will always be their own community. The same seems to be the case in the former situation, where things have obviously gotten better (with dips back into worse, obviously this year being one of them), but there's no doubt that culture is culture and we all have unique ways of embracing life.

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.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by DaveC

have you ever been within 50 feet of a hockey team's dressing room? If so you must know that ain't true.

what I meant was... none of them know they're gay... yet 😆

[martha]

Originally Posted by bono_212

I always wanted a separation between the religion and the state, but I see now that doing so just leads to a separation between people. No matter what you do, if you use a different word, it's going to make someone feel different.

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?

[prbiker15]

My two cents: What a great and historic day for those who are part of the LGBT community, and a great day to be living in a U.S. territory. I have a few friends and three family members who identify themselves as LGBT, so not only am I extremely happy for the entire community, I'm even happier that I've gotten to know some of them. Well fought and well deserved. I only wish the majority of the population here will start to welcome them with open arms.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

what I meant was... none of them know they're gay... yet 😆

Report: NHL Actually Has Had Hundreds Of Openly Gay Players For Years - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

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?

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by DaveC

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 ) 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?

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.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

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.

Yeah, I think we're in agreement, I meant that while there will always be cultural differences, it won't be as obviously pronounced.

Originally Posted by martha

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?

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.

[cobl04]

After Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage, Older Activists Recall Past Struggles

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by DaveC

Report: NHL Actually Has Had Hundreds Of Openly Gay Players For Years - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

That article got really offensive when it said that CLAUDE Lemieux was just as gay as Wayne Gretzky and Patrick Roy.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

That article got really offensive when it said that CLAUDE Lemieux was just as gay as Wayne Gretzky and Patrick Roy.

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.

[martha]

Originally Posted by bono_212

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.

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

[martha]

Originally Posted by DaveC

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.

Now I think I should start watching hockey.


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by bono_212

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.

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

I see open-mindedness and maturity. People evolve.