The Gay Thread

[Irvine511]

well, the focus on one man (Putin) throughout Sochi has been reminiscent of an earlier Olympic Games ...

 

[Galeongirl]

I still wonder if Putin's actions with the Dutch team were staged or not.


At the start of the olympics, he showed up at our Dutch Heineken House and shook hands with a female ice skater, Sanne van Kerkhof.

Yesterday, bunch of days later, he congratulated Ireen Wust with her gold medal by giving her a hug in the same House.


Makes me wonder if he knows those two used to be in a relationship together. Since it is fairly common knowledge here, but still. It would be incredibly ironic. Or hypocritical if he did indeed know.

 

[Irvine511]

I still wonder if Putin's actions with the Dutch team were staged or not.


At the start of the olympics, he showed up at our Dutch Heineken House and shook hands with a female ice skater, Sanne van Kerkhof.

Yesterday, bunch of days later, he congratulated Ireen Wust with her gold medal by giving her a hug in the same House.


Makes me wonder if he knows those two used to be in a relationship together. Since it is fairly common knowledge here, but still. It would be incredibly ironic. Or hypocritical if he did indeed know.

hard to say -- maybe it's just because the Dutch WIN ALL THE SPEEDSKATING MEDALS.

 

[BEAL]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...i_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I've never heard of this before, but I'm just wondering, honestly, what makes it internal homophobia and not just a preference? Is it the phrase itself? Such as like when Kanye copped a lot of shit for the "light-skinned girls" line?

I'm sure not every gay man wants to be with a flamboyant person. Which is not to say that every gay man is flamboyant, which is why I can kind of understand making the distinction in a personals ad.

So yeah, I think my question is, is it the taste that's offensive, or the phrase?

It depends upon how you approach it. When a gay guy describes himself as "straight acting" it implies there's something wrong with being gay or the way gay people act so much to a point where they feel the necessity to "act" a certain way. And lots of gay guys feel the necessity to describe themselves as "straight acting" so much as to say "I'm not like them."

Of course it gets reworded a lot. Perhaps one doesn't like a stereotype. That's totally okay. Nobody said "you have to be attracted to everything, gay male." It really depends upon your choice of words though. Often the choice of words is "straight acting" though, and that's absolutely internalized homophobia.

E:And now I see Irvine said pretty much the exact same thing.

 

[BoMac]

Homophobia is misogyny, in that straight men are afraid of being treated by other men the way that they treat women.

 

[jeevey]

It's actually a big relief for me to hear other people say this, like maybe the crazy isn't all in my head.

 

[chork]

I dig this thread--people make sense here.

 

[Diemen]

Kidding!

It's actually a big relief for me to hear other people say this, like maybe the crazy isn't all in my head.

Well, let's not jump to conclusions.

 

[jeevey]

I knew I was taking a risk there.

 

[Irvine511]

The VA marriage ban is gone.

Big deal.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Whatever it's Virginia gay people don't live there.

 

[Irvine511]

I mean it *is* a big deal.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I know. I was kidding. It was just funny the way you wrote it

 

[Irvine511]

shelved in Indiana: Same-sex marriage ban won't be on November ballot

 

[BEAL]

Just need Kansas to wake up

 

[Irvine511]

Just need Kansas to wake up

what's interesting is that what they are proposing is *exactly* what INDY has said anti-gay discrimination can't compare to: Jim Crow.

Anti-Gay Jim Crow Comes to Kansas - The Daily Beast

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives took a step back to the 1890s with a shameful bill that borrows from Jim Crow to legalize discrimination against gay couples. Approved by a vote of 72 to 49, House Bill No. 2453 would allow businesses and government employees to deny service to same-sex couples on the basis of their religious beliefs. The law specifies businesses with “public accommodations,” but—in effect—that covers almost everything.

What does this mean in the real world? If you and your partner want to go buy groceries, but the owner—or manager—doesn’t “agree” with your relationship, they can refuse you service. If you want to go the movies, and the owner decides she’s uncomfortable—she can kick you out. Hotels can deny entry, gyms can deny access, and restaurants can eject you without consequence.

Obviously, some gay couples will want to sue. But under the law, anyone who turns away a gay couple is immune to a civil suit. What’s more, the couple will have to pay their opponents attorney’s fees.

On top of all of this, the bill authorizes anti-gay discrimination by anyone who works for the state of Kansas. Ambulances can refuse to come to the home of a gay couple, park managers can deny them entry, state hospitals can turn them away, and public welfare agencies can decline to work with them. Yes, the bill requires private managers and state employees to refer the couple to another person who will conduct their business, but in reality, those rules have a habit of falling by the wayside.

And while the bill is presented as a measure directed explicitly at same-sex couples, the language is much more ambiguous. One clause allows discrimination as long as the transaction is “related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.”

There’s no way to know if a given transaction is related to a gay partnership. In most cases, there’s no way to know if someone is gay. But that doesn’t matter. Under this bill, if you believe someone is gay and purchasing something or making arrangements for the sake of a civil union or same-sex marriage, you can deny them service. Indeed, they don’t even have to be gay. Anyone suspected of working towards those ends could be subject to legalized harassment.

To put this simply, the Kansas House has just endorsed a comprehensive system of anti-gay discrimination. If it becomes law—which isn’t unlikely, given Republican control of the statehouse and governorship—it will yield a segregated world for gays and their allies, as they are forced to use businesses and other services that aren’t hostile to them.

When asked about the bill, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback told The Topeka Capital-Journal that “Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity.” The question is whether he thinks this applies to gays.

Looking at this bill, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call it a close cousin—if not sibling—of Jim Crow (natch, for black gays and lesbians in the state, there’s little difference). Like its Southern predecessors, this proposal is meant to isolate and stigmatize a despised minority, under of the guise of some higher priority (“religious liberty”). And while this bill doesn’t sanction violence, that was also true of Jim Crow. During the period, African Americans had legal equality under criminal law. In theory, if you beat a black person, you could be arrested and tried for assault. In practice, however, this rarely happened. Legal stigmatization fed social stigmatization (and vice versa) which led to a world where blacks were all but outside the protection of law.

 

[Galeongirl]

hard to say -- maybe it's just because the Dutch WIN ALL THE SPEEDSKATING MEDALS.

Heh, not all of them! Sadly we missed out on a few.


but we're pretty much done with the games now though, skating is the only thing we can do.

Whatever it's Virginia gay people don't live there.

Nah I'm sure there's only conservative christian virgins there.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Buy the scientific question must be asked -- is there a gay gradient sink function towards DC or just an immediate step function of gay into the district?

 

[Galeongirl]

Immediate stop, as abstinence is the only answer.

 

[Irvine511]

guys, it's over.

Virginia’s gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional: A perfect record for equality post-Windsor.

what does Mildrid Loving have to say about this? is she an African-American aghast that gays compare their struggle to hers?

“We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? ... I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving, "Loving for All"

 

[bono_212]

I know. I was kidding. It was just funny the way you wrote it

I know, I was confused at first as well. Then I laughed at your follow-up, Irvine

 

[BoMac]

Ellen Page just came out. I can't wait for the day when this will no longer be news and people can just be who they are.

 

[Aygo]

It's internalized homophobia.

It's only considered internalized homophobia if the person behaves that way to repress himself. There are many gays that don't have manerisms and that are very well with them selves and with the others.

 

[Irvine511]

It's only considered internalized homophobia if the person behaves that way to repress himself. There are many gays that don't have manerisms and that are very well with them selves and with the others.

To describe one's self as "straight-acting" when one is gay is internalized homophobia.

How would we feel if a black person describes himself as "white-acting"?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Failure to associate with your kind solely on the grounds that you don't want the name they get (gay) but you want their membership benefits (penis) is pretty much the worst kind of gay guy.

 

[jeevey]

Irvine, maybe you or someone can help me out about this straight-acting thing. Is there status or premium attached to gay men who are stereotypically masculine enough to "pass" if they wanted, even if they are out? And is there lower status or competition for men who couldn't pass if they tried?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It's an uneven distribution that peaks in that category. It would be unfair to say it's a premium. There are your masculine guys who like little boys (not in the literal sense of age - in appearance). Some like the campy type. Some like the macho man type. Some like it somewhere in between. Some like it gender role ambiguous.

I would say it's the more desired of categories, but I wouldn't call it a premium necessarily.

 

[deep]

How would we feel if a black person describes himself as "white-acting"?

Republican?

 

[deep]

Same-sex marriage ban won't be on November ballot