Breaking the Spell: Rethinking queer community

[dreadgeek]

I thought I'd start this thread so that both the Gatekeeping and the Reclaiming Lesbian Pride threads can get back on topic. Those two threads, together, have sparked a discussion that we've needed to have for a long time. A very long time. Since the 1990's long time. :)

Most of us who've been out for longer than about an hour know that something has gone seriously wrong in the queer community. We have theorized ourselves into a corner that we no longer are able to get out of and our entire language and even what is considered possible to speak of have been hijacked by a meme we, as a community, seem unable to evaluate. This meme has held the community in thrall for well over a decade. It is time to wake up. It's time to break the spell. The meme I'm talking about is this: if you are oppressed, you are a victim, if you are a victim you are *beyond* moral blemish. In fact, if you are a victim it is the very essence of oppression to hold you accountable for your actions and to expect you to hold yourself accountable.

It manifests itself in hundreds of little ways. Non-whites in the community can--and I have seen and heard this--make racial slurs but should a white person speak or write a slur, we fall over ourselves to be first in line with the pitchforks and torches. Transmen are able to get away with a level of sexism that would be completely unacceptable coming from a cisgendered, heterosexual man. The desire to be inclusive of transwomen opens the door to situations where transgendered woman feels entitled to be naked below the waist, even though she has not had surgery. It puts a yearly camp outside of MWMF with transwomen demanding entry. There are more. We can all come up with examples.

We have talked ourselves and theorized ourselves and labeled ourselves into a place where we now espouse things that are completely nonsensical. Take, for example, the cry of ageism deployed whenever an older queer person says "you know, I've been around a few more years than you, young pup, and I've learned..." Let's be honest, is there anyone here who *genuinely* believes that if you take a 20 year old and a 50 year old that in that extra 30 years the 50 year old will have learned NOTHING that the 20 year old might not have yet? Nothing at all? I don't think anyone *actually* believes that to be true. Does that mean that us old farts can dismiss any words of the young pups? No! It means that if one came out at 20 and has lived the last 30 years of one's life out in the community, one has learned at least ONE thing that the 20 year old has yet to learn--how to stay sane as a queer person for 30 more years. The result of this is that we older queer people have dropped the ball and failed to mentor those coming up.

Either we are a community--in which case we have certain kinds of responsibilities and expectations to and from one another--or we are a amalgamation of identity groups. If we are the latter, we are each trying to grab our own slice of the pie. I would argue that over the last two decades we have claimed to be a community, we have behaved like a bunch of identity groups.

We need to reboot what we mean by community. Yes we should be tolerant and respectful but we should also hold one another accountable. We should, more importantly, hold ourselves accountable. Use the various ways we are discriminated against as lessons on how *not* to behave instead of as excuses for behaving badly. It means that we call sexism out when we see it. It means we don't excuse sexism. It means holding consistent standards--even when that means we have to hold ourselves to that standard as well.

I hope that this thread will catch fire and we can begin discussing how to move forward. The elephants in the room are finally being spoken of. I think the community is waking up after being in thrall for far too long. This will be rough and difficult work at times but, again, if we are a community don't we owe it to those coming down the line? In 1969, a bunch of queer people stood up outside of the Stonewall Inn and refused to be put down. They didn't stand up for identity, they stood up for values--values like justice and fair play. In 8 years we will celebrate a half-century of that which we were bequeathed. I would like our community to be moving forward, out of the fog we currently are in, and into a brighter light. A light that would be a worthy expression of our thanks to them for their courage, without which we might still be afraid, isolated and alone.

You are my brothers and sisters. I'm asking you to join me in working out the answers to these knotty questions using a different language. Let's begin rebuilding.

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

How do we place boundaries for ourselves without turning them into "othering" or exclusionary practices/thoughts?

What are the types of questions I ought to be asking myself to make sure I keep my privilege in check and am inclusive while still protecting myself?


(Don't get me wrong, I'm not just sitting here with my thumb up my orifice waiting for someone to solve my problems for me. I am constantly doing that whole introspective thing, I just want to make sure I am examining every aspect of the issue instead of some sort of Scandal-centric view that really isn't helping me to grow as a person)

[Novelafemme]

The Nation recently published an article by one of my favorite bloggers, Jessica Valenti, the creator of feministing. While the article largely addresses the issue of modern feminism and who has the "right" to appropriate the label of feminist, she also touches on her displeasure over the rising popularity of gender essentialism and the dark shadow it cast on today's feminist movement. Jessica's solution is multi-faceted but ultimately speaks to her belief in embracing intersectionality within a community known, quite plain and simply, as woman. And knowing what I do about Jessica I am quite sure she is inclusive of cisgendered/transgendered/masculine-male identified/FTM/MTF and every amalgamation in between.

I am in complete agreement with AJ. Instead of wringing our hands every time a new theory pops up within the queer community, let's use it as an opportunity to reach deep inside ourselves in order to caress and handle the fear that causes such polemic anxiety. I have S!O! much to learn from my older brothers and sisters here. While I don't really give a shit how you identify, on the other hand I do. I believe once we make the assumption we have learned everything there is to know on a subject our life engine sputters and dies.

Am I singing kumbaya? Probably. My crunchy-hand holding side generally trumps my radical feminist persona. And I'm ok with that.

[ScandalAndy]

Sometimes I use ugly words when I am angry or threatened. :( I've called women some pretty awful things because they made me feel bad so I wanted to make them feel bad too, even though those words go against everything I believe in.



I'll start.

I have had other Lesbians tell me they couldn't be sexist because they're women.

I've had Butches tell me to "Lighten up" because I wanted to pay my own way and it hurt their egos.

I have used derogatory terms towards other women, Bitch, Cunt and Whore in really ugly, sexist ways thinking it was okay, because I am a woman.

I have been afraid of having conversations because even though I own that I'm Transphobic, I don't want to prove it in words publicly while I am working it out.

I have been the subject of and witnessed others being the subject of really misogynistic and sexist behavior by members of this community via head patting and shaming because we're not ladylike enough or not doing Femme, Butch, Lesbian, Male, Woman, Feminist, etc. in the right way (meaning their way).

That's just a small portion of what comes to mind right now, and I look forward to this discussion.

[Novelafemme]

I'll start.

I have had other Lesbians tell me they couldn't be sexist because they're women.

I've had Butches tell me to "Lighten up" because I wanted to pay my own way and it hurt their egos.

I have used derogatory terms towards other women, Bitch, Cunt and Whore in really ugly, sexist ways thinking it was okay, because I am a woman.

I have been afraid of having conversations because even though I own that I'm Transphobic, I don't want to prove it in words publicly while I am working it out.

I have been the subject of and witnessed others being the subject of really misogynistic and sexist behavior by members of this community via head patting and shaming because we're not ladylike enough or not doing Femme, Butch, Lesbian, Male, Woman, Feminist, etc. in the right way (meaning their way).

That's just a small portion of what comes to mind right now, and I look forward to this discussion.

My personal belief is that regardless of your orientation, one should never use their gender identification as a patriarchal tool of oppression. Period.

[JAGG]

Guilty! I am owning up to being judgemental about area's of our community. Room to improve here, and grow. And I intend to.

[Novelafemme]

Sometimes I use ugly words when I am angry or threatened. :( I've called women some pretty awful things because they made me feel bad so I wanted to make them feel bad too, even though those words go against everything I believe in.

Aren't we all guilty of muttering "bitch" under our breath every now and again? The difference I am recognizing is how I feel immediately after that ugly word leaves my mouth.

We need to stop oppressing one another.

[Greyson]

Aj, I think it takes courage, a willingness to feel uncomfortable and a commitment to take a look at changing ourselves as individuals in our daily actions and thoughts. This is what I believe will move our community forward.

A few years back I realized just how much the "victim mentality" held me back and I had allowed life circumstances to wound me and turn me into an angry, fearful, and stagnated human being. I have judged others and I have learned to forgive.

I have walked through life in different realities. Most of my life I have been perceived as masculine and queer. I have been perceived to be middle-class, working-class and welfare-class. Some see me as a foreigner in my own country and some perceive me to be white. I have been perceived to be educated and to be illiterate. I have been told I speak with a heavy Spanish accent and English is my first and primary language. I have negotiated myself through what sometimes feels like a world of paradox.

I am tired of the "me me" paradigm too. I will start with some of my transgressions. I cannot tell you how many times internally I have dismissed lesbians and white women saying “I don't feel safe. I need my own safe space." I know I have a lot of baggage around this. When I hear this, I hear, "You are masculine, you are a POC and you are wired to hurt people like me; not masculine, privileged and clueless about other cultures." I know this may sound frightening to some but I am being real.

I know I have a ways to go. I am trying. Trust me; many times I am as scared and leery of the ones needing safety as they are of people like me.

[Heart]

~Differentiate between linking oppressions and oppression olympics.

~Recognize that discussing gender politics, pronoun choice, safe space, visibility, etc are privileges that most people do not have, and that huge swaths of people across the globe are routinely and rigidly oppressed based upon sex, gender, race, and class.

~Understand that no personal journey, process, choice, label, or experience is free of a social/cultural context.

~Understand also things like institutional power, blaming victims (shifting accountability), internalized oppression, horizontal hostility, and tokanism.

[Dominique]

It's been 30 years and I am still trying to figure out Lesbian Culture. I feel like I am an invisable Femme. I've said this on here, and over there and in my real life.

Then I worry about bigoted comments from my on line community. I have no real life *community*, there I am a Lesbian,-Queer would be pushing it.
Comments from my real life lesbian friends are always *You're not Queer enough, except you're a jock*

From the straights that I've told *Really? You're Gay? You don't look it? P A U S E ah, just that jock stuff*

I'm introverted. I write, I draw, I paint. I run, I cycle and I kayak. All very inwardly tranquil. INWARD. The inward things, figments of our imaginations. So unless you look different, unless there is something physically proving ~whatever that is~ theres plenty of room for people to doubt you and judge you and feel justified with the doubting and the judgeing.

As always, writing this has felt very empowering.

Thanks all.

I also become very frustrated always having to explain myself. Maybe thats why I don't.

[Apocalipstic]

It seems that when one or very few members of a minority make a mistake or are a jerk then they seen as representative of that entire group.

For example one Transperson (Argentine, Woman, Master etc) acted in this or that way so I hate all Transpeople (or whatever the group is). This is not reality.

Individuals do not speak for the whole.

Yes, we "represent" our group in the same way we are supposed to "represent" our parents, and should ac t right. But I hope I am not held as representative of all adoptees or women or Lesbians etc.

We need to stop thinking things like..."well I was raped by a redmeck white woman", so I hate all redneck white women. and when I say "we", I mean I need to stop.

[Apocalipstic]

I hate the whole "safe place" thing.

One thing I have learned is that there is mo safe place and I have looked.

I think it is an excuse to be exclusionary a lot of the time.

[Dominique]

I dislike slurs and derogatory name calling between women.

Bad enough i/ we have had to endure it from men since the age of time, I am far less accepting of it from another woman. I work very hard to not do it. Certainly I can find a more powerful word in my vocabulary.

[deb_U_taunt]

Wow, our community is human?

[SecretAgentMa'am]

The major ethic I've taken from the queer community in the scant few years I've really been part of it is "I won't ever tell you you're wrong if you won't ever tell me I'm wrong." We're all so concerned with never being questioned and never having to explain ourselves that we have this vast, unspoken agreement that no one should ever have to explain anything, and anyone who breaks this unspoken agreement is treated pretty harshly.

I think this is a big part of the problem. If you never have to explain yourself, you're never held accountable for anything. The community in general has this idea that you can spout off any old thing you want, and if you follow it up with "well, that's my truth" then no one gets to question you, no matter how sexist, racist, misogynist, hateful, or just plain factually wrong you might be.

The thing is, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot with this way of thinking. When people on the other side of the political spectrum from us, the ones who think we're horrible deviants with no moral center who deserve to be oppressed, talk about how we don't have any sense of right and wrong, or any morals or values, how we think everything is okay and there's no such thing as a moral wrong, this is what they're talking about. If we can't stand up within our own community and say "No, this is wrong, this behavior is not acceptable" then how can we complain when people who don't like us point out that we won't do just that and use it against us?

[Greyson]

The major ethic I've taken from the queer community in the scant few years I've really been part of it is "I won't ever tell you you're wrong if you won't ever tell me I'm wrong." We're all so concerned with never being questioned and never having to explain ourselves that we have this vast, unspoken agreement that no one should ever have to explain anything, and anyone who breaks this unspoken agreement is treated pretty harshly.

I think this is a big part of the problem. If you never have to explain yourself, you're never held accountable for anything. The community in general has this idea that you can spout off any old thing you want, and if you follow it up with "well, that's my truth" then no one gets to question you, no matter how sexist, racist, misogynist, hateful, or just plain factually wrong you might be.

The thing is, I think we shoot ourselves in the foot with this way of thinking. When people on the other side of the political spectrum from us, the ones who think we're horrible deviants with no moral center who deserve to be oppressed, talk about how we don't have any sense of right and wrong, or any morals or values, how we think everything is okay and there's no such thing as a moral wrong, this is what they're talking about. If we can't stand up within our own community and say "No, this is wrong, this behavior is not acceptable" then how can we complain when people who don't like us point out that we won't do just that and use it against us?

I agree with you about our community being accountable. In my opinion, if we cannot start with being accountable to one another here, then ? I am having a problem with the "moral" statement. Who's morality? There are some that think our way of life is NOT moral and I would disagree.

I don't want to get caught up in another round of semantics. Thank you for posting your thoughts, and I support you in speaking up.

[Apocalipstic]

Yes, but I really don't want anyone to call me out for who I am...it is none of anyone's business.

Individual bad behavior? Yes Who I am? No

Admittedly I live in the South where we talk behind people's backs and never to their faces, but who am I to make moral judgements for other people outside of the basics?

[Medusa]

The major ethic I've taken from the queer community in the scant few years I've really been part of it is "I won't ever tell you you're wrong if you won't ever tell me I'm wrong." We're all so concerned with never being questioned and never having to explain ourselves that we have this vast, unspoken agreement that no one should ever have to explain anything, and anyone who breaks this unspoken agreement is treated pretty harshly.

I think this is a big part of the problem. If you never have to explain yourself, you're never held accountable for anything. The community in general has this idea that you can spout off any old thing you want, and if you follow it up with "well, that's my truth" then no one gets to question you, no matter how sexist, racist, misogynist, hateful, or just plain factually wrong you might be.




I'd like to echo this sentiment.

One thing I have seen and experienced is that folks are often super quick to label someone a "bully" for saying "Hey, that thing you just said is fucked up". If 3 or 4 people come in and say the same thing, then they are a "clique" or a "gang". Instead of becoming people who think that thing you just said is fucked up, they are people who have "targeted" you in some way and specifically have sought out your postings so they can "shred them" or "rip them apart" for entertainment.

It's that whole "whoever can claim "victim" first" thing wins. Or perhaps it's whoever labels another person "opressor" first?

Either way, I have seen it stifle more discussions than I can remember and think that it is damaging behavior. I've employed this behavior myself even when I didn't realize it because I often interpreted "I don't agree" with "you suck and are a x, y, z". I try to keep in mind now that disagreement does not equate "value judgment" (until it does).

Also, the "my truth" thing - and I think we have a thread on this somewhere? We bend over backwards to hear people's "truths" even when those "truths" are things like "Every fat person I have ever known stinks" or "I once saw a real live troll leaving candy under my bed". There's a place for us to go "Your a dumbass if you think I believe that" (in friendlier words).

There is a flip side to that coin, I do feel that we don't get to tell other people what their experiences have been. I've seen discussions devolve when people's personal experiences get untangled and all of the sudden, they don't recognize their own story. Sometimes that's because they need to hear their experience regurgitated by another person with a different perspective and sometimes it's because other perspectives make that experience feel scarily different.

I'm rambling here and don't mean to be (I'm a 'stream of consciousness' poster)...

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I'm not actually talking about being called out for who you are. More not being called for what you do because of who you are.

"I'm a woman, I can act however I want and it can't be sexist."
"I'm a transman, I don't have male privilege to throw around."
"I'm a POC, nothing I say can be racist."

That's what I'm talking about.

Also, regarding morals: I think we've made a big mistake in not being willing to claim morals or take a moral stand. Yes, some people think we're all immoral. My moral center says those people are the ones who are immoral. If one side says they're taking a moral stand, and those they're opposed to won't, things will continue just as they are. Different people have different morals, and we would help ourselves a lot more by standing up and claiming *our* morals and holding them up against the morals of the opposition. As long as only one side is willing to claim a moral stand, only one side will be seen as moral. This is one of those cases where we need to be willing to say "no, what you're calling moral is actually wrong and immoral."

[The_Lady_Snow]

I use words like bitch, cunt towards both men and women. I have posted in language that isn't appealing. Aj you stopped me in my tracks in The Racism thread about behaviour expectations of being the better person. I've not posted in there since because you're right I know better and should know better. I don't know how easy how it's going to be calling out community when it comes to isms. "I" feel when and if you do call them out some people will either have this need to only listen to those who post in verbiage that's acceptable. Also it's just downright tiring to always or to see stuff and watch it get unnoticed. Sometimes some of us want to say more and we don't know how to use academic language that won't sound "angry". I find myself once again relearning things from communications that have gone on, are going on and hopefully will continue on. Thanks for the kick in the rear and reminding us to unpack our shit. It's time it seems. How much people will depends on putting trust that when you are no one holds it against us.

[Greyson]

"I'm a woman, I can act however I want and it can't be sexist."
"I'm a transman, I don't have male privilege to throw around."
"I'm a POC, nothing I say can be racist."

That's what I'm talking about.




Thank you.

[dreadgeek]

I'm not actually talking about being called out for who you are. More not being called for what you do because of who you are.

"I'm a woman, I can act however I want and it can't be sexist."
"I'm a transman, I don't have male privilege to throw around."
"I'm a POC, nothing I say can be racist."

That's what I'm talking about.

Also, regarding morals: I think we've made a big mistake in not being willing to claim morals or take a moral stand. Yes, some people think we're all immoral. My moral center says those people are the ones who are immoral. If one side says they're taking a moral stand, and those they're opposed to won't, things will continue just as they are. Different people have different morals, and we would help ourselves a lot more by standing up and claiming *our* morals and holding them up against the morals of the opposition. As long as only one side is willing to claim a moral stand, only one side will be seen as moral. This is one of those cases where we need to be willing to say "no, what you're calling moral is actually wrong and immoral."

I agree with you about our community being accountable. In my opinion, if we cannot start with being accountable to one another here, then ? I am having a problem with the "moral" statement. Who's morality? There are some that think our way of life is NOT moral and I would disagree.

I don't want to get caught up in another round of semantics. Thank you for posting your thoughts, and I support you in speaking up.

I am going to say that we do need to talk about morality. Dr. King gets invoked a lot and, quite honestly, I find it tiresome but I'm going to invoke him today. I'm invoking him because the *reason* why a national monument was opened in his honor this week is because he spoke for a moral vision. He said to America that the struggle for civil rights WAS a moral struggle and that one side was wrong and it wasn't his. He was, in fact, right. The struggle I was a beneficiary was was first and foremost a moral struggle because segregation was first and foremost a moral stain on our country. I believe that our struggle is a moral struggle, that there is the right side of that struggle and the wrong side of that struggle and those who argue that queer people have no place in society because this or that holy book says we don't are on the wrong side of it.

You ask what morality? I don't know that I have specifics but let me toss out a touchstone that I wish I had thought of but I didn't. If we ask ourselves "would I feel comfortable if everyone applied this rule, behaved this way, held this ethic" and if we can come away with a yes (or perhaps even a probably) then chances are that's a pretty good bet that you're onto something that works. It works in so many domains and I think if we use that as our flashlight and our machete as we hack through the underbrush then I think we will likely do more good than harm.

Why? Because let us assume that people don't want to screw themselves over. I don't. I'm willing to take some things on the chin but I'm not going to intentionally put my family on the street! Once we get past the simple stuff (the not killing, not taking other people's stuff, etc.) and we get to the knotty issues that touchstone really comes in handy.

How would I like to be spoken to? Well, I prefer not to have racial slurs thrown at me. Since I cannot think of a single good reason--certainly not one any of y'all would accept--that I should be able to use racial or sexist language but you can't, I should avoid using racial or sexist language. I prefer not to be pushed in the mud, so I won't push you in the mud so that you won't push me in the mud. Is that a perfect moral system? No, there is no such animal. It is workable, though.

So what kind of morality? All people have worth and value. Their worth and value is intrinsic to them being human beings. All people have rights, those rights adhere to them BECAUSE they are human beings and injustice entails denying them their rights because of this or that fully arbitrary trait. (This allows us to seriously constrain the rights of, for instance, a serial rapist who has proven he has no interest in playing nice with the rest of us) All people have a right to bodily integrity meaning that violence against persons is wrong.

This doesn't give us a list of moral codes but it begins to form the outline of a morality by talking about the values we hold dear.

Cheers
Aj

[atomiczombie]

It seems that when one or very few members of a minority make a mistake or are a jerk then they seen as representative of that entire group.

For example one Transperson (Argentine, Woman, Master etc) acted in this or that way so I hate all Transpeople (or whatever the group is). This is not reality.

Individuals do not speak for the whole.

Yes, we "represent" our group in the same way we are supposed to "represent" our parents, and should ac t right. But I hope I am not held as representative of all adoptees or women or Lesbians etc.

We need to stop thinking things like..."well I was raped by a redmeck white woman", so I hate all redneck white women. and when I say "we", I mean I need to stop.

YES!

I want to piggy back off this by saying that I have felt hurt when I have seen femme threads on here where some people have talked about men with a broad brush, and a negative one at that. And since it was in the femme zone, I felt I couldn't and shouldn't come in and say, "Hey, as a transguy I want to say that not all guys are like that. I'm not like that!"

I also want to say that I, personally, try to keep in mind that we queer people, LGBTQ, etc. all know what it is like to be marginalized and oppressed by the hetero-normative, non-trans, homophobic, white-centric, racist and patriarchal dominant culture of our respective countries. We all experience it on one level or another, or on multiple levels. We need to stick together and stop attacking each other! I have said this several times before and I will keep saying it. Stop the madness! lol.

I try my best to listen to the concerns and issues of others, and put myself in their shoes. I can't always relate to what everyone is going through because I don't always have the same exact experiences. But I have to take someone's word for it when they say they feel marginalized. However, sometimes, given all the facts, I can see that there are times when such feelings are based on miscommunications or misperceptions of the facts. One person says one thing, and another person assumes there is an intent in those words that simply isn't there, and then feels upset.

Here is a personal example for me: I have been told that I could never understand what it is like to be on the receiving end of racism, and my comments were dismissed. My point of view is, yes I will never know exactly what that is like, it's true. However, I do know what it is like to have a hard time getting employment on the basis of who I am and what I look like, being passed over for promotions, stared at in public places, treated as if I am less than human, had my property vandalized, called hurtful bigoted words, etc. It's not exactly the same, but it's something. And I will never understand any better as long as no one tries explain it to me. I would love for someone to say, "Drew, these are the experiences I have and this is how it effects my life and makes me feel." As a white person who doesn't experience the receiving end of racism, I want to understand better. And I want others to understand better what it is like to be me and what I go through too. All it takes is an openness to listen, and the patience to explain without judgment. The same goes for sexism, and all the other -isms.

I have more to say but I have to get going now. I will be back later. Great topic AJ!!

[The_Lady_Snow]

I'd like to share the word 'morals' is like a trigger, it's cause of the way it can be used to demean. How Aj used morality was not so triggering I'm trying to figure out why...

[dreadgeek]

I'd like to share the word 'morals' is like a trigger, it's cause of the way it can be used to demean. How Aj used morality was an not so triggering I'm trying to figure out why...

I like to think because it is not a scolding. As SA Ma'am pointed out, the right-wing--at least in America--has spent a long time claiming that the queer movement (and the Left generally) has no morals or thinks that there's no such thing as morals. We have, as she points out, delivered ourselves into their hands. This is not to say that the word isn't going to taste strange on our tongues. It will for a while. It will because we ceded space that we did not need to. At the time, the reasons seemed like good ones. The laboratory of the real world, I think, shows that it wasn't. At the end of the day, theory (we should avoid using moral language) was not in agreement with experiment (human beings use moral language and need to do so).

I think the difference in how I'm using moral is that I'm talking about how we treat one another. One could use ethics but I really want to reclaim the word moral. At some point in my lifetime, the Left just surrendered on the issue of morals and so this allowed the religious right to frame the word 'moral' in a way amenable to them and their goals. Thus morality became about whether one was anti-gay, whether one was anti-choice, whether one believed that women should be subservient and submissive to men and whether one believed in corporal punishment, etc. This allowed other things which my parents would have understood as moral issues to no longer BE moral issues. Rapaciousness and avarice? Once upon a time these were considered ethical blemishes now they are things to brag about between the covers of Forbes or Business Week. Cruelty and torture? Once upon a time we thought these things beyond the pale, completely beyond the pale. Now it is something for law enforcement to fairly boast about (Sheriff Arapaio in Arizona) and for politicians to wax poetic about on the floor of the US congress.

I think we need to reclaim the language of morality, not shirk from it. Because morality is about *behavior* not *being*. A murderer is not some class of person who has never killed, one's behavior makes one a murderer. This is completely different than saying that, for instance, homosexuality has any intrinsic moral weight. It does not. So we are right to judge the murderer harshly because all one had to do to AVOID being a murderer was to refrain from murder. Murder harms people and so we have a vested interest--as a society--for making it abundantly clear that the behavior is unacceptable. Who does homosexuality harm? No one. Because it harms no one--and I'm in favor of a harm-based morality instead of a, say, holy book based one--it has no moral content. It is therefore inappropriate to claim homosexuality is immoral, as the religious right does.

We can talk about morality without being prudes, we just have to be clear about what we mean when we start using moral language.

Cheers
Aj

[atomiczombie]

I like to think because it is not a scolding. As SA Ma'am pointed out, the right-wing--at least in America--has spent a long time claiming that the queer movement (and the Left generally) has no morals or thinks that there's no such thing as morals. We have, as she points out, delivered ourselves into their hands. This is not to say that the word isn't going to taste strange on our tongues. It will for a while. It will because we ceded space that we did not need to. At the time, the reasons seemed like good ones. The laboratory of the real world, I think, shows that it wasn't. At the end of the day, theory (we should avoid using moral language) was not in agreement with experiment (human beings use moral language and need to do so).

I think the difference in how I'm using moral is that I'm talking about how we treat one another. One could use ethics but I really want to reclaim the word moral. At some point in my lifetime, the Left just surrendered on the issue of morals and so this allowed the religious right to frame the word 'moral' in a way amenable to them and their goals. Thus morality became about whether one was anti-gay, whether one was anti-choice, whether one believed that women should be subservient and submissive to men and whether one believed in corporal punishment, etc. This allowed other things which my parents would have understood as moral issues to no longer BE moral issues. Rapaciousness and avarice? Once upon a time these were considered ethical blemishes now they are things to brag about between the covers of Forbes or Business Week. Cruelty and torture? Once upon a time we thought these things beyond the pale, completely beyond the pale. Now it is something for law enforcement to fairly boast about (Sheriff Arapaio in Arizona) and for politicians to wax poetic about on the floor of the US congress.

I think we need to reclaim the language of morality, not shirk from it. Because morality is about *behavior* not *being*. A murderer is not some class of person who has never killed, one's behavior makes one a murderer. This is completely different than saying that, for instance, homosexuality has any intrinsic moral weight. It does not. So we are right to judge the murderer harshly because all one had to do to AVOID being a murderer was to refrain from murder. Murder harms people and so we have a vested interest--as a society--for making it abundantly clear that the behavior is unacceptable. Who does homosexuality harm? No one. Because it harms no one--and I'm in favor of a harm-based morality instead of a, say, holy book based one--it has no moral content. It is therefore inappropriate to claim homosexuality is immoral, as the religious right does.

We can talk about morality without being prudes, we just have to be clear about what we mean when we start using moral language.

Cheers
Aj

Yes.

And I think of morality as strictly about doing right by each other as human beings. To me, singling out people and excluding them and harassing them with finger wagging because they are different from you is immoral behavior. Favoring policies that keep the rich richer and the poor poorer is an immoral stance. Anything that creates a strata of civil rights where some have more and some have less is immoral. Racism is immoral. Sexism and homophobia and transphobia and ageism are immoral. Those are all immoral things because they are unfair and harm people in some really significant ways.

I agree with you Aj, that this is a different way of thinking of morality than the religious right seems to. The whole, "the bible says it, I believe it and that settles it!" kind of thinking isn't what I consider moral. I think it's more like using religion to justify one's prejudices and bigotry. That kind of hypocrisy makes me mad because there is no reasoning with people like that. But those people don't have the market cornered on morality; in reality they are lacking it in the most fundamental ways.

[Slater]

So much good stuff in this thread already.

I wanted to put together a coherent post that had some sort of discernible structure and flow. Yeah, that ain’t happening tonight. So instead I’m just going to throw a few disjointed thoughts out there and shoot for coherence another time.


We are no longer – as a community – as embattled as we were a couple decades ago, which is not to say that things are swell for everyone, but in general as a community, we are not bobbing in the middle of the ocean surrounded by sharks and clinging to a half-deflated life raft like we once were. And I think maybe that is some of where the rush to cast the victim and oppressor roles that Medusa mentioned comes into play. We’ve come to expect sharks, so we see them around every corner (and yes I realize the middle of the ocean doesn’t technically have corners). We sharkify each other in part because we are accustomed to battling sharks.

Somewhat conversely is the phenomenon that AJ and Heart and others have talked about, whereby things stand unchallenged that should be challenged, or if they are challenged, the response is defensive and dismissive. And I think they are right when they talk about needing to build the community around shared values or morals instead of just around identities. But I also think there is simply not enough education on anti-oppression. I think most all of us are familiar with general concepts but I am talking about understanding the mechanics of how oppression functions and learning how to do the work of combating it.

One other thing that I’ve been thinking about, though I’m not quite sure how this fits in to this discussion, is that we need to stop pretending that broadened inclusiveness is always free in every circumstance. That is, sometimes, in some situations, there is a cost. That doesn’t mean the inclusiveness isn’t the right thing to do or isn’t worth the cost, but maybe acknowledging the cost might make the process easier for those who are paying it.

For instance, there was a time when butch was considered a specifically female identity. And I admit, when I first heard male-identified people using butch, I felt like something was being taken away from me. While it’s obviously true that male-identified people using the term does not prevent me from identifying that way, it does change what the word means and therefore it changes what I am saying about myself when I use it. When people talk about feeling erased, maybe that’s what they sometimes mean. The femaleness of butch was, to me, an integral part of it. It described a particular, and highly marginalized, way of being female in the world. And then it didn’t; it meant something else.

I want to be clear that, for me, it was never about thinking transmen should not be part of the community. It was about wanting to hold onto a word that named my experience. I know some people think the naming thing is or should be unimportant, but I don’t agree. I think it is vital for marginalized groups to have words for themselves, words that represent their existence and specific experience in the world. When I was in college and newly out, I had a friend who was from a rural part of China. She could scarcely comprehend coming out to her parents because in the dialect they spoke there were no words for lesbian or gay or even homosexual. There were no words at all that named her reality. It was clear how lost and helpless she felt even thinking about how to begin that conversation with her parents. Our names matter.

I came to understand the reasons why butch was being used by some transmen. I do understand. But I will say that I appreciate it when a male-identified person uses the term transbutch. To me, that clearly connects them to the butch identity and community while at the same time acknowledging and respecting that the female tradition of the word.

I realize I’ve wandered a bit far afield from the topic of the thread, so I’ll try to bring it back around. If one of the things we are talking about is how to better coalesce our various groups into a united community, I think we need to honestly acknowledge that sometimes broadening definitions or scopes can mean something is going to be lost along the way, sacrificed to the process of change. While this doesn’t mean the change shouldn’t happen, it might at least be worth considering what, if anything, is being sacrificed.


Considering I can hardly stay awake I should probably stop here. Hopefully in the morning I will not have horrifying realization that I should have stopped long before now.

Great thread, important discussions, looking forward to more.

[Liam]

snip
For instance, there was a time when butch was considered a specifically female identity. And I admit, when I first heard male-identified people using butch, I felt like something was being taken away from me. While it’s obviously true that male-identified people using the term does not prevent me from identifying that way, it does change what the word means and therefore it changes what I am saying about myself when I use it. When people talk about feeling erased, maybe that’s what they sometimes mean. The femaleness of butch was, to me, an integral part of it. It described a particular, and highly marginalized, way of being female in the world. And then it didn’t; it meant something else.


What time was butch considered specifically a female identity?

My understanding and knowledge of queer history, is that the term butch is and has been used by both lesbians and gay men, and it is not, nor was a term exclusive to females.

[Nat]

I think the difference in how I'm using moral is that I'm talking about how we treat one another. One could use ethics but I really want to reclaim the word moral. At some point in my lifetime, the Left just surrendered on the issue of morals and so this allowed the religious right to frame the word 'moral' in a way amenable to them and their goals. Thus morality became about whether one was anti-gay, whether one was anti-choice, whether one believed that women should be subservient and submissive to men and whether one believed in corporal punishment, etc. This allowed other things which my parents would have understood as moral issues to no longer BE moral issues. Rapaciousness and avarice? Once upon a time these were considered ethical blemishes now they are things to brag about between the covers of Forbes or Business Week. Cruelty and torture? Once upon a time we thought these things beyond the pale, completely beyond the pale. Now it is something for law enforcement to fairly boast about (Sheriff Arapaio in Arizona) and for politicians to wax poetic about on the floor of the US congress.

I think we need to reclaim the language of morality, not shirk from it.

YES


Because morality is about *behavior* not *being*. A murderer is not some class of person who has never killed, one's behavior makes one a murderer. This is completely different than saying that, for instance, homosexuality has any intrinsic moral weight. It does not. So we are right to judge the murderer harshly because all one had to do to AVOID being a murderer was to refrain from murder. Murder harms people and so we have a vested interest--as a society--for making it abundantly clear that the behavior is unacceptable. Who does homosexuality harm? No one. Because it harms no one--and I'm in favor of a harm-based morality instead of a, say, holy book based one--it has no moral content. It is therefore inappropriate to claim homosexuality is immoral, as the religious right does.

We can talk about morality without being prudes, we just have to be clear about what we mean when we start using moral language.

Cheers
Aj

This I mostly agree with - I like your definition of harm-based morality.

I've wondered many times what it would be like to wake up and know that yesterday I committed a terrible crime. I have dreams like this too. (I have a very low likelihood of committing a terrible crime). I have thought and thought about the difference between a person before and after s/he commits a violent crime - are they the same person?

I tend to think so. I judge. But in (my) perfect world, I would rather judge the behavior and not the person. I'm not sure where that discomfort with judging people comes from, but it is perhaps from an emotional rather than a logical place. At least, I think the murderer benefits from compassion more than s/he benefits from judgment. And I think society benefits more from the compassionate treatment of criminals, while the crime is still punished. More later, work calls.

[Novelafemme]

I like to think because it is not a scolding. As SA Ma'am pointed out, the right-wing--at least in America--has spent a long time claiming that the queer movement (and the Left generally) has no morals or thinks that there's no such thing as morals. We have, as she points out, delivered ourselves into their hands. This is not to say that the word isn't going to taste strange on our tongues. It will for a while. It will because we ceded space that we did not need to. At the time, the reasons seemed like good ones. The laboratory of the real world, I think, shows that it wasn't. At the end of the day, theory (we should avoid using moral language) was not in agreement with experiment (human beings use moral language and need to do so).

I think the difference in how I'm using moral is that I'm talking about how we treat one another. One could use ethics but I really want to reclaim the word moral. At some point in my lifetime, the Left just surrendered on the issue of morals and so this allowed the religious right to frame the word 'moral' in a way amenable to them and their goals. Thus morality became about whether one was anti-gay, whether one was anti-choice, whether one believed that women should be subservient and submissive to men and whether one believed in corporal punishment, etc. This allowed other things which my parents would have understood as moral issues to no longer BE moral issues. Rapaciousness and avarice? Once upon a time these were considered ethical blemishes now they are things to brag about between the covers of Forbes or Business Week. Cruelty and torture? Once upon a time we thought these things beyond the pale, completely beyond the pale. Now it is something for law enforcement to fairly boast about (Sheriff Arapaio in Arizona) and for politicians to wax poetic about on the floor of the US congress.

I think we need to reclaim the language of morality, not shirk from it. Because morality is about *behavior* not *being*. A murderer is not some class of person who has never killed, one's behavior makes one a murderer. This is completely different than saying that, for instance, homosexuality has any intrinsic moral weight. It does not. So we are right to judge the murderer harshly because all one had to do to AVOID being a murderer was to refrain from murder. Murder harms people and so we have a vested interest--as a society--for making it abundantly clear that the behavior is unacceptable. Who does homosexuality harm? No one. Because it harms no one--and I'm in favor of a harm-based morality instead of a, say, holy book based one--it has no moral content. It is therefore inappropriate to claim homosexuality is immoral, as the religious right does.

We can talk about morality without being prudes, we just have to be clear about what we mean when we start using moral language.

Cheers
Aj

Hi AJ,

I'm a little confused about the portion I highlighted in blue. Cruelty and torture have long been a systemic means of coercion and oppression utilized not only by our Armed Forces but by hegemonic powers by in large since the beginning of time.

More later...gotta go pick up the kiddos :)

[dreadgeek]

Hi AJ,

I'm a little confused about the portion I highlighted in blue. Cruelty and torture have long been a systemic means of coercion and oppression utilized not only by our Armed Forces but by hegemonic powers by in large since the beginning of time.

More later...gotta go pick up the kiddos :)

When I was in the military we were taught that if we captured the enemy whatever else we might do we do NOT torture. Ever. It is a war crime. If given an order to torture, it was our *duty* to refuse to carry out the order and support our superior to the next in the chain of command and, if possible, relieve the officer giving that order of his command because giving an illegal order is prima facie evidence that one is unfit for command. Has torture been used by nation-states and by monarchs before them? Yes. However, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is quite clear on the matter of torture. We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions and by Constitutional mandate we are *obliged* to conform to it.

George Washington, who explicitly forbade torture, had it right. If we torture their people, they can torture our people. They might torture our people even if we do not torture theirs but if we torture theirs we make it a near certainty that our people will be tortured.

My saying that there was a time when torture was considered out-of-bounds does not mean that torture did not happen anymore than saying that murder is out-of-bounds means that murder never happens. But it was once the case that any commander who gave his troops an order to torture would have been relieved of command. There was a time when we, the American people, would have demanded the impeachment of any elected official who signed off on torture. It was once the case that we prided ourselves, we differentiated ourselves, by our NOT torturing.

Cheers
Aj

[Slater]

What time was butch considered specifically a female identity?

My understanding and knowledge of queer history, is that the term butch is and has been used by both lesbians and gay men, and it is not, nor was a term exclusive to females.

I should have been a bit clearer in what I was saying. It’s certainly true that gay men use the word butch. I don’t know for sure whether they adopted it based the usage in the lesbian community although it doesn’t actually matter to what I was trying to say, but wasn’t quite explicit about.

I wasn’t talking literally about the collection of letters b-u-t-c-h (which is of course also used as a first name), but with the distinct identity of butch that exists in our community. While butch is used by gay men, it has never coalesced into an identity and community the way it did among lesbians. But regardless of the nature of its usage among gay men, it occupies in a separate part of the cultural landscape than the butch identity I was speaking of, so in that sense they might as well be different words. A little bit like life forms that may share a common ancestor but evolve distinctly on neighboring mountainsides.

So what I was talking about was the butch name and butch identity that exists is our part of the cultural landscape, the one on our mountainside. That butch identity was a female identity. That butch identity has changed to no longer be a specifically female identity.

I don’t know if that makes what I was saying any clearer or not. Hopefully it does. My intention in bringing it up in the first place was merely as an example of the way a change, even when it makes sense for the community, can mean the loss of something that is valued by at least some members of the community. And I think if we were better at being mindful of that and acknowledging it along the way, we might be able to incorporate changes with a little less friction.

[lettertodaddy]

Just a quick note before I dash off to work. They decided to block logins to this site the other day.

One of the things that makes me feel like an outsider these days is the assimilationist politics of groups like the HRC and Marriage Equality USA. When I was younger, my queer friends and I were all about trying to create alternative notions of family. The idea that the family you chose was just as viable and important as the nuclear family you were born into. Family could take on all different shapes and sizes: it could be a partnered couple, a triad, a free-for-all multilayered polyamorous collective, or it could be just you and your cat. But the foundation of that was trying to break down the patriarchal, heteronormative concepts of marriage and family that have been used to punish queer folks for eons.

I was married (to a man), but even then marriage didn't sit right with me. I probably got out about 8 years too late, but it was that experience of being "heterosexually" married that made me realize that I'm more interested in dismantling the institution of marriage and remaking it into something radically different.

I came out of that relationship looking for similar rhetoric from queer communities and thought leaders, but now all I see is people fighting to be "as good as" straight people, fighting for assimilation, fighting for their slice of the two-parent, two-kids, house in the suburbs, subaru in the driveway, and mortgaged up to their eyeballs American dream. I'm left standing on the sidelines thinking "this is not what I was fighting for."

I am not out to malign anyone who wants this sort of arrangement for themselves. My issue is that if I'm seen as not being on board with marriage equality, that I'm looked at as some sort of traitor to the community. And I'm not sure what that means for my continued participation in it, or whether that means I've overstayed my welcome.

Did the process of rethinking and reshaping queer community that we've been going through for all of these decades lead us to whitebread, non-threatening, average lifestyles? What becomes of those of us who don't want that?

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Just a quick note before I dash off to work. They decided to block logins to this site the other day.

One of the things that makes me feel like an outsider these days is the assimilationist politics of groups like the HRC and Marriage Equality USA.

This is a sentiment that I've heard quite a bit. My wife and I live in a house in the suburbs. Our fence is chain link, we don't have any kids at home, it's just us, the dog, the cats, the lizard, and a vegetable garden in the back yard. She goes to work in a big office 5 days a week. I'm a full time student. We barbecue with the neighbors and take the dog to the dog park. What, exactly, is so terrible about that? You say you're not out to malign anyone who wants that kind of life, but then you call us "assimilationists" and talk about how we want to be "as good as" straight people. Have you ever asked a queer person who lives in the suburbs and wants to get married *why* they feel that way? It's not about being "as good as" straight people or about assimilation.

I'm absolutely with you that family is more than just people who are related by biology or marriage. I'm also a realist. Marriage has quite a few benefits that my wife and I need, and dismantling marriage as an institution isn't happening in my lifetime. It's not happening in this century, or most likely even in the next several centuries. Marriage as an institution is just about as old as humanity, and it's here to stay. So, since marriage isn't going anywhere, I really don't understand how anyone who doesn't currently have the right to marry the person(s) they love can be against gaining that right for as many people as is humanly possible. And yes, for me, that includes "non-nuclear" families.

So yes, I tend to get a little hostile while a queer person tells me they don't think my wife and I should be able to get married. To me, they're making the same argument as the religious right who are fighting against us (that we shouldn't be able to get married), they're just using a different justification.

[dreadgeek]

LTD:

You bring up an interesting issue. One that I think needs to be discussed in the broader queer community because the question of assimilation is one all minority groups have to face at various times. What I'm about to say is filtered through my experiences, growing up as an upper-middle class black kid, in a predominately white neighborhood, in the 1970s.

My family used to get accused of being assimilationist and being insufficiently 'black' because my parents were college professors and they had the same kind of expectations other middle-class professionals have. I have often wondered what alternative those folks who made that line of argument had in mind. I also wondered how those who followed their advice/ideas fared in their lives.

Not everything comes down to economics but economics do count. I often wonder if we would have been more sufficiently 'black' if my parents hadn't put themselves through college and had expressed no preference for my sister and I going to college either. I do not think we were trying to be 'as good as' whites. I do think we were trying to live our lives with dignity and in the process of doing so we were going to show that the idea that blacks weren't as capable as whites as a lie.

The things you critique may not be the idealized way of family formation but they are the ways that we have. Yes, my wife and I live a very assimilated life. I work in an office that allows me to be a nerd at work (meaning I get to wear jeans, tee-shirts and running shoes) while paying me a professional salary. My wife goes to school on her little pink scooter. On the weekends I'm not working, we put the dog in the car and drive him to the dog park. When we come home, we putter about the house, maybe have friends over for dinner. Four times a year we pick up the shipment from our wine club. Very assimilated.

I rather like that I could invite my coworkers to our wedding without fear and have people show up and enjoy themselves. I rather like that I can talk about my wife in the day-to-day office banter about the latest antics of the dog or what-have-you, and not fear that I'm going to be called into the HR office and told I no longer have a job. Because of that, I can support us while my wife goes to school full-time. That way, she can focus on her studies. If being an assimilated black lesbian is the price I pay for that, it is a price well worth paying.

Would it be better if, instead of average lives, queer people only lived at the margins of society? I've watched this play out in the black community and what I've seen in the four decades that experiment has been run hasn't really done much to recommend deliberate marginalization. What's the difference? It's the difference between making enough to live on and not making enough to live on.

At any rate, society may not *want* marriage torn down. Society gets a vote in how society is constituted so if marriage is going to be torn down and built into something else, a convincing argument will have to be made and it may have to be made over the course of generations. If it is a truly better idea, then it will be adopted and one day *that* will become the new normal. I believe--and my observations of how different black communities have fared since the 60s seems to bolster my hypothesis--that the path to the world you hint at runs through the suburban house of assimilated queers.

I say that because I believe, based upon how we were treated when I first started school in the neighborhood and how we were treated when I graduated high school, that my parents assimilation and raising us assimilated did more good for the cause of race relations than all of the fist-raising Black Power stances that were all the vogue during that period. Why? Because when we first moved into the house and until I was, probably, in the second grade our house would be egged. We had a cross burnt on our lawn when we first moved in. My dad caught one of the egg throwers, dragged him in the house and made him call his parents. They came and picked him up and they were none-too-pleased at the experience. A decade later, these very same people were showing up at my parent's door on a very different mission. This time they wanted advice because they looked at my sister and I, looked at their own kids, and figured my parents were doing SOMETHING right. Their kids were in trouble with school and the law. My sister and I were at the top of our respective classes, never in trouble with the law, and were known around the neighborhood as industrious (we always had some kind of money-making scheme going on because our parents didn't believe in allowances so we had paper routes and mowed lawns or did babysitting).

That is quite the change, don't you think? This isn't a story of gaining the acceptance of white folks. This is a story about how people's minds change. When we moved in, the people around us thought we had no business in that neighborhood. By the time I left home, my parents were pillars of the community, leaders in the neighborhood and the 'go-to' people if you were having trouble with your kids.

Cheers
Aj


Just a quick note before I dash off to work. They decided to block logins to this site the other day.

One of the things that makes me feel like an outsider these days is the assimilationist politics of groups like the HRC and Marriage Equality USA. When I was younger, my queer friends and I were all about trying to create alternative notions of family. The idea that the family you chose was just as viable and important as the nuclear family you were born into. Family could take on all different shapes and sizes: it could be a partnered couple, a triad, a free-for-all multilayered polyamorous collective, or it could be just you and your cat. But the foundation of that was trying to break down the patriarchal, heteronormative concepts of marriage and family that have been used to punish queer folks for eons.

I was married (to a man), but even then marriage didn't sit right with me. I probably got out about 8 years too late, but it was that experience of being "heterosexually" married that made me realize that I'm more interested in dismantling the institution of marriage and remaking it into something radically different.

I came out of that relationship looking for similar rhetoric from queer communities and thought leaders, but now all I see is people fighting to be "as good as" straight people, fighting for assimilation, fighting for their slice of the two-parent, two-kids, house in the suburbs, subaru in the driveway, and mortgaged up to their eyeballs American dream. I'm left standing on the sidelines thinking "this is not what I was fighting for."

I am not out to malign anyone who wants this sort of arrangement for themselves. My issue is that if I'm seen as not being on board with marriage equality, that I'm looked at as some sort of traitor to the community. And I'm not sure what that means for my continued participation in it, or whether that means I've overstayed my welcome.

Did the process of rethinking and reshaping queer community that we've been going through for all of these decades lead us to whitebread, non-threatening, average lifestyles? What becomes of those of us who don't want that?

[Glenn]

alettertodaddy; As I type this, another youth was just beaten to death on the streets of Iowa because of his sexual orientation. Equality laws are not going to make us safe. I've been faithfully married for 35 years without the same legal benefits as others. As far as we've come, we can easily be catapulted back into the dark ages again in one day. In comparison to that, this thread seems like a delightfully normal picnic. So yes.. I hear you. Glenn

[Novelafemme]

LTD:

You bring up an interesting issue. One that I think needs to be discussed in the broader queer community because the question of assimilation is one all minority groups have to face at various times. What I'm about to say is filtered through my experiences, growing up as an upper-middle class black kid, in a predominately white neighborhood, in the 1970s.

My family used to get accused of being assimilationist and being insufficiently 'black' because my parents were college professors and they had the same kind of expectations other middle-class professionals have. I have often wondered what alternative those folks who made that line of argument had in mind. I also wondered how those who followed their advice/ideas fared in their lives.

Not everything comes down to economics but economics do count. I often wonder if we would have been more sufficiently 'black' if my parents hadn't put themselves through college and had expressed no preference for my sister and I going to college either. I do not think we were trying to be 'as good as' whites. I do think we were trying to live our lives with dignity and in the process of doing so we were going to show that the idea that blacks weren't as capable as whites as a lie.

The things you critique may not be the idealized way of family formation but they are the ways that we have. Yes, my wife and I live a very assimilated life. I work in an office that allows me to be a nerd at work (meaning I get to wear jeans, tee-shirts and running shoes) while paying me a professional salary. My wife goes to school on her little pink scooter. On the weekends I'm not working, we put the dog in the car and drive him to the dog park. When we come home, we putter about the house, maybe have friends over for dinner. Four times a year we pick up the shipment from our wine club. Very assimilated.

I rather like that I could invite my coworkers to our wedding without fear and have people show up and enjoy themselves. I rather like that I can talk about my wife in the day-to-day office banter about the latest antics of the dog or what-have-you, and not fear that I'm going to be called into the HR office and told I no longer have a job. Because of that, I can support us while my wife goes to school full-time. That way, she can focus on her studies. If being an assimilated black lesbian is the price I pay for that, it is a price well worth paying.

Would it be better if, instead of average lives, queer people only lived at the margins of society? I've watched this play out in the black community and what I've seen in the four decades that experiment has been run hasn't really done much to recommend deliberate marginalization. What's the difference? It's the difference between making enough to live on and not making enough to live on.

At any rate, society may not *want* marriage torn down. Society gets a vote in how society is constituted so if marriage is going to be torn down and built into something else, a convincing argument will have to be made and it may have to be made over the course of generations. If it is a truly better idea, then it will be adopted and one day *that* will become the new normal. I believe--and my observations of how different black communities have fared since the 60s seems to bolster my hypothesis--that the path to the world you hint at runs through the suburban house of assimilated queers.

I say that because I believe, based upon how we were treated when I first started school in the neighborhood and how we were treated when I graduated high school, that my parents assimilation and raising us assimilated did more good for the cause of race relations than all of the fist-raising Black Power stances that were all the vogue during that period. Why? Because when we first moved into the house and until I was, probably, in the second grade our house would be egged. We had a cross burnt on our lawn when we first moved in. My dad caught one of the egg throwers, dragged him in the house and made him call his parents. They came and picked him up and they were none-too-pleased at the experience. A decade later, these very same people were showing up at my parent's door on a very different mission. This time they wanted advice because they looked at my sister and I, looked at their own kids, and figured my parents were doing SOMETHING right. Their kids were in trouble with school and the law. My sister and I were at the top of our respective classes, never in trouble with the law, and were known around the neighborhood as industrious (we always had some kind of money-making scheme going on because our parents didn't believe in allowances so we had paper routes and mowed lawns or did babysitting).

That is quite the change, don't you think? This isn't a story of gaining the acceptance of white folks. This is a story about how people's minds change. When we moved in, the people around us thought we had no business in that neighborhood. By the time I left home, my parents were pillars of the community, leaders in the neighborhood and the 'go-to' people if you were having trouble with your kids.

Cheers
Aj


AJ, are you referring to your marriage/wedding as a commitment ceremony or a tried and true, legally binding marriage?

[lettertodaddy]

When I use the word assimilationist, it carries no baggage for me. Martin Luther King was an assimilationist. W.E.B. DuBois was an assimilationist. Anna Julia Cooper was an assimilationist. Assimilation just means being collected into the body of the whole.

If you saw something negative in my use of the word, I apologize for causing offense. None was intended.

I also want to reiterate that nowhere did I say that people who want to get married shouldn't be able to. If that's what you want, go for it. Fight for it. Don't give up, and do it anyway until society and legislation catches up with you. But to me, that is not our only fight. That is what concerns me, because so much of our rhetoric is only focused on that one issue.

It's as if the beautiful plurality of voices that I was used to hearing has been silenced by a few who want to be able to claim their place at the centre. I just want those of us who can see that the centre isn't healthy to be heard as well.

As for me, I've never wanted to be mainstream. Rather than thinking of my experiences as marginal (which is negative), I prefer to think of them as exceptional. I want to be the exception to the rule.

As far as the use of "as good as you", there's a blog and active online community for marriage equality and LGBT rights called Good As You. That's what was in my mind when I use that phrase, and it rankles me. Again, wanting to be equal and "as good as" straight folks are fine if that is your goal. I want to be better than the norm. I want us all to strive to make our society better, not to just accept the status quo.

[lettertodaddy]

I'm thinking that my contribution here is adding fuel to a fire, and isn't constructive. I apologize. I'll bow out. If you want to continue the conversation, I'm happy to do so via private message.

[ScandalAndy]

I'm thinking that my contribution here is adding fuel to a fire, and isn't constructive. I apologize. I'll bow out. If you want to continue the conversation, I'm happy to do so via private message.



:( I don't see your posts as inflammatory, did I miss something? I thought there was constructive dialogue going on. If you bow out, how will I learn from the conversation?

[Slater]

A quick thought on assimilation vs. radicalization ... I don't really see it as an either/or. I think both have a role to play and they can complement each other, as long as there are at least some common goals or outcomes.

My personal frame of reference for this is my activity in Queer Nation in the early 1990s. Some people in the gay community complained that we were too radical, too marginal, but in a conversation I had with a lesbian who had just become Seattle's first openly gay city council member, she pointed out that without QN, she would be the fringe, the radical edge. But with us out there, pushing boundaries, she suddenly looked more mainstream to people. The combination helped push the center, if you will, helped reframe the concept of normal.

Actually the group doing this really effectively right now is the right wing. With the Tea Partiers out there moving the radical edge beyond the bounds of sanity, the "center" of the Republican party suddenly seems more mainstream, despite the fact that they are so conservative that many Nixon-era policies would be considered practically leftist by today's Republican standards.

[Apocalipstic]

I'm thinking that my contribution here is adding fuel to a fire, and isn't constructive. I apologize. I'll bow out. If you want to continue the conversation, I'm happy to do so via private message.

Don't leave. I agree with much if what you say and am enjoying reading the discussion.

I don't see anything inflamatory about any of your posts.

[lettertodaddy]

:( I don't see your posts as inflammatory, did I miss something? I thought there was constructive dialogue going on. If you bow out, how will I learn from the conversation?

I'm conscious - maybe too conscious - of causing offense where none is meant. I don't want to do that. And this particular issue is one that is deeply and intensely personal for some. I don't want to give the impression that I am not an ally.

[lettertodaddy]

A quick thought on assimilation vs. radicalization ... I don't really see it as an either/or. I think both have a role to play and they can complement each other, as long as there are at least some common goals or outcomes.

Agreed. I'm rather more in favor of a both/and approach. It's the common goals idea that gets tricky.

[imperfect_cupcake]

LTD sorry, I posted and now there's a few posts - I see you are in favour of the right to choose and just addressing your ire with the phrasing. and I do understand that. Please consider the below a blather :)

LTD - I did non-marriage when I was striaght, refused to do it. didn't believe in it. that it was a bunch of hooey and oppressive bullshit. I didn't even want to be called a "girlfriend" because of the societal expectations it brings.

I've since changed my mind, at the age of 42. I got married six months ago, in the netherlands, and my wife and I will move to canada as a couple. We could have even without the marriage, actually. My hettie best mate who doesn't want marraige and has the privilege to refuse it as an option, imported her hump-puppet from england to canada without a hitch - marriage wasn't necessary. I'm very glad about that. I'm also glad that you can import your partner even if you don't live together and have decided to never live together. there's a separate section for that definition of a commited relationship.

That means, legally, you can have three different types of commited relationships wherein your rights are recognised in canada: Married, Domestic Partnership and Conjugal Partner.

There's no need to get married to have them recognised.

I would love it, if you could also get married to more than one person or at least have conjugal or domestic rights recognised for those who are poly. I think that would be fantastic.

I personally am not asking to be "as good as heterosexuals" because I got a civil marriage in the netherlands. How absurd to see my queering of bonding ceremony as a bid for "being as good as"! Of course I am. I don't want a mortgage, I've had double mohawks, been non-monogamous from the age of 14 until the age of 38, lived in communal houses until last year, I'm socialist, traveled most of my life and in no way consider myself mainstream. Yet I wanted to marry the woman I loved.

You know how the word queer has been taken back from our opressors - reclaimed? Well, that's what we did with our marriage. It's two women, no dowery, no one being given away, no vows, all home made food, my dress cost £10 and we had DJ friends from amsterdam, london and manchester DJ the music.

Our relationship is about equality. our marriage is that way because it isn't the 1800's. nor is it the 1950's. we get to define how we want out marriage to be in terms of our dynamics. And because canada recognised the rights of non-married couples, no matter what sex they are, we get to have that choice. Don't want marriage? totally understand it's not for you. I felt that way for many years. Didn't see how it could be reformed by personal acts. Now I do. And I feel very differently. And it has nothing to do with the Joneses or straight people. I do lots of things that straight people do and it has nothing to do with approval. Considering most of my straight friends are very alternative lifestyle people, most things I do are what straight people do.

Queering a ritual and a bonding legality is something my wife and I strongly believe in. we are making marriage a wider space for people to be in. And for those who don't want to be married, they are protected by laws too. However, if you don't belive in bringing the government into your relationship by registering your love on a tax form (lolz) then of course, you won't be able to claim those legal rights as easily.

I don't ever look down on people who choose not to get married. I was one of them for a couple of decades. Most of my friends are of that ilk. In fact, most of my mates rather than saying "congrats! I know it took you a year and a half to get all the paper work and you were both depressed as hell when you thought you wouldn't be able to get married, but you did it, and although I don't want it for me, I know how much it means to the two of you, so tons of love for your hard work towards a goal you've achieved!".... most of them said "oh. oh yeah. fab. so did you see the ____ movie last week?" (ok not that bad but it sure felt like it). Yet when they've had their choice to have a commitment ceremonies or hand fastings (rather than a wedding), I've travelled four hours off to the trees and stripped half naked for them, bought gifts, baked cakes, helped cook for 30 people, etc.

So it did hurt a bit.

And personally I'm not striving for the status quo, thanks, I've been fighting for societal rights for a few decades (first strike I was allowed on was at 10 years old. lol. dad is a die hard socialist) and I've been fighting against multinationals - through direct action and protests - since I was 14. So the assumption that I'm being lazy and selling out because of marriage (accepting the status quo and not trying to to move beyond it) makes my nostrals flare a bit.

But perhaps you are only addressing the website that rankled you. And personally I find the catchphrase a bit lacking. but perhaps they are mostly addressing the mainstream straight people with that phrase? that's the jist I get. Addressing the mainstream straight people with "better than what you'd ever do with it" I don't think would win much support for the cause of people wanting the choice to be able to marry. Just a hunch.

[dreadgeek]

AJ, are you referring to your marriage/wedding as a commitment ceremony or a tried and true, legally binding marriage?

It was a commitment ceremony. Oregon does not (yet) have marriage equality but I am hopeful. Consider, that when I was ~90 days old, the Supreme Court of the United States published their decision in Loving v Virginia ending, once and (hopefully) for all, anti-miscegenation laws after those being in force for well over a century in most states. We will have marriage equality one day and when we do, we're going to have another ceremony.

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

Urvashi Vaid is one of my heroines. If you have not read her book Virtual Equality I highly highly recommend it. She has a website if you want to read more of her thoughts.

Here is a quote from a speech given Aug 16, 2010 titled Beyond The Wedding Ring: LGBT Issues in the Age of Obama

Fifteen years ago I wrote a book that described the path we had chosen of working for civil and political rights as a path that was leading us to Virtual Equality — a state of partial and uneven equality that is very far from the full human rights that we seek. I still agree with that diagnosis. Until LGBT people confront and challenge the moral opposition to gayness, until gay activists demand and command the respect of straight families, colleagues and friends, until LGBT people come out and claim their rightful place everywhere, until we stop believing those who defame, denigrate and deny our humanity and goodness – LGBT people and the LGBT social justice movement will fall short of being the transformative force it represents.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Actually the group doing this really effectively right now is the right wing. With the Tea Partiers out there moving the radical edge beyond the bounds of sanity, the "center" of the Republican party suddenly seems more mainstream, despite the fact that they are so conservative that many Nixon-era policies would be considered practically leftist by today's Republican standards.

that is a very, very important thing to point out.

[dreadgeek]

A quick thought on assimilation vs. radicalization ... I don't really see it as an either/or. I think both have a role to play and they can complement each other, as long as there are at least some common goals or outcomes.

My personal frame of reference for this is my activity in Queer Nation in the early 1990s. Some people in the gay community complained that we were too radical, too marginal, but in a conversation I had with a lesbian who had just become Seattle's first openly gay city council member, she pointed out that without QN, she would be the fringe, the radical edge. But with us out there, pushing boundaries, she suddenly looked more mainstream to people. The combination helped push the center, if you will, helped reframe the concept of normal.

Actually the group doing this really effectively right now is the right wing. With the Tea Partiers out there moving the radical edge beyond the bounds of sanity, the "center" of the Republican party suddenly seems more mainstream, despite the fact that they are so conservative that many Nixon-era policies would be considered practically leftist by today's Republican standards.

I, too, was involved with QN in the 90s and, quite honestly, the me from 1993 would probably be absolutely aghast at the me from 2011. I too think that we need a radical edge. The point I was trying to make in my post is that if we should not look down our noses at those who choose to take the radical path because we should not look down our noses at people and that they do some good (and they do) we should not look down our noses at people who assimilate for much the same reasons. I believe that not only did my parents make my sister and I's life significantly easier even though that meant not being as 'authentically black' as the Black Power movement would have had them be, they made a *difference* because when we moved into the house I grew up in, no one would have sought my parents out for advice thinking that they were intelligent or wise or had anything of value to offer the neighborhood . When I left home, people were seeking my parents out because they had stopped being 'merely black' and had become pillars of the community. A resolution that probably surprised all of the long-term residents of the neighborhood.

I think I actually do some good even though I'm assimilated and even though I work for a multinational corporation and even though I live in the suburbs and drive an Audi. There I am, every day at work, this dreadlocked butch woman who is unapologetic in her love for her partner. There are some *seriously* conservative people at my workplace and I have had to learn to get along with them as they have had to learn to get along with me. I have rattled their cages by pretty much shooting all of their expectations of me as a black, butch lesbian into deep space. Whatever images they might have held of black women or butch women or lesbians generally, I defy almost all of them and that makes them think. I've already had one person--a rather conservative Christian--come to me to say that they think their daughter is a lesbian and if they are right, they would like me to talk to her because they want her to have something positive to shoot for. I think that's progress.

Cheers
Aj

[SecretAgentMa'am]

A quick thought on assimilation vs. radicalization ... I don't really see it as an either/or. I think both have a role to play and they can complement each other, as long as there are at least some common goals or outcomes.

My personal frame of reference for this is my activity in Queer Nation in the early 1990s. Some people in the gay community complained that we were too radical, too marginal, but in a conversation I had with a lesbian who had just become Seattle's first openly gay city council member, she pointed out that without QN, she would be the fringe, the radical edge. But with us out there, pushing boundaries, she suddenly looked more mainstream to people. The combination helped push the center, if you will, helped reframe the concept of normal.

Actually the group doing this really effectively right now is the right wing. With the Tea Partiers out there moving the radical edge beyond the bounds of sanity, the "center" of the Republican party suddenly seems more mainstream, despite the fact that they are so conservative that many Nixon-era policies would be considered practically leftist by today's Republican standards.

This. Exactly. Neither end of the spectrum is wrong or "less than". Yes, groups like Queer Nation help make others seem more mainstream. At the same time, groups like the HRC are constantly being criticized for being too mainstream, too assimilationist, but those are the groups who can actually get in to have a conversation with a senator. Yes, we're pretty mainstream as queer couples go. And that's one of the reasons why we were able to make friends with the devout Christian couple across the street. People like us are the reason that they and a lot of people like them, all over the country, are realizing that gay people aren't a bunch of weirdos, that we're really just people, and we don't actually want anything that's unreasonable. We need both sides of that equation, the radical and the mainstream suburban, to make any real progress.

[The_Lady_Snow]

So what happens to the weirdos who are not mainstream? What exactly is mainstream? I'm trying to grasp. What makes a weirdo?

[weatherboi]

Feminism isn't mainstream and neither was Harvey Milk. He also influenced Dianne Weinstein a Senator of California. I am not a fan of mainstream politicians that live in the closet. I think our community should aim higher.

[Toughy]

Assimilation is not equality. Those of us who live in the burbs, white picket fence, either furry or non-furry kids are accepted (for the most part) ONLY because we look and act like our neighbors. As long as we look and act like our neighbors it's all good in the 'hood. They will even tolerate a suit and tie wearing butch to our faces, but inside that home they still think we are different and will do the 'why don't you get a real man' and 'she would be so pretty if she would just wear a dress and make-up' stuff. I doubt they would be so tolerant if they saw me come out in full leather, packing a big stiffy, with whips and chains attached to my chaps..........it would scare the bejesus out of them and they would clutch their children to their legs. They only tolerate us when we look and act like them on the surface.

And don't ever be fooled into thinking tolerance is a good thing. It's not. The good thing is acceptance. I'm not interested in being tolerated. I am interested in being recognized and accepted because I am a human being.

Tolerance is a false equality. Acceptance is full equality.

[Novelafemme]

Assimilation is not equality. Those of us who live in the burbs, white picket fence, either furry or non-furry kids are accepted (for the most part) ONLY because we look and act like our neighbors. As long as we look and act like our neighbors it's all good in the 'hood. They will even tolerate a suit and tie wearing butch to our faces, but inside that home they still think we are different and will do the 'why don't you get a real man' and 'she would be so pretty if she would just wear a dress and make-up' stuff. I doubt they would be so tolerant if they saw me come out in full leather, packing a big stiffy, with whips and chains attached to my chaps..........it would scare the bejesus out of them and they would clutch their children to their legs. They only tolerate us when we look and act like them on the surface.

And don't ever be fooled into thinking tolerance is a good thing. It's not. The good thing is acceptance. I'm not interested in being tolerated. I am interested in being recognized and accepted because I am a human being.

Tolerance is a false equality. Acceptance is full equality.

FUCK! YA!! AND AMEN!!!

[dreadgeek]

So what happens to the weirdos who are not mainstream? What exactly is mainstream? I'm trying to grasp. What makes a weirdo?

Not sure. Not sure. Not sure. In that order. :)

Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer the first question because I'm not certain that I know what a weirdo is. I'm a nerd--as my signature and name show, I let my geek flag fly high and proud--is that mainstream? I would say no. My reading habits, my television preferences are not necessarily what I would call 'mainstream'. Even my choices of recreation--I am a player in one D&D game and I'm the DM in another, for instance--aren't mainstream. So am I a weirdo or am I mainstream?

Do people in the mainstream get all excited because there's some new book on, for instance, the ongoing battle between string theorists and proponents of loop-quantum gravity? Do people in the mainstream own *multiple* copies--in different formats--of just about every word Terry Pratchett has ever written? Do people in the mainstream have a shower curtain that is the periodic table of elements and a poster showing the entire electromagnetic spectrum in the same room as a poster of Audre Lorde and another showing the entire history of the Universe as a single year?

Are the favorite tee-shirts of someone in the mainstream ones that read:

98% Chimp
Come to the Dark Side, we have cookies.
Stand Back, I'm going to try Science!
May the Mass Times Acceleration be with you


I think mainstream and weirdo are rather nebulous terms. To the woman I was in 1991, I would probably appear horribly mainstream (I would still most likely have wanted the toys and would've thought the EMF poster insanely great and would have done just about anything for the tee shirts while feeling guilty for doing so). To most of the suits (read that as our marketing, sales and legal staff) at my employer I look so far beyond the mainstream that I am at the outer edge of what many of them consider to be human behavior!

Do *I* think I'm in the mainstream? No, for all of the reasons above. Would someone who is more radical than me think I'm mainstream? Probably not and might even put me somewhere in the neighborhood of, say, Dick Cheney on the scale of acceptability.

Cheers
Aj

[SecretAgentMa'am]

So what happens to the weirdos who are not mainstream? What exactly is mainstream? I'm trying to grasp. What makes a weirdo?

Personally, I don't think anyone is a weirdo. What I'm talking about is the perception of the average straight suburbanite. For them, meeting people like us means that the community as a whole doesn't seem so weird anymore.

[amiyesiam]

Assimilation is not equality. Those of us who live in the burbs, white picket fence, either furry or non-furry kids are accepted (for the most part) ONLY because we look and act like our neighbors. As long as we look and act like our neighbors it's all good in the 'hood. They will even tolerate a suit and tie wearing butch to our faces, but inside that home they still think we are different and will do the 'why don't you get a real man' and 'she would be so pretty if she would just wear a dress and make-up' stuff. I doubt they would be so tolerant if they saw me come out in full leather, packing a big stiffy, with whips and chains attached to my chaps..........it would scare the bejesus out of them and they would clutch their children to their legs. They only tolerate us when we look and act like them on the surface.

And don't ever be fooled into thinking tolerance is a good thing. It's not. The good thing is acceptance. I'm not interested in being tolerated. I am interested in being recognized and accepted because I am a human being.

Tolerance is a false equality. Acceptance is full equality.

Ya know Toughy I fully agree. Looking like you fit in is not the same as being accepted for who one really is.
But...........
reality is that if the straight couple everyone in the neighborhood adores and thinks of as "normal" were seen dressed as you described they would also be talked about, feared and people would question if it was safe to let the kids sleep over.
I guess for me, it is not about being accepted as gay, it is about being accepted as a human.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Thank you Aj I'm finding my brain grabs certain words so I need to read stuff more than once.

[dreadgeek]

Toughy:

So what does acceptance look like? How do we know when we're equal? Since it's not a function of where we live, it can't be because we have a house in this or that neighborhood that isn't being egged, burnt to the ground or having a cross burnt on the lawn. Okay, so abode and location are no indication that we've made progress, got it. It almost certainly not where we are employed and/or where we are on the food chain. Even if the new CEO of Apple is gay (and the rumor mill is that he is) that's not enough so we can't use whether or not one can be employed as an out gay X so let's strike that. It's not whether or not people will talk to us civilly because they might be talking behind our backs. Check. Maybe we can tell by how we are treated in school? Probably not for much the same reasons as our living, employment and social situations aren't indicative.

So, since we have ruled out where one lives, what kinds of relations one has with one's neighbors, if one is treated equally in the workplace, what's left. How do we know that we are being treated equal?

I also have to say that there are generations of immigrants who might strenuously disagree with you that assimilation isn't equality. If assimilation is being able to live in the house one chooses without fear that the neighbors will make it clear that you stay in that house at your own risk, then assimilation is leads to equality. If assimilation is being to apply for a job and your only concerns about whether you will get the job is if you have the right skill set and your personality is a good match for the team, then that is a form of equality. If assimilation is being able to be in school and to have your work judged by criteria relevant to the field of study as opposed to, say, whether one is gay or black or what-have-you, then that, too, is a form of equality. We have a president who is only a shade or two darker than I am named Barack Obama because he and his wife (who is two or three shades darker than me) assimilated. Unless that black person is in entertainment every black figure you have heard of is assimilated to a greater or lesser degree. If they aren't, then you haven't heard of them.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell?Assimilated black woman. Eugene Robinson? Assimilated black man. Michael Eric Dyson? Assimilated black man. Mae Jamison? Assimilated black woman. Thurgood Marshall? Assimilated black man.

What does acceptance look like, Toughy?

Cheers
Aj


Assimilation is not equality. Those of us who live in the burbs, white picket fence, either furry or non-furry kids are accepted (for the most part) ONLY because we look and act like our neighbors. As long as we look and act like our neighbors it's all good in the 'hood. They will even tolerate a suit and tie wearing butch to our faces, but inside that home they still think we are different and will do the 'why don't you get a real man' and 'she would be so pretty if she would just wear a dress and make-up' stuff. I doubt they would be so tolerant if they saw me come out in full leather, packing a big stiffy, with whips and chains attached to my chaps..........it would scare the bejesus out of them and they would clutch their children to their legs. They only tolerate us when we look and act like them on the surface.

And don't ever be fooled into thinking tolerance is a good thing. It's not. The good thing is acceptance. I'm not interested in being tolerated. I am interested in being recognized and accepted because I am a human being.

Tolerance is a false equality. Acceptance is full equality.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Ya know Toughy I fully agree. Looking like you fit in is not the same as being accepted for who one really is.
But...........
reality is that if the straight couple everyone in the neighborhood adores and thinks of as "normal" were seen dressed as you described they would also be talked about, feared and people would question if it was safe to let the kids sleep over.
I guess for me, it is not about being accepted as gay, it is about being accepted as a human.




I have a different take on that ami, bdsm straight couples have gatherings alllll the time their neighbors think that's adventurous, kinky, fun!!! Us... We're the weirdo perversts

[The_Lady_Snow]

Personally, I don't think anyone is a weirdo. What I'm talking about is the perception of the average straight suburbanite. For them, meeting people like us means that the community as a whole doesn't seem so weird anymore.

Not in my experience, that would require me changing who and what I am. I scream Queer, kink, dyke in my cozy row of paperboxes. My neighbors hate us.

[amiyesiam]

I have a different take on that ami, bdsm straight couples have gatherings alllll the time their neighbors think that's adventurous, kinky, fun!!! Us... We're the weirdo perversts

I have seen different growing up in middle class straight land. However, you live it and so you would have a much better grasp of how things are.

[imperfect_cupcake]

You know, my boss is a (rather nice looking) tall butch in a suit. That she is a Detective Superintendent for Force Intelligence is no small feat of a) acceptance by most and b) tolerated by many. She's a soft spoken lovely woman who can turn into commanding don't-FUCK-with-me in less than 3 seconds. I see the amount of respect she gets. But I also see the occasional look of "dyke" she gets when someone doesn't like being put in their place by her.

1) If she didn't get the tolerance she'd have no room to get acceptance 2) It's nice for ME to have eye candy for a fuckin change, thank you. First time in my bloody life I've ever had the pleasure in an office. 42 years of sweet fuck all while my dyke mates dribble over straight girls, thank you very much... 3) she gives me fruit 4) I never ever thought I'd respect the po-lice. but here I am working for them and actually really respecting the head of force intelligence. and yep, I probably wouldn't respect her so much if she a) weren't a woman or b) a dyke. But her presence at that level in the Thames Valley Police shows me the the doors for those who desire to be out in the force, are open a hell of a lot wider.

[Novelafemme]

Not in my experience, that would require me changing who and what I am. I scream Queer, kink, dyke in my cozy row of paperboxes. My neighbors hate us.

i'm gonna go out on a limb and venture to guess that you are perfectly ok with said hatred. ;)

[CherylNYC]

Assimilation is not equality. Those of us who live in the burbs, white picket fence, either furry or non-furry kids are accepted (for the most part) ONLY because we look and act like our neighbors. As long as we look and act like our neighbors it's all good in the 'hood. They will even tolerate a suit and tie wearing butch to our faces, but inside that home they still think we are different and will do the 'why don't you get a real man' and 'she would be so pretty if she would just wear a dress and make-up' stuff. I doubt they would be so tolerant if they saw me come out in full leather, packing a big stiffy, with whips and chains attached to my chaps..........it would scare the bejesus out of them and they would clutch their children to their legs. They only tolerate us when we look and act like them on the surface.

And don't ever be fooled into thinking tolerance is a good thing. It's not. The good thing is acceptance. I'm not interested in being tolerated. I am interested in being recognized and accepted because I am a human being.

Tolerance is a false equality. Acceptance is full equality.

I often agree with what you just wrote, Toughy. Sometimes I even say exactly this thing out loud. But then I think of my friends T and L. They run a track school where I instruct in exchange for free track time. T and L live in rural/suburban New Hampshire, are very devout Christians who homeschool their child, and they believe that the earth is a certain number of thousands of years old. (I'm not sure which ridiculous number that crowd settled upon.) I haven't replaced my own track bike yet, so T just supplied me with some of the most awesome machinery ever built so that I could have fun at the last two track days. He even let me ride his fire breathing Ducati 919 race bike. L wasn't there. She was busy volounteering in Uganda with an organisation that helps women that have been captured and used in all the usual ways in the war. She doesn't EVER proselytize. Neither does her husband. She does the work because she thinks it's the right thing to do. Let me repeat that. They NEVER proselytize.

When one half of the lesbian couple that always takes their track days came out to her as a transwoman, L merely squealed in astonishment and admiration, asking her how she got those amazing breasts! My late gf Caren used to drive me up to track day and hang out watching the fun. If you looked up bulldyke in the dictionary you would have found a picture of Caren, complete with flat top and plenty of tats. Caren was Ms NJ Leather, and we looked a LOT like leatherdykes to anyone who was paying attention. Plus, no Christian could miss the large Pentagram I always wear. They didn't care. No one cared. Everyone was too busy having fun riding bikes on the track. Really. T and L have always been as welcoming as if we were their fellow church members.

After Caren died everyone, including and especially T and L, were just as supportive as they would have been had we been anyone else. Later that year L asked me if she could do something that nearly made me burst into tears, and whenever I tell this story I'm in danger of misting up all over again. L asked me if she could pray for me to find a new girlfriend.

We're so sure, and with good reason, that those who fit T and L's profile would doubtless be deeply hostile to us. They homeschool their child, for Pete's sake! Those people couldn't possibly want me to find a new girlfriend, much less pray for such a thing to happen! Even though what Toughy wrote has been true in the past, and is usually still true, I think we need to make room for the idea that just as Aj's family changed her neighbours' outlook, we can do the same. And we can do it looking exactly as we look, and being ourselves even when that's not mainstream.

[The_Lady_Snow]

i'm gonna go out on a limb and venture to guess that you are perfectly ok with said hatred. ;)


A year ago I wasn't.. I'm a GREAT neighbor, I love to share, feed and be friendly so when we starting sharing this house I will be honest I was excited!!! I though OMG I live in a neighborhood. That warm fuzzy feeling didn't last long. The lady behind us, hates queers, she hates our trees honestly she wants us gone.

The guy in front of us, reported my vicious dog that barked all night and day to the city. My boxer (who is not with me anymore he's up North) is a big baby, a gentle run away from people only loves his pack kinda dog, friendly, gentle and loving. He did like to bark at the air or squirrels or other dogs walking by the fence.

The guy diagonal from us, drinks with his buddies and lord forbid I wear something cutesey all of a sudden I feel I am naked and they do their whole weird guy stuff that super imposing ass hats do.

The family next to him, he's called Grant dyke freak, freak of nature, wanna be man, and he called me a bitch under his breath cause I got sick and tired of him beating on his poor kids, the last straw was watching him pick his 4 year old daugher by the arm and squeezing as he called her a fucking bitch whore then he kicked her in the butt with his booted foot.

I went off and let him know what a dirt bag he was and how I would be calling CPS (not the first time) on his sorry abusive ass. I will be his worst nightmare when it comes to them kids. The guys next door have watched his behaviours and say nothing about his treatment of them
poor kids.

Their hate now doesn't bother me, I don't want people like that to acknowledge me cause I certainly want NOTHING to do with them paper house or not. I do have some nice guys up the road who are nice to Grant and I. Gawd knows what will happen the day I walk out the door in full leathers.... I had a preview a month ago at a leather intensive downtown, boy oh boy what a hoot.

:)

[imperfect_cupcake]

and, pardon me for saying, it looks like they might change some minds about how "people like T and L's Demographic" can be accepted and not just tolerated by their neighbours. It's a two way street, acceptance ;)

that's a lovely true story, cheryl, thank you for sharing that <3

[dreadgeek]

So, I'm curious about something. Let's stipulate that the goal is acceptance. Let's also stipulate that acceptance is something we are going to have to convince people of (in other words, we're not going to be able to use either the law or the Jedi mind trick to gain acceptance). The minute we're talking about convincing people we're talking about bargaining and the minute we're talking about bargaining, we have to talk cost.

So, we want acceptance. In other words, we want our societies to welcome us fully into the circle of human being. Since we want it, they obviously do not currently feel that way about us. Since they don't, they have to be moved from where they are to where we'd like them to be. Since we are bargaining, what are we willing to give up? We're asking the rest of society to give up where they currently are and move to a different mental place. Is this a win for just us? In other words, are we expecting to get what we want without having to give anything in return? If we are, what possible reason does the majority have for moving? They don't necessarily *want* what we want. They may be genuinely satisfied with, say, a world in which people get married. They may not find our argument that they cannot possibly *be* happy with the current state of affairs compelling. So they are going to want *something* in return. What is it we are willing to give up? What price are we willing to pay?

There are always costs and we are not in a position to force our will upon the majority. We have to convince the majority to rearrange social affairs and the majority is going to want to know what they get out of the deal. The things we may *think* they should want may turn out to be something that they do not want so we can't tell them that they, too, will benefit from being able to live as we wish to. So we're going to have to show *some* willingness to give up *something* because all social change is a process of bargaining and negotiation. I don't think we're going to get to the Promised Land--whatever that might look like--without the majority wanting *something* in return. What is that cost?

It's all fine and good to treat social change like the GOP currently treats economic policy which is:

1. Deregulate business
2. Cut taxes to no more than is necessary to keep the military around.
3. Drown government in a bathtub
4. Magic of the market happens here.
5. Prosperity!

It is quite another thing to try to articulate the price of the change we wish to see.

The *reason* that the national mall has a monument in honor of Dr. King isn't because he demanded that America act right. It is because, as A (not the) spokesperson for the Civil Rights Movement he did two things brilliantly. To the majority he issued a challenge which went like this: "You say that because this is America, this is the land of the free. Our very founding documents say that all men are created equal. What freedom is it if a person with money to pay cannot eat at a certain restaurant, shop in a certain store, for no better reason than the color of his skin. You claim that this is a nation of Christians. But what kind of Christianity is it, that says that some little children are unworthy to go to school with other little children because of the color of their skin? So, America, I must ask you--we Black Americans must ask you--do you mean it? If so, is what is happening in Selma and Atlanta and in hundreds of other places large and so, look to *you* like freedom? Does it look to *you* like Christianity to throw bricks at schoolchildren? To Black Americans, he said "we must show them the way through non-violence. They already think us violent, we must not make them right. We must march with dignity and stand tall and brave in the face of violence but we must not be violent back to them. That is the price we must be willing to pay. Many of us will be hurt. Some of us will die. But in the end, we must be willing to pay for equality and freedom with our bones and our blood."

What are we willing to pay with for acceptance and how will we know when we have finally crossed into the Promised Land?

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

T and L have always been as welcoming as if we were their fellow church members.

That looks and feels like acceptance to me.


I'll be back later to pontificate on this subject :giggle:

[imperfect_cupcake]

I know I'm willing to pay in terms of perhaps putting some my own judgements aside. I know I'm willing to talk to people in a more measured way instead of being a constant firebrand. Allowing them to be individuals first and not what oppressive group members I may shove them into first without speaking to them because I'm afraid of them. Maybe their are afraid of me because they think I'm going to hurt them in some way. Perhaps being more measured might remove some percieved threat - just like if they were measured with me, I would find that far less threatening.

Perhaps, that's also the way within my community as well.

However, I'm not going to give up physically correcting people for physically touching me inappropriately.

[princessbelle]

Wow. As all of your posts are to me for sure and i know many others Dreadgeek, that is so moving.

There are so many people on this site that are far more eloquent with their wording than i. But, i wanted to try to express my humble thoughts on this.

Is it possible to "borrow" Dr. King's beautiful words and try for the same outcome, so to speak? Is it possible that "we" can utilize his intelligence and heart for yet another step for equality of humanity?

Dr. King says "We must march with dignity and stand tall and brave in the face of violence but we must not be violent back to them. That is the price we must be willing to pay. Many of us will be hurt. Some of us will die. But in the end, we must be willing to pay for equality and freedom with our bones and our blood."

Has it come to this? If we do indeed have to "pay a cost" is this it? Do we march? Do we get more involved? Do we as gay/queer people become more invested and make sure we are known?

I think this is important to think about. If the straight world sees no gain in giving us rights, then we can't expect them to just wake up one day and decide to do it. Knowledge is power and knowledge is how we become more civilized as people, more aware of things that don't necessarily mean anything to us until it is shown before us. Until it is introduced to us in a way that makes us all think, rethink and form perhaps different conclusions.

There are many, many people out there that do this already, i know that. There are pride days, there are gay/queer representatives out there that are fighting for our rights. There are organizations such as BV and BN and many more that are making at least some parts of who we are noticed. But, is it enough?

The point i'm trying to make is this....if we ALL need to take part and follow the words of Dr. King to make change possible by being heard and seen, should we then ALL just....do something?

I admit i do nothing to be seen. I do nothing where my neighbors know i'm a gay woman. Would i maybe change my neighbors mind if their nice neighbor started flying a rainbow flag in my yard? Would they and others slowly start changing their minds on election days, the talk at work watercoolers, the doctrines at church? Would being seen and standing proud to them change their minds? Would it show them that we are ...well, their neighbors?

If every gay/queer person did something to make it appearent that we are here and we aren't going away, wouldn't things start to change? I don't know, but that seems to be Dr. King's message or at least part of it.

It's known to many i live in the South. Within one mile of my house is at least 6 churches that i can think of right off the top of my head. I hide. I admit it. I don't show my neighbors or anyone who i am. I tell selected few about my lifestyle. Not because i'm ashamed but because i'm scared. Or...am i ashamed? God, i hope not. On the news here we have KKK events listed, we had a shooting at a gay friendly church not that long ago, the list goes on and on. The people here, some of them, especially the good ole boys can be scary. Very scary. Just the other day i went to a patient's house and they had three rebel flags on their front porch and a pickup with hound dogs and probably around six men standing around spittin and chewing. I thought then..."wow i'm glad i don't have a rainbow sticker on my car, cause i don't know what they would have said or done". I'm now rethinking that. Maybe i shouldn't feel like that. Maybe, just maybe, i could have made one of them think... "she's gay?" or "She is pro-gay?" Would it have made a difference? I have no clue.

If all of us did something to be seen and take what comes and deal with it for the "greater good" things may start to change. I'm not talking to the ones that do that already and i thank you that do...more than you know, i thank you. I'm talking about people like me who are scared of what may happen. Maybe it's time i get me that flag for my yard, that sticker for my car. Maybe it's time for me to make sure any event in this community that includes the gay or queer i need to make sure to attend. Maybe it's time for me to go to my first "Pride".

Maybe it is time for a change.

Thanks as always Dreadgeek and thank you Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Linus]

So, I'm curious about something. Let's stipulate that the goal is acceptance. Let's also stipulate that acceptance is something we are going to have to convince people of (in other words, we're not going to be able to use either the law or the Jedi mind trick to gain acceptance). The minute we're talking about convincing people we're talking about bargaining and the minute we're talking about bargaining, we have to talk cost.

<snipped solely for beverity and enough characters for me>

What are we willing to pay with for acceptance and how will we know when we have finally crossed into the Promised Land?

Cheers
Aj

When ever I read discussions like this, I'm reminded of a game that my uncle and some of his close friends created in the days of BBSes (late 80s/early 90s) called Pyroto Mountain. The goal of the game was to get to the top of the mountain and establish a "gov't" of sorts. It was never officially stated as a social-economic study but worked out to that. One of the most telling things that my uncle imparted on me was that it's hard to change people's minds without major changes (e.g., the Middle East in general but specifically the history between Palestinians and Israel, et al).

To me, in many ways, this is often what it feels like for the Queer community and the rest of North America (I specify this since there is more than the US on this continent and the Queer community faces challenges in both Canada and Mexico). That said, I don't know if there is a specific thing that is uniform for each group as to what we will sacrifice. For example, this week I had a Mormon in my class. Now, I could have gone off on their stance in regards to Prop 8 but it would neither be professional nor would it have created a good stance. I did freely talk (when not teaching and it was more a relaxed non-topic discussion) about going to Pride marches and such. And even asked him about his beliefs and Mormon principles and the like. It was an interesting discussion. Now I don't know how he personally felt about gay marriage and such but based on my discussion I believe he was probably more open than what his "leaders" would be.

For me, acknowledging that the "other" side (or non-Queer side) is just as human as the rest of us. And that the "leaders" that speak for them aren't necessarily true of what the individuals believe. Respect for their religion/beliefs and right to exist is not something I would considering "paying" for but as concept of good moral values -- the idea of treating others as I would expect to be treated and regardless of what they say or do. Does that mean I bend over? No. But neither does it mean that I will react as they do.

So this still makes me wonder as to what we pay to get acceptance. In Canada, it was patience and support of the general population. And even though it's written into law that same-sex marriage is legal federally, it doesn't preclude others from accepting us. When we make Queer lives (not lifestyle but lives) as a normal part of society, it is, IMO, more likely to be accepted. But that takes time and effort to do the little "fights" in the more common social aspects of life. It means being brave enough to put pictures of your family at your work, talking about your work like others talk about their husbands/wives, etc. Is it easy? No.

Now, as I type this, part of me thinks that there are differences in acceptance in society of various parts of the Queer community. It's not just gays and lesbians, who are the most prominent part of the community. But also those that challenge the gender norms of what is accepted in society. As much as the Queer community might have similar goals, there are stark differences as to need and likely acceptance at this point, IMO. And I think that would change what we're willing to "pay" for acceptance. (I don't know if I'm being clear on this and I may try later to re-iterate better what I think about this). This makes me think that what different parts of the Queer community consider as acceptable to give up would be different between different parts. I don't know if we have just one thing that is uniform for all of the Queer community.

[amiyesiam]

Wow. As all of your posts are to me for sure and i know many others Dreadgeek, that is so moving.

There are so many people on this site that are far more eloquent with their wording than i. But, i wanted to try to express my humble thoughts on this.

Is it possible to "borrow" Dr. King's beautiful words and try for the same outcome, so to speak? Is it possible that "we" can utilize his intelligence and heart for yet another step for equality of humanity?

Dr. King says "We must march with dignity and stand tall and brave in the face of violence but we must not be violent back to them. That is the price we must be willing to pay. Many of us will be hurt. Some of us will die. But in the end, we must be willing to pay for equality and freedom with our bones and our blood."

Has it come to this? If we do indeed have to "pay a cost" is this it? Do we march? Do we get more involved? Do we as gay/queer people become more invested and make sure we are known?

I think this is important to think about. If the straight world sees no gain in giving us rights, then we can't expect them to just wake up one day and decide to do it. Knowledge is power and knowledge is how we become more civilized as people, more aware of things that don't necessarily mean anything to us until it is shown before us. Until it is introduced to us in a way that makes us all think, rethink and form perhaps different conclusions.

There are many, many people out there that do this already, i know that. There are pride days, there are gay/queer representatives out there that are fighting for our rights. There are organizations such as BV and BN and many more that are making at least some parts of who we are noticed. But, is it enough?

The point i'm trying to make is this....if we ALL need to take part and follow the words of Dr. King to make change possible by being heard and seen, should we then ALL just....do something?

I admit i do nothing to be seen. I do nothing where my neighbors know i'm a gay woman. Would i maybe change my neighbors mind if their nice neighbor started flying a rainbow flag in my yard? Would they and others slowly start changing their minds on election days, the talk at work watercoolers, the doctrines at church? Would being seen and standing proud to them change their minds? Would it show them that we are ...well, their neighbors?

If every gay/queer person did something to make it appearent that we are here and we aren't going away, wouldn't things start to change? I don't know, but that seems to be Dr. King's message or at least part of it.

It's known to many i live in the South. Within one mile of my house is at least 6 churches that i can think of right off the top of my head. I hide. I admit it. I don't show my neighbors or anyone who i am. I tell selected few about my lifestyle. Not because i'm ashamed but because i'm scared. Or...am i ashamed? God, i hope not. On the news here we have KKK events listed, we had a shooting at a gay friendly church not that long ago, the list goes on and on. The people here, some of them, especially the good ole boys can be scary. Very scary. Just the other day i went to a patient's house and they had three rebel flags on their front porch and a pickup with hound dogs and probably around six men standing around spittin and chewing. I thought then..."wow i'm glad i don't have a rainbow sticker on my car, cause i don't know what they would have said or done". I'm now rethinking that. Maybe i shouldn't feel like that. Maybe, just maybe, i could have made one of them think... "she's gay?" or "She is pro-gay?" Would it have made a difference? I have no clue.

If all of us did something to be seen and take what comes and deal with it for the "greater good" things may start to change. I'm not talking to the ones that do that already and i thank you that do...more than you know, i thank you. I'm talking about people like me who are scared of what may happen. Maybe it's time i get me that flag for my yard, that sticker for my car. Maybe it's time for me to make sure any event in this community that includes the gay or queer i need to make sure to attend. Maybe it's time for me to go to my first "Pride".

Maybe it is time for a change.

Thanks as always Dreadgeek and thank you Martin Luther King, Jr.

Awesome post!
Ok, my gut reaction to outing yourself after reading about the place you went for work yesterday is: NO, I don't even know you but the idea of someone who seems so sweet, nice, and kind being hurt by men/people like that scares the HELL out of me. And maybe it is my baggage to unpack that I don't want the nice ones hurt. Maybe if you were some where different. Maybe if you didn't live alone, maybe I don't want to see anyone hurt. But maybe statistically your changes of being hurt are higher.
We have a sticker on our car and I am out everywhere and yes sometimes I feel nervous when we are out and about. But I have never had to face what you faced just doing your job.
Maybe it's just pony time, but this is really really hit me hard emotionally, so I will have to think about this.

[Julie]

Awesome post!
Ok, my gut reaction to outing yourself after reading about the place you went for work yesterday is: NO, I don't even know you but the idea of someone who seems so sweet, nice, and kind being hurt by men/people like that scares the HELL out of me. And maybe it is my baggage to unpack that I don't want the nice ones hurt. Maybe if you were some where different. Maybe if you didn't live alone, maybe I don't want to see anyone hurt. But maybe statistically your changes of being hurt are higher.
We have a sticker on our car and I am out everywhere and yes sometimes I feel nervous when we are out and about. But I have never had to face what you faced just doing your job.
Maybe it's just pony time, but this is really really hit me hard emotionally, so I will have to think about this.


I really have to agree with Ami on this. Sometimes it is just best to not place yourself in danger. It has nothing to do with shame - It has to do with surviving.

We are no good to one another hurt or worse, dead. We need to be alive and safe, so we can continue to grow as a society and hope one day, people will in fact evolve.

I am a Jew and I am fair with light eyes. My sister is the opposite - she is semetic in appearance. If I had been alive during Nazi Germany -- I would not have walked outside with a sign announcing I was Jewish. I would have passed as a non-jew quite easily and used this to survive. It is how I was also able to pass in the Muslim community in the middle east (for purposes I needed to do at the time - I lived in the Muslim community - did not want to live in the Jewish community) and how I was able to pass and witness KKK meetings.

I am completely out where I live. I have always been out - But, I also grew up in Los Angeles and lived in West Hollywood. I now live in New York, and while I live in small towns and have had some issues.. They were never life threatening issues.

There is no shame Belle - In surviving and being safe.

Julie

[princessbelle]

I really have to agree with Ami on this. Sometimes it is just best to not place yourself in danger. It has nothing to do with shame - It has to do with surviving.

We are no good to one another hurt or worse, dead. We need to be alive and safe, so we can continue to grow as a society and hope one day, people will in fact evolve.

I am a Jew and I am fair with light eyes. My sister is the opposite - she is semetic in appearance. If I had been alive during Nazi Germany -- I would not have walked outside with a sign announcing I was Jewish. I would have passed as a non-jew quite easily and used this to survive. It is how I was also able to pass in the Muslim community in the middle east (for purposes I needed to do at the time - I lived in the Muslim community - did not want to live in the Jewish community) and how I was able to pass and witness KKK meetings.

I am completely out where I live. I have always been out - But, I also grew up in Los Angeles and lived in West Hollywood. I now live in New York, and while I live in small towns and have had some issues.. They were never life threatening issues.

There is no shame Belle - In surviving and being safe.

Julie

Julie and Ami, You are strong women and i admire you both so much.

Trust me i'm no martyr. I am usually afraid of my shadow...until i'm not. I won't go out and buy a sticker tonight, but it gives me thoughts. Dreadgeek's post at the very least has me thinking. I could do things though, without putting myself in direct harm and in a crowd. I could go to events. We do infrequently have them here. There are way more petitions to sign than i've ever done. I always have voted but making other people aware of reasons to vote for someone who supports gay marriage is something i could at least talk to people about.

It's just the idea to "do something". Ya know? I can't expect to sit where i do in the world and fold my hands due to fear and expect other people to march in the front lines of the world for "our" rights.

Thinking and talking about it is a first step. :)

[dreadgeek]

Wow. As all of your posts are to me for sure and i know many others Dreadgeek, that is so moving.

There are so many people on this site that are far more eloquent with their wording than i. But, i wanted to try to express my humble thoughts on this.

Is it possible to "borrow" Dr. King's beautiful words and try for the same outcome, so to speak? Is it possible that "we" can utilize his intelligence and heart for yet another step for equality of humanity?


I think had he lived, Harvey Milk might have grown into that figure. I think he was on the road there. Do I think it will come to that? Perhaps? It may not, though. Consider: Recent polling has shown that a majority of voters, nationally, believe that marriage equality should happen. Ten years ago, that number was much, much smaller. Twenty years ago that number was so low as to make it look impossible. Yet, here we are. We've had two court and one legislative victory. We are starting to get allies where we didn't have them before. Conservative thinkers are starting to get the point and are increasingly writing in *favor* of marriage equality. Why? Because--and here the point must be conceded--marriage equality *is* a fundamentally conservative thing. It does not seek to do away with marriage. The driving force behind it is not to be done with pair-bonding but to simply broaden the legal definition to accommodate what we already know--same-sex couples form enduring pair-bonds and same-sex couples sometimes already have or wish to have children.
That is really rather conservative in that it seeks to reform the system, not radically alter it.

In fact, I think a great deal of the gay rights movement is *not* radical just as most of the civil rights movement was not radical. Certainly the three or four top items on the agenda, currently, are not radical. Those are:

1. Marriage equality
2. Military service
3. Equal employment opportunity and protection from unjust termination
4. Issues of child custody and adoption

Not a very radical list, I admit. However, there is nothing there that I fundamentally disagree with. I know I've left off issues of health care particular vis a vis transpeople but that is because I subsume that into the larger need to reform how healthcare is delivered in this nation. I'm not saying it isn't important, it obviously is. I'm saying that if we solved the healthcare issue by, I don't know, doing what every other industrialized nation does, the issue of healthcare for transgender people would largely take care of itself provided that the healthcare was administered in a fair way (e.g. not excluding gender services *because* they are gender services).

I think that these are all achievable goals. In fact, I know they are because they've been achieved in various other nations to some greater or lesser degree. Others almost certainly disagree and I'm happy to discuss other visions.

Those are concrete and achievable goals and it can be done by law. We cannot and should not aspire to mandate how people feel about queers. ALL we can do is make it illegal to treat queer people as something other than human beings and citizens, fully deserving of the protection of the law. The Civil Rights Movement did not flip a switch and America became a land of racial harmony. It isn't a land of racial harmony *now*. But it did make it illegal to refuse to hire someone because they were black. It did make it illegal to refuse to sell a home to a couple that could afford it because they were black. It did not require proprietors of hotels to love the black family that pulled up to rent a room, it did require them to rent us the room. First the barriers were removed and then the social change happened.

I believe that something similar will happen with queer people over the course of our lifetime. Ironically, I am about the same age as my parents were when the Civil Rights and Voting Rights act were passed. I am a year younger than they were when the SCOTUS handed down the Loving decision. The year after that--the year Bobby Kennedy and Martin were gunned down--my parents voted for the very first time. That was 1968. My mother died Memorial Day of 2007. She missed the election of the first black President by 15 months. The year my mother was born, black people were still routinely being lynched in the South. One lifetime. 1922 - 2007 and she *almost* saw a black POTUS. Almost.

I was born two years before Stonewall. While I would like to live to see 2100, I most likely will shuffle off this mortal coil sometime in the 2050s or 2060s. If I’m lucky I may even see the 2070s or 2080s. In that time, I expect that we will see one or perhaps both of the following: The inauguration of a President who, in her victory speech, says "I want to thank my mothers, Jane and Alice..." and/or the inauguration of a President who, while she takes the oath of office, is accompanied by her wife. I think I may live that long.

Why the Presidency? What's so special about that role? It's because of who the President is. In England, the Prime Minister is the head of government but the Queen is the head of state. In the United States, the President is the head of both the government and head of state. It is this latter role that makes the Presidency significant. The President is the person who, for the time they are in office, embodies the Nation. They are the face of the United States to the world. That is why Barack Obama's election was significant not just for the United States but was a signature event in world cultural history. Why? Because for the first time since there WAS a distinct civilization that could be called the West, a white majority nation elected a non-white person as its embodiment. Having a woman President will be a big deal for us but it will not have significant ramifications outside the United States because other states have already had women as head of either government or state or both. Having a gay President will be a big deal for us because it will mean that America--which is largely not queer--will have decided that a gay man or lesbian will do a good job as the embodiment of the nation.

That's a long road, I know but who would have thought, as Dr. King lay dying on a Memphis balcony, that forty years later another black man would become President? Certainly not my parents.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

One other point. PLEASE stay safe. We will have enough martyrs, regrettably. I think that there will come a day, and that day is closer than further away now, when it will be safer to be out where you are. Until then, please stay safe.

cheers
Aj


Wow. As all of your posts are to me for sure and i know many others Dreadgeek, that is so moving.

There are so many people on this site that are far more eloquent with their wording than i. But, i wanted to try to express my humble thoughts on this.

Is it possible to "borrow" Dr. King's beautiful words and try for the same outcome, so to speak? Is it possible that "we" can utilize his intelligence and heart for yet another step for equality of humanity?

Dr. King says "We must march with dignity and stand tall and brave in the face of violence but we must not be violent back to them. That is the price we must be willing to pay. Many of us will be hurt. Some of us will die. But in the end, we must be willing to pay for equality and freedom with our bones and our blood."

Has it come to this? If we do indeed have to "pay a cost" is this it? Do we march? Do we get more involved? Do we as gay/queer people become more invested and make sure we are known?

I think this is important to think about. If the straight world sees no gain in giving us rights, then we can't expect them to just wake up one day and decide to do it. Knowledge is power and knowledge is how we become more civilized as people, more aware of things that don't necessarily mean anything to us until it is shown before us. Until it is introduced to us in a way that makes us all think, rethink and form perhaps different conclusions.

There are many, many people out there that do this already, i know that. There are pride days, there are gay/queer representatives out there that are fighting for our rights. There are organizations such as BV and BN and many more that are making at least some parts of who we are noticed. But, is it enough?

The point i'm trying to make is this....if we ALL need to take part and follow the words of Dr. King to make change possible by being heard and seen, should we then ALL just....do something?

I admit i do nothing to be seen. I do nothing where my neighbors know i'm a gay woman. Would i maybe change my neighbors mind if their nice neighbor started flying a rainbow flag in my yard? Would they and others slowly start changing their minds on election days, the talk at work watercoolers, the doctrines at church? Would being seen and standing proud to them change their minds? Would it show them that we are ...well, their neighbors?

If every gay/queer person did something to make it appearent that we are here and we aren't going away, wouldn't things start to change? I don't know, but that seems to be Dr. King's message or at least part of it.

It's known to many i live in the South. Within one mile of my house is at least 6 churches that i can think of right off the top of my head. I hide. I admit it. I don't show my neighbors or anyone who i am. I tell selected few about my lifestyle. Not because i'm ashamed but because i'm scared. Or...am i ashamed? God, i hope not. On the news here we have KKK events listed, we had a shooting at a gay friendly church not that long ago, the list goes on and on. The people here, some of them, especially the good ole boys can be scary. Very scary. Just the other day i went to a patient's house and they had three rebel flags on their front porch and a pickup with hound dogs and probably around six men standing around spittin and chewing. I thought then..."wow i'm glad i don't have a rainbow sticker on my car, cause i don't know what they would have said or done". I'm now rethinking that. Maybe i shouldn't feel like that. Maybe, just maybe, i could have made one of them think... "she's gay?" or "She is pro-gay?" Would it have made a difference? I have no clue.

If all of us did something to be seen and take what comes and deal with it for the "greater good" things may start to change. I'm not talking to the ones that do that already and i thank you that do...more than you know, i thank you. I'm talking about people like me who are scared of what may happen. Maybe it's time i get me that flag for my yard, that sticker for my car. Maybe it's time for me to make sure any event in this community that includes the gay or queer i need to make sure to attend. Maybe it's time for me to go to my first "Pride".

Maybe it is time for a change.

Thanks as always Dreadgeek and thank you Martin Luther King, Jr.

[dreadgeek]

And to me, the promised land looks sort of like this:

A living room. A girl is getting ready to go to the prom. Her date shows up. It's another girl. Introductions are made. She comes to the living room. Sees her date, smiles. Pictures are taken. The parents walk to the door with the kids. Her father stops her date and says, "you'll have her home by when?" The girl mumbles some time. The father then says, "you do know that if you break my little girl's heart, I'll throw you into the Sun." Nods are exchanged. The girls go off. The parent's close the door and the mom says to the dad "She's a nice girl." The dad replies, "Yeah. Not bad at all. Seems smart. Has a level head."

That's the Promised Land. On that day, pretty much everything else has already been taken care of.

Cheers
Aj

[atomiczombie]

I think had he lived, Harvey Milk might have grown into that figure.

I keep thinking as I read the last few posts, about what Harvey said during his campaign against prop 6, the Briggs initiative: "if everyone comes out, we win." I think it's true. People tend to be more accepting when they personally know someone who is gay or lesbian or trans. It can be very dangerous for some people to come out. I think kids and teenagers are at the greatest risk, but it really depends on where you live and work, what kind of family you grew up with, where you go to school, etc. I think that we should all be as out as we can without putting ourselves in significant danger (yes that is a controversial stance, but that is what I believe). I, personally, am willing to accept a certain level of danger. If I were somewhere where I thought my life was in danger, I would not stay there. But I walk in the world with my queer card on my sleeve. I do this to feel good in my own skin, but it has political implications as well.

[Kobi]

Interesting challenge Aj. Life is a series of negotiations and trade offs.

To answer the first part about gaining acceptance, to me, people are afraid of stuff they dont know or understand. It was always important to me to just live my life as I would regardless of who I slept with. Where I live made it a lot easier.

Most of the folks who had an issue with my queerness harbored a lot of misconceptions about who queers are. They didnt or didnt think they knew any gay people cuz the people they knew didnt act like "those other people".

Some folks dont like fitting in or assimilating. They see it as selling out. To me, it was and is a political statement. If people couldnt see me as the same as they were then the chances of changing their perceptions of queers were pretty slim. So, was there any harm in showing that queers got an education, worked, served on committees, took care of their elderly family, drove cars, had friendships and relationships, owned houses, did the mundane chores of existing? Not to me. The harm was them thinking or believing I was different from them.

As for trade offs and what I am willing to give up. When gay marriage became a legal option in Mass, it was a bittersweet thing to me. Nice to have the option for a legal recognition of a relationship and some "perks" that went along with this.

On the other hand, as with anything else, marriage means giving up some degree of independence and freedom. It means different expectations when dating. It means looking at relationships in a different way. It is a responsibility I gave some fantasy based thought to but now it was a reality I had to grapple with.

As for other "concession" type stuff. To me, if I want to be seen as a part of a community, I have a number of responsibilities. I may want to fly a gay pride flag from my deck. It might make me feel good to do so for any number of reasons. But, how might it impact those who live around me? Is that something I should take into account? Is it selling out or is it being mindful or respectful of others? Depends on your perspective I guess. To me, the world isnt going to stop spinning if I cant fly my flag.

I cant think of any situation where you get exactly everything you want without having some degree of trade off involved.

[CherylNYC]

The trade-off with gaining marriage equality is, well, gaining marriage equality. My friends who got married in their beautiful home outside North Hampton, Mass had already been together more than 1/4 century. They had no reason not to get married and lots of reasons to get married, particularly legal ones.

They own two properties together and one of them has had a health issue in the past. They, like all of us, are getting older. Now that it's legal to marry in their state, if they chose NOT to get married they could have signaled to anyone who wanted to challenge the legitimacy of their partnership that they weren't really partners after all. Families have been known to go after properties for lesser reasons after a death.

When we gain marriage equality we give up being allowed to stay together without any legal bond, but with the expectation in a fair minded community, and the hope in one that is less so, that our partnerships will be respected anyway when the doo-doo hits the fan.

[DapperButch]

I admit i do nothing to be seen. I do nothing where my neighbors know i'm a gay woman. Would i maybe change my neighbors mind if their nice neighbor started flying a rainbow flag in my yard? Would they and others slowly start changing their minds on election days, the talk at work watercoolers, the doctrines at church? Would being seen and standing proud to them change their minds? Would it show them that we are ...well, their neighbors?



Per some such study (like I remember!), the degree of a person's homophobia drops each time they meet another gay person/each time they find out someone they know is gay. There is a direct correlation. So, yes, it makes a difference.

[Greyson]

What are we willing to pay with for acceptance and how will we know when we have finally crossed into the Promised Land?

Cheers
Aj


Brilliant question! Whether or not I realize it, each day I open my eyes and go into the world, I must make the decision "at what cost." I do not "pass." And "passing" is not the objective of many Trans people. I lead a very open life. I am contiually talking with people, coworkers, people in my spiritual community, young people, that come to me with their questions about "Queerness." (I always make it clear that what I say is my experience and not all queers feel and think the same as I do.) The cost is a loss of personal privacy that could make for a vulnerbility that can feel overwhelming and/or put me in harms way. It's worth it, to me.

I will know I have reached the "Promised Land" when I hold respect, acceptance and love for those I once feared and held contempt for.

[Julie]

Per some such study (like I remember!), the degree of a person's homophobia drops each time they meet another gay person/each time they find out someone they know is gay. There is a direct correlation. So, yes, it makes a difference.

I have to agree with you Dapper... It is through education, that we become understanding.

However - When one lives in KKK country - One needs to be a bit careful about who they tell.

Julie

[DapperButch]

I have to agree with you Dapper... It is through education, that we become understanding.

However - When one lives in KKK country - One needs to be a bit careful about who they tell.
Julie

Absolutely. I agree with you.

[BullDog]

Per some such study (like I remember!), the degree of a person's homophobia drops each time they meet another gay person/each time they find out someone they know is gay. There is a direct correlation. So, yes, it makes a difference.

Yes it does make a difference, but safety first. Hostile environments or potentially dangerous situations are not the places to come out to educate.

People sometimes ask me if I am out at work or something like that. I just give them a puzzled look. I never have to come out- all people have to do is look at me to know. I'm happy I don't have to constantly come out, but I do live in Portland, Oregon. If I should end up elsewhere to live or even when visiting, I need to be more aware of my surroundings and also think about the safety of those with me.

When I have been subjected to homophobic threats in the past, I am not thinking about educating anyone. I am thinking about defusing the situation and getting the hell out.

[ScandalAndy]

I dunno, I would go so far as to say it doesn't matter if you're in KKK country or NYC, you should still be careful who you tell. Hate crimes can happen anywhere.


When I lived in North Carolina I didn't have pride stickers on my car. I've been in Philly for two years and I just put a pride sticker on my vehicle two weeks ago. I guess I just reached a point where I am comfortable being open about it again.

[imperfect_cupcake]

The trade-off with gaining marriage equality is, well, gaining marriage equality. My friends who got married in their beautiful home outside North Hampton, Mass had already been together more than 1/4 century. They had no reason not to get married and lots of reasons to get married, particularly legal ones.

They own two properties together and one of them has had a health issue in the past. They, like all of us, are getting older. Now that it's legal to marry in their state, if they chose NOT to get married they could have signaled to anyone who wanted to challenge the legitimacy of their partnership that they weren't really partners after all. Families have been known to go after properties for lesser reasons after a death.

When we gain marriage equality we give up being allowed to stay together without any legal bond, but with the expectation in a fair minded community, and the hope in one that is less so, that our partnerships will be respected anyway when the doo-doo hits the fan.

Not if your country recognises legal domestic partnership for any sex couples. There may be a registry or you may claim it by filing taxes together.

However, since in both cases the government legitimises one's partnership in order to grant legal rights (which is kind of necessary cause it's more difficult to prove after the fact, in court, the agreed depth and responsibilities of said relationship) there's not a hell of a lot of difference in my mind between them. Neither need a ceremony, both involve paperwork, both are ligitmised by the government.

My mom was the Domestic Partner of my step-dad. She didn't want to get married again. It allowed them legal rights in that she gets his pension now he's dead and they each had their own house, though he lived in hers and let his daughters live in his.

Marriage equality does not necessarily mean loss of recognised partnership in any other way. Many of my stright mates don't opt for marriage as they think it's terribly old fashioned and needless, seeing as there is domestic partnership laws. But they still have to declare their partnership on a tax form!

[Apocalipstic]

I am very Out. I will kiss a woman in public and hold hands....but no stickers of any kind on my car.

[atomiczombie]

I have lived in the SF Bay Area all my life, up until 3 years ago. Now I live about an hour away from Oakland, up on the Sacramento Delta. It's a tiny, almost completely white, tea-party kind of town. Back when I lived in the bay area, I had some not so cool things happen to me, but only once did I ever feel like I might be in physical danger (followed from my car to my apartment by a bunch of sneering teenage boys). Here in Rio Vista, I haven't had anything in the way of harassment.

My old car had an HRC sticker on the bumper for several years, and someone tried to scratch it off at one point (unsuccessfully lol). My new car, which I got last November, I have yet to put any stickers on it. However, I recently went back to the Bay Area to have lunch with a buddy of mine, and we came out of the restaurant to find someone had keyed the front of my car on the hood and headlights. So, even in the SF Bay shitty stuff goes on. There is just less of a chance of physical harm than, say, parts of the mid-west or the south. But it happens. Even in the Castro in SF, gay men get bashed occasionally. Does that mean I think people should be closeted for their own safety? Depends on the level of safety or lack there of. But being in the closet doesn't ever help us get more acceptance. About that I am very sure.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I've heard quite a few people, even before this thread, say that tolerance is not enough and they will accept nothing less than acceptance. I'm sincerely confused by this. Why isn't tolerance enough? Keeping in mind that we're dealing with human beings, and human beings are notoriously fickle, ethnocentric, xenophobic, and hateful, how do you expect to ever get there? I honestly can't picture a world where everyone likes me. That's just not something that can reasonably be demanded of humans. There's always going to be some asshole who thinks his personal deity requires him to hate me and everyone like me. Unless someone invents a super duper mind control device to wipe out all dissenting thought, I don't think we're ever going to get there. And really, if someone did invent that device, I wouldn't want them to use it on anyone, ever. I really don't care too much if that asshole hates me, as long as my wife and I have the same rights he and his wife do and he doesn't get a free pass to make his hatred my problem.

It seems to me that "tolerance is not enough" basically means you're setting yourself up for frustration. It's kind of like saying "I will accept nothing less than an amusement park on the moon." That sounds fantastic, it would be the most epic vacation of all time, but if that's the only vacation you'll accept, you're never going to go on vacation.

[Slater]

I've heard quite a few people, even before this thread, say that tolerance is not enough and they will accept nothing less than acceptance. I'm sincerely confused by this. Why isn't tolerance enough? Keeping in mind that we're dealing with human beings, and human beings are notoriously fickle, ethnocentric, xenophobic, and hateful, how do you expect to ever get there? I honestly can't picture a world where everyone likes me. That's just not something that can reasonably be demanded of humans. There's always going to be some asshole who thinks his personal deity requires him to hate me and everyone like me. Unless someone invents a super duper mind control device to wipe out all dissenting thought, I don't think we're ever going to get there. And really, if someone did invent that device, I wouldn't want them to use it on anyone, ever. I really don't care too much if that asshole hates me, as long as my wife and I have the same rights he and his wife do and he doesn't get a free pass to make his hatred my problem.

It seems to me that "tolerance is not enough" basically means you're setting yourself up for frustration. It's kind of like saying "I will accept nothing less than an amusement park on the moon." That sounds fantastic, it would be the most epic vacation of all time, but if that's the only vacation you'll accept, you're never going to go on vacation.

For me the phrase "tolerance is not enough" refers to societal and institutional relationships with us, rather than each and every individual asshat. And in that context I agree that tolerance is not enough. Because tolerance is temporary. Tolerance is "for now because I have to" or "for now because it's more trouble not to." When the conditions around the "for now" change, the tolerance can go away. Acceptance is more like "okay, this is the new reality." And while on the individual asshat level, I'm fine with the former, on the institutional level I definitely want the latter.

[Slater]

So, even in the SF Bay shitty stuff goes on. There is just less of a chance of physical harm than, say, parts of the mid-west or the south. But it happens. Even in the Castro in SF, gay men get bashed occasionally. Does that mean I think people should be closeted for their own safety? Depends on the level of safety or lack there of. But being in the closet doesn't ever help us get more acceptance. About that I am very sure.

Agreed. I would also like to note that being closeted takes an emotional toll, it is psychological violence in a way. So it's a balancing act between the threat of physical (or financial) harm vs the emotional harm of the closet. Each person has to determine where that balancing point is for themselves, of course, but being closeted isn't necessarily "safe" so much as exchanging one type of risk for another.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Sometimes during a nice dinner I have to "tolerate" other peoples gross kids as I try to enjoy my meal to be honest I can't really say I do that because I will ask to be moved so I don't have to tolerate it.

So for me when I hear or someone implies they are tolerating my presence it does not sit well with me. I don't want society to just *tolerate* as if I am somehow mucking up their cozy space and experience in every day life. I want to have the same rights they do when they walk out the front door every morning. I want to be able to eat at a restaurant and not have some douchbag stare at our family because they are all sitting there looking like someone shit in the room.

Tolerance does not equate equality to me, I'd like to walk out the door, visit my partner in the hospital without 34566 questions, claim them as a dependent, and ffs just walk the dogs without it seeming like we somehow brought property value down. Tolerance equates me walking out the door and the sneers happen or the cars get broken into lord knows if we don't cut the grass they report it to the city why are these dykes/queers living near us turn your back here they come. It's about my rights not tolerance.

[weatherboi]

Tolerance creates hierarchy and acceptance creates equality. Through an effort of empathizing, sympathizing and understanding, acceptance creates togetherness. Tolerance creates sides and separation. This is just an opinion of mine.

[Dominique]

Sad isn't it...i/e Snow's post. I live in the city with all walks of life. Good thing, because I'd wager two thirds of my neighborhood wouldn't be tolerated
in the suburbs. There's a drive by shooting on my street every day, ya'll:|. That is absolutely not true, but some people would have you believe that. At the end of the alley behind my house, there is some *tagging*, you know...spray painted art work (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) so I must live in the HOOD. The teenager three doors down, spray paints her hair in stripes and just put an earring in her nose and eye brow for her first day of school tomorrow (as a freshman)....Oh, her father
he, has some of the nicest ink work, in the form of a sleeve, and wears his hair very short. Do you think he's a skin head? Well, don't over look me....I must have a DUI or sum tin, I have a car I never use, but always ride a bicycle. Lezbo and all, theres always a shim over here....I know there was a Palin for President sign in my front yard. Thats just why no houses sell around here. Spend five minutes here and you'll see. Talk about property value coming down.:cigar2:

[dreadgeek]

SA Ma'am;

This is one of those sad truths about our species that I wish were not true about our species. The *best* we can do is make certain that whatever the person's prejudice, they cannot make it *our* problem. Let us admit that unless we are willing to see society become extraordinarily *less* free--which I guarantee you would rebound to our sorrow--all we can do is make the discrimination illegal. After that, it is on a one-to-one basis. We win people over, one interaction at a time. It is illegal to discriminate in housing, education, employment and public accommodation based upon the color of one's skin or one's gender. Has that stopped people from holding bigoted or sexist views? No. Has it made any nation that has adopted such laws a paradise of racial harmony? Not hardly. It has drastically raised the stakes for behaving in a bigoted fashion in the aforementioned. As a *process*--and that is what I think we can change directly are processes--we can constrain by law whether or not someone can decide to not rent to transgendered person purely because they are transgendered. We can mandate that the relevant factors for, say, employment do not include race or sexual orientation or gender presentation or what-have-you.

We cannot make it so that those laws are unnecessary. Not without severely restricting the freedom of others to express beliefs that we might find abhorrent.

Tolerance, to me, is living in a nation of people where some non-trivial number of them believe, things that I might find either offensive or blindingly wrong, but not letting that get in the way of having good interactions with them. Acceptance is simply not allowing some trait to have unnecessary meaning. By that I mean, as I've stated when talking about 'color blindness' that the problem isn't that someone notices that I am black. The problem is caused when they attach *meaning* to my being black beyond what that characteristic can justify. My blackness gives no one any insight into my character, competence, intelligence, generosity, honesty or any other relevant trait. Bigotry is when someone takes my being black to mean that they *do* have insight into my character, that their insight is accurate *because* of my race, and to then treat me accordingly as someone lacking in one or more desirable character traits.

If my neighbors are giving me the stink-eye, then they are not tolerating me. What is happening is that they are restrained from making their feelings known to me in a more direct sense only because of the law and social stigma. If my neighbors invite me over for BBQ, say hello and generally treat me as just another neighbor, then they are *at worst* tolerating me and if they are not already accepting, then may very well be on the road to acceptance. Acceptance, to me, is when my neighbor, upon hearing someone make a derisive remark about queer people says "you know, the ladies across the street are nothing like what you say and given that they're really nice and you're obviously an asshole, I'd prefer their company over yours any day".

All the above can be true without, even once, us ever having a conversation on the topic of "do you accept homosexuals".

My forty-five years black in this nation has certainly taught me that bigotry cannot be legislated away. The direct expression of bigotry can be legislated away and then, slowly, painfully, never-fast-enough, people's minds are changed. As was pointed out by a couple of people, the *best* predictor for how someone feels about enshrining equality for queer people under the law is whether that person has an intimate who is queer. It cuts across most other demographics. Laws--or really just folding us into most existing anti-discrimination laws--can create conditions *enough* that contacts will happen. After that, what will happen is that people will start working next to the queer guy and he'll *stop* being whatever bigoted image the person was raised with and become the guy who helped them out when they were under the gun at work. They'll start living next to a queer couple and they'll no longer be the folks who are a threat to families but the one's who, when the kids got home and no one was there, contacted the parents and drove the kids to the babysitter. That makes them a neighbor.

Look, let us say that there are, essentially, three sides in the national argument about the place of queer people in society. There's our side. Their's the anti-queer people. There's the vast majority of people who hold no active hostility about queers but haven't really thought about us very much. The preference of the first two groups is to win by fiat. The religious right, if given half a chance, would simply make being queer illegal and be done with it. If given a chance, particularly after some infuriating outrage, we would take the easy route and simply pass a law making it illegal to be anti-queer or express such sentiments. The religious right can conceivably have their way. We *never* can. We simply lack any possibility of a majority. So we must win by persuasion. We must win over as many people in the non-aligned group as we can. We do not need ALL of them, we need enough that they are allies and we and our allies are then a majority. This is, essentially, the strategy any numerically overwhelmed group must do--win the argument.

That means that while our opponents *never* have to be realistic, we *always* have to be realistic. That means we have to determine not what the best world would be, but what is the best *achievable* world given the species we have to work with and the fact that we cannot impose our will upon the majority.

Cheers
Aj



I've heard quite a few people, even before this thread, say that tolerance is not enough and they will accept nothing less than acceptance. I'm sincerely confused by this. Why isn't tolerance enough? Keeping in mind that we're dealing with human beings, and human beings are notoriously fickle, ethnocentric, xenophobic, and hateful, how do you expect to ever get there? I honestly can't picture a world where everyone likes me. That's just not something that can reasonably be demanded of humans. There's always going to be some asshole who thinks his personal deity requires him to hate me and everyone like me. Unless someone invents a super duper mind control device to wipe out all dissenting thought, I don't think we're ever going to get there. And really, if someone did invent that device, I wouldn't want them to use it on anyone, ever. I really don't care too much if that asshole hates me, as long as my wife and I have the same rights he and his wife do and he doesn't get a free pass to make his hatred my problem.

It seems to me that "tolerance is not enough" basically means you're setting yourself up for frustration. It's kind of like saying "I will accept nothing less than an amusement park on the moon." That sounds fantastic, it would be the most epic vacation of all time, but if that's the only vacation you'll accept, you're never going to go on vacation.

[dreadgeek]

Snow:

That is not tolerance. If your neighbors were tolerant you would never know *what* they think of your being queer. Breaking into your car is not an act of tolerance. Going out of their way to give you the stink-eye is not an act of toleration. Toleration would mean them nodding as you see one another leaving for work, saying Happy Thanksgiving when you see one another walking the dog, and largely not engaging you very much. If your neighbors tolerated you, they would not respond to your presence in a negative fashion.

So if they are not being tolerant what are they doing? They are trying to do as much as they can get away while not bringing the law around them (which is why the car break-in, it's relatively easy to get away with) and at the same time, trying to find some way to use the law to punish you for being queer. The critical thing, however, is that *they* are restrained by the law. Given that they have broken into your vehicles, that means that they would--if the law did not prohibit it--likely break into your home. But they haven't because the law precludes them doing it. There is no law that says "you cannot break into straight people's homes but queer people, go for it". The law says 'you cannot break into people's homes' and has done with it. What I believe should be our focus is to make certain that queer people are covered equally by ALL laws.

What you should do about your neighbors, I don't know. I *do* know that what they are doing is not showing toleration. They are showing that they do not want the law to come down around their ears. That's not toleration. That's being restrained by the law.

Cheers
Aj

Sometimes during a nice dinner I have to "tolerate" other peoples gross kids as I try to enjoy my meal to be honest I can't really say I do that because I will ask to be moved so I don't have to tolerate it.

So for me when I hear or someone implies they are tolerating my presence it does not sit well with me. I don't want society to just *tolerate* as if I am somehow mucking up their cozy space and experience in every day life. I want to have the same rights they do when they walk out the front door every morning. I want to be able to eat at a restaurant and not have some douchbag stare at our family because they are all sitting there looking like someone shit in the room.

Tolerance does not equate equality to me, I'd like to walk out the door, visit my partner in the hospital without 34566 questions, claim them as a dependent, and ffs just walk the dogs without it seeming like we somehow brought property value down. Tolerance equates me walking out the door and the sneers happen or the cars get broken into lord knows if we don't cut the grass they report it to the city why are these dykes/queers living near us turn your back here they come. It's about my rights not tolerance.

[The_Lady_Snow]

:| I'll point that out when someone says their only tolerating it cause they have to.. In Spanish if someone tolerates you it's never a good thing.

[dreadgeek]

:| I'll point that out when someone says their only tolerating it cause they have to.. In Spanish if someone tolerates you it's never a good thing.

Snowy:

I didn't say it was a good thing. I'm not describing the world as I would like to see it. I'm trying to discuss the world as it appears to be. No, tolerating isn't the ideal. But what is living in a society but tolerating people and ideas and things you would much rather not have to? I don't *want* to live in a world with racists. But I *do* live in that world and since one of us has to act right, I will extend to a bigot all the tolerance I am able to. Tolerance is also not a switch, it is a slider. I will tolerate some things more than others.

You have said what you do not want but you have not said what you *do* want. What is tolerance to you? What is acceptance?

Let me illustrate what *I* mean by tolerance. We live in a religiously plural society. I am an atheist. As it turns out, I tend to think that the case against there being a divine being is much stronger than the one that can be made for there being one. I have to deal with people who believe, quite wrongly, that the Earth is 6,000 years old. I tolerate that. We live in a complex society filled with lots of people many of whom, perhaps large swaths of whom, believe or behave in ways we do not like. We do not have to like them. They do not have to like us. We DO have to get on with one another because they aren't going away and we aren't going away. I do not expect, for instance, a Christian to be thrilled about there being atheists. I do not expect her to think that I might have a point. In fact, I *fully* expect her to believe that I am wrong, to put it mildly, and seriously deluded. But we still have to work next to one another and so we must *tolerate* one another.

The Constitution does not promise that people of different religious beliefs will see one another's point, it says they must tolerate one another. That means you don't go about passing laws designed to make the other lot's life miserable. That means you do the job in front of you and focus on the commonalities.

Again, I do not believe that our rights come FROM our identities. Our identities are--or at least should be--completely beside the point. I am not ever going to live in a society populated by people entirely like me. I do not feel like living inside a hermetically sealed bubble where the only people I associate with and who feel comfortable associating with me are people who are like me or very close approximations of me. I can't have it, wouldn't like it and so must live in a society where we will disagree but where we must get along in spite of all that.

In a world without prejudices tolerance would truly be a bad thing. This is not a world without prejudices. There will, for any foreseeable future where the human brain works like it appears to now be bigots. There will, for as long as there is commerce, people who are better off than others. There will always be an uneven distribution of talents and depending upon completely arbitrary variables of time and place, one's abilities or talents may or may not be valued higher or lower. We cannot, not in any society where people are treated more-or-less equally before the law, have equality of outcomes. We can't. Believing we can is believing that one can make the garden grow not by planting and watering but in believing that unicorns will take care of it all. So the question I think we have to answer, as a community, is what *can* we achieve. If you think that we can have a world where people who hold the attitudes that your neighbors do can be eliminated, I would be interested to hear *how* we get there from where we are.

Cheers
Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

I thought I had, I simply want to be treated as I treat others. I don't walk out the door with no other intent than having a good day, being friendly, polite, kind, work hard, go to the kiddo's boxing, do my walk and sweat and curse cause it's hot. WITHOUT some ass hat being grossed out or look like they are cause of who I am.

I could even throw in there that as a woman I want my space and place to be equally valid if not more valid than the guy next to me who gets it just cause he's a guy.

Sometimes I think I'm expecting to much when I try to take my place in the world but I'll be damned if I won't take it it's mine and my right. I don't just want it for me me me, I want it for alll women, childrens, queers, geeks, underdogs, poor, forgotten people out there.

Sounds kinda corny huh?

It would be nice to not be treated differently because of the gay. I'm still thinking and typing. :|

[dreadgeek]

I thought I had, I simply want to be treated as I treat others. I don't walk out the door with no other intent than having a good day, being friendly, polite, kind, work hard, go to the kiddo's boxing, do my walk and sweat and curse cause it's hot. WITHOUT some ass hat being grossed out or look like they are cause of who I am.

I could even throw in there that as a woman I want my space and place to be equally valid if not more valid than the guy next to me who gets it just cause he's a guy.

Sometimes I think I'm expecting to much when I try to take my place in the world but I'll be damned if I won't take it it's mine and my right. I don't just want it for me me me, I want it for alll women, childrens, queers, geeks, underdogs, poor, forgotten people out there.

Sounds kinda corny huh?

It would be nice to not be treated differently because of the gay. I'm still thinking and typing. :|

Okay but since we cannot *force* people to behave that way, what then? Are you saying that until any person you encounter, anyone particular person taken at random, is utterly unconcerned with your being gay or Latina, etc. we will not have reached--not the best imaginable place--but the best *achievable* place? Again, I can imagine a perfect world but I cannot drag all the rest of you into it and, trust me, many of you would NOT like my perfect world. Since I can't have a perfect world and since no one else can either and since history is quite literally bloody with all the attempts to create utopias, I want to aim for the best achievable world.

That's why I keep coming back to this idea that we cannot have a world where your neighbors are simply *incapable* of giving you the stink-eye. It appears you want to live in a world without bigots. While that would be nice, I see no way to get there. I do see a way to get there through creating laws and processes that treat people equally. No bias and no favor. Since that is *also* not possible for humans, the law should be as non-biased as limited humans can manage.

I'm trying to deal with the world as it is, with the human species we have to work with. We cannot make a world where no person is poor. Poverty is relative at any rate and unless we make certain that everyone has the same outcomes--a prospect very few would willingly sign on for--there will always be *some* people who have less resources than others. What we *can* do is have a society where people are treated fairly and equally. Where people have access to those things that allow oneself to be economically empowered--things like education, laws to protect one from workplace exploitation or bigotry.

All societies are a series of trade-offs. So what does this society you wish for look like? What are the trade-offs? What are you willing to give up in order to have a society wherein your neighbors are simply not *capable* of being anti-gay? Or anti-anything for that matter?

And no, it doesn't sound corny, Snowy. It sounds vague. So you want some asshat to not *appear* to be grossed out when he looks at you. So what does that world look like? Is that a world where he simply does not think--because the category is foreign to him--"there is a homosexual, I don't like that"? Or is it a world wherein he dare *not* think that thought for fear of the consequences? Or is it a world where the thought is not thinkable? Or where it's expression is what; illegal? Socially unacceptable?

Walk me through this, Snowy. In your world, please explain how this works:

1) You walk out your door, your neighbor sees you. What does he do?

2) You walk out your door, your neighbor sees you and sneers. What happens then?

In your world CAN your neighbor think a thought that is anti-gay? If he can't, why can't he? if he can, what are the consequences of him doing so. You say this is your right to have this. So what does a world in which your right is protected look like?

Cheers
Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

I'm going to give this some thought A LOT to be exact I'll be back laters it's late (kinda) and there's still stuff for tomorrow that needs to be done (kids take up A LOT of time) thanks Aj for the push to keep thinking.

[dreadgeek]

Kobi:

Thank you for this. These are the questions I think we have to address as a community. It is one thing to say "queer people should be free" it is another thing to determine what freedom is and to understand our part of the bargain. As a nation, we've become so accustomed to asking the question "what's in it for me" while ignoring that the other woman is probably asking herself the same question. Once we recognize that others also have agendas and that your agenda and my agenda may not be identical we can then start doing politics. Politics is the art of the possible. Not the ideal. The possible.

Your examples are precisely the kinds of trade-offs that I think we, as a community, need to start asking ourselves.

Cheers
Aj




Interesting challenge Aj. Life is a series of negotiations and trade offs.

To answer the first part about gaining acceptance, to me, people are afraid of stuff they dont know or understand. It was always important to me to just live my life as I would regardless of who I slept with. Where I live made it a lot easier.

Most of the folks who had an issue with my queerness harbored a lot of misconceptions about who queers are. They didnt or didnt think they knew any gay people cuz the people they knew didnt act like "those other people".

Some folks dont like fitting in or assimilating. They see it as selling out. To me, it was and is a political statement. If people couldnt see me as the same as they were then the chances of changing their perceptions of queers were pretty slim. So, was there any harm in showing that queers got an education, worked, served on committees, took care of their elderly family, drove cars, had friendships and relationships, owned houses, did the mundane chores of existing? Not to me. The harm was them thinking or believing I was different from them.

As for trade offs and what I am willing to give up. When gay marriage became a legal option in Mass, it was a bittersweet thing to me. Nice to have the option for a legal recognition of a relationship and some "perks" that went along with this.

On the other hand, as with anything else, marriage means giving up some degree of independence and freedom. It means different expectations when dating. It means looking at relationships in a different way. It is a responsibility I gave some fantasy based thought to but now it was a reality I had to grapple with.

As for other "concession" type stuff. To me, if I want to be seen as a part of a community, I have a number of responsibilities. I may want to fly a gay pride flag from my deck. It might make me feel good to do so for any number of reasons. But, how might it impact those who live around me? Is that something I should take into account? Is it selling out or is it being mindful or respectful of others? Depends on your perspective I guess. To me, the world isnt going to stop spinning if I cant fly my flag.

I cant think of any situation where you get exactly everything you want without having some degree of trade off involved.

[AtLast]

Interesting challenge Aj. Life is a series of negotiations and trade offs.

To answer the first part about gaining acceptance, to me, people are afraid of stuff they dont know or understand. It was always important to me to just live my life as I would regardless of who I slept with. Where I live made it a lot easier.

Most of the folks who had an issue with my queerness harbored a lot of misconceptions about who queers are. They didnt or didnt think they knew any gay people cuz the people they knew didnt act like "those other people".

Some folks dont like fitting in or assimilating. They see it as selling out. To me, it was and is a political statement. If people couldnt see me as the same as they were then the chances of changing their perceptions of queers were pretty slim. So, was there any harm in showing that queers got an education, worked, served on committees, took care of their elderly family, drove cars, had friendships and relationships, owned houses, did the mundane chores of existing? Not to me. The harm was them thinking or believing I was different from them.

As for trade offs and what I am willing to give up. When gay marriage became a legal option in Mass, it was a bittersweet thing to me. Nice to have the option for a legal recognition of a relationship and some "perks" that went along with this.

On the other hand, as with anything else, marriage means giving up some degree of independence and freedom. It means different expectations when dating. It means looking at relationships in a different way. It is a responsibility I gave some fantasy based thought to but now it was a reality I had to grapple with.

As for other "concession" type stuff. To me, if I want to be seen as a part of a community, I have a number of responsibilities. I may want to fly a gay pride flag from my deck. It might make me feel good to do so for any number of reasons. But, how might it impact those who live around me? Is that something I should take into account? Is it selling out or is it being mindful or respectful of others? Depends on your perspective I guess. To me, the world isnt going to stop spinning if I cant fly my flag.

I cant think of any situation where you get exactly everything you want without having some degree of trade off involved.








I can't either, Kobi. There many things that I just don't believe the world will stop spinning over if I don't have my way. And some things are just more important than others and serve building more positive relations among differing peoples.

I love my neighborhood and feel totally accepted as part of it. Exercising common courtesy as a neighbor has contributed to this- BY ALL that I share my block with. I join in with neighborhood Watch and Take Back the Night activities and meetings. I let folks know when something they do has an impact on me (like allowing their dog to bark at night), but also make changes for others when they let me know about something I do- like changing to a lower wattage porch bulb that shines into their bedroom window.

My neighbors see me sometimes in men's formal wear and a couple at first took a double take- then asked if I was going to something special. I have had more than one fruitful conversation about the B-F dynamic as a butch lesbian. I have learned that there are leather straight couples nearby that have had their own share of feeling "different" or weird.

My adjacent neighbors check on me when they see I am having major problems with my joints and pain- and call or stop by and offer to go to the store if I am not getting out. They also stop by and say "Great" when I am doing well.

My neighborhood is multi-cultural and racial, lower-middle class and working class with a couple of professionals scattered about. There are 2 lesbian couples that are main-stream lesbian and me. There are home owners and renters. Our age range is 6 months to 92 a (just lost our 94 you and a woman that was 103).

I don't go naked in my yard because my next-door neighbors have their grand kids over a lot and there is just not good privacy between our yards. I do, however, go in my spa (when it worked) nude because I built privacy around it- for myself and my neighbors. Its called respecting other people. I watch my mouth when working in the yard- which sometimes I have to remind myself, because the old couple behind me doesn't like foul language. It is just not a big deal to me to do this. They have stopped using any poison for rodents around their yard at my request. The stay at home, mother of 3 4 houses down apologized to me after Prop 8 passed in 2010 in CA. She has also talked to me about one of her sons being gay or perhaps trans and sought out support for him. I don't park my car hanging over other people's drive ways, or bang trash cans late at night because I think about my neighbors- and they return this courtesy.

Reciprocity and realizing that we all have boundaries is just important. If I had moved here and not gotten to know my neighbors or assumed that ever one of them was going to be against me or had no interest in learning who I am, I would not be very happy here at all. I don't feel like I compromise who I am at all. I feel like I am surrounded by good people that want to share who they are as well and that I am actually not all that different.

Yes, there is one man that I don't care for and have had words with. Nothing is ever perfect. And I am not the only person on earth. Nor do I want to be. I'm also not a very defensive person overall. I try not to jump to conclusions and figure out what is really going on with people.

I had a situation in which I rented a room to a queer friend in which the person had no regard for my neighbors and had to kick her out. There was no way that I was going to allow her total disregard for community cooperation to ruin my relationships with my neighbors. The compalints were numerous and well founded. This is my neighborhood and she would just be moving out eventually- I, however, will remain here and have worked hard to build relationships with these people. I had to choose between our friendship and my neighborhood. Not fun, but necessary.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Walk me through this, Snowy. In your world, please explain how this works:

1) You walk out your door, your neighbor sees you. What does he do?

Well the guy across the street sneers, the lady behind us looks at us like she's smelling shit or shakes her head, the other two besides us now ignore us and keep their kids away.

2) You walk out your door, your neighbor sees you and sneers. What happens then?

I say nothing, we say nothing. what can we say we can't change their minds about not liking homos and them thinking we're disgusting and going to hell.

In your world CAN your neighbor think a thought that is anti-gay? he ifcan't, why can't he? if he can, what are the consequences of him doing so. You say this is your right to have this. So what does a world in which your right is protected look like?

Cheers
Aj ___________


I moved recently from a world that was pretty good for *me* where I lived, Columbus is kind of a secret cause no one really knows what a great city it is. I never had a problem with a neighbor due to me being queer, not even when I walked out in full leathers. If something did happen the police were there, our rental place took care of it and at work it was no issue since our project manager was gay.


This new world I am living in there is rare times of acceptance, rare understanding and togetherness. This is not only cause of the queer issue I'm stuck in limbo right now because of race and class issues amongst what has gone on here. I feel tolerated but not the the point where it's accepted. Make sense?


I am at the point that I don't care what the neighbors think because I have done everything to be nice and friendly. I don't try no more it's been a year, my kid don't need to be hanging out there because frankly why would I let him? So to answer the neighbors can keep being jerks as long as I am not and I keep working on my house, taking my kid to boxing or any other sport and well packing up going to the beach. Hell even then it's problematic.


I may come back and add more I figured I would come in so it did not look like I was ignoring the questions. It may take a couple more days cause this thread is making me think a lot.

Thanks and sorry if my answers don't make sense:|

To me acceptance is never changing as for tolerance can and will change with conditions. I hope that changes as time goes on here, people are pretty closeted here if they are queer, they are quiet it about it and discreet I'm not used to it cause of having always lived in areas that were queer friendly.

[dreadgeek]

Walk me through this, Snowy. In your world, please explain how this works:

1) You walk out your door, your neighbor sees you. What does he do?

Well the guy across the street sneers, the lady behind us looks at us like she's smelling shit or shakes her head, the other two besides us now ignore us and keep their kids away.


2) You walk out your door, your neighbor sees you and sneers. What happens then?

I say nothing, we say nothing. what can we say we can't change their minds about not liking homos and them thinking we're disgusting and going to hell.


Actually, Snowy, I wasn't asking how things are *now*. I was asking, in your ideal world, in the world you were talking about having a right to, how things would be different.

You had said:


I could even throw in there that as a woman I want my space and place to be equally valid if not more valid than the guy next to me who gets it just cause he's a guy.

Sometimes I think I'm expecting to much when I try to take my place in the world but I'll be damned if I won't take it it's mine and my right. I don't just want it for me me me, I want it for alll women, childrens, queers, geeks, underdogs, poor, forgotten people out there.

What does that world look like? So in this world, where your space and place are equally if not more valid, how would things be different with your neighbors? What would that look like? If it would be different HOW would it be different? That's why I asked if, in the world you envision, your neighbors could even *be* anti-gay and if they couldn't, why would they not be able to be?



To me acceptance is never changing as for tolerance can and will change with conditions. I hope that changes as time goes on here, people are pretty closeted here if they are queer, they are quiet it about it and discreet I'm not used to it cause of having always lived in areas that were queer friendly.

Yes, tolerance does change with conditions. But here's what I'm driving at. I do not see *how* we can have a free, open society where there is only acceptance and no need for tolerance. I agree that tolerance is learning to live next to people with whom you might disagree vehemently on one or more points. However, while several people see that as a bad thing, I see it as the *least* bad thing given the species we have to work with. IF America were both ethnically and religiously homogenous then there would, ironically, be less need for tolerance. The reason for that is that if this nation had that kind of homogeneity we would be more culturally homogeneous. But we aren't. We are ethnically and religiously pluralistic. We will *always* have a heterogeneous society and so we have to figure out how to get along with one another. Otherwise, we will rip ourselves apart.

This is where tolerance comes in. I do not have to like that which I tolerate. I just have to tolerate it. Tolerate does NOT mean that I'll put up with X until I can find some way to squash it. Rather, it means that I will let X be if X will leave me be. It most certainly does not mean trying to attack X either physically, verbally or through the law. This is why I'm curious about those who disagree with me about tolerance. If tolerance is unacceptable--and at least two people have stated that it is neither enough nor is it a good thing--what's the alternative? If acceptance is the ONLY thing, then how do we get there from here? In other words, how do people envision creating a society where tolerance doesn't happen because there is universal acceptance?

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can convince an *entire* society to accept ALL difference and treat them as irrelevant. I just don't see it. Tolerance, I think, you can teach because one can attack it from a couple of different directions. But how do you teach *acceptance* without squashing out less accepting ideas? That's why I asked the question about whether, in your best of all possible worlds, your neighbor is capable of sneering at you because you are queer. If he isn't then why isn't he? Is it because we have made it unthinkable? If so, how? Is it because we have created a society where certain facial expressions are taken as prima facie evidence of bigoted behavior? Are we, in the name of queer liberation, ready to embrace the idea of thought-crime? I don't think we should.

Because of my background in evolutionary biology, I see everything as a trade-off. There are no perfect worlds, there are no perfect animals and there are no perfect societies. Because there are always costs, it becomes important to determine what those costs are and consider whether those costs are outweighed by the benefits. So we can have a society that is largely tolerant of difference while still being open and free enough to allow for people who are *not* tolerant, provided that they do not attempt to directly threaten either individuals or the stability of the community as a whole. On the other hand, we can have a society that has no need of tolerance because everyone is accepting--or at least they behave that way--but I think we would then have a drastically less open and free society. I don't think we can have a society of universal acceptance that is free.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Q: What price am I willing to pay for the same rights as heterosexual people?

A: My taxes at the same rate as they pay in the same income bracket.

Period.

June:

But that's not really the *kind* of cost I'm talking about. The kind of cost I'm trying to drive at here is what compromise are you willing to give? In my read of the Civil Rights Movement, the black community made a bargain with the majority population. We will play by the rules, go to school, work hard, etc. and in *return* we expect to be treated as citizens and people. We'll do our part if you lot will do yours. The tax issue isn't really a trade-off. WHEN our marriages are legally recognized in all states--and that will happen--we'll be obliged to pay taxes at the same rate so that's not really a *cost*. Even if it were the kind of cost I was talking about, I'm not sure that would be enough to sweeten the pot for a straight person standing on the sidelines.

What do we put on the table that will appeal to the heterosexual majority. Our demands are pretty straightforward, treat us as people and citizens. My question is what are we, as queer people, willing to give for that? Like I keep saying, there's always costs and as a community we have ignored costs for far too long.

Cheers
Aj

[The_Lady_Snow]

FFS!!! I had me a fucking A-HA moment reading you 5x's!!!

Though I have to disagree about the there are no perfect animals, I think the horse is...

[SecretAgentMa'am]

FFS!!! I had me a fucking A-HA moment reading you 5x's!!!

Though I have to disagree about the there are no perfect animals, I think the horse is...

Sorry, Snow. I have to disagree with you there. And I love horses.

I was going to put a great quote in here, and then I realized that the actual quote is "A camel is a horse designed by committee."

Regardless, having known quite a few horses in my time, if horses were the perfect animal they wouldn't need to see the vet nearly so often. And they'd be able to lay down for more than an hour or two at a time without crushing their own internal organs.

/derail

[The_Lady_Snow]

Well that's ok, cause I think they are..... I'm ok with that, but thank you I'm well educated on equine behaviours, health do's don'ts and other random stuff. I love them that much. They bring me great great amazing joy and happiness.:)

:hk2: <I also think she's damn perfect too


http://friesianhorses.eu/site_images/612_friesianEstallionEmetse.jpg

[Corkey]

June:

But that's not really the *kind* of cost I'm talking about. The kind of cost I'm trying to drive at here is what compromise are you willing to give? In my read of the Civil Rights Movement, the black community made a bargain with the majority population. We will play by the rules, go to school, work hard, etc. and in *return* we expect to be treated as citizens and people. We'll do our part if you lot will do yours. The tax issue isn't really a trade-off. WHEN our marriages are legally recognized in all states--and that will happen--we'll be obliged to pay taxes at the same rate so that's not really a *cost*. Even if it were the kind of cost I was talking about, I'm not sure that would be enough to sweeten the pot for a straight person standing on the sidelines.

What do we put on the table that will appeal to the heterosexual majority. Our demands are pretty straightforward, treat us as people and citizens. My question is what are we, as queer people, willing to give for that? Like I keep saying, there's always costs and as a community we have ignored costs for far too long.

Cheers
Aj

Aj, I'm not willing to compromise my basic human rights, and I don't think any of us should. Sometimes one just has to make a stand and say, here and no further. I don't feel the need to beg for my rights, I will however fight tooth and nail for them.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

See, now we're in danger of a major derail, because I also love horses, and I've desperately wanted a Fresian ever since the first time I saw Ladyhawke when I was a wee little bit.

Someday, when I've won the lottery or something and we're independently wealthy, I will have a stable full of Fresians and Gypsy Vanners. :drool:

http://www.lakeridgegypsy.com/images/Gypsy_Vanner_Horses_Ster8581-37.jpg

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Aj, I'm not willing to compromise my basic human rights, and I don't think any of us should. Sometimes one just has to make a stand and say, here and no further. I don't feel the need to beg for my rights, I will however fight tooth and nail for them.

That's not really what anyone is talking about, though. No one has said you should compromise on your basic human rights. What's being asked is, what are you willing to do get those rights? A lot of people seem to be under the impression that they should just be able to say "I deserve it, gimme" and the people in power should just say "Oh, okay, here you go." That's a nice fantasy, but not how the universe actually works. In order to actually get those rights that we deserve, we need to get other people on our side. People like straight, conservative Christians in the midwest. Hell, even just your average, semi-religious, moderate straight person in the midwest. If we're going to make any real progress, we need more of them on our side. How do you propose we do that? We don't have the numbers to get anything by brute force. We need to convince people. What's your plan?

[Corkey]

That's not really what anyone is talking about, though. No one has said you should compromise on your basic human rights. What's being asked is, what are you willing to do get those rights? A lot of people seem to be under the impression that they should just be able to say "I deserve it, gimme" and the people in power should just say "Oh, okay, here you go." That's a nice fantasy, but not how the universe actually works. In order to actually get those rights that we deserve, we need to get other people on our side. People like straight, conservative Christians in the midwest. Hell, even just your average, semi-religious, moderate straight person in the midwest. If we're going to make any real progress, we need more of them on our side. How do you propose we do that? We don't have the numbers to get anything by brute force. We need to convince people. What's your plan?

I don't have a plan, don't need nor want one, and here's why, they and their approval isn't necessary for me to be me, I don't need to convince any one of my right to be, my right to marry my right to fight for my country, I just do it. I refuse to beg them for anything, if they can't be like the Christ they so solemnly proclaim then nothing I do will change their minds. These are petty jealous and ignorant people, and I don't buy into their hate and fear. The best revenge is a well lived life.

If I lived my life according to their rules, they win, I don't, and they wont.

[Dominique]

These are petty jealous and ignorant people, and I don't buy into their hate and fear.[/SIZE]
If I lived my life according to their rules, they win, I don't, and they wont.

Well Corkey, June had the right message, VOTE. Because they are not petty jealous people. They are powerful......add what ever words you want onto that. My goodness, did you forget about Rick Santorum?...how did we get rid of him?....we voted him out. We are not in any position to go backwards.

[Corkey]

Well Corkey, June had the right message, VOTE. Because they are not petty jealous people. They are powerful......add what ever words you want onto that. My goodness, did you forget about Rick Santorum?...how did we get rid of him?....we voted him out. We are not in any position to go backwards.

Why are you assuming I don't vote? They only power they have is the power we give them. I have in-laws who are like this, they don't have power over me, they never did and they never will. Well, Santorum is out and Corbett is in so is Mike Kelley and Pat Toomey, and I didn't vote for any of those asshats. Here's a thought stop assuming I don't vote and I am not active in Human Rights Campaign or any of the other myriad of other political and social causes shall we?

[betenoire]

What are we willing to pay with for acceptance


How I pay:

1 - By not acting like a horses ass.

2 - By not screaming that somebody must be a homophobe every time they don't like me (maybe I'm just not likeable, that's possible. or maybe I did something to that person unintentionally.) There will be people who don't like me because I'm Queer. Ditto there will be people who don't like me for some other reason. Since I'm not psychic I have no way of knowing which it is unless they come right out and say it - so I'm not doing me or any other Queer any favours by screaming about homophobia every time something goes wrong.

True story: I live in kind of a shitty neighborhood, for Canada. What I mean by that is while there isn't a lot of violent crime going on where I'm living, there is a TONNE of property crime. Lots of theft. When my mail or my bike gets stolen (the mail happens all the time, the bike happened once and I never got another one because why bother?) Nick immediately jumps to "They are harassing you because they hate gay people!" which is just super crazy, since we have no way of knowing who the "they" in the situation are, let alone what their motivation is.

3 - By going out of my way to be the kind of person that people tend to like, even when I don't feel like it. I smile at people strangers when I pass them on the street and I say hello and stop for small-talk with acquaintances. I run errands for the guy on the 1st floor who is ill. When other people from my building are sitting around in lawnchairs out front I pull up a chair and hang out for a bit. I give up my seat on the bus for elderly people, women with small children, people with a disability, and anybody who looks like they are tired and would rather not stand up. I help people with heaps of groceries get their groceries on and off the bus. I try to keep the noise in my apartment to a minimum. If it's late at night I turn the teevee down real low and turn on closed captioning. I pay my rent on time. And I never go into the express line at the grocery store unless I really DO have 10 items or less.

4 - By being who I am but not making a huge deal out of it. I'm not confrontational around the Queer stuff. If I'm in line at the coffee shop and someone is shit talking gay people I approach them with a SMILE and ask them to please rethink who might be listening - I never yell or call names or act like a jackass about it. You'll never catch me in a teeshirt that says "Pussy is rad!" or "I am going to fuck all of your girlfriends!" or anything like that.

and how will we know when we have finally crossed into the Promised Land?

There is no Promised Land. People are what they are and we just are not evolved enough as a species to love and respect everybody - we never will be. Some individuals are pretty good at it...but as a species? It just isn't going to happen.

I'm Canadian, as most people know. So I'm pretty freaking lucky. It's illegal to discriminate against me for my "sexual orientation" (or whatever you want to call it.) I can marry whoever I want. I can work wherever I want. I can live wherever I want. I can shop wherever I want. If we can ever get that bill to add language around not discriminating against people who are transsexual added to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms passed I will be happy as a freaking clam.

Equal rights and protections is good enough for me. But as far as how individual people feel about the Queer "community" goes - the people who love us are just gravy. The people who hate us aren't especially shocking and are not going to ruin my buzz.

[Dominique]

[QUOTE=Corkey;408916]Why are you assuming I don't vote?

There was more to her suggestion than Vote, I just didn't repeat it, as the message is the same. We have to use the power of the vote to make changes. I wasn't assuming you didn't vote.

Three big *R*'s have already signed a declaration to remove what little rights we gay folks have, we have to unite and fight the fight to be sure they do not get into office. Thats all.

SNAP.....all gone. back to the days of hiding who and what we are.

[Corkey]

I don't believe in going backwards, never have, never will, the only closet I use is the one for my cloths.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I don't need to convince any one of my right to be, my right to marry my right to fight for my country, I just do it.

This doesn't actually make any sense, though. Regardless of how you choose to live your life, you don't currently have the right to legally marry in the US. Even if you live in a state with marriage rights, your marriage still isn't federally recognized. You don't just magically have that right because you say so. If it worked that way, there would be no reason to have this conversation. You can have a relationship that you feel is a marriage, you can have a ceremony, but that doesn't get you all the benefits of a legal marriage. That's what this conversation is about.

[Corkey]

Actually we were married legally in Canada. I don't care one way or the other, if it doesn't make any since to you, that isn't my goal. I'm not going to live my life in fear or in what ifs', that is a total waste of energy. Go convince the Idiot party that you want your rights, they don't care about you, they don't care about me, the only thing they care about is their racist, sexist, classist small minded grasp of their own small patch of Americana.

Trust me I've been fighting this war longer than you've been alive.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Actually we were married legally in Canada. I don't care one way or the other, if it doesn't make any since to you, that isn't my goal. I'm not going to live my life in fear or in what ifs', that is a total waste of energy. Go convince the Idiot party that you want your rights, they don't care about you, they don't care about me, the only thing they care about is their racist, sexist, classist small minded grasp of their own small patch of Americana.

Trust me I've been fighting this war longer than you've been alive.

Congratulations. I'm talking about in the US. If you don't live in the US, then what are we arguing about? The conversation is about getting marriage rights IN THE US.

That last bit is utterly fascinating since you have no idea how old I am.

[atomiczombie]

Actually we were married legally in Canada. I don't care one way or the other, if it doesn't make any since to you, that isn't my goal. I'm not going to live my life in fear or in what ifs', that is a total waste of energy. Go convince the Idiot party that you want your rights, they don't care about you, they don't care about me, the only thing they care about is their racist, sexist, classist small minded grasp of their own small patch of Americana.

Trust me I've been fighting this war longer than you've been alive.

So, is your answer just to stop the fight? Do you feel it's a fight that will never be won? I'm just asking for clarity here.

[Corkey]

I live in the US, and Drew, fighting idiots doesn't get us anywhere, there are no sane republicans left to argue with.

[dreadgeek]

Corkey:

Okay, if you don't care what they think then how do you get them to actually fold us into the circle of people called 'citizen'. I'm not a Canadian citizen and neither is my wife so we can't get married in Canada. The US government isn't obliged to acknowledge a marriage done in Canada.

I'm not talking about begging, Corkey. I'm talking about being pragmatic because, at the end of the day, we have to live in the same country as the people who hate us. They are not going away. We can't make them go away and they overwhelm us in sheer numbers. So we have to convince the vast middle, those people who are not actively anti-gay, that we have the better case. That is NOT begging.

We do not have the numbers to simply win by decree. We cannot *make* the majority do *anything* they don't want to do. Yes, in an ideal world, we would just say this WILL BE and it would become so. We don't live there. We can't even maneuver an absolute dictator into power on our behalf. So we have to win through process. We have to get enough people who are not gay on our side that the social pressure to change the law will be too much to ignore. We are not going to do that by grabbing them by the collar and screaming "I don't give a damn about you or what you think, now you WILL make marriage legal between same-sex couples!" Straight people do not HAVE to change the law. The law, as stands, works well-enough for their needs. It benefits straight people very little to expand the definition of marriage. If it were important enough to straight people for same-sex couples to get married the law would already be that way. So we have to convince a majority, that feels no widespread pain over our lack of rights, to somehow see our cause as a matter of justice. We have to win them over.

That is not begging, Corkey, that is the political process. What other choice do we have other than the political process? We can't break away. We can't all just leave. We shouldn't *have* to leave. We can't get our way by sheer number of our votes alone. We do not have the numbers to take over the government by either democratic or non-democratic means. I also do not think we should succumb to the temptation to use non-democratic means--meaning, we can't just outlaw homophobia. We must not do that. We must never outlaw *ideas*. So given all of that, what other choice do we have but to go to the majority, present our case, show how the opposition is the same crowd it has *always* been, and that just as the cause of my parent's generation was righteous so is our cause righteous?

Living in an open, democratic society means learning to get one's way by convincing 50% + 1 of your fellow citizens to side with you to change the laws. It means convincing the media that your cause is worthy of covering you. It is convincing lawmakers to champion your cause, even if they are not one of you. It is convincing the clergy to side with you and to use their pulpit's as a place to rally people to your cause. Politics is the art of compromise in order to achieve the possible. Despite what the Republicans in Congress *believe* about negotiation, it does not involve the other side capitulating abjectly. That means we have to understand what the costs of change are. None of that is negotiating anything away or begging for anything. It is trying to figure out how to achieve a just goal through the processes of our country.

Cheers
Aj


Actually we were married legally in Canada. I don't care one way or the other, if it doesn't make any since to you, that isn't my goal. I'm not going to live my life in fear or in what ifs', that is a total waste of energy. Go convince the Idiot party that you want your rights, they don't care about you, they don't care about me, the only thing they care about is their racist, sexist, classist small minded grasp of their own small patch of Americana.

Trust me I've been fighting this war longer than you've been alive.

[Toughy]

Tolerance implies and reinforces 'love the sinner, hate the sin'......makes me want to bitch slap the person saying that.........

Acceptance is turning on the tv, flipping channels and NEVER EVER seeing Bennie Hinn praying over letters and mailing out prayer clothes he prayed over on tv to those who send $19.95 so they can be saved. Acceptance is not having a murder count on the local news every night. Acceptance means Liberty University, Oral Roberts University, Bob Jones University are closed due to no enrollment. Acceptance means equality and value for each and every human being.

Acceptance is the government getting out of the business of regulating how adults order our families. Marriage has always been a contract to pass property, money and establish paternity for the transfer to the next generation of males. How about civil marriage does not exist? How about signing legal documents to cover inheritance and benefits? Spiritual marriage is not the business of any government .

What am I willing to do for what I believe in? I have risked my life more times than I can count for what I believe in. Stepping into rush hour traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge, playing cat and mouse with the cops so I can make it on the Bay Bridge to stop traffic, walking out of the gay bar, down the dark alley to the street looking for the cowboys with baseball bats cuz you know they are there...somewhere....waiting....and the police are way more scarey than the cowboys.

Apathy is our enemy. Settling is our enemy. Morality linked to dogma is our enemy. We once walked in light and that was lost. Until we find light again as Dylan Thomas wrote:

DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I live in the US, and Drew, fighting idiots doesn't get us anywhere, there are no sane republicans left to argue with.

Okay, then my point stands. You're married in Canada, but you live in the US. That means you don't get the benefits that come with marriage. In the place where you live, you marriage is not recognized as valid, and wishing doesn't make it so. So where does that leave us?

[atomiczombie]

I live in the US, and Drew, fighting idiots doesn't get us anywhere, there are no sane republicans left to argue with.

I agree that the republican tea-party idiots won't ever be swayed. But they are a small minority of the voting public. They get lots of press because of their crazy antics, and republican politicians have to cowtow to them if they want to be elected or stay in office. But the vast majority of people can be swayed if we work hard to educate them. We have to counter the voices of the extreme right. They scream the loudest so they get all the press. We need to bring another voice to the discussion. Do you feel that that is a fight worth fighting?

[Toughy]

I forgot.............

The greatest enemy of all enemies..........the one that must be overcome at all costs......

violence

What a vast difference there is between the barbarism that precedes culture and the barbarism that follows it.
-- Friedrich Hebbel

the violence in my own mind is my greatest enemy

[citybutch]

I agree with you that they are cow-towed to.... but the question is why? Take a look at the Koch brothers (and Karl Rove for that matter) who fund the Tea Party. With the amount of money they have, the commitment to eliminate taxes for the super wealthy (and I am not talking about the rich because $250,000 income for a small business owner is an WHOLE other topic), and time time time on their hands to dig their heels in deeper to accomplish what they want to. I am hoping we can combat this... With corporations as "persons" now, we are going to have a tough road.

Take the recall in Wisconsin for example.. and the variance in funding between the dems and the repubs:

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=34206

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-04/wellpoint-joins-koch-help-fight-wisconsin-state-senate-recalls.html





I agree that the republican tea-party idiots won't ever be swayed. But they are a small minority of the voting public. They get lots of press because of their crazy antics, and republican politicians have to cowtow to them if they want to be elected or stay in office. But the vast majority of people can be swayed if we work hard to educate them. We have to counter the voices of the extreme right. They scream the loudest so they get all the press. We need to bring another voice to the discussion. Do you feel that that is a fight worth fighting?

[Corkey]

Corkey:

Okay, if you don't care what they think then how do you get them to actually fold us into the circle of people called 'citizen'. I'm not a Canadian citizen and neither is my wife so we can't get married in Canada. The US government isn't obliged to acknowledge a marriage done in Canada.

I'm not talking about begging, Corkey. I'm talking about being pragmatic because, at the end of the day, we have to live in the same country as the people who hate us. They are not going away. We can't make them go away and they overwhelm us in sheer numbers. So we have to convince the vast middle, those people who are not actively anti-gay, that we have the better case. That is NOT begging.

We do not have the numbers to simply win by decree. We cannot *make* the majority do *anything* they don't want to do. Yes, in an ideal world, we would just say this WILL BE and it would become so. We don't live there. We can't even maneuver an absolute dictator into power on our behalf. So we have to win through process. We have to get enough people who are not gay on our side that the social pressure to change the law will be too much to ignore. We are not going to do that by grabbing them by the collar and screaming "I don't give a damn about you or what you think, now you WILL make marriage legal between same-sex couples!" Straight people do not HAVE to change the law. The law, as stands, works well-enough for their needs. It benefits straight people very little to expand the definition of marriage. If it were important enough to straight people for same-sex couples to get married the law would already be that way. So we have to convince a majority, that feels no widespread pain over our lack of rights, to somehow see our cause as a matter of justice. We have to win them over.

That is not begging, Corkey, that is the political process. What other choice do we have other than the political process? We can't break away. We can't all just leave. We shouldn't *have* to leave. We can't get our way by sheer number of our votes alone. We do not have the numbers to take over the government by either democratic or non-democratic means. I also do not think we should succumb to the temptation to use non-democratic means--meaning, we can't just outlaw homophobia. We must not do that. We must never outlaw *ideas*. So given all of that, what other choice do we have but to go to the majority, present our case, show how the opposition is the same crowd it has *always* been, and that just as the cause of my parent's generation was righteous so is our cause righteous?

Living in an open, democratic society means learning to get one's way by convincing 50% + 1 of your fellow citizens to side with you to change the laws. It means convincing the media that your cause is worthy of covering you. It is convincing lawmakers to champion your cause, even if they are not one of you. It is convincing the clergy to side with you and to use their pulpit's as a place to rally people to your cause. Politics is the art of compromise in order to achieve the possible. Despite what the Republicans in Congress *believe* about negotiation, it does not involve the other side capitulating abjectly. That means we have to understand what the costs of change are. None of that is negotiating anything away or begging for anything. It is trying to figure out how to achieve a just goal through the processes of our country.

Cheers
Aj

You don't have to be a citizen of Canada to get married in Canada. You would have to live there for 6 month however to get a divorce. It isn't up to me to brow beat people who because of their false beliefs cannot understand reason when it hits them squarely in the face. There is NO reasoning with these people. The best I can do is to live my life as a citizen and show people who I am by the good things I do around the place I live. That more than marching, fighting or getting in their face will open more doors than any violence ever could. I do what I can with voting, petition signing, calling and generally getting in my Rep's face, who BTW is a tea parter and an ass. More and more North Americans are coming around and opening their eyes and ears, problem isn't with the population, it's with the dumbf&%*s in Washington. Get rid of Cantor, Bohnnner and Mitchell, and we may just get our country back. I can't do that alone.

[dreadgeek]

Tolerance implies and reinforces 'love the sinner, hate the sin'......makes me want to bitch slap the person saying that.........

Acceptance is turning on the tv, flipping channels and NEVER EVER seeing Bennie Hinn praying over letters and mailing out prayer clothes he prayed over on tv to those who send $19.95 so they can be saved. Acceptance is not having a murder count on the local news every night. Acceptance means Liberty University, Oral Roberts University, Bob Jones University are closed due to no enrollment. Acceptance means equality and value for each and every human being.

This I found really discouraging, Toughy. So, assuming that you mean what you appear to mean above, you are saying that in order for queer people to be accepted there must be NO place for a Benny Hinn. You are saying that queer people will truly be considered legal and social equals ONLY when there are no murders. You are saying that queers will only be accepted ni society when there are no Christian universities. I find that discouraging, Toughy, because it seems like what you have said above is that queer people will be considered legal and social equals--acceptance from the larger society--sometime after the twelfth of never. And how would we get to this world? I'm not sure I'm willing to pay those costs, as I calculate them to be, Toughy. NOT because I have any love for Benny Hinn or I think that the Christian universities you mention turn out good scholarship. Benny Hinn is just a carnival barker in a better suit and Bob Jones, Regent's, Liberty and Oral Roberts *combined* couldn't turn out a real top-shelf scholar if they tried. It is because I don't want to win our battle on eliminating the opposition, I want to win by convincing the middle.

The world you are describing, Toughy, isn't achievable by OUR species in a manner that is not oppressive in a broad way. In order to get a world where one will never see another Benny Hinn or where Christian fundamentalist universities have no enrollment, one would have to *outlaw* religion. Are you prepared to do that, Toughy? Are you willing to pay that cost because I'm not sure that I am. That might surprise you. I am no friend of religion but I also recognize that our brains bend *toward* religion and, as such, I view religious belief as an built-in part of human nature. Whether that is a feature or a bug, I don't know. I do know that unless I can come up with something to *replace* one's religious belief I have no business robbing someone of that which brings them meaning.

Then there's the stuff that really says "this will happen when the Winter Olympics are held on the Sun". When there's no murder count? Acceptance means equality and value for every person? What 'value' are you talking about and what kind of equality? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. A relatively free and open society can just about manage the first one but it takes a totalitarian dictatorship to pull off the second one. I'm not sure I'm ready to have the kind of state necessary in order to enforce equality of outcome JUST so my 'tribe', if you will, is accepted as you have defined that term. In order to have NO murder count, you would have to fundamentally change human nature or you would have to make a society where surveillance and control was so complete and total that no one would ever have the opportunity to commit a crime because they are *always* observed and *always* monitored. That is a world of cameras on every lamppost and in every corner. I don't want that world, Toughy. I love Jaime like she were the very breath of life itself, and as much as I want to be able to legally marry her, I would rather not be able to than to have to live in the kind of society that would make your vision above possible.

That kind of society would rebound to our sorrow, Toughy. This is the thing I don't understand--we all talk 'as if' we admired Dr. King but, quite honestly, I think that mostly that is very superficial. We, as queer people, face a similar numerical and social challenge as my parent's faced in their time. Their generation could have demanded that the Klan be made illegal--and it would have failed. They could have tried to make America a nation where racist thoughts or speech were made illegal. They could have demanded these things at the point of a gun. You know what would have happened? We wouldn't be having this conversation and no one under the age of about 45 would have any memory of meeting a black person because we would have been wiped out.

This is similar. Sure, Toughy, we could try to create a society where Christianity is made illegal and, quite honestly, it would be far easier for Christians to simply wipe us out to the last than have their religion made illegal. Or we could keep spinning our wheels, generation after generation, telling ourselves 'one day' while making NO discernible headway because instead of rather simple and pedestrian goals--marriage equality, equal employment opportunity, military service, etc.--we set impossible goals for ourselves (e.g. the utter destruction of Christianity, the complete elimination of poverty, everyone being equal and valued).

What you call acceptance, your vision of what it means for queer people to be in a decent enough social and legal position that the queer rights organizations can turn out the lights and go home is nothing I recognize as acceptance. Quite honestly, I don't see what half your list even has to do with queer people becoming full and equal citizens.

Unless we're not meant to take your words to mean what they appear to mean or we are not meant to take your words and try to apply them to the real world, I don't see that you have set achievable or, for that matter, desirable goals.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Betenoire:

My grandmother used to say "be a better person than you have any right to be". I was an adult before I understood what she meant. What you describe below, though, is a near Platonic example of my understanding of it. It means recognizing you have a legitimate gripe, something that could put one in the mind of "damn you, society, I'm gonna get mine if I have to walk all over you to get it!" and then NOT walking all over society but flying high above it. Being not just a candle in the dark but a burning star.

My grandmother would say it and she lived it. If ever someone had a legitimate gripe, it was my grandmother. Her husband was lynched by the Klan, her eldest son was run down and had his leg shattered by some boys from town. She worked as a domestic and then at an orphanage. She was oppressed in that special way that a black woman, born at the beginning of the 20th century and living until the 1980s could be oppressed. Yet, she was kind and gracious to everyone I ever saw her interact with. She rarely had a harsh word and I never saw her take a spiteful action or speak a nasty word about *anyone*. Even people she didn't really like.

Your method of payment is much like mine.

Cheers
Adrienne

How I pay:

1 - By not acting like a horses ass.

2 - By not screaming that somebody must be a homophobe every time they don't like me (maybe I'm just not likeable, that's possible. or maybe I did something to that person unintentionally.) There will be people who don't like me because I'm Queer. Ditto there will be people who don't like me for some other reason. Since I'm not psychic I have no way of knowing which it is unless they come right out and say it - so I'm not doing me or any other Queer any favours by screaming about homophobia every time something goes wrong.

True story: I live in kind of a shitty neighborhood, for Canada. What I mean by that is while there isn't a lot of violent crime going on where I'm living, there is a TONNE of property crime. Lots of theft. When my mail or my bike gets stolen (the mail happens all the time, the bike happened once and I never got another one because why bother?) Nick immediately jumps to "They are harassing you because they hate gay people!" which is just super crazy, since we have no way of knowing who the "they" in the situation are, let alone what their motivation is.

3 - By going out of my way to be the kind of person that people tend to like, even when I don't feel like it. I smile at people strangers when I pass them on the street and I say hello and stop for small-talk with acquaintances. I run errands for the guy on the 1st floor who is ill. When other people from my building are sitting around in lawnchairs out front I pull up a chair and hang out for a bit. I give up my seat on the bus for elderly people, women with small children, people with a disability, and anybody who looks like they are tired and would rather not stand up. I help people with heaps of groceries get their groceries on and off the bus. I try to keep the noise in my apartment to a minimum. If it's late at night I turn the teevee down real low and turn on closed captioning. I pay my rent on time. And I never go into the express line at the grocery store unless I really DO have 10 items or less.

4 - By being who I am but not making a huge deal out of it. I'm not confrontational around the Queer stuff. If I'm in line at the coffee shop and someone is shit talking gay people I approach them with a SMILE and ask them to please rethink who might be listening - I never yell or call names or act like a jackass about it. You'll never catch me in a teeshirt that says "Pussy is rad!" or "I am going to fuck all of your girlfriends!" or anything like that.



There is no Promised Land. People are what they are and we just are not evolved enough as a species to love and respect everybody - we never will be. Some individuals are pretty good at it...but as a species? It just isn't going to happen.

I'm Canadian, as most people know. So I'm pretty freaking lucky. It's illegal to discriminate against me for my "sexual orientation" (or whatever you want to call it.) I can marry whoever I want. I can work wherever I want. I can live wherever I want. I can shop wherever I want. If we can ever get that bill to add language around not discriminating against people who are transsexual added to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms passed I will be happy as a freaking clam.

Equal rights and protections is good enough for me. But as far as how individual people feel about the Queer "community" goes - the people who love us are just gravy. The people who hate us aren't especially shocking and are not going to ruin my buzz.

[Toughy]

Aj.........I need to digest what you said. It is never my intention to discourage anyone. When I asked my grandmother how she and my grandfather stayed married for 60+ years.........her reply was....'you have to be decent with each other always'. I think those are words to live by.

My world of acceptance is truly but a pipe dream, where the world is not a melting pot but a salad bowl. Differences are as celebrated as commonalities.

Lately I have been failing at articulating what my intellect tells me....as someone said in another thread........'I used to be so smart'. Maybe it's because more and more I operate from an open loving heart which does not always translate to words.

[little man]

i've long been interested in the concept of social contracts. i've done some reading here and there and i can't say that my retention is much, but i have to wonder if this can't be used to advantage by not just queers in the larger community of the world, but all marginalized/oppressed groups.

seems to me there should be some lawyer clever enough to work this angle.

as i understand it, a simplified version of social contract is that in order to be a part of a community/civilization, the "citizens" agree to abide by rules, pay taxes, do what generally is best for the group as a whole. in return, the "state" agrees to treat the citizens equally and fairly, to protect all and to generally work to the benefit of all citizens. anyone...please correct me if i've got this wrong.

it seems to me the "state" is not holding up its end of the bargain here. i know they tax me on my wages, write me tickets for speeding or no seat belts, generally hold me to the laws of the land. in what seems like the same breath, i have been denied the right to marry whomever i choose, my taxes go to pay the salaries of those who would turn a blind eye to crimes committed against me and generally don't think i should exist in the universe, let alone in this particular society. is there not some point where the "state" can be called on not ensuring the safety of any portion of its population against the rest of the population?

when i was younger, i had a notion that all the queers should just take over a single state, secede from the union and take all the grand gloriousness with us. let the rest of the country live in leisure suits and poorly decorated homes, with bad haircuts. but, that's me.

tangent aside, i wonder if a class action suit was brought against not only state, but federal government for not holding up their end of the bargain...sue for return of taxes, punitive damages, whatever...if that would not serve as a way to bring the issues of second class citizenship to the forefront. it would be *just* about sexual deviants wanting to wreck marriage then...it would be about the dignity that all humans have a right to. it would be about all the groups who don't have a place at the table, not just the ones who didn't get silverware or a clean plate.

ok, i'm rambling off into hyperbole. that's what i've been wondering.

bueller? bueller? anyone???

[dreadgeek]

Aj.........I need to digest what you said. It is never my intention to discourage anyone. When I asked my grandmother how she and my grandfather stayed married for 60+ years.........her reply was....'you have to be decent with each other always'. I think those are words to live by.

My world of acceptance is truly but a pipe dream, where the world is not a melting pot but a salad bowl. Differences are as celebrated as commonalities.

Lately I have been failing at articulating what my intellect tells me....as someone said in another thread........'I used to be so smart'. Maybe it's because more and more I operate from an open loving heart which does not always translate to words.

Take your time, Toughy. I do want to say two things. While we might have dreams of how the world would be if we had a better people to do social change with, we only have us. If we lived in world of *infinite* resources, there would be no need for competition. If we lived in a world where everyone thought alike, then, ironically, we could have the world you're talking about where differences are as celebrated as commonalities.

But look at who we are. Is there a *single* culture that anyone can name where one couldn't tell a story about two sisters jealous of one another and people will understand what that story is about? Can anyone think of a culture where a story about a couple kept apart by their parents, or one where a good woman stays by her drunkard husband, or families quarreling about this or that would not resonate? There's a reason for that. People are jealous. They get angry. They quarrel. They are selfish. They prefer their family over strangers. They prefer their countryman or their neighbor over the stranger in their midst.

This is what we have to work with and we have to do it in the most democratic fashion because all the other alternatives are pretty unsavory.

One thing about your operating from an open, loving heart. I don't often talk about this and, quite honestly, I have done an insufficient job letting my love for humanity come through. That is my own failing as a writer. I am operating from an open and loving heart too, Toughy, even if I'm less obviously public about it. I hoped (and still hope) that my loving heart will come through without my having to tell people 'see, I'm a loving and open-hearted person'.

When my son was just a toddler and I would get frustrated with him, I would say "act my age!" It was my way of reminding myself that I was the adult and he was the child and my desiring for him to behave like an adult was patently ludicrous. That, to me, was being both open-hearted and loving. Instead of trying to make him be what I thought I needed or wanted him to be, I had to meet him where he was, warts and all. When I met Jaime, the mistake I told myself I would avoid was expecting her to be anyone other than she is. I try not to see my wife through rose-colored glasses although I'm sure that I do. You've met her, it's easy to do. But if we are going to last, I need to meet her right where she is and never expect her to be anyone other than herself. That, to me, is being open-minded and loving.

That is how I try to approach my love of the other 6 billion of you lot. I don't expect us to be anything other than what we are. So any social change we're going to have has to be done with that in mind. That's not to say we shouldn't dream big, but expecting humanity to one day live in a state of perpetual kumbaya is to expect a 2 year old to act like a 22 year old.


Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

tangent aside, i wonder if a class action suit was brought against not only state, but federal government for not holding up their end of the bargain...sue for return of taxes, punitive damages, whatever...if that would not serve as a way to bring the issues of second class citizenship to the forefront. it would be *just* about sexual deviants wanting to wreck marriage then...it would be about the dignity that all humans have a right to. it would be about all the groups who don't have a place at the table, not just the ones who didn't get silverware or a clean plate.

ok, i'm rambling off into hyperbole. that's what i've been wondering.

bueller? bueller? anyone???

There's a number of problems. The first is that the government has sovereign immunity. What that means is that for most things you can't sue the government, particularly not the Federal government. The second is that if you are going to sue the Federal government, that very same government has to tell you that you *can* sue them. Third, we'd have to determine on what possible grounds we are suing them. The social contract is an unspoken contract and so would not stand up in court. Fourth, in order to have standing we would have to show that the government was in breach either of law or of a signed contract.

What we *can* do is sue our states for violation of our 14th Amendment rights. But even that should probably be done only on a limited basis. What we're going to have to have is that enough states will pass laws guaranteeing marriage equality. Then when a couple in one state, moves to another state where their marriage is not recognized, sue that state for violating the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. The short version of that clause is that a contract executed in California is legally binding in Oregon. This is going down the same path as interracial marriage took. By 1967, 33 states had legalized interracial marriage. All of the states of the South, however, still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books and in force. Mildred and Richard Loving were an interracial couple (she black, he white) who were originally from Virginia but had moved to DC and gotten married. They then went to Virginia and had to rent a hotel room. Their being married violated Virginia law and so they were arrested, tried and convicted. The judge suspended the sentence on the proviso that they leave Virginia never to return. They appealed the decision and the Virginia Supreme Court upheld it in one of the uglier court decisions one is like to read in American law. They then appealed it to the Federal courts and it thus wound up in the Supreme Court.

We *can* use the law in that way but a class action lawsuit simply won't work because the legal system has to recognize that you have rights under the law and, at present, it doesn't in a consistent fashion which, after all, is what the whole argument is about.

cheers
Aj

[little man]

There's a number of problems. The first is that the government has sovereign immunity. What that means is that for most things you can't sue the government, particularly not the Federal government. The second is that if you are going to sue the Federal government, that very same government has to tell you that you *can* sue them. Third, we'd have to determine on what possible grounds we are suing them. The social contract is an unspoken contract and so would not stand up in court. Fourth, in order to have standing we would have to show that the government was in breach either of law or of a signed contract.

What we *can* do is sue our states for violation of our 14th Amendment rights. But even that should probably be done only on a limited basis. What we're going to have to have is that enough states will pass laws guaranteeing marriage equality. Then when a couple in one state, moves to another state where their marriage is not recognized, sue that state for violating the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. The short version of that clause is that a contract executed in California is legally binding in Oregon. This is going down the same path as interracial marriage took. By 1967, 33 states had legalized interracial marriage. All of the states of the South, however, still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books and in force. Mildred and Richard Loving were an interracial couple (she black, he white) who were originally from Virginia but had moved to DC and gotten married. They then went to Virginia and had to rent a hotel room. Their being married violated Virginia law and so they were arrested, tried and convicted. The judge suspended the sentence on the proviso that they leave Virginia never to return. They appealed the decision and the Virginia Supreme Court upheld it in one of the uglier court decisions one is like to read in American law. They then appealed it to the Federal courts and it thus wound up in the Supreme Court.

We *can* use the law in that way but a class action lawsuit simply won't work because the legal system has to recognize that you have rights under the law and, at present, it doesn't in a consistent fashion which, after all, is what the whole argument is about.

cheers
Aj

i kind of figured that wouldn't work, or someone would have grandstanded that play already. i wonder, though, if just the effort would garner enough press to make people just stop and think for a minute.

i do find some irony in a system that outlawed interracial marriage because the people were "different" from one another. now? they want to keep people who are alike from marrying.

[atomiczombie]

i kind of figured that wouldn't work, or someone would have grandstanded that play already. i wonder, though, if just the effort would garner enough press to make people just stop and think for a minute.

i do find some irony in a system that outlawed interracial marriage because the people were "different" from one another. now? they want to keep people who are alike from marrying.

Let me throw another iron in the fire here: Marriage rights are important and I support them, but are we allowing that particular issue to over-shadow other (and in my estimation more important) issues? Issues such as equality in housing, the workplace, hiring, healthcare, etc., and the worst one: violence against LGBTs. I think these are at least as pressing, however the whole marriage thing seems to be such a focus that I don't really hear people talking about these other things. Gays and lesbians and trans people are getting beaten and killed all the time. We need more law enforcement crackdowns on bashers, current laws to be enforced more, more hate-crime legislation, campaigns to raise awareness and educate people, etc. I think the "It gets better" campaign has been a great step, but we need something like that to address these other issues too. Think about all the AIDS activism in the 80s and 90s and how much things changed for the better because of it. In the press, marriage rights seems to be the only thing reported on, as if all we need is that right, then we will have equality. But we won't.

I know we can't have a utopian society where all these issues are permanently and completely fixed, but that doesn't mean we have nothing more to gain.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Let me throw another iron in the fire here: Marriage rights are important and I support them, but are we allowing that particular issue to over-shadow other (and in my estimation more important) issues? Issues such as equality in housing, the workplace, hiring, healthcare, etc., and the worst one: violence against LGBTs. I think these are at least as pressing, however the whole marriage thing seems to be such a focus that I don't really hear people talking about these other things.

I think the reason marriage equality gets so much attention right now is that we're *so close* to winning that fight. There's a sense that we're in the home stretch, so a lot of people want to throw in their lot for a fight that actually has an end in sight. Kind of like how a lot of competitive runners will tell you they get a burst of energy they never would have thought possible when they round that last turn and they can see the finish line. I predict that once we've achieved marriage equality, one of those other issues will take the forefront, and we'll be having the same conversation again, only it will be some other issue that some people think shouldn't be getting all the attention when there's all these other others to work on. As a community, we seem to focus on one thing at a time, and I actually think that's a good thing. I think we can get a lot more done with a lot of people focusing on one thing at a time rather than trying to focus on a few dozen issues at once.

[Hack]

Let me throw another iron in the fire here: Marriage rights are important and I support them, but are we allowing that particular issue to over-shadow other (and in my estimation more important) issues? Issues such as equality in housing, the workplace, hiring, healthcare, etc., and the worst one: violence against LGBTs. I think these are at least as pressing, however the whole marriage thing seems to be such a focus that I don't really hear people talking about these other things. Gays and lesbians and trans people are getting beaten and killed all the time. We need more law enforcement crackdowns on bashers, current laws to be enforced more, more hate-crime legislation, campaigns to raise awareness and educate people, etc. I think the "It gets better" campaign has been a great step, but we need something like that to address these other issues too. Think about all the AIDS activism in the 80s and 90s and how much things changed for the better because of it. In the press, marriage rights seems to be the only thing reported on, as if all we need is that right, then we will have equality. But we won't.

I know we can't have a utopian society where all these issues are permanently and completely fixed, but that doesn't mean we have nothing more to gain.

I get what you are saying, Atomic. I live in a state where queers have pretty much no rights. A constitutional amendment was passed here to ensure that and everything. :|

There are little pockets in Michigan where we have some rights, say in Ann Arbor or the more progressive 'burbs of Detroit. But, by and large, I am a second-class citizen here.

I have often started heated debates in LGBT political circles here by saying, "Why don't we start with employment rights? Why do we have to go for the big one right away?" It's akin to saying, why can't we make out first, why do we have to jump right to crazy monkey sex? ;)

When I bring this up, I am practically shouted out of the room as being a radical or something. I've spent my entire life in mainstream politics, and I know the way to get the majority to accept a concept is start small. I've built more campaigns around this simple notion than I care to admit.

I understand, however, many more places in the US are far more progressive than where I live (a shame, really, because Michigan was a progressive bastion back in the day, with the labor movement and then the student movement and whatnot). I understand other places are light years ahead of where we are in Michigan in terms of queer rights. And maybe that is part of what drives a perceived impatience in the community...this patchwork of progress here, lack of progress there.

Jake

[dreadgeek]

Let me throw another iron in the fire here: Marriage rights are important and I support them, but are we allowing that particular issue to over-shadow other (and in my estimation more important) issues? Issues such as equality in housing, the workplace, hiring, healthcare, etc., and the worst one: violence against LGBTs. I think these are at least as pressing, however the whole marriage thing seems to be such a focus that I don't really hear people talking about these other things.

I think that marriage was an issue that was kind of forced on us. By that I mean that through the mid-to-late nineties the queer movement was, more or less, happy about domestic partner benefits. Marriage was seen as something to be tackled down the line. However, the religious right started lying saying that domestic partnership was just a way to destroy marriage by stealth. At that point, I think what happened is that folks started to think that if we were going to be *accused* of trying to sneak into marriage through the backdoor we might as actually *do* that since it was going to be said about us anyway.

That said, I think that these other issues are equally as important but I also think that they can be solved in other ways. For example--and before anyone jumps down my throat for throwing around privilege, I *recognize* how lucky I am--I am a knowledge worker. I have spent most of my adult life being paid to transfer knowledge in my brain into the brains of other people or to recombine that knowledge in very interesting ways. Of the jobs I've had since 1994, almost *all* of them have offered domestic partner benefits. I was the first gay employee at one start-up I worked at and after I started, they had me wait a few days until they could contact Aetna and change the health insurance plan so that it DID cover domestic partners. They hadn't thought about it until they needed to.

Now, this was all in the Bay Area and so locale contributed but it has been my experience that fields that didn't exist one hundred years ago (computer science, genetics, etc.) are far *more* likely to provide domestic partner benefits and to have explicit non-discrimination language that protects queer people. Housing is probably going to have to be dealt with through a combination of legislative and legal processes.


Gays and lesbians and trans people are getting beaten and killed all the time. We need more law enforcement crackdowns on bashers, current laws to be enforced more, more hate-crime legislation, campaigns to raise awareness and educate people, etc.

This is a tough one. I actually support hate crimes laws because I understand the need for them. Every bashing isn't just an immediate attack on the queer person in question but is a message sent to all queers in the area 'next time, it could be you'. The problem is convincing OTHER people of that. If you do not or cannot imagine being attacked because of *what* you are then it looks as if people other than you are being given 'special protection'. We aren't but it *looks* that way to people of a certain mindset. This is an area where I think we may have to give some ground--NOT in the sense that we'll just have to accept a certain level of violence but we may have to accept that the law does not make it *legal* to assault someone for being queer, law enforcement, depending upon locale, may insufficiently investigate the crime because it is a queer bashing. That means we may have to use social pressure or some other way of pressuring local law enforcement to act right. Again, I'm not saying that I oppose hate crimes laws, I do not. It's just not a battle I think is winnable and I think we can use the existing laws to our benefit.

I am also in favor of queer people getting concealed carry permits in locations where that is possible. I think the stakes for any potential bigot need to be raised. It is one thing to attack someone you think is weaker but won't be armed. It is quite another thing to attack someone who *might* be carrying a gun. After a couple of gay bashers are shot while trying to hurt one of us, I think they will have to use a very different calculus. Let them sit in a bar or their home and wish to do violence to us all they wish. I don't care. Let them step up to one of us with violence in mind and I hope that queer person shoots them dead, quite honestly.



When I bring this up, I am practically shouted out of the room as being a radical or something. I've spent my entire life in mainstream politics, and I know the way to get the majority to accept a concept is start small. I've built more campaigns around this simple notion than I care to admit.

PLEASE continue doing this and going into queer communities and passing on your experience. We need more people with your knowledge who understand that we have to win enough people to on our side so that we have the majority.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

I think the reason marriage equality gets so much attention right now is that we're *so close* to winning that fight. There's a sense that we're in the home stretch, so a lot of people want to throw in their lot for a fight that actually has an end in sight. Kind of like how a lot of competitive runners will tell you they get a burst of energy they never would have thought possible when they round that last turn and they can see the finish line. I predict that once we've achieved marriage equality, one of those other issues will take the forefront, and we'll be having the same conversation again, only it will be some other issue that some people think shouldn't be getting all the attention when there's all these other others to work on. As a community, we seem to focus on one thing at a time, and I actually think that's a good thing. I think we can get a lot more done with a lot of people focusing on one thing at a time rather than trying to focus on a few dozen issues at once.

True enough- there are also some things with marriage equality that just fit in with many of the other struggles we have. These have to do with taxation and do feed into housing rights along with employment. There are also some very important variables concerning child custody that are part of marriage equality. It really isn't just about "marriage."

That said, we continue to be second class citizens on many fronts and violence against us- all over the US is something that needs our full attention. There is so damn much work to be done! Our being able to work together from every aspect of queer identity is paramount.

Oh.. throwing in self-defense measures (Aj brought this up)- a good alternative to a hand gun are the various personal stun guns available. These are legal in most states, easy to carry, not expensive and effective. Also good for dog attacks. I had a situation in which all I had to do was activate mine in the air over my head to stop a man that was coming at me physically. he ran like hell when he saw and heard the charge. I would have landed the next charge on his body if he had not stopped, but, I didn't have to.

[CherylNYC]

I can't think of an issue besides marriage that directly affects more people, no matter what their orientation. We humans tend to partner. Those partnerships need to be legally recognised if we're to expect to keep our property or rights to our children when the doo-doo hits the fan. Perhaps my perspective has been skewed because of my personal losses, but I'm convinced that creating legally recognised family is an imperative.

Making new laws that make it illegal to discriminate against us in employment/housing/public accommodations would be great. Those laws might be enforced after people drag themselves along with a bunch of miscreants through the legal system. It won't mean quite as much as I wish it would in the current conservative court system.

Marriage equality, however, will effect an enormous proportion of our community, and it will effect us in one fell swoop. I can be driven to apoplexy by lgbt people who dismiss marriage equality as not very meaningful to their own lives. Each of those people likely has parents. If they're Americans, all those parents receive social security. Some of their elderly mothers are, no doubt, living on their husband's social security income. Those mothers weren't rousted out of the homes they lived in for most of their lives by their husband's families after their husbands died. Many of those doubting homosexuals and their mothers were likely carried on their father's health insurance. Because they were recognised as a legal family. I could go on and on, but we all know this drill.

The part that gets disconnected is where we forget that WE also will need the same legal protections our parents assumed. It's all very nice to have our relationships officially validated and all, but the real value to marriage comes in a crisis. If you've never faced the hostility of your partner's family after their sudden death, you're a lucky soul.

Many of us have lived so long as outsiders that we don't know how to think about our lives and relationships with the long view. The trajectory that straight people grow up thinking about, (school, marriage, family, old age), was never a model for us. Until now. It's scary for people who have always valued themselves by how non-mainstream they are by dint of their queerness, to contemplate that their ID might become a little less edgy once they can have a legal husband or wife just like everyone else. It's coming. Some of us are going to be just like everyone else. Some of us will continue to be very edgy because we happen to be edgy people. But not simply because we're queer. It's time to get used to it.

[atomiczombie]

This is a tough one. I actually support hate crimes laws because I understand the need for them. Every bashing isn't just an immediate attack on the queer person in question but is a message sent to all queers in the area 'next time, it could be you'. The problem is convincing OTHER people of that. If you do not or cannot imagine being attacked because of *what* you are then it looks as if people other than you are being given 'special protection'. We aren't but it *looks* that way to people of a certain mindset. This is an area where I think we may have to give some ground--NOT in the sense that we'll just have to accept a certain level of violence but we may have to accept that the law does not make it *legal* to assault someone for being queer, law enforcement, depending upon locale, may insufficiently investigate the crime because it is a queer bashing. That means we may have to use social pressure or some other way of pressuring local law enforcement to act right. Again, I'm not saying that I oppose hate crimes laws, I do not. It's just not a battle I think is winnable and I think we can use the existing laws to our benefit.

Ok, so what would that social pressure look like? And, the problem isn't just with law enforcement. It's with the whole system. Like judges allowing the "gay panic" defense to be used in a murder trial. Like juries buying into such a defense. Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/gay-slaying-jury.html

I am also in favor of queer people getting concealed carry permits in locations where that is possible. I think the stakes for any potential bigot need to be raised. It is one thing to attack someone you think is weaker but won't be armed. It is quite another thing to attack someone who *might* be carrying a gun. After a couple of gay bashers are shot while trying to hurt one of us, I think they will have to use a very different calculus. Let them sit in a bar or their home and wish to do violence to us all they wish. I don't care. Let them step up to one of us with violence in mind and I hope that queer person shoots them dead, quite honestly.

Here is where you and I part ways on perspectives. I think answering violence with violence is not the way violence against LGBT folks will be ended. Defending yourself, yes, but shooting someone dead? I don't believe that will make anyone think twice, just like I don't believe the death penalty is any sort of deterrent either. I think shooting someone dead just perpetuates the cycle of violence. It also could give bigots an additional false sense of moral high ground, in that they would have the "gays and trans people are dangerous murderers" argument to augment their absurd justifications for their violence. I believe Dr. King had it right about the necessity for a civil rights movement to be absolutely non-violent.

Plus, I just hate guns. The more people who run around with concealed guns, the more likely death from gun violence will occur. We need more gun control, imho.


Drew

[Toughy]

Aj........... have not forgotten you...I will come back to you as I am still digesting..........

I think marriage as an issue is the epitome of assimilation. The revolutionary thought is marriage is a sacred spiritual bond and as such has no place in government recognition. All of the benefits of civil marriage are actually legal benefits that include right of survivorship and transfer of property. All of those things can be accomplished by way of legal contracts. Civil marriage does not guarantee the contract will be honored, so what is the frigging point? Legal contracts in the form of marriage and death benefits are contested on a daily basis everywhere in this country. Pre-nups are common to protect the interests of each party..........again legal contracts.

I want a radical shift in social organizing. Marriage is NOT the business of the State. Benefits of any individual should go where the person wants...period. The US has some fucked up ideas about Social Security and health care. Women are treated as second class citizens because of marriage. A woman stays at home and the husband works, and she only gets benefits because of her husband. She is not a whole human being and the value of her work in the home is void. Women who are married part of their life and hold no outside job get nothing because they did not pay into Social Security. They worked their entire lives and if hubby decides after 20 years of marriage he is done...........she gets nothing if she cannot afford a good lawyer.

If we are going to rethink queer, then we must rethink not queer. If we are ever to defeat the patriarchy then we must not use patriarchal value systems. A woman who stays at home and raises children deserves decent pay for her work for society and deserves more than cat food when she is to old to have and raise the children and grandchildren.

[dreadgeek]

Ok, so what would that social pressure look like? And, the problem isn't just with law enforcement. It's with the whole system. Like judges allowing the "gay panic" defense to be used in a murder trial. Like juries buying into such a defense. Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/gay-slaying-jury.html



The social pressure looks like using existing civil rights laws. The courts are *obliged* to treat all citizens equally. If the court allows something like the gay panic defense, then we turn to the next higher level of government and sue the lower court for violation of our civil rights. We keep doing that. This is not new territory. Until the 1970s you would be hard pressed to find a white man doing more than spending some time hanging out in the station for the murder of a black person in parts of Dixie. Police departments were sued for civil rights violations. I think the same thing can work here. If not, then it begs the question 'are we citizens' and if we are not, why aren't we?


Here is where you and I part ways on perspectives. I think answering violence with violence is not the way violence against LGBT folks will be ended. Defending yourself, yes, but shooting someone dead? I don't believe that will make anyone think twice, just like I don't believe the death penalty is any sort of deterrent either. I think shooting someone dead just perpetuates the cycle of violence. It also could give bigots an additional false sense of moral high ground, in that they would have the "gays and trans people are dangerous murderers" argument to augment their absurd justifications for their violence. I believe Dr. King had it right about the necessity for a civil rights movement to be absolutely non-violent.

Plus, I just hate guns. The more people who run around with concealed guns, the more likely death from gun violence will occur. We need more gun control, imho.


Drew

I believed that for a very long time. Here's the thing, I've been watching the America Right for a very long time. These right-wingers are a whole different breed in larger numbers. They are talking about 'second amendment remedies' if elections don't go their way. They are marching down the street with weapons slung or prominently displayed. Those weapons are meant to send a message. I presume that they mean it and if they do--and we would be very foolish to think they don't--I don't want queer people to be the only ones unarmed when they decide to 'take their country back' through more direct means. I'm not saying it should be mandatory, I just think that those queer people who decide to own firearms should not be considered pariahs in our community.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Aj........... have not forgotten you...I will come back to you as I am still digesting..........

I think marriage as an issue is the epitome of assimilation. The revolutionary thought is marriage is a sacred spiritual bond and as such has no place in government recognition. All of the benefits of civil marriage are actually legal benefits that include right of survivorship and transfer of property. All of those things can be accomplished by way of legal contracts. Civil marriage does not guarantee the contract will be honored, so what is the frigging point? Legal contracts in the form of marriage and death benefits are contested on a daily basis everywhere in this country. Pre-nups are common to protect the interests of each party..........again legal contracts.

Toughy;

You do understand that this is nearly a word-for-word recapitulation of the conservative argument *against* marriage equality? I have heard innumerable conservatives argue that there is nothing that marriage grants that can't be recapitulated through contracts and so why push for marriage? Well, here's an example. One of the queer people at work and I were talking about how much more we pay to cover our spouses than our straight colleagues do. Much more. In the $400 a month more range. That's a lot of money. If we were in a state-recognized marriage, that would be illegal.


I want a radical shift in social organizing.

Okay. How do you plan to sell it to society? What if they don't *want* that? Toughy, there have been other plans to try to remake society wholesale based upon some grand vision of what a truly better society would be and as far as I can tell every single one of them either tore itself apart or created a nightmare. I'm inherently suspicious of grand schemes to reorganize society whether they come from the right or the left. That movie has yet to have a happy ending.

You have to start with the society we have and the species we have. We don't get to rerun the tape and get a species with a different evolutionary history. That means that if we are going to do grand redesign we should probably be VERY careful about it. That is why I'm a reformer and the civil rights movement was a reform movement. The civil rights movement was not a movement to completely remake society. It was a movement to make society apply the rules it claims to hold dear to black people. I believe that is an achievable goal for queer people. I have yet to hear an explanation for how we get to where you are talking about and I would really like to understand that. I think it's important.


Marriage is NOT the business of the State. Benefits of any individual should go where the person wants...period. The US has some fucked up ideas about Social Security and health care. Women are treated as second class citizens because of marriage. A woman stays at home and the husband works, and she only gets benefits because of her husband. She is not a whole human being and the value of her work in the home is void. Women who are married part of their life and hold no outside job get nothing because they did not pay into Social Security. They worked their entire lives and if hubby decides after 20 years of marriage he is done...........she gets nothing if she cannot afford a good lawyer.

Yes, that IS an injustice. I don't see how eliminating marriage eliminates the injustice. I think that there are ways to deal with those situations that *don't* require dissolving marriage.


If we are going to rethink queer, then we must rethink not queer. If we are ever to defeat the patriarchy then we must not use patriarchal value systems. A woman who stays at home and raises children deserves decent pay for her work for society and deserves more than cat food when she is to old to have and raise the children and grandchildren.

I'm with you on defeating the patriarchy but I'm not sure what you mean by patriarchal value systems? And by whose measure?

But on the rethinking not queer, how do you convince not queer people to go along with your grand vision? We may get there, Toughy, but if we do I'd be surprised if I were alive long enough to see it. I say that because human beings appear to be wired for knitting together in social structures and one of those social structures is a pair-bond. We are not an *entirely* monogamous species but, as a species, we lean toward monogamy. Nature gets a vote, Toughy and I don't see society going in the direction you are talking about, specifically regarding marriage, of its own volition. We've been forming pair-bonds for a very, very, very, long time. That is going to be a hard habit to break because our brains are wired-up in such a way that they really *like* bonding. I don't know how you convince the rest of the species to give up marriage. How do you do that, Toughy?

Just to give you something to chew on, consider that I am not religious. I am not a political conservative. I'm a secularist and a humanist. I'm a social democrat. And I am expressing profound reservations about your vision even though I see how I would benefit from it. So if I'm a hard sell, how do you sell it to people who are ideologically far from you?

Cheers
Aj

[citybutch]

Hey Toughy...

*hugs* and hope all is well.... Your hugs and support remain with me.

I just want to say that marriage IS a function of the State... In fact, it always has been...

And unfortunately the benefits of marriage are not accomplished through contract law.

Even with appropriate legal planning we miss out on so many things including but not limited to:

Social Security benefits
Pension Benefits
Tax advantaged group health care benefits
Tax free transfer of property benefits (whether alive or dead)
Unlimited Marital Deduction
Gifting Issues on Real Property and other forms of property
Family Leave Benefits
Joint Tax filings (or not)
Immigration benefits
Medicaid (Medical) benefits and spend down limits

And on and on...

Basically the property laws of our country are based on British (common) and Spanish (community property) law (and there is Louisiana which is based in Roman or Civil law). To disrupt the law would mean undoing centuries of Western European civil discourse... literally.... and something that because of colonialism has literally spread across the planet. Sadly, it is not based in US history... nor is it symptomatic of our current society... rather it is endemic to the understanding of how we interact with each other. For example, common law is based on how we understand how we SHOULD interact with each other. Civil law, on the other hand, is based on how we interact with each other being mandated by law. They are different world views as far as HOW the social contract is established.




I think marriage as an issue is the epitome of assimilation. The revolutionary thought is marriage is a sacred spiritual bond and as such has no place in government recognition. All of the benefits of civil marriage are actually legal benefits that include right of survivorship and transfer of property. All of those things can be accomplished by way of legal contracts. Civil marriage does not guarantee the contract will be honored, so what is the frigging point? Legal contracts in the form of marriage and death benefits are contested on a daily basis everywhere in this country. Pre-nups are common to protect the interests of each party..........again legal contracts.

I want a radical shift in social organizing. Marriage is NOT the business of the State. Benefits of any individual should go where the person wants...period. The US has some fucked up ideas about Social Security and health care. Women are treated as second class citizens because of marriage. A woman stays at home and the husband works, and she only gets benefits because of her husband. She is not a whole human being and the value of her work in the home is void. Women who are married part of their life and hold no outside job get nothing because they did not pay into Social Security. They worked their entire lives and if hubby decides after 20 years of marriage he is done...........she gets nothing if she cannot afford a good lawyer.

If we are going to rethink queer, then we must rethink not queer. If we are ever to defeat the patriarchy then we must not use patriarchal value systems. A woman who stays at home and raises children deserves decent pay for her work for society and deserves more than cat food when she is to old to have and raise the children and grandchildren.

[AtLast]

Hey Toughy...

*hugs* and hope all is well.... Your hugs and support remain with me.

I just want to say that marriage IS a function of the State... In fact, it always has been...

And unfortunately the benefits of marriage are not accomplished through contract law.

Even with appropriate legal planning we miss out on so many things including but not limited to:

Social Security benefits
Pension Benefits
Tax advantaged group health care benefits
Tax free transfer of property benefits (whether alive or dead)
Unlimited Marital Deduction
Gifting Issues on Real Property and other forms of property
Family Leave Benefits
Joint Tax filings (or not)
Immigration benefits
Medicaid (Medical) benefits and spend down limits

And on and on...

Basically the property laws of our country are based on British (common) and Spanish (community property) law (and there is Louisiana which is based in Roman or Civil law). To disrupt the law would mean undoing centuries of Western European civil discourse... literally.... and something that because of colonialism has literally spread across the planet. Sadly, it is not based in US history... nor is it symptomatic of our current society... rather it is endemic to the understanding of how we interact with each other. For example, common law is based on how we understand how we SHOULD interact with each other. Civil law, on the other hand, is based on how we interact with each other being mandated by law. They are different world views as far as HOW the social contract is established.

Thanks so much for this articulation, City! There is so much more involved with the issues of civil rights and marriage. To my mind, it could be the single most important means to our being able to fight all of our fights. It is about legitimizing in terms of law and legislation. It is not simply about "marriage" at all.

Let us not forget the impact of passage of legislation for interacial marriage did as a vehicle of human rights.

[Toughy]

By sacred spiritual bond I am talking about pair bonding and a religious or legal aspect is not required to have that bond. I'm so not a believer in a personal god.

Holding tightly to the tools of the patriarchy will never change the patriarchy. Civil and religious marriage are tools of the patriarchy used to control girls and women. Slavery was (and still is) a tool of the patriarchy and was so ingrained in all societies and cultures and endorsed by the law and religion. One probably heard the same arguments when the idea that slavery was wrong started permeating society and cultures around the world. Slavery was centuries old and appeared to be critical to the social structure of the entire world. Guess what...........it wasn't and isn't.

All those legal benefits civil marriage gets don't have to be connected to civil marriage.

There is no reason to believe that social structure is stagnant. Obviously it's not and there is no reason to keep defending the structure of marriage. It's no one's business how I order my life and what kind of family I create and live in.

As long as we keep arguing for our limitations and hold fast to how the patriarchy runs the world, we will keep having those limitations and the patriarchy. Paradigm shifts do happen and it always starts with one person.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Toughy,

I've been reading your responses here with absolutely no clue how to respond. At first, I thought you had to be joking, then I realized you were in fact very serious. I'm really having some trouble wrapping my brain around your ideas here.

It looks to me very much like your idea of how you think society should be structured involves the end of religious freedom for anyone who disagrees with you. It also appears that you're in favor of only the rich being able to gain the benefits that currently come with marriage (since poor people generally can't afford lawyers to draw up contracts for them). Now you're comparing marriage with slavery, which I honestly find offensive. If this is your vision of life without the patriarchy, I want no part of it. It doesn't sound even remotely revolutionary or utopian to me. Or have I misunderstood you?

[dreadgeek]

Toughy:

Firstly, just because a similar argument was made for slavery does not mean that the argument necessarily works. The logic you are using is this:

People said slavery was natural, critical to society, etc. Slavery was a moral evil. People said a moral evil was critical to society. They were wrong. THEREFORE, any argument on the basis of it being critical to society is also suspect.

The problem is that it does not follow. Just because society was wrong about slavery and used a very bad and inconsistent logic to reach their wrong conclusion *does not mean* that any argument reaching a similar conclusion is therefore wrong. To see why let's take this. Just so it's clear that this is NOT a Godwin violation I am NOT comparing any position that anyone has taken with anything the Nazi's ever did or espoused.

The Nazi's were wrong about any number of things. Nazi scientists were the first to link smoking with cancer. But the Nazi's were wrong. THEREFORE, they must have been wrong about smoking causing cancer. Except that smoking DOES cause cancer. Does that mean we now have to reverse position and claim that since they were right about this one thing, they must have (or might have been or we endorse) anything else they might have stated? No.

Works both ways, Toughy. Perhaps you are right but this *still* avoids the central question. Again, for the purposes of this discussion I am willing to stipulate that you are right. I grant you that IF society were arranged in a way more congenial to your idea of what society *should* be like (and whether you are willing to acknowledge that you are talking about remaking society as you would like it to be, that IS what you are talking about) THEN society would be a better place. My question is how do you get society to go along with you?

That's the question you keep avoiding, Toughy. What if the rest of us, or a majority of us, find your idea suspect? What then? How do you convince a society to *completely* change how things are done if they do not want to?

Since you invoked slavery, I'm going to remind you of how slavery ended. The South did NOT want to end slavery. Blacks did but white Southerners, for the most part, saw nothing particularly abhorrent about the system and would have been happy to let it continue indefinitely. Slavery ended because the North invaded the South, beat them into abject submission, and then imposed emancipation at the point of a bayonet. Are you prepared to go to that length, Toughy?

Now, the South was manifestly wrong. There are no arguments that one can make in favor of slavery that do not start out with having to deny the humanity of the enslaved group. But the point here is not whether the South was wrong (that is not in dispute) it is HOW the South ended up having to accept that slavery would no longer be allowed in this nation. It is now illegal to have slaves. Is THAT what you are after, Toughy? Making it *illegal* to marry?

Again, you don't have to convince me--at least not for the moment. I am stipulating that your idea of how to order society is *self-evidently* better, for the purposes of this discussion. My concern is how you get from where we are now, to where you believe we should be. Again, how do you deal with the innumerable people who are either unconvinced that this actually *will* be a better world or who are convinced that it will *not* be a better world? That's the question, Toughy.

Cheers
Aj


By sacred spiritual bond I am talking about pair bonding and a religious or legal aspect is not required to have that bond. I'm so not a believer in a personal god.

Holding tightly to the tools of the patriarchy will never change the patriarchy. Civil and religious marriage are tools of the patriarchy used to control girls and women. Slavery was (and still is) a tool of the patriarchy and was so ingrained in all societies and cultures and endorsed by the law and religion. One probably heard the same arguments when the idea that slavery was wrong started permeating society and cultures around the world. Slavery was centuries old and appeared to be critical to the social structure of the entire world. Guess what...........it wasn't and isn't.

All those legal benefits civil marriage gets don't have to be connected to civil marriage.

There is no reason to believe that social structure is stagnant. Obviously it's not and there is no reason to keep defending the structure of marriage. It's no one's business how I order my life and what kind of family I create and live in.

As long as we keep arguing for our limitations and hold fast to how the patriarchy runs the world, we will keep having those limitations and the patriarchy. Paradigm shifts do happen and it always starts with one person.

[AtLast]

Re- "marriage." The literature (based upon new studies) now being published by various social and behavioral scientists post the 2010 census, brings out some very radical changes in how the US views it. It ain't our fathers & mothers institution any longer. And something that I have been quite happy about is that it is not what the US far-right would want us all to believe.

So many of the property-based and child custody kinds of things we tend to associate with marriage are just no longer at the heart of why people (any kind of people) would marry.

Society does change and so do our institutions. Sometimes, a lot slower than many of us would like- but they do change.

Maybe as more and more of this new body of work is viewed and understood, we will address our "utopias" very differently?

[dreadgeek]

Marriage presently enslaves women all over the world.

Yes, it does, depending upon the couple in question and local conditions on the ground. However, are you saying that NONE of the women who are married--whether that is a m/f pairing or a f/f pairing (for sake of simplicity I am considering m/f to encompass any male person)--are there willingly? If you are, how do you explain so many women who have some choice making an inauthentic choice? Unless you are saying that ANY woman, chosen at random, regardless of cultural background, is enslaved if she is married then you need to explain the presence of women who, we will for the moment presume are self-interested, rational agents, see themselves as happily married and believe that they entered their marriage of their own free will. So, is that they are not happy but they don't realize it? If that is not the case then is it the case that they are happy but for the wrong reasons? If so, what are the right reasons for women to be happy?

I am not making an argument denying that for vast numbers of women around the world, marriage IS slavery. The more patriarchal the society, the *less* the society has embraced the idea of inalienable rights of humans, the more likely it is to be the case that marriage will resemble slavery. I am, rather, arguing that if what you say is true then we need not explain women in areas where they have little or no choice. Rather, we have to explain women who DO have a choice. Why would women, economically empowered, educated women *voluntarily* enter into slavery *particularly* when some number of these women took women's studies courses in college and are well aware of the patriarchy. Are they *also* expressing inauthentic preferences or false consciousness?

Unless I have reason to believe otherwise, whether or not I agree with her choices, I have to presume that a woman who is empowered to make choices is going to make good choices in the lack of coercion. Therefore, if a woman who is not under coercion or mental duress, I presume that her choices are authentic and that her preferences are as well.

Cheers
Aj

[weatherboi]

Hey AJ-

Sorry that was just one sentence from
A post I made that got erased when I posted from my iPhone. I shouldn't try and post from here cause it never works out. That why I deleted it but Toughy hit something inside me and there I went! I will come back and answer when I get home. My apologies.

[Toughy]

Toughy,

I've been reading your responses here with absolutely no clue how to respond. At first, I thought you had to be joking, then I realized you were in fact very serious. I'm really having some trouble wrapping my brain around your ideas here.

It looks to me very much like your idea of how you think society should be structured involves the end of religious freedom for anyone who disagrees with you. It also appears that you're in favor of only the rich being able to gain the benefits that currently come with marriage (since poor people generally can't afford lawyers to draw up contracts for them). Now you're comparing marriage with slavery, which I honestly find offensive. If this is your vision of life without the patriarchy, I want no part of it. It doesn't sound even remotely revolutionary or utopian to me. Or have I misunderstood you?

I'm not sure why you think my comments about civil marriage have anything to do with religious freedom or religious marriage. However, I am always wary of the religious freedom meme. Religious freedom is used as a reason to perform genital mutilation on girls all over the world. One could even make the case of male circumcision being mutilation and it's roots are in religion. Religion is what is driving much of the sexism and homophobia is this country (and other countries). Religions can do good for society and they can do harm for society. When religion is harmful, it should held accountable. Religion is not particularly sacrosanct for me.

There are many ways to deal with how contracts are drawn up without using a lawyer. You don't need a lawyer to have a medical or legal power of attorney done. You can do a will and testament without a lawyer. There are standard forms available for just about any legal agreement. There are also free legal clinics across the country.

The real issue has to do with how the US democracy is ordered. Ours is not the best model out there. There are plenty of other ways to do democracy and have it work for everyone. Our social safety net needs a ton of work because it's not a safety net, particularly if we continue to punish those less fortunate. Giving corporations welfare is far more important than taking care of people.

I did not compare marriage and slavery, although marriage certainly was a form of slavery in the past and still is in some places today. I used slavery as an example of what was considered the normal paradigm and that paradigm shifted.

Dismantling systems takes time and will generate problems that can be dealt with. Digging in and saying it can't work just stifles growth and the opportunity to create a better society.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I'm not sure why you think my comments about civil marriage have anything to do with religious freedom or religious marriage.

You mentioned in an earlier post that in your vision, Benny Hinn would not be on TV. How would that work, exactly? It seems to me that the only way to stop the Benny Hinns of the world from doing what they do is to make their religion illegal.

However, I am always wary of the religious freedom meme. Religious freedom is used as a reason to perform genital mutilation on girls all over the world. One could even make the case of male circumcision being mutilation and it's roots are in religion. Religion is what is driving much of the sexism and homophobia is this country (and other countries). Religions can do good for society and they can do harm for society. When religion is harmful, it should held accountable. Religion is not particularly sacrosanct for me.

Abuses do happen within the context of some religions, but that doesn't mean that ending the religion would end the abuse. Those abuses would happen whether a religion were involved or not, the people doing the abusing would just come up with a different excuse if they didn't have religion to fall back on. Abuse is wrong regardless of context. Blaming the context does nothing to stop the abuse.

There are many ways to deal with how contracts are drawn up without using a lawyer. You don't need a lawyer to have a medical or legal power of attorney done. You can do a will and testament without a lawyer. There are standard forms available for just about any legal agreement. There are also free legal clinics across the country.

Have you ever been to one of those free legal clinics? I have. Hours and hours of waiting to spend five minutes talking to a lawyer who doesn't really have the time or the inclination to tell you anything beyond "you need to hire a lawyer" or "you have no legal standing, hiring a lawyer won't help you." And I was just looking for help with a simple name change. That system isn't capable of picking up all the slack that would result from the end of marriage while people still want or need to blend their lives with their partner's. Yes, legal forms are available. They're also difficult to understand, especially for those who don't have a lot of education. Filing fees can run into the hundreds of dollars. Just because it's possible to do it without a lawyer doesn't make it feasible for a large percentage of the population.

The real issue has to do with how the US democracy is ordered. Ours is not the best model out there. There are plenty of other ways to do democracy and have it work for everyone. Our social safety net needs a ton of work because it's not a safety net, particularly if we continue to punish those less fortunate. Giving corporations welfare is far more important than taking care of people.

On this we agree.

I did not compare marriage and slavery, although marriage certainly was a form of slavery in the past and still is in some places today. I used slavery as an example of what was considered the normal paradigm and that paradigm shifted.

Dismantling systems takes time and will generate problems that can be dealt with. Digging in and saying it can't work just stifles growth and the opportunity to create a better society.

Similarly, demanding equal consideration for every rainbows-and-unicorns, pie-in-the-sky fantasy that someone can dream up does the same thing. The fact is, some things really, truly can't work. Maybe they could if we were working with some species other than humans, but we're not. Religious freedom may not mean much to you, but it does mean a whole lot to the vast majority of the population. Do you have any kind of plan for how to make religion stop mattering to humans who've been practicing religion in some form for millions of years? Are you advocating outlawing religion? If so, how do you think that should be enforced. If Benny Hinn did get on TV in your world, should there be a punishment of some kind for him?

[Toughy]

I'm gonna make this short.

Don't twist what I said. I never have said anything about eliminating religious marriage. It's not the same thing as civil marriage. I never said religion should be gone. I said I wanted the hate mongers gone. I said when religion does harm it should be held accountable. It never has been held accountable for mass murder and war. I am done talking about religion.

I am not alone in my view that civil marriage needs to be re-thought. Lots of folks feel the same way. It's just not a popular position here on the Planet.

and by the way........I was in a spiritually bonded relationship for 16 yrs. I generally say I was married. Dissolving that bond was not near as easy as getting a divorce in a civil marriage (no children were involved).

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I'm gonna make this short.

Don't twist what I said. I never have said anything about eliminating religious marriage. It's not the same thing as civil marriage. I never said religion should be gone. I said I wanted the hate mongers gone. I said when religion does harm it should be held accountable. It never has been held accountable for mass murder and war. I am done talking about religion.

I am not alone in my view that civil marriage needs to be re-thought. Lots of folks feel the same way. It's just not a popular position here on the Planet.

and by the way........I was in a spiritually bonded relationship for 16 yrs. I generally say I was married. Dissolving that bond was not near as easy as getting a divorce in a civil marriage (no children were involved).

If you interpret someone trying to understand your position as "twisting" it, then maybe you should consider ways you could communicate more clearly. I'm not twisting anything, I'm trying to understand what you said. If my interpretation of your statements was not what you intended, then you're welcome to clarify. So far, all I've seen is you making vague, problematic statements and then refusing to talk about the parts of your statements that are uncomfortable.

[Slater]

I am also of the opinion that government should not be in the marriage business. Marriage should fall exclusively within the domain of the culture, community, or faith of those who are entering into the marriage. Government should care about households and not concern itself with the precise nature of the relationships of those living in the household. It should concern itself with the social benefits that family units and households of any structure create.

I know someone who has lived for well over a decade with her old college roommate. They are not gay. Theirs is not a sexual or romantic relationship. My friend wanted a child but not a husband. Her old roommate has medical issues that limit her ability to work. Together they have maintained a highly functional and supportive household that generates just as much social good as a married household. They should have access to the benefits that are currently reserved for married couples.

--Slater

[imperfect_cupcake]

I know someone who has lived for well over a decade with her old college roommate. They are not gay. Theirs is not a sexual or romantic relationship. My friend wanted a child but not a husband. Her old roommate has medical issues that limit her ability to work. Together they have maintained a highly functional and supportive household that generates just as much social good as a married household. They should have access to the benefits that are currently reserved for married couples

this is what I'm saying. if there is domestic partnerships for everyone regardless of sex of the people involved, then you can have domestic partnership and marriage and it's up to the individuals to choose which one they want and marriage does *not* have to be erased to bring equality.

I think that should be extended to multi-adult (more than two) households, but one step at a time.

[dreadgeek]

Acceptance is turning on the tv, flipping channels and NEVER EVER seeing Bennie Hinn praying over letters and mailing out prayer clothes he prayed over on tv to those who send $19.95 so they can be saved. Acceptance is not having a murder count on the local news every night. Acceptance means Liberty University, Oral Roberts University, Bob Jones University are closed due to no enrollment.

Don't twist what I said. I never have said anything about eliminating religious marriage. It's not the same thing as civil marriage. I never said religion should be gone. I said I wanted the hate mongers gone. I said when religion does harm it should be held accountable. It never has been held accountable for mass murder and war. I am done talking about religion.


Toughy:

I'm sorry but I have to beg to differ with you. The highlighted passage above does not say ANYTHING about holding religion accountable nor does it say anything about wanting the hate mongers gone. What you said is that WHEN Benny Hinn is no longer no TV--without any explanation as to why he is no longer on TV--then and only then can queer people be considered to have been accepted by society. You said that WHEN Oral Roberts and Liberty and Bob Jones are no longer able to stay open for lack of enrollment THEN and only then can queer people be considered to be accepted by society.

You did not qualify your comments nor did you explain what you meant so in the absence of your explaining how, precisely, we get rid of those universities or that preacher (or any like them) it is *entirely* reasonable to interpret the above to mean that religion--or at least the religion you disapprove of--has to go. I see Secret Agent Ma'am's interpretation as being a rather straightforward reading of your words in the absence of explanation or qualification. And given that, at present, approximately a third of the *species* practices some variant of Christianity that means it is likely to be around in some form for a very, very long time.

As far as the relative popularity of various positions here or elsewhere, so what? I keep going back to how do you get people who might not agree with your vision of how society *should* be to go along with it? Again, I do not necessarily disagree with you that perhaps government should get out of business of designating certain types of households as being significant. Perhaps that is the case but as Citybutch pointed out a couple of pages back, getting rid of marriage would undo hundreds of years of Western common law.

I don't think that we should overturn a legal tradition *simply* because someone thinks we should. There are reforms I would like to see but complete overhauls require a great deal of consideration because there are *always* unintended consequences. I am not, in fact, making an argument in favor of marriage as it is currently understood. I'm trying to understand how you expect to convince people to go along with your scheme.

I have yet to hear a particularly compelling argument, even a hypothetical argument, put forth as to how you convince people who may not share your particular political or religious world view to uproot and overhaul an entire social system. That may seem like being a wet blanket but as I've said a couple of times now, history is littered with the bodies of people who were broken on the altar of this or that utopian vision espoused by some group of people who said to the rest of society "Civilization. You're going it wrong." I've even gone so far as to stipulate that your vision of how human beings should organize themselves is the correct one so we don't get lost in the weeds but you've still to explain how you get buy-in from the rest of society.

Or is that just not a particularly important question and I think that it is because I am tied up in some old-fashioned idea about the consent of the majority to be governed counting for something.


Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

I do not have any idea of any other way to say that hate speech under the guise of religion is wrong. That is not a 'get rid of religion' or 'anti-religion' statement.

There are reasonable hate speech laws across the world. Canada has them, France, Germany etc. We do not have to let those hate mongers preach on TV or anywhere else. We can stop them and we should. Everyone knows what hate speech sounds like. Blaming queers (or blacks or brown or red or immigrants or ______) for 9/11, lack of jobs, a crappy economy, crime, the recent earthquakes and every other frigging disaster is hate speech and incites violence against queers and/or whomever is the flavor of the day. It should be illegal. Fines and/or jail time should be imposed. Religion should not be a free pass for hate speech. Free speech is not limitless....you can't yell 'fire' in a theater. Universities policies that enforce hate and hate speech towards anyone should not be allowed to do that......whether they be public, private or religious. I repeat one more time, hate speech under the guise of religion should not get a free pass.

Beating or killing someone while you yell 'faggot' or 'dyke' is considered a hate crime. It looks like hate speech to me. Why should hate speech be different when it comes out of a preacher's mouth?

We should not allow so-called therapists to get away with reparative therapy. It is utter bullshit. Queerness is not a disease or a mental illness and should not be treated as such. Since the medical profession has a damn hard time policing it's own, perhaps malpractice or criminal charges should be considered. Why is the government paying for reparative therapy through medicaid/medicare? It's not a legitimate therapy and is not based on good science.

This country is also about protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

One of the things I learned from years of negotiating and advocating with big pharma and with our government is to put everything you want on the table. Go for the gold.....you will probably end up with the bronze or maybe the 4th place ribbon.

I actually believe most folks in this country are kind, caring and compassionate. Obama would not be POTUS if we weren't. I think most religion does good things. I think most folks in this country believe in live and let live. I think most folks at least tolerate us, as long as we look and act like them. I think, over time, most folks will accept us queers (in all our colors) as just another version of the human spectrum. Sometimes I am incredibly impatient....probably because I am in the last third (maybe a little more) of my life. It would be nice to see acceptance before I die. Tolerance is wearing thin at times.

It seems to me we keep settling for and arguing for the current limitations, rather than imagining what can be and fighting for that. That is probably because I do not believe in assimilation.

[Toughy]

this is what I'm saying. if there is domestic partnerships for everyone regardless of sex of the people involved, then you can have domestic partnership and marriage and it's up to the individuals to choose which one they want and marriage does *not* have to be erased to bring equality.

I think that should be extended to multi-adult (more than two) households, but one step at a time.

I would settle for this arrangement as long as domestic partnership has ALL the same rights, responsibilities and benefits as civil marriage. I also think we should include poly arrangements in the same household as well as multi-households.

[Elijah]

I do not have any idea of any other way to say that hate speech under the guise of religion is wrong. That is not a 'get rid of religion' or 'anti-religion' statement.

There are reasonable hate speech laws across the world. Canada has them, France, Germany etc. We do not have to let those hate mongers preach on TV or anywhere else. We can stop them and we should. Everyone knows what hate speech sounds like. Blaming queers (or blacks or brown or red or immigrants or ______) for 9/11, lack of jobs, a crappy economy, crime, the recent earthquakes and every other frigging disaster is hate speech and incites violence against queers and/or whomever is the flavor of the day. It should be illegal. Fines and/or jail time should be imposed. Religion should not be a free pass for hate speech. Free speech is not limitless....you can't yell 'fire' in a theater. Universities policies that enforce hate and hate speech towards anyone should not be allowed to do that......whether they be public, private or religious. I repeat one more time, hate speech under the guise of religion should not get a free pass.

Beating or killing someone while you yell 'faggot' or 'dyke' is considered a hate crime. It looks like hate speech to me. Why should hate speech be different when it comes out of a preacher's mouth?




I do not disagree with the premise of what you say here, however, I think it is a slippery slope to start criminalizing free speech.

Who decides what hate speech is?

I mean haven't we, for years, allowed hate groups like the KKK to hold there marches and rallies, no matter how distasteful and offensive we found them to preserve "free speech"?

There is no Utopian answer, the reality is societal change takes time and tolerance and this issue is no exception. I am a firm believer that if tolerance is what we seek, so we must also be prepared to give it.

[Slater]

Everyone knows what hate speech sounds like.


I'm not convinced this is true. I don't think most of my neighbors would consider reparative therapy to be hate speech. I don't think they would consider preachers decrying the sinfulness of homosexuality to be hate speech. I think they would mostly say everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And I don't live in an especially homophobic place. I've never felt the need to be closeted here (here being a small Navy town just outside of Seattle). My point is I actually think you would find pretty far-ranging ideas about what constitutes hate speech, and that makes what you are proposing extremely risky.

Having said that, I do think that how we define incition to violence could bear a closer examination, or perhaps more rigorous enforcement if laws are already in place. Personally I wouldn't include stuff like blaming queers for earthquakes because no reasonable person is going to take that seriously and you can't really build laws like this based on the perceptions of unreasonable people. On the other hand, I think it would not be a bad thing if someone who publicly said something like "I don't believe in homosexuality. I think they should be elminated. I'd wipe them all out," had a law enforcement officer knocking on their door.



Beating or killing someone while you yell 'faggot' or 'dyke' is considered a hate crime. It looks like hate speech to me. Why should hate speech be different when it comes out of a preacher's mouth?

To me this is not an accurate parallel. The crime in the first example is the beating/killing. The hate crime aspect does look at motive, but motive is a factor in how many crimes are prosecuted and punished. So to me that seems not be able hate speech but rather the motive for a crime.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I do not have any idea of any other way to say that hate speech under the guise of religion is wrong. That is not a 'get rid of religion' or 'anti-religion' statement.


I absolutely agree that hate speech is wrong. In your previous post, however, you didn't mention hate speech. You said you wanted Benny Hinn and his ilk off the air, completely. You said you wanted religious universities shut down. Are you suggesting that everything that comes out of these people and institutions is always hate speech, no matter what?

There is a difference between loudly and publicly not liking a person or group of people and hate speech. If some TV preacher thinks homosexuality is a sin, well, he has a right to think that. He even has a right to preach it to his congregation. I don't believe it becomes hate speech until that preacher begins to incite violence against the group he thinks is sinning. I'll grant you that it's a very, very fine line, but I think the line has to be there. If it isn't, then it's not really stretch for people on their side to claim that everything negative we say about Christians is hate speech. Where does that end?

[dreadgeek]

I do not have any idea of any other way to say that hate speech under the guise of religion is wrong. That is not a 'get rid of religion' or 'anti-religion' statement.

Seems to me that the sentence "hate speech under the guise of religion is wrong" is a more accurate way of stating it than the statement I quoted in your prior post where you expressed a desire that Benny Hinn not be able to broadcast his bile. I won't belabor the point, however.


There are reasonable hate speech laws across the world. Canada has them, France, Germany etc. We do not have to let those hate mongers preach on TV or anywhere else. We can stop them and we should. Everyone knows what hate speech sounds like.

I'm not sure that everyone does. I have heard a lot of people make statements that I'm reasonably certain they would go to their graves denying was hate speech. Listen to Afrocentrists talk about homosexuals for a few moments and you will hear some of the most virulently hateful speech. Yet, I doubt that these Afrocentric bigots would say that they are operating out of hate, rather they would say they were operating out of 'love for African peoples'. I'm not saying we should not revisit the question of what constitutes incitement to violence. That is a conversation worth having. But that's a far cry from saying that everyone knows or agrees on what hate speech sounds like.


Blaming queers (or blacks or brown or red or immigrants or ______) for 9/11, lack of jobs, a crappy economy, crime, the recent earthquakes and every other frigging disaster is hate speech and incites violence against queers and/or whomever is the flavor of the day. It should be illegal. Fines and/or jail time should be imposed. Religion should not be a free pass for hate speech. Free speech is not limitless....you can't yell 'fire' in a theater. Universities policies that enforce hate and hate speech towards anyone should not be allowed to do that......whether they be public, private or religious. I repeat one more time, hate speech under the guise of religion should not get a free pass.

No one is saying it should, Toughy. Go back through the thread from first word to last and you will find not a single post that could be read, in even the most generous *possible* interpretation, as saying that religion should get a free pass. Toughy have you *ever* heard me make a statement that is even in the same ballpark as "religion should get a free pass" for *anything*? Me?


Beating or killing someone while you yell 'faggot' or 'dyke' is considered a hate crime. It looks like hate speech to me. Why should hate speech be different when it comes out of a preacher's mouth?

Beating or killing someone, well, it violates their bodily integrity or it takes their life or both. Speech does not violate your bodily integrity (you have NO right to have your ears never be polluted by speech you do not care for) and it doesn't take your life.

It is the difference between:

Zoroastrians practice an outmoded, barbaric bronze age religion with as much claim to truth as a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

and

Zoroastrians practice an outmoded, barbaric bronze age religion that offends society. Let us be done with Zoroastrians once and for all time by offering them the choice of conversion or death. Hey, there's some over there right now. Let's go get them!



We should not allow so-called therapists to get away with reparative therapy. It is utter bullshit.

Yes. You will note that not a *single* major professional organization that has any reason to be taken seriously on the matter states that reparative therapy has any efficacy what-so-ever. The American Psychological Association hasn't. The AMA doesn't. The National Academy of Science condemns it as does the National Science Foundation. The situation with the mental health and social work professional organizations, as well as any part of the evidence-based medicine community, is so arrayed against the Christian mental health community that the latter has had to form their *OWN* organizations and create their OWN journals so that they can say that articles have been published showing that reparative therapy works. But one must note that not a *single* peer-reviewed journal has published an article favorable to reparative therapy in recent memory. RT has as much cache as Intelligent Design within the mainstream, consensus body of science and evidence-based medicine. This being, none at all.


Queerness is not a disease or a mental illness and should not be treated as such. Since the medical profession has a damn hard time policing it's own, perhaps malpractice or criminal charges should be considered. Why is the government paying for reparative therapy through medicaid/medicare? It's not a legitimate therapy and is not based on good science.

I don't know why the government is doing that. The government will *also* pay for all manner of New Age therapies that are no more effective than RT. Several leap to mind but I won't belabor the point.


This country is also about protecting the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Yes, Toughy, and that is my point PRECISELY! For the first time you are acknowledging--tacitly but nevertheless acknowledgement--that there are trade-offs. There are *costs* and that is what you have studiously ignored up to this point. Yes, democratic republics must be responsive to the will of the majority--up to a point--but at that line then the priority must switch from the will of the majority to the rights of the minority. Now, here is where the tension comes in. We either have to argue that society should change itself because we are in the minority and our rights are being violated (this is, essentially, the reform path) OR we have to build a majority that believes as you do (in which case you now have the opposite problem of protecting the rights of the minority). But there's a cost no matter what you do.

So the question then becomes about what kind of process costs are you willing to countenance.

Understand, I'm not saying that what revolution has costs while reform has no costs. I'm saying that while reform makes costs part of the equation, my reading of history and my own experience in Marxist, Trotskyite and anarchist circles has taught me that revolutionaries never really count the costs. Their vision is SO pure and so self-evidently true and beautiful that there can be no costs worth considering. Except that there are *always* costs, Toughy. There's no escaping it. The saying that there's no such thing as a free lunch applies as much to societies as it does to individuals.

That is probably because I do not believe in assimilation.

See, Toughy, I DO believe in assimilation. I believe in it because I watched it work. I see the difference between the lives my parent's built and the lives that less assimilated blacks built. One of those lives led to a course that when both my parents were dead, they were able to leave my sister and I property. The other led to a rather different outcome. You met me *because* I am assimilated. I have the job I do *because* I am assimilated. I grew up in the neighborhood I did, went to the schools I did from Kindergarten to college *because* my parents assimilated and they taught my sister and I their ways. Whatever good reputation I have here in this community is because of how I communicate and that is a *direct result* of my assimilating. Even when I was in the Army, I was where I was because I was assimilated. You may not believe in assimilation. You may not think it works. You may not think that people should *have* to assimilate but if you think that, I will say to you what I say to libertarians; great idea, wrong species. To live in a society, to live in a community, IS to be subject to community mores and norms. That is part of their function is to train people in ways so that they are able to get along more easily. If we were more like orangutans and less like chimpanzees then the idea of assimilation wouldn't be so intuitively obvious and there would be far less social pressure to do so. If I interact with another of my species once every few months, perhaps, and the rest of the time we all pretty much go our separate ways then it really doesn't matter HOW any one of us behaves because contact is minimal and the need for cooperation is equally minimal.

On the other hand, if you live in close proximity of others of your species AND there is a high degree of need for cooperation then norms and mores become important and society then ups the ante for certain types of non-conformity. That is where we find ourselves, Toughy. So no matter WHAT kind of society one builds, there will ALWAYS be a need to assimilate to it. Even a society that claims that there's no need to assimilate at all will find, inexorably, that anyone who believes that there are, for instance, right ways of behaving and wrong ways of behaving, better or worse ways of doing things, is pushed to the margins of society if only because the presence of someone constantly saying "you say everyone can do as they please, but that's not true because *I* can't" spoils the collective illusion of harmony.


Cheers
Aj

[Quintease]

*puts up hand*

I'm happily getting married, for the second time too! :winky:

[Toughy]

I wish this conversation was happening on my deck with all the flowers and a nice bowl, fruit, cheese bread and the little fire pit...........and that includes you SecretMa'am and Aj and Slater and HoneyB and Heart and anyone else who wants to have a conversation about imagining a perfect world.

[AtLast]

I absolutely agree that hate speech is wrong. In your previous post, however, you didn't mention hate speech. You said you wanted Benny Hinn and his ilk off the air, completely. You said you wanted religious universities shut down. Are you suggesting that everything that comes out of these people and institutions is always hate speech, no matter what?

There is a difference between loudly and publicly not liking a person or group of people and hate speech. If some TV preacher thinks homosexuality is a sin, well, he has a right to think that. He even has a right to preach it to his congregation. I don't believe it becomes hate speech until that preacher begins to incite violence against the group he thinks is sinning. I'll grant you that it's a very, very fine line, but I think the line has to be there. If it isn't, then it's not really stretch for people on their side to claim that everything negative we say about Christians is hate speech. Where does that end?

Your post brings me to the concept of liberty, which I think all in a society ought to be able to exercise- even those I disagree with.

There are many people with views I would love to see restricted from media, yet, there is that "free speech" concept to consider. And it applies to all, even the most vile bigots of our time.

It is easy for me to go off on generalizations about fundamentalist Christians, yet, I do try to step back and remember that not all of my assumptions are based upon fact. Just as what those very people assume about me in general, is not true.

Frankly, there are many aspects of assimilation (Aj has pointed out some) that are very positive forces for people to actually effect change in society from a personal perspective. And it does NOT have to take away one's individual integrity or ties to racial or ethnic, sexual orienhtation, or gender identity at all. My history as a mid-century Italian and Latin American follows a course much like Aj's. Although, I find it very difficult to discuss this as the racialiazation of Italian immigrants is just not of much interest today in the US that has little sense of US immigration and race outside of African American and Latin American (mainly the plight of mexican Americans) concerns. However, I see the necessity for this (just not the lack of knowledge) because both continue to have levels of structural racism that effect just about every aspect of their economic and social conditions in negative ways. I wonder about the lack of discussion of Native American inequities are not part of discussions, however.

There is a process of positive augmentation of what an outsider brings to the assmilation equation that changes the assimilated whole. Therefore, what has been "mainstream" is changed or the variations of more diverse 'cogs" on the societal wheel is increased.

[Cin]

I have been reading this thread and it got me to thinking about the ways that I have changed over time. I am sure that my own personal evolution is not unique and if I can be moved to think in different ways so can others.

I used to believe that revolution was the only way to achieve the kind of world I wanted to live in. Tear it all down and start again. I had a favorite fantasy in which oppressed people everywhere would rise up together, throw off their yokes and wrest power from their oppressors. Of course not only is that extremely unlikely to ever happen, but even if by some miracle it did, without some fundamental change in human behavior, before you could say plus ça change, there would be more yokes, and necks aplenty to put them on.

Over time I have come to believe it is possible to invoke change by working toward encouraging small shifts in the ways that people think about a particular issue. If you can change the way that the majority of people think about one thing, for example that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, then I believe you have the beginning of cultural change that will translate to systemic change. Though when it comes to human rights it often seems the laws change and then people adjust themselves over time. But I think the perception of majority sentiment needs to be there before the legislature can succeed.

Cultural or societal change often happens accidentally or naturally because of a need, an invention, or a discovery, but it certainly can happen by design. Change does not have to depend on awe inspiring acts of bravery or greatness, although often these are the catalysts and it is small numbers of focused and dedicated individuals or even one great leader who plant the seeds of change. But once the idea is planted, I think cultural growth happens over time as a result of the way we choose to live our lives.

Living bravely and honorably as we are confronted with challenges and choices in our daily lives, measuring the cost of each choice and its worth, engaging in respectful disagreements (emphasis on respectful) with those who hold ideologically opposing points of view and focusing on common ground rather than differences are all ways I think we can move toward the changes we seek.

What am I willing to give up, what will I compromise to achieve my goal? First off I have to figure out exactly what is my goal. Mostly it is that I would like to see a global mind shift to where human life becomes of the ultimate importance. Laws should not be made based on values formed from specific belief systems that are placed above human life. There is nothing of greater value and dignity than human life. If that became a universal belief, I think most everything else would fall into place. It would be like an invisible revolution. Such a transformation of thought would have to result in phenomenal change. What am I willing to give up to get this? A lot.

I will relinquish any belief in Utopia, or change through revolution, or violence.

I will give up my naïve expectation that if one’s motives are pure the result will be perfect.

I will understand that the end will never justify the means and the means must be just whether or not the end is ever reached.

I will stop being seduced by the idea that all those who think, believe and act like me are inherently good, and conversely that all those who think, believe, and act differently are inherently evil.

I will refuse to accept that it is important to be right at any cost.

I will settle for less than I want.

I will understand that if I hold out for everything and end up with nothing I may as well go work for the other side.

I will put myself in the place of the other and to the best of my ability look at things from that perspective.

I will let that vision from the perspective of the other lead me to understanding.

And I will allow that understanding to dictate the compromises I need to make.

I will use that insight from other perspectives to temper my ideals with compassion.

I will try to live so that the truth that there is nothing of greater value and dignity than human life, any and all human life, will be self evident.

I used to think one had to live out a 60’s sort of existence, be a radical activist, a revolutionary on the front lines in order to feel that you were working toward changing the world. But now I think it’s as much, if not more, about how I live my life that matters. It is the simple act of living well, of trying to show compassion and kindness to fellow human beings that will create the needed changes in society. I think sometimes revolution can be a solitary inward experience. I think many of us live lives of quiet revolution.

[Elijah]

I have to applaud you Toughy for not taking a defensive position. You had a lot of people who (at least in part) were offering up a contrary position, it would have been easy to get defensive. Thanks for not going down that road.




I wish this conversation was happening on my deck with all the flowers and a nice bowl, fruit, cheese bread and the little fire pit...........and that includes you SecretMa'am and Aj and Slater and HoneyB and Heart and anyone else who wants to have a conversation about imagining a perfect world.

[dreadgeek]

I have been reading this thread and it got me to thinking about the ways that I have changed over time. I am sure that my own personal evolution is not unique and if I can be moved to think in different ways so can others.

I used to believe that revolution was the only way to achieve the kind of world I wanted to live in. Tear it all down and start again. I had a favorite fantasy in which oppressed people everywhere would rise up together, throw off their yokes and wrest power from their oppressors. Of course not only is that extremely unlikely to ever happen, but even if by some miracle it did, without some fundamental change in human behavior, before you could say plus ça change, there would be more yokes, and necks aplenty to put them on.

I touched on this a couple of pages back but this moved me to revisit the issue. Like you, I believed that revolution was THE way to achieve a better world. Even after I no longer believed that (and my revolutionary ideas didn't survive contact with my 30s) I kept my mouth largely shut because I did not have a language to talk about what I saw was problematic. Then I spent the last 18 months reading up on totalitarian movements in the 20th century and I had an epiphany that these movements WERE what happened when you got a revolution.

The October Revolution of 1917 started out with the best of intentions. They were going to achieve True Socialism in their time. Not only did they fail to do so but in the process that created a regime of stunning, mind-numbing brutality. The Nazis started out with the best of intentions (although, unlike the Russians, there was a core of evil ideology already present) and in 12 short years turned THE jewel of Western Europe into rubble and brought Europe generally to the very brink of barbarism. In the aftermath of the Japanese occupation, the North Koreans started out not trying to make a truly insane totalitarian state. Rather, Kim Il Song started out trying to rebuild what had been the glory of Korea on a socialist principles. Now North Korea is a state so Orwellian that one who might not know better would be forgiven for believing that 1984 was written *about* that nation.

The lesson I took away from that reading is that come the revolution, what you end up with is another government that has to, just temporarily mind you, suspend freedoms and put off the promised egalitarian paradise. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss has resonance for a reason.


Over time I have come to believe it is possible to invoke change by working toward encouraging small shifts in the ways that people think about a particular issue. If you can change the way that the majority of people think about one thing, for example that marriage should only be between one man and one woman, then I believe you have the beginning of cultural change that will translate to systemic change. Though when it comes to human rights it often seems the laws change and then people adjust themselves over time. But I think the perception of majority sentiment needs to be there before the legislature can succeed.


Your observation about human rights is spot on. I don't know if the majority sentiment has to be there. I would certainly say that my own observation of the United States from the 1940s until the 1970s was that, essentially, the Federal government, in the form of (in order of importance to the effort) the SCOTUS, the POTUS and the Congress, dragged America kicking and screaming into a more integrated nation. When Truman desegregated the military the military did NOT want to go. Brown v. Board shoved integration in schools down America's throat whether they liked it or not. Loving v. Virginia did much the same for anti-miscegenation laws. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were done after Brown but before Loving. But Loving was almost a mop-up operation, a sort of "one more thing as long as we've got the house torn up anyway..." action.

I would have *preferred* that it had all happened through legislation but it couldn't so it happened the way it did.



What am I willing to give up, what will I compromise to achieve my goal? First off I have to figure out exactly what is my goal.

In part, that is why I started this thread. I think we need a discussion along the lines of clarifying what it is we're after.


Mostly it is that I would like to see a global mind shift to where human life becomes of the ultimate importance. Laws should not be made based on values formed from specific belief systems that are placed above human life. There is nothing of greater value and dignity than human life.

Sam Harris (who I don't always agree with) in his book 'The Moral Landscape' talks about morality being something we can look at, without appeal to supernatural entities or cosmic consciousnesses by focusing ourselves on events in the world and how that has effects on states of the human brain. It is a profoundly *human* centered moral vision--or, more accurately, framework for discussing morals.

[lots of really fantastic stuff regretfully snipped]

Cheers
Aj

[Heart]

I wish this conversation was happening on my deck with all the flowers and a nice bowl, fruit, cheese bread and the little fire pit...........and that includes you SecretMa'am and Aj and Slater and HoneyB and Heart and anyone else who wants to have a conversation about imagining a perfect world.

Now, that's the kind of queer community I crave.... :)
This, here, gets so abstract, repetative, and rhetorical after a bit...

good thread though... I'm just tired....

<3

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Is anyone else reading the Gatekeeping thread over in the Red Zone and finding themselves thinking of this thread? I am, and I keep seeing the same thing. Near-perfect illustrations of what's been discussed in this thread. Specifically, the bit where some people in the community seem to think that they can win arguments by setting themselves up as the most oppressed and most victimized and their opponents as the oppressor and victimizer. Is it just me seeing that?

[Greyson]

Respectfully, most of us who are posting over in the Gatekeeping thread have also posted in this thread. These discussions taking place both here and in the Red Zone have been discussed for many years, literally, by many people involved in the discussion.

I think the "victim" stance has also been discussed quite a bit and realized by many that the "Oppression Olympics" game is not productive.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Respectfully, most of us who are posting over in the Gatekeeping thread have also posted in this thread. These discussions taking place both here in this thread and in the Red Zone have been discussed for many years, literally by many people involved in the discussion.

I think the "victim" stance has also been discussed quite a bit and realized for many that the "Oppression Olympics" game is not productive.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of who has posted in each thread. I'm also perfectly aware that this has been discussed many times over many years. Which is why I thought to bump this thread by pointing out that it's happening *again*, even though we've been discussing it for years, even though I doubt anyone would want to admit that's what they're doing. The point of *this* thread is to try to break down some of those old patterns and interact with each other in new, more productive ways. That's why I decided to post here.

Please don't assume that just because my post count over to the left is low that I don't have any experience with the community.

[julieisafemme]

Is anyone else reading the Gatekeeping thread over in the Red Zone and finding themselves thinking of this thread? I am, and I keep seeing the same thing. Near-perfect illustrations of what's been discussed in this thread. Specifically, the bit where some people in the community seem to think that they can win arguments by setting themselves up as the most oppressed and most victimized and their opponents as the oppressor and victimizer. Is it just me seeing that?

Funny you should post that because I was just reading that thread and thought that I wanted to ask a question here!

I am having a very difficult time with the idea that women ranking women and lesbians ranking lesbians is a way to deal with the patriarchy. That seems to me to be the opposite of what we should do. That might be what feels right or is healing in some way to those who fit that group but how does the dislocation of those who don't fit fight the patriarchy? It seems more a want than a need.

These kinds of arguments seem to happen in all segments of the LGBT communities. Female identified butches vs. male identified butches. Transmen vs. butches. Transsexual vs. transgender. If you swap out the words it is essentially the same argument. You don't fit in here. My needs are different than yours (maybe even more pressing, important). Your presence silences me. I am not being heard.

Is there anyone here that thinks that we might be better served if all women decide to be one another's ally no matter where we fit on the list of identities? Isn't that the true aim of feminism? If we could do that and focus our energy on dismantiling the patriarchy would that be more successful?

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Funny you should post that because I was just reading that thread and thought that I wanted to ask a question here!

I am having a very difficult time with the idea that women ranking women and lesbians ranking lesbians is a way to deal with the patriarchy. That seems to me to be the opposite of what we should do. That might be what feels right or is healing in some way to those who fit that group but how does the dislocation of those who don't fit fight the patriarchy? It seems more a want than a need.

These kinds of arguments seem to happen in all segments of the LGBT communities. Female identified butches vs. male identified butches. Transmen vs. butches. Transsexual vs. transgender. If you swap out the words it is essentially the same argument. You don't fit in here. My needs are different than yours (maybe even more pressing, important). Your presence silences me. I am not being heard.

Is there anyone here that thinks that we might be better served if all women decide to be one another's ally no matter where we fit on the list of identities? Isn't that the true aim of feminism? If we could do that and focus our energy on dismantiling the patriarchy would that be more successful?

I completely agree with you, up to a point. I'm all for all women being allies of all other women, *provided that none of those women are actively working against feminist ideals*. I'd love to claim to be an ally to all women, except I can't get behind women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. In much the same way that I consider myself an ally of all queer people, except the ones who won't claim their queerness and instead work against us (I'm thinking mainly of conservative, closeted politicians here) while having illicit liasons in airport bathrooms. I think it's a mistake to think we should be someone's ally just because we share a single trait. There are a lot of women in world who hate everyone on this board, everyone in the queer community, everyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs, etc, and I can't ally myself with those people.

People with whom I share multiple traits, on the other hand, I'm thrilled to be allied with. Women who are also queer, and also feminists? Hugs all around! Right up to the point where someone within that group tries to shove someone else out of it.

[julieisafemme]

I completely agree with you, up to a point. I'm all for all women being allies of all other women, *provided that none of those women are actively working against feminist ideals*. I'd love to claim to be an ally to all women, except I can't get behind women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. In much the same way that I consider myself an ally of all queer people, except the ones who won't claim their queerness and instead work against us (I'm thinking mainly of conservative, closeted politicians here) while having illicit liasons in airport bathrooms. I think it's a mistake to think we should be someone's ally just because we share a single trait. There are a lot of women in world who hate everyone on this board, everyone in the queer community, everyone who doesn't share their religious beliefs, etc, and I can't ally myself with those people.

People with whom I share multiple traits, on the other hand, I'm thrilled to be allied with. Women who are also queer, and also feminists? Hugs all around! Right up to the point where someone within that group tries to shove someone else out of it.

You know I was not even thinking of straight women when I said that. That's a problem! I guess I was thinking more about our community and the divisions we have been talking about.

This brings up a big moral dilemma that the Jewish community has been grappling with. Glenn Beck has pledged his allegiance to Israel and had a rally there and everything. Lots of Jews supported him. WHAT??? This was pretty shocking to me. On a FB page people were defending him and then one man posted his horribly homophobic rap sheet. You know what one guy said? He'd rather side with Glenn Beck than someone who wanted him dead. Nevermind that Glenn Beck is also racist and his interest in Israel is based soley on the end of days. I'm using this example because you bring up a very good point. What if Sarah Palin wanted to ally with us? She clearly stated she was in line with our goals and was on board for the fight. What about all the other really horrible politics she espouses? What about her agenda for supporting us?

Thanks for bringing that up.

[DapperButch]

Yes, I'm perfectly aware of who has posted in each thread. I'm also perfectly aware that this has been discussed many times over many years. Which is why I thought to bump this thread by pointing out that it's happening *again*, even though we've been discussing it for years, even though I doubt anyone would want to admit that's what they're doing. The point of *this* thread is to try to break down some of those old patterns and interact with each other in new, more productive ways. That's why I decided to post here.

Please don't assume that just because my post count over to the left is low that I don't have any experience with the community.

I think that Greyson was just trying to be helpful. Truly.

Most people who were on butch-femme or the dance site under a different name, let people know their original name (everyone has to make their own choice about that, however).

Subsequently, new names to us means that the people most likely are new to b-f/queer websites, so we might help with some background information.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I think that Greyson was just trying to be helpful. Truly.

Most people who were on butch-femme or the dance site under a different name, let people know their original name (everyone has to make their own choice about that, however).

Subsequently, new names to us means that the people most likely are new to b-f/queer websites, so we might help with some background information.

I understand that, and I've chosen not to post that information for a reason. However, I wasn't talking about websites. These conversations haven't been happening just online. I was talking about the community as a whole, not just the community online.

[dreadgeek]

Morality is a difficult thing to discuss really. Personal morality is by definition a personal choice. However, the reality is that if you believe yourself to be an ethical person then your response to a situation will be you doing the right or moral thing. Therefore anyone else confronted with the same situation would invariably make the same choice. To claim to not make the rules or to define morality for anyone else is just a way of not accepting this responsibility.

If it is okay for you to cheat, lie, steal or whatever under a certain set of circumstances then it is okay for the other to do the same under the same conditions. To me the measure of morality is that it is impartial.

If it is a logical right thinking choice for you in a situation, then in the same situation it is the logical right thinking choice for other reasonable people as well. Morality should be defined impartially.

The other necessary component for personal morality is equal respect for the humanity of all persons. Not equal respect for everyone in everyway. Just equal respect for the humanity of all.



This was posted in another thread but I wanted to highlight it because the sentiment above is so refreshingly honest about morality. Instead of maintaining the pretense that there's no such thing as morality (something NO minority group should even contemplate if they have any aspirations toward being treated equally) Miss Tick bravely states that there is such a thing as morality and that, local custom notwithstanding, there are better and worse ways of determining what is moral. The other reason I wanted to highlight this as part of the discussion I really think the queer community needs to have is the part about morality being impartial.

Altogether too often we observe where, in the name of being non-judgmental, we end up being more censorious than if we had just gone ahead and stated our opposition to some action or another. Put differently, it appears that the only things we can truly be judgmental about is, in fact, being judgmental. This seems, to me, to have it almost exactly backward.

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

Someone I love lots once said (to paraphrase) "What is with all this garbage about being nonjudgmental? You can't even have an opinion if you're not willing to judge. You can't even -think- without judging."

[atomiczombie]

Someone I love lots once said (to paraphrase) "What is with all this garbage about being nonjudgmental? You can't even have an opinion if you're not willing to judge. You can't even -think- without judging."

Well I think the way the word "judgmental" is often used is meant: to judge someone unfairly, i.e., on some bogus basis such as race, religion, gender, etc. That is a different sense than "judging" simply as a form of evaluation without prejudice.

[Jett]

Someone I love lots once said (to paraphrase) "What is with all this garbage about being nonjudgmental? You can't even have an opinion if you're not willing to judge. You can't even -think- without judging."

Then again one could be too judgmental to even make a good judge...

Jett
(formerly Metropolis)

[betenoire]

Well I think the way the word "judgmental" is often used is meant: to judge someone unfairly, i.e., on some bogus basis such as race, religion, gender, etc. That is a different sense than "judging" simply as a form of evaluation without prejudice.

Sure, but I can assure you that my friend (and ditto me, for that matter) wasn't defending her right to think bad things about group x for simply being group x.

We're talking about if someone does something really fucked up, or believes something that is totally irrational, behaves in a way that is indefensible, etc. All this hippie woo woo candlelighting about "you just do you! you are brave for admitting to kicking puppies/thinking that the ghost of Joan of Ark lives under your bed and offers you protection/having 3 different sexual partners all of whom think that you are monogamous with them/etc! no judgment here! in fact now I am going to carry on like I think more highly of you than I think of people who do not openly kick puppies etc!"

Problems with that:

1 - It's pretty much a queer phenomenon. We are so caught up with wanting to be a "community" that we posture all this unconditional love at each other, much of which I presume isn't geniune. Chances are pretty good that Claudia thinks Charlane is batshit for kicking puppies while making small talk with Joan of Ark - but Claudia would never dare say that because often being honest is tabu in Queer circles.

2 - We also only reserve the hippie woowoo candlelight stuff for one another. If George (who is Claudia's straight, white, and male neighbor) kicked puppies while making small-talk with Joan of Ark - Claudia would very likely petition her neighbors to have George bullied off of the block.

[betenoire]

Then again one could be too judgmental to even make a good judge...

Jett
(formerly Metropolis)

Have you got an example of that?

[Jett]

Have you got an example of that?
I can make one up... but I'll just say I've always taken the word judgmental to describe someone who is overly judgy... or critical- especially in moral, ethical or personal areas of others lives.

Other than that I wholeheartedly agree with you, we have to make judgements all the time, and we have to somewhat judge others to relate them to our own moral/ethical/social/etc. compass... but some people are much more "judgmental" than others... often very much to a fault.

That's all I got... ;)

[betenoire]

I can make one up... but I'll just say I've always taken the word judgmental to describe someone who is overly judgy... or critical- especially in moral, ethical or personal areas of others lives.

I'm just not sure that's what everybody means when they say the word judgmental. OR if they DO mean -overly- judgy...as a community Queers have a really skewed idea of what, exactly, overly judgy is. That becomes apparent when someone can't even say (and I'm gonna go ahead and give a real example) "cheating is selfish" without someone going "you are judgmental!".

nb - when I say "as a community" I do not mean every single Queer, clearly. Because I am Queer and I don't have that particular problem. But there is no denying that that -is- the prevailing party line.

[Jett]

I'm just not sure that's what everybody means when they say the word judgmental. OR if they DO mean -overly- judgy...as a community Queers have a really skewed idea of what, exactly, overly judgy is. That becomes apparent when someone can't even say (and I'm gonna go ahead and give a real example) "cheating is selfish" without someone going "you are judgmental!".

nb - when I say "as a community" I do not mean every single Queer, clearly. Because I am Queer and I don't have that particular problem. But there is no denying that that -is- the prevailing party line.
Agreed... I think we sometimes feel like we are above reproach... because hey, we're queer and take enough shit so we should be able to dish a little, to me that's bullshit. And we let ism's fly...

I have referenced this over the years with the old saying... the abused becoming the abuser... it's pretty sad.

ETA: Hope I'm getting you right, been fighting a migraine for like forever now and it skews my focus a bit sometimes me thinks :/

[dreadgeek]

Yes, this is precisely what I'm talking about and what I think that we, as a community, need to face head on. Truth be told, as a community we are not nearly as nonjudgmental as we would like to think we are. How can I be so certain of this? Because I can read and parse what people are saying. For example, when we talk about being nonjudgmental we are--wait for it--making a judgment. Whether people realize it or not, they are setting up a hierarchy of virtues and putting being nonjudgmental at the apex of it. While this may be emotionally satisfying it is not, in point of fact, being nonjudgmental. Let someone say something genuinely judgmental and people will come out of the woodwork to point out how nonjudgmental they are and how wonderful it is to be nonjudgmental.

Much the same can be said about the idea of being openminded. I would go so far as to say we have gone all the way down the rabbit hole with being openminded such that what is actually keeping an open mind is considered closed minded. For example, if I were to jump up and say that my dead mother and father lived on beyond the grave and talked to me on a daily basis and that I knew this to be true and nothing anyone said could ever possibly disabuse me of that notion, I would be considered to be one of the most open minded people on this board. If, on the other hand, I were to state that I do not believe people live on after their death because I see no evidence that such a thing happened I would be considered horribly closed minded. Now, to my mind being willing to change one's mind upon presentation with better evidence is the sine qua non of open mindedness even if one has a high standard for what constitutes evidence. Being unwilling to change one's mind no matter the evidence, regardless of how high or low the bar is set, seems to me to be the very essence of a closed mind. However, that is not how we use those terms in everyday life in this community.

In this construction open-minded means believing that Joan of Arc speaks to people from beyond the grave on no better strength than someone *said* that it happens. Being closed minded means wanting evidence for any belief X where X is some phenomena that would effect all people. (In other words, I don't need to prove that my wife loves *you* in order to believe that she loves me. I do need to be prepared to demonstrate that if my parents are capable of speaking to me from beyond the grave that your parents are as well or I had better have a damn good explanation for why I am so particularly blessed to be able to speak to my folks long after they have died.)

Cheers
Aj


Sure, but I can assure you that my friend (and ditto me, for that matter) wasn't defending her right to think bad things about group x for simply being group x.

We're talking about if someone does something really fucked up, or believes something that is totally irrational, behaves in a way that is indefensible, etc. All this hippie woo woo candlelighting about "you just do you! you are brave for admitting to kicking puppies/thinking that the ghost of Joan of Ark lives under your bed and offers you protection/having 3 different sexual partners all of whom think that you are monogamous with them/etc! no judgment here! in fact now I am going to carry on like I think more highly of you than I think of people who do not openly kick puppies etc!"

Problems with that:

1 - It's pretty much a queer phenomenon. We are so caught up with wanting to be a "community" that we posture all this unconditional love at each other, much of which I presume isn't geniune. Chances are pretty good that Claudia thinks Charlane is batshit for kicking puppies while making small talk with Joan of Ark - but Claudia would never dare say that because often being honest is tabu in Queer circles.

2 - We also only reserve the hippie woowoo candlelight stuff for one another. If George (who is Claudia's straight, white, and male neighbor) kicked puppies while making small-talk with Joan of Ark - Claudia would very likely petition her neighbors to have George bullied off of the block.

[betenoire]

Agreed... I think we sometimes feel like we are above reproach... because hey, we're queer and take enough shit so we should be able to dish a little, to me that's bullshit. And we let ism's fly...

I have referenced this over the years with the old saying... the abused becoming the abuser... it's pretty sad.

ETA: Hope I'm getting you right, been fighting a migraine for like forever now and it skews my focus a bit sometimes me thinks :/

You're getting me a bit. Although I do see less of what you're talking about.

I think the part about "we're queer and we take enough shit" is accurate, though. That's pretty obviously the mindset. Like "straight people shit on us all the time, so we had better not shit on each other!"

Except that "straight people" are shitting on you for what you are, and I (for example) am not "shitting on" anybody for what they are - but that doesn't render me incapable of seeing assholey behaviour for what it is.

[atomiczombie]

Sure, but I can assure you that my friend (and ditto me, for that matter) wasn't defending her right to think bad things about group x for simply being group x.

We're talking about if someone does something really fucked up, or believes something that is totally irrational, behaves in a way that is indefensible, etc. All this hippie woo woo candlelighting about "you just do you! you are brave for admitting to kicking puppies/thinking that the ghost of Joan of Ark lives under your bed and offers you protection/having 3 different sexual partners all of whom think that you are monogamous with them/etc! no judgment here! in fact now I am going to carry on like I think more highly of you than I think of people who do not openly kick puppies etc!"

Problems with that:

1 - It's pretty much a queer phenomenon. We are so caught up with wanting to be a "community" that we posture all this unconditional love at each other, much of which I presume isn't geniune. Chances are pretty good that Claudia thinks Charlane is batshit for kicking puppies while making small talk with Joan of Ark - but Claudia would never dare say that because often being honest is tabu in Queer circles.

2 - We also only reserve the hippie woowoo candlelight stuff for one another. If George (who is Claudia's straight, white, and male neighbor) kicked puppies while making small-talk with Joan of Ark - Claudia would very likely petition her neighbors to have George bullied off of the block.

Haha, I wasn't saying I disagreed. In fact I totally agree with you on all of what you just said. I believe that there are universal rights and wrongs. I am not a moral relativist at all. :)

[betenoire]

Truth be told, as a community we are not nearly as nonjudgmental as we would like to think we are. How can I be so certain of this? Because I can read and parse what people are saying. For example, when we talk about being nonjudgmental we are--wait for it--making a judgment. Whether people realize it or not, they are setting up a hierarchy of virtues and putting being nonjudgmental at the apex of it. While this may be emotionally satisfying it is not, in point of fact, being nonjudgmental.

Bazinga! (I know that I misuse that word, but I don't care.)

Much the same can be said about the idea of being openminded. I would go so far as to say we have gone all the way down the rabbit hole with being openminded such that what is actually keeping an open mind is considered closed minded.

Right, it's as though having critical thinking skills and a grasp of how the universe actually functions (socially, scientifically, economically) is frowned upon.

I'm really not sure where all of this started. Any idea what can be pinpointed as the movement or event where we all started to lose our marbles a little? I'm pretty young still (34) so I have no framework for if it's always been like this. Were we able to have opinions without being demonised 20 years ago? Did we hold ourselves up to the same standards that we hold people outside of our community up to 50 years ago? Have we -always- been this way?

And now. I have to go to work.

[Ranger Butch Force]

We pass judgement every day of our lives, wether we do it conciously or not.

[Slater]

We pass judgement every day of our lives, wether we do it conciously or not.

Ah true, but the trick is be conscious and mindful and deliberate with our judgements, especially the ones we are going to act upon in some way. A fleeting and random judge-y thought does not always have to be unpacked and examined -- as long as it genuinely is fleeting and random.

For instance, I could think of someone walking down the street, "Holy hell, those are the most ridiculous shoes I've ever seen. Who wears those?" Now I probably wouldn't think that because I scarcely pay attention to what's on my own feet let alone anyone else's (with the notable exception of certain appealing femme footwear selections), but even if I did that's probably a benign, fleeting judgement that I don't need to bother myself with. But if the footwear is markedly favored by a particular demographic group then maybe I do need to examine where that judgement is coming from and what other baggage might be traveling along with it.

So I don't think the goal is to not have any judgements so much as to be careful and responsible and limited with them.

[princessbelle]

Ah true, but the trick is be conscious and mindful and deliberate with our judgements, especially the ones we are going to act upon in some way. A fleeting and random judge-y thought does not always have to be unpacked and examined -- as long as it genuinely is fleeting and random.

For instance, I could think of someone walking down the street, "Holy hell, those are the most ridiculous shoes I've ever seen. Who wears those?" Now I probably wouldn't think that because I scarcely pay attention to what's on my own feet let alone anyone else's (with the notable exception of certain appealing femme footwear selections), but even if I did that's probably a benign, fleeting judgement that I don't need to bother myself with. But if the footwear is markedly favored by a particular demographic group then maybe I do need to examine where that judgement is coming from and what other baggage might be traveling along with it.

So I don't think the goal is to not have any judgements so much as to be careful and responsible and limited with them.

So true.

I also find that it depends on my demeanor at the time. As in...if someone was dissing my beliefs, which i hear quite often, I just step back and try and listen. I take a breath, and calmly respond in print or face to face and remember that everyone has a right to opinions and who am i to judge them for that.

But, if i am in a crabby mood or someone is posting or saying something in a mean spirited way, or seemingly so, my calmness escapes occasionally and judgement can lash out more harshly.

My mood or what is perceived to be intend of the other person has a lot to do with when i judge openly or continue to judge privately or not at all.

[Ranger Butch Force]

Ah true, but the trick is be conscious and mindful and deliberate with our judgements, especially the ones we are going to act upon in some way. A fleeting and random judge-y thought does not always have to be unpacked and examined -- as long as it genuinely is fleeting and random.

For instance, I could think of someone walking down the street, "Holy hell, those are the most ridiculous shoes I've ever seen. Who wears those?" Now I probably wouldn't think that because I scarcely pay attention to what's on my own feet let alone anyone else's (with the notable exception of certain appealing femme footwear selections), but even if I did that's probably a benign, fleeting judgement that I don't need to bother myself with. But if the footwear is markedly favored by a particular demographic group then maybe I do need to examine where that judgement is coming from and what other baggage might be traveling along with it.

So I don't think the goal is to not have any judgements so much as to be careful and responsible and limited with them.

True, however, why would you find the person's footwear "rediculous" to begin with? Is it because it is not what a "normal" shoe looks like? At this point, we have been trained by society to recognize a "normal" shoe, so when we see something that is not "normal", we outcast it because it is strange or foregin. Instead of passing judgement on the shoe, or person wearing the shoe, try thinking in a positive manner. Maybe think, "oh wow, look at those shoes!"

If we, as a community, want diversity then we need to practice what we preach. I'm stating that in general.

[dreadgeek]

True, however, why would you find the person's footwear "rediculous" to begin with? Is it because it is not what a "normal" shoe looks like? At this point, we have been trained by society to recognize a "normal" shoe, so when we see something that is not "normal", we outcast it because it is strange or foregin. Instead of passing judgement on the shoe, or person wearing the shoe, try thinking in a positive manner. Maybe think, "oh wow, look at those shoes!"

If we, as a community, want diversity then we need to practice what we preach. I'm stating that in general.

However, I think there's a nontrivial difference between the example being given and, say, whether or not we have any grounds upon which to say that there are boundaries and actions beyond the boundaries. To give a few somewhat different examples where, in fact, I think we not only do but *should* reserve the right to make judgments:

1) Someone says something blatantly racist. I'll take two of my personal favorites I've had directed at me:

"You are really smart for a black woman."
"Were you raised by a white family? I mean, you're so smart, educated and articulate."

Now, given the ethic of the community under discussion we should NOT judge the person speaking in such a manner. According to your example--and I'm not saying you are saying this but I am saying it logically follows from what you've said above in green--the better reaction would be to say "well, that person is giving me a compliment, backhanded as it is." This in the name of being nonjudgmental. However, there is *also* an ethic--I would say something approaching knee-jerk reaction--to call out racist statements (or statements perceived as racist, they are not always the same thing). We, as a community, have made a judgment that racism is intolerable. That we would very strongly prefer a community where racism is given no quarter to one where racism is tolerated either explicitly or tacitly.

2) A former boss, I'll call her Amy, was married to Donna. Colleen, who worked with Amy and I, started having an affair with Donna. Amy, thinking that Colleen was her best friend, started expressing concerns that Donna was having an affair. Colleen would sit and listen to Amy freaking out. Eventually Colleen and Donna were caught. Again, according to the *expressed* ethic in this community when next I saw Colleen I should have acted as if nothing had happened because to do otherwise would be judgmental. The thing is, Amy was my friend, as was Colleen. Amy had given both Colleen and me our big breaks. I could not believe that Colleen would screw over Amy like this. I thought (and still do) think that what Colleen did was one of the more truly fucked up things I've been witness to. But if I were to comply with the social norm here, I should have thought Colleen's actions not at all remarkable.

If what we were talking about were *either* situations where people are being judged not for what they do but for what they are OR something so trivial that to try to see it through a lens of morality would be to do violence to the entire concept of morality (say, wearing a pair of hideous shoes) then not taking a stance of judgment would be appropriate. However, the types of judgment we're talking about aren't those examples but far more weighty ones.

One more example:

3) Late last year, there was a NASA mission where a satellite was intentionally crashed into the Moon near one of the polar regions. On Huffington Post people were commenting and making all manner of truly bizarre predictions about what would happen. I'm not talking about predictions in line with what NASA was expecting (e.g. that there would be a great deal of lunar ice ejected which would then be measured to ascertain the approximate density of the lunar ice cap) but really weird things like the fact that this satellite--the part that would crash into the moon would be about the size of a modern VW Bug--would disturb the Moon's orbit which would effect the tides and, ostensibly, the menstrual cycles of every menstruating woman on the planet. No, I'm NOT making this up!

A colleague of mine and I crunched the numbers and determined that the amount of force that would be imparted by the part of the satellite that crashed into the planet, would be equivalent to a Hummer being caused to swerve because of the impact of a single bacterial spore from a mosquito hitting the vehicle while traveling 70 mph. In relationship to the mass of the moon, that satellite was like hitting a moving Hummer with a bacterial spore. Needless to say, Hummers and vehicles much smaller fairly swim through a sea of bacteria floating in the air without any ill effect every single day.

Yet, again, according to an ethic expressed in the community a truly openminded person would treat both the prediction that the Moon would be knocked out of its orbit by a small satellite causing tidal and menstrual problems and that it wouldn't be knocked out of its position but some mass would be ejected which would give us some interesting data, as being equally likely. In fact, we go farther and state that if two people are making one claim the one who is LESS likely to be moved by the evidence is the one who is being MORE openminded.

So, if one party said "this will cause catastrophe on Earth, I don't care what anyone else says" and another said "no, it won't but let's do this. Let's measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon now and do it again after the satellite crashes and if the distance has changed significantly* then we'll know I was wrong" the ethic in the community is such that we would say that the first person was openminded NOT because she was willing to have her mind changed but because she believed without any evidence and was unswerving in that belief and would remain so no matter what evidence was presented. Openminded, in this instance, appears to mean 'believing regardless of evidence'. On the other hand, the person saying they would change their mind if the evidence required it and even went so far as to establish what could be used as evidence is closed minded NOT because they won't change their mind but because they will only do so if certain conditions are met and these conditions have to do with presenting evidence, not emotionally compelling stories or evocative language given in personal anecdote.

*The Earth and the Moon are actually moving apart. It's at a very defined rate and we know what that rate is. There is also a very reliable way of determining the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon. At several Apollo landing sites, reflectors were left. By aiming a laser at the site and then determining how long a round trip takes we can determine the distance between the two bodies because light moves at 186,282 miles per second in vacuum (a little bit slower in atmosphere but not appreciable for our purposes here). Round trip for a signal moving at light speed between the Earth in the Moon is a little over 1.5 seconds meaning the Earth is about ~250K miles from Earth.


Cheers
Aj

[Ranger Butch Force]

However, I think there's a nontrivial difference between the example being given and, say, whether or not we have any grounds upon which to say that there are boundaries and actions beyond the boundaries. To give a few somewhat different examples where, in fact, I think we not only do but *should* reserve the right to make judgments:

1) Someone says something blatantly racist. I'll take two of my personal favorites I've had directed at me:

"You are really smart for a black woman."
"Were you raised by a white family? I mean, you're so smart, educated and articulate."

Now, given the ethic of the community under discussion we should NOT judge the person speaking in such a manner. According to your example--and I'm not saying you are saying this but I am saying it logically follows from what you've said above in green--the better reaction would be to say "well, that person is giving me a compliment, backhanded as it is." This in the name of being nonjudgmental. However, there is *also* an ethic--I would say something approaching knee-jerk reaction--to call out racist statements (or statements perceived as racist, they are not always the same thing). We, as a community, have made a judgment that racism is intolerable. That we would very strongly prefer a community where racism is given no quarter to one where racism is tolerated either explicitly or tacitly.

But why would they say that in the first place? At that point, to me from my me space, I would think that either A) they don't know you very well, B) they may, in their mind, think that it's ok to ask such a question to you for whatever reason or C) they are narrow minded in thinking that only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate which is obviously not true given that the US president is not white.

2) A former boss, I'll call her Amy, was married to Donna. Colleen, who worked with Amy and I, started having an affair with Donna. Amy, thinking that Colleen was her best friend, started expressing concerns that Donna was having an affair. Colleen would sit and listen to Amy freaking out. Eventually Colleen and Donna were caught. Again, according to the *expressed* ethic in this community when next I saw Colleen I should have acted as if nothing had happened because to do otherwise would be judgmental. The thing is, Amy was my friend, as was Colleen. Amy had given both Colleen and me our big breaks. I could not believe that Colleen would screw over Amy like this. I thought (and still do) think that what Colleen did was one of the more truly fucked up things I've been witness to. But if I were to comply with the social norm here, I should have thought Colleen's actions not at all remarkable.

If what we were talking about were *either* situations where people are being judged not for what they do but for what they are OR something so trivial that to try to see it through a lens of morality would be to do violence to the entire concept of morality (say, wearing a pair of hideous shoes) then not taking a stance of judgment would be appropriate. However, the types of judgment we're talking about aren't those examples but far more weighty ones.

I, too, have been in such a situation before and it was not pleasant. Because having the affair in the first place was wrong (I don't care what the reason was), I told all of them that I didn't want to hear it anymore and that they needed to figure out what they wanted to do with the situation. All three are good friends of mine, and still are to this day. Yes, I was concerend that one of my friends was going to be hurt in the end. It was not healthy for me to get in the middle of that.

One more example:

3) Late last year, there was a NASA mission where a satellite was intentionally crashed into the Moon near one of the polar regions. On Huffington Post people were commenting and making all manner of truly bizarre predictions about what would happen. I'm not talking about predictions in line with what NASA was expecting (e.g. that there would be a great deal of lunar ice ejected which would then be measured to ascertain the approximate density of the lunar ice cap) but really weird things like the fact that this satellite--the part that would crash into the moon would be about the size of a modern VW Bug--would disturb the Moon's orbit which would effect the tides and, ostensibly, the menstrual cycles of every menstruating woman on the planet. No, I'm NOT making this up!

A colleague of mine and I crunched the numbers and determined that the amount of force that would be imparted by the part of the satellite that crashed into the planet, would be equivalent to a Hummer being caused to swerve because of the impact of a single bacterial spore from a mosquito hitting the vehicle while traveling 70 mph. In relationship to the mass of the moon, that satellite was like hitting a moving Hummer with a bacterial spore. Needless to say, Hummers and vehicles much smaller fairly swim through a sea of bacteria floating in the air without any ill effect every single day.

Yet, again, according to an ethic expressed in the community a truly openminded person would treat both the prediction that the Moon would be knocked out of its orbit by a small satellite causing tidal and menstrual problems and that it wouldn't be knocked out of its position but some mass would be ejected which would give us some interesting data, as being equally likely. In fact, we go farther and state that if two people are making one claim the one who is LESS likely to be moved by the evidence is the one who is being MORE openminded.

So, if one party said "this will cause catastrophe on Earth, I don't care what anyone else says" and another said "no, it won't but let's do this. Let's measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon now and do it again after the satellite crashes and if the distance has changed significantly* then we'll know I was wrong" the ethic in the community is such that we would say that the first person was openminded NOT because she was willing to have her mind changed but because she believed without any evidence and was unswerving in that belief and would remain so no matter what evidence was presented. Openminded, in this instance, appears to mean 'believing regardless of evidence'. On the other hand, the person saying they would change their mind if the evidence required it and even went so far as to establish what could be used as evidence is closed minded NOT because they won't change their mind but because they will only do so if certain conditions are met and these conditions have to do with presenting evidence, not emotionally compelling stories or evocative language given in personal anecdote.

*The Earth and the Moon are actually moving apart. It's at a very defined rate and we know what that rate is. There is also a very reliable way of determining the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon. At several Apollo landing sites, reflectors were left. By aiming a laser at the site and then determining how long a round trip takes we can determine the distance between the two bodies because light moves at 186,282 miles per second in vacuum (a little bit slower in atmosphere but not appreciable for our purposes here). Round trip for a signal moving at light speed between the Earth in the Moon is a little over 1.5 seconds meaning the Earth is about ~250K miles from Earth.


Cheers
Aj

In this instance, I would have let the menstrual believe what they want to believe. Their mind is made up. But then, when what they believed in didn't happen, then maybe some people in that group would make up their own minds and say "Hey, you know in the end, that all sounded pretty silly that our menstrual cycles would get out of whack". Live and learn.

People need to make up their own minds. Even if the proof is right in their face and they choose not to see it with their own eyes, that's their decision.

Let it be.

[Julie]

So what is our moral responsibility as a friend?
I had this conversation with a friend the other day.

If she were cheating on her partner, would I tell her partner, who is also an equally good friend?

It's a tough response. My initial response was... I would lose all respect for you, and could not be your friend - I don't believe I could tell X.

Her response to me, given the same situation - She would give me a time limit to tell my partner and if I did not, she would.

Then we asked her partner if he would want me to tell them. He said YES!

My father always said... When you are the savior - you become the victim. Be careful. Maybe he was referring to himself, knowing I had the knowledge he cheated on my Mom.

I learned my Dad was having an affair with his best friend. I realized it at my Dad's last birthday. He was Dying and *S* came to his party. I walked in on them embracing and then kissing. My heart filled. I cannot explain it, but my heart filled for my Dad and this Man *S*. The night before he died, he asked to get *S* on the phone for him - My Mother had gone out shopping (imagine that). I was privy to this most intimate conversation of a 30 year love affair. When my Dad died the next day - I called *S* and we cried together and he openly told me his love for my Dad. Both of them had wives and children.

What was my moral responsibility? Should I have told my Mom? Why did my Dad and *S* stay with their wives? I still have so many questions. Were they being moral by staying and supporting their families and not breaking them up?

He is gone now almost 10 years. I don't believe it would ever serve my Mom to know this truth of the man she loved and he loved her. He worshiped her and cared for her - yet, he also loved another.

Perhaps that is why, I have such strong STRONG issues about cheating. I do know the pain it can cause - on both sides.

Lots of personal stuff. But really... Where do you draw the line?

Julie

[dreadgeek]

But why would they say that in the first place? At that point, to me from my me space, I would think that either A) they don't know you very well, B) they may, in their mind, think that it's ok to ask such a question to you for whatever reason or C) they are narrow minded in thinking that only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate which is obviously not true given that the US president is not white.


See, this is almost *precisely* what I am talking about. You gave three reasons NONE of which come down to "this person thinks that black people are intellectually inferior to whites, this belief is racist". To me, the simple explanation is that someone who thinks that in order for a black person to be well-read, educated, and articulate *something* must have intervened in their life to make them not like other black people. Such a belief is, in fact, racist at its core. So let me ask you this question, what is the problem with calling the question out for the racist statement it is?


I, too, have been in such a situation before and it was not pleasant. Because having the affair in the first place was wrong (I don't care what the reason was), I told all of them that I didn't want to hear it anymore and that they needed to figure out what they wanted to do with the situation. All three are good friends of mine, and still are to this day. Yes, I was concerned that one of my friends was going to be hurt in the end. It was not healthy for me to get in the middle of that.

Again what is wrong with saying "you don't fuck over friends"? What is wrong with having an saying there are things that are wrong and having an affair with the spouse of your best friend is on that list? What would be so terrible as to say "this is not acceptable"? Would *you* want people to take a neutral stance if the woman you loved fucked you over like that? I'm going to bet that if any of your friends said "well, whose to say whether it was right or wrong for her to do you like that" you would take a dim view of that statement and might even wonder where their moral compass got misplaced.


In this instance, I would have let the menstrual believe what they want to believe. Their mind is made up. But then, when what they believed in didn't happen, then maybe some people in that group would make up their own minds and say "Hey, you know in the end, that all sounded pretty silly that our menstrual cycles would get out of whack". Live and learn.

I'm curious, what relationship do you believe the beliefs in people's heads have with their behavior in the real world? What I'm driving at is that, in fact, the beliefs in people's heads actually matter because the beliefs in people's heads effects how they behave in the real world. I think that there is a fairly high degree of correlation between what someone believes about the world and how they behave. I know people who claim, quite legitimately I presume, that their belief in some kind of divine being is what makes them behave in a loving and civilized manner. They believe, with apparent sincerity, that if they were to lose that belief in a divine being they would undergo a profound shift in how they treat other people. I take them at their word because it seems to me that people are probably stating what they actually believe about themselves and the nature of the world.

Right now, in the United States of America, there are people who believe things that are manifestly untrue. Demonstrably, provably, untrue. The fact that these things are untrue makes absolutely no difference what-so-ever and their epistemic closure is so perfect that even though they are not in an entirely hermetically sealed environment they simply write off conflicting information as proof of a conspiracy of the so-called 'lame-stream media'. Next year, the electorate will go to the polls and about a *third* of the electorate in one of the two major parties will vote believing that cutting taxes *always* raises revenue (it doesn't), that cutting taxes is the most direct and efficient way to create jobs (it isn't), that there is a serious effort for Sharia law to be enacted in the USA (there isn't), that the President of the United States was born in Kenya (he wasn't) and that he is a Muslim (he isn't). I would think that given the last 11 years of American history and the kinds of tragically stupid decisions that were made at the highest levels, with massive popular support, based upon absolutely false information we would not have to question whether or not the beliefs of other human beings matter. Yes, they do!

Is there *anyone* here who believes that had their been strong majority opposition (upwards of 75%) to the invasion of Iraq that the Bush administration would have gone ahead and started such a war? Does anyone think that the 62% of Americans who supported the war at its start would have done so if they had not believed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks or that he had an *active* nuclear and biological weapons program and, quite possibly, one or more nuclear weapons? Because that is what people said that they believe and those were the reasons they gave for supporting the invasion of Iraq. Eight years after it was demonstrated, conclusively, that there was no active WMD program there are *still* a nontrivial number of the voting public who believe that Iraq had the Bomb and/or that it was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. So what does it matter what beliefs people have in their heads? It matters quite a lot, actually.

What's more, the kind of behavior you describe is almost precisely *not* how people behave. Your description of people holding strong beliefs suddenly changing them on new evidence is exactly the opposite of what has been observed. When millennialist cult leaders predict an exact date for the end of the world and then the world obstinately continues to exist one would think that their followers would pack up and leave and stop believing. Instead, they believe *harder* and simply accept whatever explanation is necessary to keep the cognitive dissonance to a minimum.



People need to make up their own minds. Even if the proof is right in their face and they choose not to see it with their own eyes, that's their decision.

Let it be.

That's a nice sentiment until a plurality of people in your state vote to ensure that you cannot marry the woman you love because they believe that homosexuality is a sin, that marriage equality would spell the end of heterosexual marriage and that their divine being will be terribly upset and *therefore* they must vote against marriage equality and only vote for people who share that view. It's all fun and non-judgmental games until someone loses an eye.

If you don't see any relationship to how people believe and how they behave, then how do you propose effecting social change if we *don't* change people's beliefs about the real world?

Cheers
Aj

[atomiczombie]

But why would they say that in the first place? At that point, to me from my me space, I would think that either A) they don't know you very well, B) they may, in their mind, think that it's ok to ask such a question to you for whatever reason or C) they are narrow minded in thinking that only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate which is obviously not true given that the US president is not white.

I have a question. And I am not trying to be an ass, I just really am bothered by this. Do you not see how the part I bolded in your post might be problematic? I guess I am not sure that that line of argument is the right one to be made against the racist and completely untrue notion that "only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate."

I mean, I can just see if one were to make that kind of argument with a right wing racist tea partier, that said person would just say, "well Obama's an idiot so that proves nothing."

The truth is that there are intelligent and articulate people of every race, and there are some really stupid people of every race. Pointing to one particular person to make that point isn't a good way to do so.

Annnnd, given Aj's examples, it seems that the person saying:

"You are really smart for a black woman."
"Were you raised by a white family? I mean, you're so smart, educated and articulate."

would be acknowledging, in a very icky way, that she is smart, however the implication is that, on the whole, black people aren't smart. So pointing to the president wouldn't really dispute that claim. I guess after all this rambling that is really my point. lol

[SecretAgentMa'am]

True, however, why would you find the person's footwear "rediculous" to begin with?

Ridiculous shoes:
http://cdn.purseblog.com/images/2009/10/mcqueen-shoes-500x335.jpg

Okay, I'm taking the piss a bit, but really, I think this is kind of what's being discussed. Societies have standards, and yes, it's okay to challenge those standards. But those standards also aren't always universally wrong. Societal norms exist for a reason. We need them to function as a culture. I see no value in pretending that the above shoes aren't patently ridiculous even though I'm sure someone, somewhere, thinks they're genius.

[dreadgeek]

Ranger:

One other question. Given what you've posted below which would you prefer in the following scenario.

It's nearing Election Day 2012. Someone is really only now making their decision. Let us say that there are three matters to be decided that could have direct bearing on how your life may be going forward. They are:

1) The Presidency
2) One of your senators and your representative in the House
3) An omnibus gay rights law (protection in job and housing along with marriage equality)

Now, this person is fair minded but perhaps not the most informed person around. They have two people talking to them about the election. One believes that the President is a Kenyan-born, Marxist Muslim who hates America. They are supporting the two right-wing candidates who have made clear their opposition to all things related to gay rights. They will vote to do away with Social Security and Medicare. The other person believes that the President is an American-born Christian who is a more-or-less center-left Democrat. They are supporting two center-left Democrats who will vote against any attempt to dismantle Social Security and Medicare and who have expressed full-throated support for gay rights. The first person is telling the first-time, low-information voter that gays and lesbians are a threat to the family and that Barack Obama wants to destroy America from the inside and is a tool of Hezbollah. The second person is telling the our low-information voter friend that gays and lesbian couples are subject to all manner of discrimination because of who they love.

Are you going to try to suggest that it really doesn't matter which set of memes takes hold in this person's head? Are you going to say that you do not have a preference for how that little thought experiment would turn out in the real world, given the stakes? Or do you honestly believe that there is no relationship between how any of the parties believe and how they will actually vote?

Cheers
Aj


But why would they say that in the first place? At that point, to me from my me space, I would think that either A) they don't know you very well, B) they may, in their mind, think that it's ok to ask such a question to you for whatever reason or C) they are narrow minded in thinking that only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate which is obviously not true given that the US president is not white.



I, too, have been in such a situation before and it was not pleasant. Because having the affair in the first place was wrong (I don't care what the reason was), I told all of them that I didn't want to hear it anymore and that they needed to figure out what they wanted to do with the situation. All three are good friends of mine, and still are to this day. Yes, I was concerend that one of my friends was going to be hurt in the end. It was not healthy for me to get in the middle of that.



In this instance, I would have let the menstrual believe what they want to believe. Their mind is made up. But then, when what they believed in didn't happen, then maybe some people in that group would make up their own minds and say "Hey, you know in the end, that all sounded pretty silly that our menstrual cycles would get out of whack". Live and learn.

People need to make up their own minds. Even if the proof is right in their face and they choose not to see it with their own eyes, that's their decision.

Let it be.

[atomiczombie]

Ridiculous shoes:
http://cdn.purseblog.com/images/2009/10/mcqueen-shoes-500x335.jpg

Okay, I'm taking the piss a bit, but really, I think this is kind of what's being discussed. Societies have standards, and yes, it's okay to challenge those standards. But those standards also aren't always universally wrong. Societal norms exist for a reason. We need them to function as a culture. I see no value in pretending that the above shoes aren't patently ridiculous even though I'm sure someone, somewhere, thinks they're genius.

OMG these pictures of shoes are making me giggle so hard my belly hurts!

[DapperButch]

I have a question. And I am not trying to be an ass, I just really am bothered by this. Do you not see how the part I bolded in your post might be problematic? I guess I am not sure that that line of argument is the right one to be made against the racist and completely untrue notion that "only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate."

I mean, I can just see if one were to make that kind of argument with a right wing racist tea partier, that said person would just say, "well Obama's an idiot so that proves nothing."

The truth is that there are intelligent and articulate people of every race, and there are some really stupid people of every race. Pointing to one particular person to make that point isn't a good way to do so.

Annnnd, given Aj's examples, it seems that the person saying:

"You are really smart for a black woman."
"Were you raised by a white family? I mean, you're so smart, educated and articulate."

would be acknowledging, in a very icky way, that she is smart, however the implication is that, on the whole, black people aren't smart. So pointing to the president wouldn't really dispute that claim. I guess after all this rambling that is really my point. lol

Exactly.

and

a side note:

You don't have to be any of those things to be President (George W., anyone?) :blink:

[Cin]

The term morality always made me a little uncomfortable. I believe my problem was that I always equated morality with judgment.

I remember reading the short story “The Monkey’s Paw” in class when I was a kid. I’m most likely suspicious by nature but that story didn’t help...sneaky, tricky, stuff in that story. It showed me how a thing that seems like something good can turn out to be really bad. Sometimes what you think you want will hurt you. Anyway right around that same time I was learning about the 8 beatitudes in catechism. They scared the crap out of me. I didn’t find the promises in them all that comforting. They seemed like traps. Like the Monkey’s Paw was a trap. I read evil intent by a god that confused and frightened me deeply in the words “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice for they shall have their fill.” I decided right then that I did not want my fill of justice, nope, not hungry for it, not thirsty for it, nope. I figured maybe I’d hang my hat on mercy. Sounded like a better prize in the end anyway.

As an adult I still had problems conflating morality and judgment. I won’t bore you here with my process. Suffice to say that I have come to believe adopting a moral point of view is essential. I don’t have to judge people to do that. I do judge their actions when their actions affect others. For me that is the measure. When someone’s actions are going to have consequences for others then they must consider that and take responsibility for making ethical decisions based on this knowledge. But if they don’t make the just and moral decision then it is my right to call them on it. It often doesn’t take a lot of thought to figure out what decision is the just and moral one. Not everything, actually hardly anything, is a moral dilemma. To be right thinking one just needs to make choices with the measuring stick of equity for all human beings in mind. Perhaps even all sentient beings.

History shows that a significant number of humans do not believe human beings have the inclination to be moral. They do not believe human beings are likely to make moral decisions based on the reality that to do so would improve the quality of life in a society. Many believe people will put their needs above the needs of others and do what was best for themselves, regardless of the result for others or for all humankind. I guess this is where religion came into play as well as other social institutions to help us find other reasons besides justice, understanding and empathy for making moral choices.

I do think human beings have the capacity to make the right moral decisions simply because they are the right ones for everyone concerned and not because god is watching us or because we will go to jail if we don’t. Our big brains evolved for adaptation but we got some extra stuff too. Being able to understand and anticipate the consequences of our actions, being able to make value judgments, as well as possessing the ability to choose between alternative courses of action means to me that we can make the correct moral decisions. We can choose between what is best for the individual and what is best for the whole. We can conclude that what is best for our society is ultimately what is best for the individual. However, as Dreadgeek pointed out so well, people often lack the information or refuse the information required to make the right choice. Many lack the ability or desire for critical thinking. As a society we are not only intellectually lazy, we are morally lethargic.

I just think the litmus test for moral behavior is whether or not it is fair and whether or not you would be comfortable if everyone chose that particular behavior. There should be equity for all involved in any action or decision. Equity and justice need to be the prime motivators in concluding what choice is the moral one.

[Cin]

Just to be clear when I say equity as a measuring stick, I don’t mean equality. Equality usually means the state of being equal. What I mean when I say equity is the quality of being fair and impartial. Perhaps I should say impartiality.

[dixie]

Ridiculous shoes:
http://cdn.purseblog.com/images/2009/10/mcqueen-shoes-500x335.jpg

Okay, I'm taking the piss a bit, but really, I think this is kind of what's being discussed. Societies have standards, and yes, it's okay to challenge those standards. But those standards also aren't always universally wrong. Societal norms exist for a reason. We need them to function as a culture. I see no value in pretending that the above shoes aren't patently ridiculous even though I'm sure someone, somewhere, thinks they're genius.

Case in point: I would actually wear the ones in the middle.

[Cin]

Much the same can be said about the idea of being openminded. I would go so far as to say we have gone all the way down the rabbit hole with being openminded such that what is actually keeping an open mind is considered closed minded. For example, if I were to jump up and say that my dead mother and father lived on beyond the grave and talked to me on a daily basis and that I knew this to be true and nothing anyone said could ever possibly disabuse me of that notion, I would be considered to be one of the most open minded people on this board. If, on the other hand, I were to state that I do not believe people live on after their death because I see no evidence that such a thing happened I would be considered horribly closed minded. Now, to my mind being willing to change one's mind upon presentation with better evidence is the sine qua non of open mindedness even if one has a high standard for what constitutes evidence. Being unwilling to change one's mind no matter the evidence, regardless of how high or low the bar is set, seems to me to be the very essence of a closed mind. However, that is not how we use those terms in everyday life in this community.

In this construction open-minded means believing that Joan of Arc speaks to people from beyond the grave on no better strength than someone *said* that it happens. Being closed minded means wanting evidence for any belief X where X is some phenomena that would effect all people. (In other words, I don't need to prove that my wife loves *you* in order to believe that she loves me. I do need to be prepared to demonstrate that if my parents are capable of speaking to me from beyond the grave that your parents are as well or I had better have a damn good explanation for why I am so particularly blessed to be able to speak to my folks long after they have died.)

Cheers
Aj

This is so on the money that I just had to quote it. I mean talk about things being totally backward. Being closed minded not only means wanting evidence for any belief x where x is some phenomena that would effect all people, it is also apparently close minded when you have the audacity and insensitivity to point out fairly indisputable evidence that would or at least should disprove certain odd ideas that so many seem to take as reality. This particular line of thought reminds me of something I once read online entitled "Why Does God Hate Amputees?" Now that was pretty amusing.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

People have actually said "I can't disagree with June or I will be banned" and "I can't say what I want because I will get in trouble". This is complete bullshit. I don't even agree with people who have eaten at my table all the time. I think we can all tell when someone is engaging in a heated way over a difference of opinion and someone who is just being nasty because they didn't get enough attention from their parents. I can't use the ignore feature here, but I do choose (eventually) not to engage with people that I consider untrustworthy or mean spirited because of their consistent behavior patterns.


This reminded me of the years I spent in HR. I spent a few years working for a temporary staffing agency, and a couple of years in the HR office of a huge, well-known company (whose name starts with a Q and ends with a direction). Every time there was a hiring event with lots of applicants and not enough positions for all of them, I was pretty well guaranteed to spend a few days taking calls from people who didn't get hired and wanted to yell at me about how they *knew* they hadn't been hired because "their" job was given to some less qualified woman or minority to satisfy an affirmative action quota.

That's not actually how affirmative action works, and such a thing never happened even once (and I'm in a position to know since I'm the one who was doing the interviewing and hiring), but that didn't matter even a little bit. What mattered is that they wanted it to not be their fault that they didn't get the job, and they wanted to feel like they were a victim instead of just someone who didn't make the cut. Quite often, the people making these calls were the same people I remembered vividly because of how they'd behaved during their interviews. They'd ensured in their first five minutes in my office that there was no way I was going to hire them for anything. The people I had the greatest reason for passing over were the people who yelled the loudest about how they were being screwed over by someone else.

Okay, that was a tangent. I think I've had that rant simmering for years. I think the same principle applies here, though. Some people really, really want to believe that if something doesn't go their way, it's not because they did anything wrong. They can't be wrong. It has to be that someone is out to get them.

Please be assured that when I disappear from your friends list in a couple of days, it's not because I got moderated (not that I have been). I'm just deleting my Facebook account in a couple of days in favor of Google+.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Case in point: I would actually wear the ones in the middle.

I knew someone would say this. :) I was actually looking for a picture with just the ones on the ends but I was having trouble finding one with a link that would show up in my post. I promise I don't think you're a bad person for liking them. I would be afraid I'd fall off of them and kill myself, but I'm sure you could rock them like nobody's business.

The really strange-looking ones are apparently getting really popular because Lady Gaga wears them.

[atomiczombie]

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/U5553P1088DT20101224115558.jpg

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/U5553P1088DT20101224115851.jpg

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/VictoriaFashionShowRunwayqshV0GuoF6Pl1_conew3.jpg

http://i813.photobucket.com/albums/zz56/atomiczombie/article-0-053-946_224x312_conew1.jpg

[SecretAgentMa'am]

:blink:

Wow. You win.

[Ranger Butch Force]

I thought I could do this from my phone but it is more difficult than I imagined! So, when Im able to get back on the computer and read through everything without having to pinch, zoom, double tap and so on, I will voice my opinions.

BTW, I love science as Dr. Megavolt is one of my heroes!

[betenoire]

Google+ for the win. Just saying.

[DapperButch]

Google+ for the win. Just saying.

Are you gonna switch?

[betenoire]

Are you gonna switch?

Well I've got both right now. Mostly Google+ is a novelty for me...and I can access it from work (they have facebook blocked but haven't caught on to Google+ yet)

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Well I've got both right now. Mostly Google+ is a novelty for me...and I can access it from work (they have facebook blocked but haven't caught on to Google+ yet)

Have you heard about the new profile they just started rolling out? It's basically going to keep track of your life story, they're going to be trying hard to get people to enter their medical history into it, then they'll be selling that information to insurance companies.

Also, FB is changing their privacy policy yet again. Before, information about you could only be stored for 24 hours, then all those apps you've authorized would have to re-download. Now, if you decide to put, say, your home address into your profile and then 10 seconds later think "no, actually that's not a good idea," too bad. It's already too late, and everyone who got that information from your profile (all those apps again, plus Facebook advertisers in general, have your information and they can keep it forever. It will no longer matter what changes you make to your privacy settings, if a piece of information was public for even a second, it's available to anyone who wants to purchase it, forever.

Which is why I'm deleting my account before they get to me in the rollout.

[betenoire]

Have you heard about the new profile they just started rolling out? It's basically going to keep track of your life story, they're going to be trying hard to get people to enter their medical history into it, then they'll be selling that information to insurance companies.

No kidding? That's facebook, right? Out MEDICAL histories? So nuts!

[SecretAgentMa'am]

No kidding? That's facebook, right? Out MEDICAL histories? So nuts!

Yep, Facebook. A lot of people seem to forget that if you're not paying for a service, but the service is making a lot of money, then you are the product being sold. The same is true of Google+, which obviously isn't perfect, but far less invasive than Facebook.

[AtLast]

No kidding? That's facebook, right? Out MEDICAL histories? So nuts!

Our rights to privacy have never been so fragile and on the verge of extinction. We pay a high price for the wonders and advantages of technology via the web.

My neice just became a licensed private detective after many years in the insurance claims industry. She decided to put her skills into a means to retire from working for a huge workers comp corporation and work for herself. She showed me the spyware available and just how easy getting information on all of us is just via the internet. From cell phone numbers (oh, you thought these could not be reversed for address, or your tower pings gps coordinates not followed unless by police?), to really very scary access to medical records, including mental health records. Yes, some of these programs require investigative credentials and licensing to aquire- but we all know about black markets, right? Things like sealed records, forget it!! Want to know the details of someones divorce decree? You can get that. Want a list of presciptions someone takes, no problem.

Crazy scary!!!

[Jett]

Yeah I've been toying with deleting my FB account for some time now... especially when I clicked a few things and found my entire contact list from my Blackberry... friends, family yada yada.

And... so... since I have quite a few of you here in this thread there, if I go poof from your friends list just know I didn't un-friend you... =)

[DapperButch]

Well I've got both right now. Mostly Google+ is a novelty for me...and I can access it from work (they have facebook blocked but haven't caught on to Google+ yet)

I asked b/c I read an article that included comments from people. It was that day they did whatever the latest change is that everyone hates. Anyway, people in the comments section were talking about ditching FB and switching to Google+