The Independent Gay Forum

MM | November 8, 2006, 8:13am | #

A very apropos piece in light of the latest rounds of bans on marriage, civil unions, and, in some places, anything resembling marriage or civil unions. The reality is, that in most of the U.S., gay men are now officially denied access to institutions/legal arrangements that help men transition into adulthood. If society refuses to help gay men become adults, and even places obstacles in our way, then we will have to do it ourselves. Paul makes this point well.

Jimmy Gatt | November 8, 2006, 8:36am | #

This article is atrocious and does not in any way exhibit an "independent" gay thinker. On the contrary, I see much an impassioned expression same excrement passing as "thought" that has repelled me from of any kind of "gay community" since I came out.

First, the author mindlessly asserts that there is a "gay community" in spite of the fact that I and many other gays are certainly not part of this community and have no desire to be part of it. The author writes, "More than anything, gay is about Civic Life. The gay community is an affinity group." If I may be so frank, I share hardly anything in common with the preening, feminine, reflexively-leftist gym rodents that make me gag every time they open their sculpted mouths to unleash their torrent of insipid drama. If this makes me not part of "THE gay community", then I welcome that exclusion with great pleasure. After all, this is the "Independent" gay forum, and I don't want to be associated with those people, much less be dependent upon them. On the contrary, I am succeeding at integrating with the majority-straight population, and if that pisses off the "gay community" then I readily interpret that anger as indication that I am doing the right thing.

Second, the author seems to insist that all gay people should, or maybe even must, form some kind of community, presumably centered solely around the fact that we happen to be turned on by the members of our own gender. The author idealistically writes, "[The gay community] is about interpersonal empathy, friendships, social and political progress and cultural creativity." How retarded! Why can't *any* community be about those things? Why must those things solely be relegated to gays? And what makes the author think that those aspects of the "gay community" are more important and defining to its members than the more salient ones?

Which brings me to my third objection. The author steadfastly refuses to criticize this "gay community" when it decidedly deserves to be criticized for its disgusting behavior. One only needs to open their eyes and casually observe a "gay pride" event to realize that it has nothing to do with rights, liberties, or the end of abuses and everything to do with catering to the drug-using, obsessive sex circuit-party crowd who are eager for an opportunity to expose their particular sexual fetish for the world to see. Rampant drug abuse and having obsessive sex *are* the salient, defining points of this "gay community". The author dismisses this fact with a casual, "That is a sad misunderstanding." If it is such a "misunderstanding", then why do I see so much drug use and rampant sex in this "gay community"? Is there any small wonder why gyms and salons are so popular with the members of this community? They are solely for the purpose of getting more sex for gays. Period. My cocaine-using straight friend easily admits that he gets his best drugs from gays, hands down. Should this strike any of us as a surprise? If *anything* would benefit the members of this "community", it would be some warranted self-criticism. It is long overdue, particularly considering the numbers of gay men who have died from this unhealthy lifestyle.

Instead, for pointing these things out, I will be ridiculed, attacked, and denigrated. All the more reason not to be part of this "community".

What a sad, stupid article! I bemoan the fact that it deigns to appear in something called the "independent gay forum" because it has all the hallmarks of being lock-step in-line with politically correct gay thought.

I will also add here that, more than anything else, becoming an adoptive parent, a GAY adoptive parent, has turned me into a gay adult. To this, the author would state, "That sort of unprovable metaphysical speculation won't convince many people." I suspect that the author fails to see the irony in this postmodern stupid-speak of a dismissal for precisely the same reason that he has given the boilerplate defense of "gay community": The fast-track gay lifestyle of rampant sexual activity and rampant drug abuse does, in fact, bring a community simply because humans are social creatures and bond over shared interests, no matter how base, shallow, or self-destructive those interests may be. Yes, it is hedonistic and thus "childish", producing a dearth of gay adults for those individual who find this lifestyle too much fun to abandon. But becoming an adult and remaining in that lifestyle (which the author tacitly identifies as "the gay community") are mutually-exclusive. And the author isn't ready to admit this. Hence, denial.

Instead, the author offers this as a proposed path forward:

"We have all seen people behave stupidly and thought to ourselves, 'Oh, grow up!' Maybe we should occasionally say that out loud."

I suppose this passes as "bravery" to someone in the "gay community" -- to criticize gays (only "occasionally" though) with the charge to "Oh, grow up!". It stands to reason that the author could only muster a criticism that one hears in middle school considering that abandoning this childish lifestyle is precisely what the author is fain to do.

Disdain,
Jimmy Gatt

Northeast Libertarian | November 8, 2006, 12:11pm | #

Oh dear.

Anyway, in response to the original article, one of the opportunities that this sort of cultural development allows us to do is to build our own institutions, fund them, etc. in a voluntary, co-operative way.

When that's developed (and it largely is forming as we speak), we'll have our own infrastructure to provide many of the cultural, social and economic institutions that make gay adult life vulnerable. Given the present lack of liberty that the old-party system has provided, we have to do things on our own.

We have two choices -- either build something for ourselves, or whine that what's clearly visible in certain parts of the gay universe isn't good enough (ala the prior post). Only one will get me where I want to go.

And given the continued collapse and liquidation of the heterosexual "Christian fundamentalist" view of family, it's altogether possible that what we do as queer thirtysomethings will have a significant impact on what "society" chooses to do later on. Not to mention the fact that we'll have done it on our own, as a voluntary set of associations, rather than through the centrally-planned dicta preferred by the "left" and "right" alike.

Regan DuCasse | November 8, 2006, 12:32pm | #

I wholeheartedly agree that the inclusion of gays and lesbians in traditional institutions is an idea whose time has come.
This IS a matter of civil rights, liberty and responsibility.

However, the cues taken from previous groups, their activity and strategy is very important.
During the highest and most intense aspects of the civil rights movement, blacks were seen marching on picket lines, registering voters, commanding the broadcast media as sober, well dressed and serious participants in their own destiny. Non violent, and non threatening...but compelling and right all the same.
When gays and lesbians are in the media, those who attack gay lives do so with the images of bacchanals, and events that are virtually excluding children, extended family and modest dress.
There seems to be MUCH more of that, because large sums of money are expended to produce circuit, White and other concert sized parties, and seemingly less on the support that gay children and children of gays and lesbians require.
It never fails, caricatures of nuns, females and fetishists are ALWAYS present whenever a large gay and lesbian function occurs.
It attracts this element as well as the media element that will zero in on the most theatrically visible in the vicinity.
Black people, Jews...had no time for parties and using precious financial resources on exposing more negative images than positive ones.
Look at what the gangsta rap, hip/hop culture has done to young blacks.
They fall right into the same trap. It's all about conspicuous consumption, hypersexualized images, submissive oversexed females, parties and gun toting.
If you don't care, and spend more time playing...or appear to.
Nobody else will care either and just like blacks, gays and lesbians can least afford to park it on the dance floor.
It's not over until gay folks ARE equal in the eyes of the law.
Not just invited to the right parties, but invited to ALL aspects of American life.
I agree that there are many gays and lesbians out there, serious, sober and very committed to not only each other, but their children, churches, communities and social safety.
Straight people still own the party image of gay people because gay folks LET them.
There will be time enough to celebrate.
Thus far, considering these state to state marriage amendments, adoption and faith crisis in America in gay lives...the work is hardly done.

kittynboi | November 8, 2006, 2:10pm | #

I'm a gay adult and where I am is usually one of the following; cleaning the rabbit cages out, feeding the rabbits, playing videogames, reading, drawing, paying bills, or cooking some food.

""""It never fails, caricatures of nuns, females and fetishists are ALWAYS present whenever a large gay and lesbian function occurs.""""

If you think this is restricted to gays then you've obviously never been to a goth club in your life.

And its no more objectionable there than it is anywhere else. You people are some of the most thinned skinned pussies I've ever seen.

ReganDuCasse | November 9, 2006, 11:33am | #

Oh no, I know you are absolutely correct.
One could also point to the Mummer's, Mardi Gras and Doo Dah parades.
The problem is, nobody is using those occasions to deny heterosexuals their right to marry, have children or serve in traditional paramilitary or military institutions.
Nobody spots a heterosexual half dressed at Mardi Gras and would immediately put in a state amendment that that person is automatically unfit to be a mother or father.
Perspective is what I'm looking for.
Since the straight folks keep demanding control of gay lives, and then screwing up gay life where more important factors are cocerned, I'm of the school that no one can afford to keep handing them the bullets to use in THEIR gun.

Jimmy Gatt | November 9, 2006, 11:34am | #

kittynboi wrote:

"If you think this is restricted to gays then you've obviously never been to a goth club in your life."

The difference that you fail to admit is that a gay club is identified as a "gay" club, whereas a goth club is NOT identified as a "straight" club. Regan DuCasse (the commenter you stupidly insulted) is absolutely correct: "gay" events are bacchanals, and for you to deny this or fail to criticize it when it is harmful is only indicative of your adoration of it and continued insistence that rampant, in-your-face sexual fetishes and hard-drug abuse is the righteous sine qua non of "gay culutre".

Did I peg you wrong, "boi"? If so, then please, by all means, offer up a reasonable defense of "gay culutre" and why my criticisms of it are incorrect and unwarranted.

"You people are some of the most thinned skinned pussies I've ever seen."

This is not an issue of prudishness, but rather one of taste and fearless criticism of the elements in "gay community" which harm us as individuals. But since when should good taste or awareness of consequences prevent you from having fun, right "boi"?

Contempt,
Jimmy Gatt

Jimmy Gatt | November 9, 2006, 11:51am | #

Northeast Libertarian wrote:

"We have two choices -- either build something for ourselves, or whine that what's clearly visible in certain parts of the gay universe isn't good enough (ala the prior post). Only one will get me where I want to go."

That's a very shallow interpretation of what I wrote. What I am criticizing in my first reply is not only the pathetic fact that "gay community" is defined by drug abuse and promiscuous sex, but also an impassioned and myopic denial of this fact coupled with pollyannish ideals of what "gay community" might be if all of its shallow, petty, and self-destructive aspects are blithely ignored. It is not whining -- it is condemnation, and it is warranted.

I, too, have had to forge my own path and figure out for myself what it means to be a gay man. I live in the suburbs among conservative Christians as a gay adoptive parent in a ten-year relationship. Not only does this defy why the Christian conservatives claim that the "gay lifestyle" is supposed to be for me, but it also defies what the droves of gay people living in the gay ghetto expect that I do to be a True(TM) gay man, and many of them hate me for it. Honestly, I detest the fact that my family is tarnished by their disgusting image. I may be gay, but I don't want any part of the "gay community" until they can choose to define themselves by more virtuous qualities. In other words, be adults.

kittynboi | November 9, 2006, 1:31pm | #

"""" for you to deny this or fail to criticize it when it is harmful is only indicative of your adoration of it and continued insistence that rampant, in-your-face sexual fetishes and hard-drug abuse is the righteous sine qua non of "gay culutre".""""

I fail to criticize a lot of things I don't adore. Thats because I don't let zealous ideologues force me to take a position on every last little thing in the world.

And I can say with some confidence that, at best, the two of us have an equal amount to do with the gay community you claim to hate so. The last gay event I went to was a political rally. I've only been to a gay club once in my life, since the goth and industrial clubs play better music anyway. I've never been to a circuit party, I've never taken any drugs in my life, and the only time I ever drank anything alcoholic was in 9th grade when my mom gave me a glass of wine on new years, and I thought it was awful. I've never had a "hook-up", and I've actually only had sex with one person in my life. Needless to say, I don't spend any time in bars, unless its a sushi bar.

So I have as much to do with the gay community as you do, and my lack of contact with it isn't because I dislike it, but because most people in the gay community don't share my interests in most things.

What I DO have is a long history of defending things I don't like from others if I find their criticism wrong, shallow, stupid, uninformed, or if it gets on my bad side in whatever way.

I don't see the gay community as particularly atrocious or notably deviant, but maybe I'm not as easily fazed as you are. I've noticed that a lot of right leaning gays come off as being very fragile and thinned skinned, whether this is genuine or just an attempt to put on a front of moral indignation I have no idea, but I find gays who go in to moral panics and practice arrogant patronizing finger wagging just as annoying as I find the christians and muslims who do the same.

All your talk of adulthood, virture, morals, etc. etc. sends up red flags for me, because I've come to distrust people who speak in such terms due to their track records on what they want and how they try to get it. I don't like control freaks very much. Im a bit too passive and reclusive and mundane for them to try and control what I do or what I have access too, except the occasional feverish spells of videogame banning they get in, but moralizing control freaks keep me busy enough in opposing their efforts to control people who aren't me anyway.

Most of the die hard homophobes out there are NOT people who one day saw a gay pride parade and suddenly went from support or apathy to vitrolic hatred. Most all of them have hated gays for a long time and its heavily embedded in to their minds. Changing our image won't do a damn thing to change their minds, because most people who are that rabidly committed to an ideology are in it for emotional reasons, because of parental and social influence, or so forth.

That very few of them can give rational arguments for their anti-gay rhetoric shows that most of them don't have logical a to b to c REASONS for opposing gay rights, but its based on things that are outside of or opposed to typical rational thought, and its fitting to quote Bertnard Russell here, when he said; "You cannot reason a man out of something he was not reasoned in to."

While that may not be true in every case, I think it is true 95% of the time. Usually, the only thing that can turn a homophobe is not an argument nor image, but finding out a loved on is gay, LOSING a loved one to anti gay violence, or occasionally long term exposure to gays that dispels most of their preconceptions about them.

And many straights oppose gay adoption because they think all gays, gay men in particular, are child molesters. And they don't make exceptions for the "normal" gays like you, they think ALL gays are pedophiles, that its something innate to our being. To the vast majority, gay=pedophile in all cases. You may think that the anti-gay forces see you and other "adult" gays as "normal" and no different as straights, but most of them don't, and never will. Its not a matter of how you act or present yourself, because then they will assume you're just hiding the bad things they expect of you.

Its also one of the most damaging strategies I can think of in the long term to try and win right sby cleaning up our image, whether its needed or not. I think that the only way to assure we have a stable society not divided and rbaidly at each others throats over every little thing is that we need to convince people that they are going to have to learn to live with things they don't like, which I think is a far more "adult" philosophy than everyone doing all they can to win the approval of homophobes.

My parents always tried to get it across to me when I was a kid that not everything will go my way, not everyone will think like I do, not everything will be how I want it to be, and that you just have to learn to live in a world that doesn't work how you want it to work.

Many of the anti-gay opponents are the exact opposite of that mindset and they seem to think the entire world HAS to work like they want it to, that they are entitled to live in a world entirely of their design and approval, and saying we should give them what they want in hopes that they MIGHT be nice to us and give us rights just feeds their delusion and makes as beggars to our own demise.

Regan DuCasse | November 9, 2006, 2:56pm | #

kittynboi-
The most unfortunate aspect of what you say is you're right in many ways. The general public is either ignorant, unempathetic or apathetic.
What they do or don't accept is fine. What I most of all try to contribute to all of this, as a woman...a black woman at that-is that there should NEVER be Constitututional discrimination against a group whose presence will ever go away, and what ignorance of whom is changing.
Our laws must live up to the creed of equality, redress for legitimate dscrimination.
The voting public should never have been allowed to decide how gay people are to care for each other and their children.
Their mantra that the majority is all that is required is wrong.
The majority was wrong about integration, slavery, women's suffrage and equal opportunity as well.
And the majority of voters who put discrimination into their state amendments will be sorry for it.
They made a mess, instead of sticking to the standard still met by gay people.
The voters moved their standards, changed them up in a way no one else is subject to and no one else would or could meet.
THIS is what, however disapproving a public might be.
The Constitution and courts is supposed to PROTECT.
Now that same voting public has broken all kinds of other Constitutional laws that ONLY APPLY to gay people and only could.
Where gay people are concerned, they moved the goal post....and that's wrong.
Equality IS the goal post.
Most ridiculous of all, and completely hypocritical is the fact that ideology, religious commitment IS mutable. Changable and even fleeting.
Yet, those who are of it, expect Constitutional protections for yet, yet would have the basic withdrawn from a single group with the expectation and argument that being gay is a mutable characteristic undeserving of protection on any level.
So gay people don't have to be liked or accepted.
Just treated equally in the law.
Period.

kittynboi | November 9, 2006, 4:38pm | #

""""So gay people don't have to be liked or accepted.
Just treated equally in the law.""""

Exactly. People don't have to like me, just as long as they don't bother me. I'm more concerned with having equal rights under the law and then just making my own way in life as I see fit, not turning my life in to a never ending publicity campaign for what conservative gays think we should all be like.

Northeast Libertarian | November 9, 2006, 5:15pm | #

the pathetic fact that "gay community" is defined by drug abuse and promiscuous sex, but also an impassioned and myopic denial of this fact coupled with pollyannish ideals of what "gay community" might be if all of its shallow, petty, and self-destructive aspects are blithely ignored

Sounds like you don't know very many gay people, outside of a couple of people who have turned you down at the urban gay club scene.

Please don't confuse your lack of experience with everyday gay people with expertise on why "those people" are so dramatically inferior to you, passionately lonely in your moral virtue. Martyr complexes are generally tiresome affairs.

Sacramento Pete | November 9, 2006, 11:30pm | #

Last March here in Sacramento, I volunteered at Queer Youth Day in which 500 high school aged members of GSAs from across California converged on the Capitol to lobby their elected officials. Think of it as a gay Junior State day. One of the event’s least impressive aspects, though apparently still notable for this comment, was how average the kids looked. No nun costumes, no drugs, no funny hair, no disco, although a few of them had in fact dressed up for the occasion: in suits!

Also joining us that day at the Capitol were (I thought) at least a thousand raving, bullhorn blowing, sign carrying, rabidly evangelical protesters. They lined the route the kids took in their short one block “march” to the Capitol and were restricted to the sidewalks a safe distance from our outdoor rally by more than a few police officers. The gay adults present locked arms in a cordon around the kids. Even at quite a distance from us, the noise of the protesters was serious competition for the non stop cheers of our pep rally. Everyone was expressing themselves. Democracy works.

So I was also impressed a few hours later as I was leaving. With the crowds broken up, GSA students were wandering back from their lobbying efforts to their busses individually and in small groups. I was only able to recognize a few from having seen them earlier that day. Likewise, the protestors may have been wandering around as well, but I couldn’t tell. Without the politics, everyone had pretty much blended together.

Community may be something ephemeral that happens only in aggregate. You may know what constitutes a community, but I would ask whose community where and when? I know I don’t often like the madness of crowds, and that’s why I avoid them. I also know change happens because I’m 53 and never had a GSA, and that these young adults are an indication of how our community is changing.

EssEm | November 10, 2006, 9:28am | #

Close, but not quite. The issue is indeed adulthood, but I see it more deeply as manhood. Becoming a man.

kittynboi | November 10, 2006, 3:15pm | #

Then perhaps you could elaborate more on that.

Jimmy Gatt | November 10, 2006, 4:12pm | #

kittynboi:

First, I apologize for grouping you in with the fast-track sex-and-drugs lifestyle that I deplore and has become identified with so many gays as the defining aspects of "gay culture". I have some anger toward the self-important and insulting aspects of some gays toward me because I do not wish to be a part of "gay culture".

Second, your personal attacks are unwarranted. I object to being called a "control freak" simply because I desire to live a virtuous life. I do not claim to have virtues that anyone else need share, nor do I claim to be better than anyone else. This does not mean that I am forbidden from criticizing others when they engage in behavior that slanders me simply because they, like me, happen to be turned on by people of their own gender. This is illustrated by the last time I went to a "gay pride" parade. I was there with my partner and son (who was one-year-old at the time) as well as with my mom. We're watching the parade go by and some people dressed up in leather, one of them wearing a saddle with a bit and bridle, go prancing by. My mom turns to me and says nervously, "We know that you're some of the normal gay people." But that stuck in my mind quite clearly: my being at "gay pride" meant that I was going to be identified with those freaks. My presence at gay pride says to onlookers, "Those saddled leather freaks are me!" As a gay adoptive parent, I am already under intense scrutiny to be a better parent than all of the straight parents, since any failure in my parenting will be seen by skeptics as being due to my being gay, and I am fully aware that all gay parents may very well be judged by my parenting skills. Hence, I do not in any way take kindly to anything which fosters the notion of my being a gay adoptive parent being linked to the parade of sexual fetishes which is undoubtedly the very essence of "gay pride". And that same argument extends to the criticims I have about "gay culture", criticisms which you have
neither disputed nor said were unwarranted.

Third, as long as we're talking about "red flags", your words seem to indicate that you have a persecution complex, and that is something that I have seen in many, many gay people. It is the primary reason that my partner and I no longer attend the gay parents' group in my metro area: it was filled with people who were always expressing paranoia about gay-bashers and how they threatened their family. It was constantly fearful and negative, and we got away from that. I think that kind of insular behavior that is so frequently exhibited by gays ("gay ghetto") encourages paranoid thinking, and the fact remains that my partner and I have *never* had a problem living in a conservative suburb. In fact, we even enrolled our son in the allegedly gay-bashing Cub Scouts, and we are out and everyone is okay with it. I see my son's Cub Scout troup having gay parents as something which will further t
he cause of gay people much more than sequestering ourselves away from straight people.

Fourth, most of our friends, acquaintances, and family are straight. We are integrationists, after all! And we have met many of them who have A) not only met many gay people who are in the "gay culture" and they, like me, think it's gross, and B) are surprised and relieved to find "normal" gay people like us. You know, guys who don't talk with that artificial, faggy accent and who don't live up to that superficial, feminized stereotype. While it is certainly true that the world is filled with bigots whose mind won't be changed, it's also filled with people who, like me, don't appreciate what "gay culture" is. The good news is that there are more and more gay people like me every day, and the advent of gay parents is, I think, the most signi
ficant driving force behind this cultural change.

Fifth, on the one hand you write: "Usually, the only thing that can turn a homophobe is not an argument nor image, but finding out a loved on is gay, LOSING a loved one to anti gay violence, or occasionally long term exposure to gays that dispels most of their preconceptions about them." Yet, on the other hand you write: "I think that the only way to assure we have a stable society not divided and rbaidly at each others throats over every little thing is that we need to convince people that they are going to have to learn to live with things they don't like, which I think is a far more 'adult' philosophy than everyone doing all they can to win the approval of homophobes." How did you intend to "convince" anyone to live with things they don't like when you have admitted that "argument" isn't going to work? You can't have it both ways. In any case, I completely disagree that changing one's image won't work because it contradicts what I've experienced in my own life. If you want to live in "gay culture", then you're likely going to be sequestered in the "gay ghetto". Live how you want, but know that my choice not to be part of your "gay culture" doesn't make me any less gay than you, and, furthermore, I do NOT permit you (a "boi", apparently) to speak for me as a gay man.

Jimmy Gatt | November 10, 2006, 4:21pm | #

Northeast Libertarian:

You're correct that I only have a few gay friends (do they qualify as "everyday"?), but that's largely due to the fact that we don't venture far our mostly-straight neighborhood to the "gay ghetto". I've never been part of the "urban club scene" (given that I think it sucks) so your stupid insult looks a lot like projection to me.

None of those people whose CHOICES I condemn are "inferior" to me. Instead, I am insulted by A) the notion that they represent me simply because we are all turned on by members of our own gender, B) the notion that I should be in a "community" with a fast-track drug & sex superficial feminine lifestyle in order to be "gay", and C) the notion that sex and drugs are somehow NOT defining factors of "gay community".

I invite you to criticize the points I made instead of criticizing me, because it only looks like my points are touching a nerve when you try to talk down to me. Stay on topic!

kittynboi | November 10, 2006, 5:36pm | #

""""First, I apologize for grouping you in with the fast-track sex-and-drugs lifestyle that I deplore and has become identified with so many gays as the defining aspects of "gay culture". I have some anger toward the self-important and insulting aspects of some gays toward me because I do not wish to be a part of "gay culture".""""

Yeah, I see this reaction a lot, though it confuses me to some degree, but I guess I just react differently to these things.

""""Second, your personal attacks are unwarranted. I object to being called a "control freak" simply because I desire to live a virtuous life. I do not claim to have virtues that anyone else need share, nor do I claim to be better than anyone else. """"

Yes, but you come off as just the opposite, whether you intend to or not.

""""And that same argument extends to the criticims I have about "gay culture", criticisms which you have
neither disputed nor said were unwarranted.""""

Criticism is fine if done constructively, without finger wagging, emotionalism, and whole lot of whining. But it seems to me 90% of all criticism of everything falls in to that description.

""""Third, as long as we're talking about "red flags", your words seem to indicate that you have a persecution complex, and that is something that I have seen in many, many gay people. It is the primary reason that my partner and I no longer attend the gay parents' group in my metro area: it was filled with people who were always expressing paranoia about gay-bashers and how they threatened their family.""""

I'm paranoid in general, and I'm just that way about many many things.

"""" I think that kind of insular behavior that is so frequently exhibited by gays ("gay ghetto") encourages paranoid thinking, and the fact remains that my partner and I have *never* had a problem living in a conservative suburb. In fact, we even enrolled our son in the allegedly gay-bashing Cub Scouts, and we are out and everyone is okay with it. I see my son's Cub Scout troup having gay parents as something which will further t
he cause of gay people much more than sequestering ourselves away from straight people.""""

Yes, but it sounds like you live in a more liberal part of the country. Some places are more accepting of gays than others.

""""Fourth, most of our friends, acquaintances, and family are straight. """"

So are mine.

""""And we have met many of them who have A) not only met many gay people who are in the "gay culture" and they, like me, think it's gross, and B) are surprised and relieved to find "normal" gay people like us. """"

Most everyone I have known is way more degenerate than anything in gay "culture" (I hate the c word for reasons I won't bother to go in to here.) I've ever seen. And every one of those degenerates is straight. And I'm related to a good deal of them.

"""" While it is certainly true that the world is filled with bigots whose mind won't be changed, it's also filled with people who, like me, don't appreciate what "gay culture" is.""""

Well, for everything that exists there will be at least someone who dislikes it. Thats just how things are, and as long as they're content to leave it alone and avoid it as I avoid the things I don't like, thats fine.

"""" How did you intend to "convince" anyone to live with things they don't like when you have admitted that "argument" isn't going to work?""""

Convincing them to accept and LIKE gay people is impossible. Convincing them that they don't get to control everyones lives is not impossible. They can still go on hating us, but they don't get to tell us what we can and can't do.

"""" If you want to live in "gay culture", then you're likely going to be sequestered in the "gay ghetto". """"

I'm "sequestered" in an ordinary apartment complex. As far as I know there are no other gay people in this complex.

"""" Live how you want, but know that my choice not to be part of your "gay culture" doesn't make me any less gay than you, and, furthermore, I do NOT permit you (a "boi", apparently) to speak for me as a gay man."""

All of this after apologizing for categorizing me with gay "culture"? So, which is it? Am I a part of it or not? Since I don't go to gay clubs, bars, don't hook up, don't have any gay friends in real life, etc. I would imagine I'm just as outside it as you are.

Unless you know of something else that makes me part of it, that can make up for me not having any involvement in all the things that make it up, in which case please tell me what it is since its something I am totally unaware of.

""""I invite you to criticize the points I made instead of criticizing me, because it only looks like my points are touching a nerve when you try to talk down to me. Stay on topic!
""""

As far as I can see, you're giving him a lot about yourself to criticize

Bobby | November 10, 2006, 7:52pm | #

Names like "Queer Youth Day" is what angers me about the gay community. What about Nigger Youth Day? Spick Youth Day? Kike Youth Day? Gook Youth Day? How come only gays (and black rappers) use derogatory terms for each other?

The term "queer" makes me cringe. What lesson are we teaching those 500 kids? The world is nuts!

kittynboi | November 10, 2006, 8:08pm | #

I also dislike the use of the term queer for the reasons stated.

raj | November 10, 2006, 11:54pm | #

Jimmy Gatt | November 10, 2006, 4:21pm |

Instead, I am insulted by A) the notion that they represent me simply because we are all turned on by members of our own gender, B) the notion that I should be in a "community" with a fast-track drug & sex superficial feminine lifestyle in order to be "gay", and C) the notion that sex and drugs are somehow NOT defining factors of "gay community".

Um, you might want to examine yourself and figure out why you apparently believe that (using your indicia)

(A) they (whoever they are) represent anything other than themselves;

(B) you believe that someone has the notion that you should be in a "community" with anyone other than those that you want to be in "community" with; and

(C) sex and drugs ARE somehow defining factors of what you consider to be THE "gay community."

I find all of them nonsensical. Regarding (A), they (whoever they are) will do what they want to do, as (presumably) will you. I would surmise that, what you really resent, is that they (etc.) get more media attention than you do, and you resent it. AFAIC, I let them run their lives as they wish, and I will run my life as I wish, and, quite frankly, you should consider running your life as you wish, and ignore the rest. You can resent them (etc.) all you wish, but that isn't going to stop them from doing or acting as they (etc.) wish.

Regarding (B), I think, enough said. Frankly, it is probably your problem that you apparently believe that someone else has the notion that you should be in a "community" with people who you don't want to be in an community with.

Regarding (C), quite frankly, this is silly. If you don't want to do promiscuous sex and drugs, don't. If some in your circle of friends shun you for that, that is your issue, not theirs', but you might want to get other friends for your circle. On the other hand, we (my partner and I) have yet to be involved with a circle of friends who demanded that we engage in promiscuous sex or drugs so, as far as I can tell, this issue is not as problemmatic as you seem to believe. Indeed, as far as I can tell, this objection is nothing more than a fantasy on your part.

This is a long-winded way of saying that you should grow up, do your own thing, and not particularly care what your fantasies lead you to believe what is required of you to be "successful" among gays.

Sacramento Pete | November 11, 2006, 1:24am | #

As for “Queer”, it wasn’t my choice.
http://www.gsanetwork.org/qyad/

I’ve been part of discussions where LGBT folks sought a replacement for “gay”, “queer”, etc., much like other minorities have periodically redefined how they refer to themselves. There wasn’t much consensus.

Do you suppose heterosexuals ever sit around referring to “straight culture” as if it were this all encompassing, monumental entity? Do your heterosexual friends fret about their sexual identity because there are other heterosexuals who are drug addicts, prostitutes and/or criminals?

Bobby | November 11, 2006, 7:38pm | #

"I also dislike the use of the term queer for the reasons stated."

---I'm glad, Kittinboi, glad we agree on that.

Hey Sacramento, nobody blames you for anything, we all know that organization's name had nothing to do with you.

In 60s it was homosexual or homophile, in the 70s and 80s the term was gay, in 1995, it was GLBT, then it became LGBT (men are evil, so the lesbians had to come up first), and slowly the term "queer" has been invading everything, from queer studies in college, to queer websites, music, etc. Sometimes the "Q" even stands for "questioning." As it, LGBTQ. So now, people who are not even sure if they're gay or not have been included to our community. Gee, I'm overflowing with pride.

What scares me is the day the "f-g" word replaces the "q" word.

David H | November 11, 2006, 7:46pm | #

Mr. Gatt,

I, too, cringe at the sight of an old leather man running amok on the news throughout coverage of a local gay pride event. I, too, find the fast-sex and drug culture abhorring and immature. I would add that I do not find particularly endearing the politically apathetic, entertainment culture obsessed gay twenty-somethings that make up a good portion of my dating pool. I recently experienced a moment of sheer disillusionment as I watched a large group of gay men and (I assume) straight women humping each other on the ground of a dance floor to a song of nothing but male chanting and loud bass thumps. They looked primitive, like monkeys.

However, that is about where we stop agreeing. Your assertion that you have free reign to criticize others because you feel that they directly represent you is annoying. Of course, you have the right to criticize others, but the least effective and reasonable argument for others to not have lots of sex, do drugs, wear leather, etc. is because “it makes me look bad.”

Anyone on the other end of that silliness should rightfully tell you to shove your criticism up your ass. You apparently feel that the gay community should do its best to mirror the straight community—or what you would label the straight community, meaning the nuclear family (and perhaps its knock-offs, like the single mom).

Except that there is no straight community. There is the American family, the nuclear family, and it would appear that your idea of a mature, sensible gay man (and I do mean man, this forum seems to have forgotten that there are these people called lesbians) is a father, and hell, a sexual conservative.

Like I said, I cringe, too, when I watch TV and see gays represented by leather daddies. And I balk at gay magazines, obsessed with youth and image. But place the blame where it lies—on the media that out of hundreds or even thousands of GLBT people at a particular event, chooses to single out the leather people. This happened in my home town at a small gay pride, and the leather-clad man that chose to represent us all was actually the only man dressed in leather at the entire event.

And as for a culture that’s obsessed with sex—that’s really not something owned by gays. Maxim is “man’s” magazine, and that’s pretty degenerate. Popular television and movies are obsessed with sex and often drugs, and certainly violence—one up from the gay community. You can’t blame just gays for gay culture being overly sexual. It’s popular culture, too.

I know, I know. That’s not what you and your neighbors are like. You abhor those things mirrored in “straight culture” too, right? Except, like I said, there is no straight culture. You’re advocating for gay culture to mirror family culture, and I for one would not take kindly to being represented by boy scouting “Stepford” gays, with draconian ideas about sexuality and proper dress.

It is perhaps unfortunate that our community’s meeting place is a bar, or community centers where the idea of gay is still somewhat rooted in sexual exploration, but this is to be expected from a culture that began on the idea of sexual revolution—before family was even considered an option.

If you want better representation for the Stepfords, then by-gum, do exactly what this article advocates. Make yourself seen. Start a group or whatever. Organize voter registration and protests and public events that are family-centric, and raise awareness for gay families. Don’t just wail and talk about what you have the right to “criticize.” If you’re underrepresented in gay culture, then just accept that you’re not a cliché. Congratulations.

And things aren’t as bad as you’d make them out to be, anyway. When I’ve seen media coverage of gays getting married, for instance, they’ve almost always been rather normal looking couples. True, the Bravo specials have focused on some pretty silly, flower and catering obsessed fashion gays, but that’s reality television—and a larger point here is that we simply don’t, as a community or as individuals, have control over our representation in the media. Certainly, those sex-crazed druggie gays didn’t force themselves to become a major cliché in gay culture. I think that might have as much to do with sexual deviancy stereotypes furthered by bigots looking to discredit the gay community as much as the community iself.

And even we did have control, I do not think the good alternative is substituting family culture. We may be confusing the definition of culture with population. You do not have the right to define a culture in the image of your own life and values simply because you share its primary characteristic. Culture is not defined in a democratic process, or even a reasonable one; it arises from those parts of a defining characteristic that are both most visible and / or most represented within that group. The only way you have a chance at changing gay culture is by better representing yourself and those like you.

Interestingly, that’ll probably be a pretty hard sell. I mean, if the only thing distinguishable about you from conservative culture (which it sounds like you fit, with your attitudes towards feminine gay men, sexual deviancy, and family) is that you like the same-gender, then you’re advocating for the disintegration of gay culture, whatever that may be, into family culture. Maybe that’s what you want. But even dropping the gratuitous sex and drugs would not just turn gays into family people, evidenced as per me and kittynboi. And how dare you, sharing only my values of liking the same gender and not liking drugs and promiscuous sex, pretend to speak for me as a gay man by advocating the gay community better reflect you and your values.

Oh, and condemnation of feminine gay men as “faggy” is homophobic at best, and misogynistic at worst. Gender and homosexuality are not completely separate descriptors, and regardless of their personal fashion or sexual demeanor, I’ve known many gay men who are simply effeminate. Get over it.

Sincerely,

David

(And signing things like "contempt" to your posts is silly and immature. Surely there is room for reasonable debate without foaming insults at the mouth everywhere like a rabid dog. You don't sound like a very nice person, and I'd hate to have to live in a household with an asshole like you.)

kittynboi | November 11, 2006, 10:11pm | #

""""And as for a culture that’s obsessed with sex—that’s really not something owned by gays. Maxim is “man’s” magazine, and that’s pretty degenerate. Popular television and movies are obsessed with sex and often drugs, and certainly violence—one up from the gay community. You can’t blame just gays for gay culture being overly sexual. It’s popular culture, too.""""

I think its just America in general thats obsessed with this stuff. Even in the "Red states" where "values" supposedly reign supreme, the exact same violent and sexual tv, movies, music, video games, magazines, comics, books, all of it, is just as popular there as everywhere else. The majority of us Americans like our coffee black, our objects of sexual desire (be they same or opposite gendered) dressed down and possesing perfect bodies, and out popular entertainment dripping with blood and covered in guts seared by hot lead.

And I don't think this is a big deal. Most all people who like those things, and to a lesser but still ubstantial extent in my experience, people who use drugs and sleep around, some of them may be shifty, annoying, or stupid, but for the most part they're harmless in any meanigful sense of the word.

People are just making a big deal over nothing and looking to make themselves feel better by condemning someone else.

As I said, I don't think any amount of convincing or arguing will get homophobes to like us, BUT, I do think people can be convinced with a minimal amount of effort to learn and live with things they don't like. You just have to make people realize they don't get to live in a world that totally meets their approval and they never will, because no one gets to live in a world that completly meets their expectations and lives up to their standards.

""""(And signing things like "contempt" to your posts is silly and immature. Surely there is room for reasonable debate without foaming insults at the mouth everywhere like a rabid dog. You don't sound like a very nice person, and I'd hate to have to live in a household with an asshole like you.)""""

I've found that most self identified conservative gays who come around here act like this to some degree. For whatever reason, they have a giant chip on their shoulder and a desperate need to prove something or other.

Blue Mann | November 11, 2006, 11:08pm | #

It is hilarious that the writer who complained about all the "insipid drama" of gay men is the same one who is signing his comments with disdain" and "contempt." Talk about a bitter, bitchy queen!!! Look in the mirror honey! You sound more like the community you despise than you might think!

Harke the Apostle | November 12, 2006, 4:32pm | #

I allways thought that adulthood was all about learning how to take responsibility, and not about conformism.
I think the answer to the 'age conundrum' is that many gay men retire from the scene after they reach a certain age, as they are simply no longer interested. I know many gays have a very fullfilling 'adult' life outside of the LGBT world.
As for the notion of 'gay adulthood', I don't see the need for it. The more general 'common adulthood' should be more than enough for all people.

dalea | November 12, 2006, 10:15pm | #

Kittenboi says: You people are some of the most thinned skinned pussies I've ever seen.

Bullseye. Thank you.

We are all part of the gay 'community' or 'culture' not because we signed up and got our secret decoder rings. We are in this because others put us here, into an abstract catagory. Which used to be 'perverts' or 'sexual deviants'. A great deal of intellectual and social effort went into replacing derogatory terms with the begnign 'gay community'. Which I regard as a great achievment, and much better than what went before.

Speaking of what went before. There was a long struggle that lead to adoption being possible for gays. I knew people who were barred by law from even talking to their children. It really pisses me off to hear people who had the ability to adopt made possible by years of struggle bitch about those who worked to make this possible.

Do you think things have always been as they are now? That all these nice suburban people decided to give things to us because we were such nice normal people? We got them because gay men and lesbians have fought for decades to achieve these. Leather bars, dyke bars and discos had fundraiser after fundraiser to pay for the struggle. The bars which you so disrespect were the meeting places for the projects that brought you the nice normal life you have. Leather men in particular have been at the center of the gay struggle. Have you no gratitude or respect for those who worked to get you where you are? Or were they supossed to do all this and then just disapere, so as not to offend your tender sensibilities? All this so gay men could be suburban housewives?

Harke makes a very good point.

Drag queens, leather guys and fat dykes carried the struggle forward while the nice suburban 'normal' gays cowered in their closets. There is a term black people used to use which describes the normal gays attitude: passing. Your 'I pass for straight' attitude is disgusting. I feel you should be ashamed of yourself and your disrespectful tone. And apologize to the first leather people you see.

mountain queen | November 13, 2006, 3:07am | #

yawn.

I_just_cannot_resist | November 13, 2006, 3:51am | #

Jimmy Gatt --

I toyed with the idea of a long, well thought-out response, then read David H's perfectly formed response, and realized I don't really need to do so.

However, there is one small thing he left out, and that is the task of pointing out the significant amount of hypocrisy you are spewing here. You condemn a segment of the American gay community (and contrary to what you believe - it is but a segment), then express incredulousness that any of *those* people have ever looked down their nose at you. It is quite obvious that you have nothing but contempt for them (exemplified by your oh-so-snippy sign offs), but believe that you yourself live far above anyone having contempt for the way you live your life.

I don't think it matters how you choose to live your life - whether you are sniffing poppers and grinding on the dance floor every night or living the proverbial "American Dream" raising 2.5 children in the house with a white picket fence - you sir, are quite simply a jerk, and I don't like you based on that alone. I'd venture that a large majority of those who you feel have slighted you have done so based on that fact as well. Don't mistake people simply not liking you for someone making a judgment about your life.

Jimmy Gatt | November 13, 2006, 8:26am | #

Yes, but you come off as just the opposite, whether you intend to or not.

I understand that. I certainly haven't been very generous with people here, and the fact that others have chosen to moronically attack me instead of address my argument has not made me feel any more charitable toward the rich and vibrant "gay culture". At the same time, it could be due to the fact that my criticisms are touching a nerve in you, and that's why you're inspired to call me a "jerk". I can't control the way you choose to perceive me.

Criticism is fine if done constructively, without finger wagging, emotionalism, and whole lot of whining. But it seems to me 90% of all criticism of everything falls in to that description.

In other words, there is no such thing as "constructive" criticism to you. I get it. All criticism is bad. Oh, wait, you said that is "seemed to you
" that only "90%" was "finger wagging", "emotionalism", and "a whole lot of whining". NOW I get it.

I'm paranoid in general, and I'm just that way about many many things.

You and many other gay men share this problem. It's a drag to hang around with people who have a persecution complex.

Yes, but it sounds like you live in a more liberal part of the country. Some places are more accepting of gays than others.

I live in the South. I live in a conservative suburb in a conservative state. Then again, you're paranoid.

Most everyone I have known is way more degenerate than anything in gay "culture" (I hate the c word for reasons I won't bother to go in to here.) I've ever seen. And every one of those degenerates is straight. And I'm related to a good deal of them.

I'm really sorry you live among a bunch of "degenerates". Feel free to criticize the people you choose to hang around with all you want. My criticism
s lie here: A) the notion that people in "gay culture" represent me simply because we are all turned on by members of our own gender, B) the notion tha
t I should be in a "community" with a fast-track drug & sex superficial feminine lifestyle in order to be "gay", and C) the notion that sex and drugs are somehow NOT defining factors of "gay community". I wish people would address these points! (Don't worry, raj, I'm getting to you.)

Convincing them to accept and LIKE gay people is impossible. Convincing them that they don't get to control everyones lives is not impossible. They
can still go on hating us, but they don't get to tell us what we can and can't do.

This is a meaningless assertion. How did you divine that one form of convincing would be "impossible" and another "not impossible"? And why must "hat
ing" be so distinct from "controlling everyones' lives"? Don't bother answering: You're just going to give me more fuzzy, emotional reasoning.

All of this after apologizing for categorizing me with gay "culture"? So, which is it? Am I a part of it or not?

How am I supposed to know? You've already admitted to being paranoid about "many many things" as well as arbitrarily judging argument to be some cases "impossible" and in other cases "not impossible". I honestly don't think you know you're writing, "boi".

Jimmy Gatt | November 13, 2006, 8:47am | #

raj:

Thank you for attempting to address my points. I wish you could have done it without starting it with the disrespectful "Um". I know that I'm coming off a lot meaner than I actually am, but that doesn't mean that my points are invalid and not worth addressing.

I find all of them nonsensical. Regarding (A), they (whoever they are) will do what they want to do, as (presumably) will you. I would surmise that, what you really resent, is that they (etc.) get more media attention than you do, and you resent it.

No, this isn't true. I don't want media attention at all! The most important thing in my life that I want is for my child to succeed and be happy. Nothing else comes close! And it is for this reason that I don't want media spotlights on me: it might harm my child. It is for this same reason that I am so angry at media spotlights on the "1001 sexual fetishes parade" that is called "gay pride". I think it harms my family and my child, and I do resent that. Very much. When I wasn't a parent, I was able to look at that, shrug my sholders, and say, "That's not me." I just don't have that luxury any more.

Regarding (B), I think, enough said. Frankly, it is probably your problem that you apparently believe that someone else has the notion that you should be in a "community" with people who you don't want to be in an community with.

This doesn't bother me as much, and I think it's true because the pressure to conform to a particular lifestyle is decreased as gays move out of the "g
ay ghetto". At the same time, I have had some gays accuse me of being inauthentic (David H, I'm getting to you!). It's a small minority, but they suck nonetheless.

Regarding (C), quite frankly, this is silly. If you don't want to do promiscuous sex and drugs, don't. If some in your circle of friends shun you for that, that is your issue, not theirs', but you might want to get other friends for your circle. On the other hand, we (my partner and I) have yet to be involved with a circle of friends who demanded that we engage in promiscuous sex or drugs so, as far as I can tell, this issue is not as problemmatic as you seem to believe. Indeed, as far as I can tell, this objection is nothing more than a fantasy on your part.

I still think it is denial on your part to claim that promiscuous sex and hard drugs are NOT part of what is considered "the gay lifestyle". Have you ever seen a "gay" cruise? Have you ever been to a "gay" club, or, even batter, especially a "gay" ciruit party? Those things are still very clearly identified as "gay", and I hate it! I resent the notion that my lifestyle is seen as "somewhat straight" because I don't engage in that fast-track lifestyle. I admit this is changing, and, if anything, I wish it to change completely. It is harmful to gay people that "coming out" means insertion into a hedonistic lifestyle. Straight people are not in any way obligated to do this, and neither should we. And this doesn't mean that straight people are never obligated to enter into harmful things or destructive lifestyles (College, for example.) I'm arguing that those things aren't identified with being "straight".

This is a long-winded way of saying that you should grow up, do your own thing, and not particularly care what your fantasies lead you to believe wh
at is required of you to be "successful" among gays.

I thank you for your reasoned response, as it's exactly the kind of respose that I am hoping for. It may very well turn out that my mind will be chang
ed, and I'm hoping you are as open-minded as I am in that regard.

Regards,
Jimmy

Bill Libbey | November 13, 2006, 10:05am | #

First, I want to say how much I appreciated David H's reasoned response!

Jimmy, I live very much like you, having been in a monogomous relationship since 1973 - a time when such things were almost unheard of. Then we were mocked by our gay friends - but not now. However, despite not being much a part of 'the gay culture/lifestyle', I've nothing but gratitude and respect for my fellow gays - all those who came before and fought the hard fight, and those who continue to do so now, be it in an 'in your face' way, or with more subtlety. Everything we have now we owe to them and I will never denigrate a drag queen or a leather man, or any other gay; they are all my brothers even though I've chosen a somewhat different path.

Jimmy, in my opinion there is nothing existant in the gay world that doesn't also exist in similar form in the straight world. It just doesn't receive the same press. The goings-on in my own mainly heterosexual neighborhood are something to behold. I almost think we may be the only non-cheating couple on the street!

Live life as you choose, but think a bit harder about how you're able to do so now, and perhaps you can begin to accept that the struggle has been long and hard, and for many, still is. Best to you, and all who wrote here. Bill

Northeast Libertarian | November 13, 2006, 11:14am | #

we don't venture far our mostly-straight neighborhood to the "gay ghetto"

That's the problem. You see it as a choice between a mostly-straight "neighborhood" and a mostly gay "ghetto."

There's quite a bit more color out there than that, I can assure you.

having been in a monogomous relationship since 1973 - a time when such things were almost unheard of. Then we were mocked by our gay friends - but not now.

Actually, I find that monogamous gay men get a lot of mockery thrown at them today -- from dates, from critics external, and critics internal alike.

I am single, class myself as a monogamy-oriented gay man, and get plenty of derision for it from men who want a quick fling. Oh well, their loss.

A lot of times, I'm starting to hear comments such as "what's up with this upsurge of uptight gay men who don't want no-strings fun?!?" and that tells me that the changes to "gay culture" which were discussed in the original article are continuing apace. And I definitely see a lot more stable, long-term gay relationships now than just a few years ago.

Jimmy Gatt | November 13, 2006, 11:18am | #

David H:

Your response is even more atrocious and more stupid than the original article.

Anyone on the other end of that silliness should rightfully tell you to shove your criticism up your ass.

I sure hope they do tell me to shove it up my ass. It would mean that I'm doing the right thing.

Like I said, I cringe, too, when I watch TV and see gays represented by leather daddies. And I balk at gay magazines, obsessed with youth and image. But place the blame where it lies -- on the media

I can't believe you're actually going to BLAME THE MEDIA. How immensely cowardly of you, you incredible pussy! Since when did any gay organization or individual (besides me, who is now being punished for it) complain about the coverage that the drugs-and-sex "gay lifestyle" invitingly receives? Those fags relish in it and then cravenly whine when it "makes them look bad". Guess what, David! It makes *me* look bad too. The sucky thing is that I didn't earn it, whereas those drugs-and-sex fags did. And there lies my objection! I wish you would address it.

that out of hundreds or even thousands of GLBT people

I am NOT a "GLBT". I am a gay man. I am not bisexual, lesbian, or transgendered. Your usage of this moronic label is indicative of one of my complaints: that I should be in a "community" with other people based on the fact that I'm turned on by members of my own gender. Annoyingly enough, that aspect does NOT bind me to transgendered people, but somehow transgenderism is the same thing as "gay". After all, that's what the label says!

And as for a culture that's obsessed with sex -- that's really not something owned by gays. Maxim is "man's" magazine, and Tatar's pretty degenerate.

It's not a "straight" magazine. You admit: it's a "men's" magazine.

Popular television and movies are obsessed with sex and often drugs, and certainly violence -- one up from the gay community. You can't blame just gays for gay culture being overly sexual. It's popular culture, too.

They're not "straight" movies and "straight" television. You admit: they're "popular" movies and "popular" television.

I know, I know. That's not what you and your neighbors are like. You abhor those things mirrored in 'straight culture' too, right?

I appreciate you putting "straight culture" in quotes because you know just as well as I that none of those things are either portrayed or perceived as "straight", unlike that sex-and-drugs lifestyle which is, in fact, freely portrayed and widely perceived as "gay". And therein lies my objection! I wish you would address it.

Except, like I said, there is no straight culture. You're advocating for gay culture to mirror family culture, and I for one would not take kindly to being represented by boy scouting "Stepford" gays, with draconian ideas about sexuality and proper dress.

So, in other words, if I don't uncritically accept NON STOP SEX along with saddles and bit-and-bridles, then I am, by definition, a "Stepford" gay with "draconian" ideas about sexuality and dress. Next up in your idiotic litany of criticisms: you're going to tell me that I lack "nuance".

It is perhaps unfortunate that our community's meeting place is a bar, or community centers where the idea of gay is still somewhat rooted in sexual exploration, but this is to be expected from a culture that began on the idea of sexual revolution before family was even considered an option.

Explain to me why is it not "Stepford" of you to consider such a thing "unfortunate"? It sounds like you're arguing my point! And I appreciate your calling the bar the meeting place for "our community". Does this not make true my complaint that people insist that I should be in a community with others solely based around the fact that we're turned on by members of the same gender? I don't consider the bar "our" meeting place, and that's because I'm not part of your "gay community". Nor do I want to be. That's why it pisses me off that they A) claim to speak for me, B) try to claim me.

If you want better representation for the Stepfords, then by-gum, do exactly what this article advocates. Make yourself seen. Start a group or whatever. Organize voter registration and protests and public events that are family-centric, and raise awareness for gay families. Don't just wail and talk about what you have the right to "criticize." If you're underrepresented in gay culture, then just accept that you're not a cliche. Congratulations.

My god, that is the faggiest thing I've read in this forum. It is quintessentially faggy for you to reflexively think that improving gays' lot in life involves "making ourselves be seen" and engaging in political activity. As an alternative, how about we stop acting like "gay culture" centers around sex and drugs? Oh, no, that would be too "Stepford". Let's put on a big show instead! Make ourselves be seen! I know: let's have a parade! Everyone's own particular sexual fetish gets a float. Your float will be in between the "United Gay Fisters" float and the "United Leather Gay Fisters" float. This will really "raise awareness"! We will call this parade "Gay Pride".

And where did you get the idea that I was upset about being "underrepresented" in gay culture? I want "gay culture" to go to hell, not represent me! (Or, alternatively, "gay culture" could stop being so obsessed with sex and drugs, but I don't think gay culture ready to be that "Stepford". So let's fuck!)

And things aren't as bad as you'd make them out to be, anyway. When I've seen media coverage of gays getting married, for instance, they've almost always been rather normal looking couples.

"Normal looking" meaning "not really faggy". You know, like me. I'm not faggy at all.

True, the Bravo specials have focused on some pretty silly, flower and catering obsessed fashion gays, but that's reality television -- and a larger point here is that we simply don't, as a community or as individuals, have control over our representation in the media.

But it represents "gay culture" and you know it does. Since when has "gay culture" chosen to organize and "be seen" regarding our media appearances? On the contrary, "gay culture" LOVES "Queer as Folk" and adores all those shows on Bravo because it "makes us more visible".

To its credit, Logo had a show profiling several gay people and featured one lesbian from Texas who was a Republican and wanted to help Katrina victims, but only if they deserved it. I thought this was very brave of Logo to do this, for it is exactly the kind of thing that gay people need in order to keep from being stereotyped with that queeny flower-arranging crap. It's also exactly the kind of thing that will put sand in the vagina of "gay culture", which is why it was brave of Logo to do it.

Interestingly, that'll probably be a pretty hard sell. I mean, if the only thing distinguishable about you from conservative culture (which it sounds like you fit, with your attitudes towards feminine gay men, sexual deviancy, and family) is that you like the same-gender, then you're advocating for the disintegration of gay culture, whatever that may be, into family culture.

You talk as if having a family is a horrible, awful thing. Since you're giving an impassioned defense for a fast-track drugs-and-sex lifestyle for gay people, it makes sense that you would deplore the idea of parenting.

And the fact that I don't unquestioningly and unflinchingly accept NON STOP SEX and heroin makes me indistinguishable from "conservative culture" to you? That's another expression of your supreme command of nuance.

And how dare you, sharing only my values of liking the same gender and not liking drugs and promiscuous sex, pretend to speak for me as a gay man by advocating the gay community better reflect you and your values.

Why the hell did you get the idea that I want the "gay community" to reflect me and my values? What I resent is the notion that they claim to speak for me (when they don't, because they suck). What I resent is the notion that I *should* be in community with them. What I resent is the notion that I'm not allowed to criticize the sex-and-drugs aspects in the "gay community", or even that those aspects don't exist. Get this through your thick, queer skull: I am a gay man, and I do NOT want to be a part of the "gay community". Quite frankly, simply liking members of my own gender is NOT a worthy basis for a community.

Oh, and condemnation of feminine gay men as "faggy" is homophobic at best, and misogynistic at worst.

I bet you've noticed me using "fag" and "faggy" with aplomb in my reply to you. From one thin-skinned pussy to another, I fully intend to desensitize you to it. Do you talk with that fake, faggy accent? Do you have those faggy mannerisms? It's a put-on and you know it is. It probably helps you "be seen", though.

Gender and homosexuality are not completely separate descriptors, and regardless of their personal fashion or sexual demeanor, I've known many gay men who are simply effeminate. Get over it.

But it's just so much fun to mock those lace doilies posing as men! Particularly since it's fake and you know that it is.

(And signing things like "contempt" to your posts is silly and immature. Surely there is room for reasonable debate without foaming insults at the mouth everywhere like a rabid dog. You don't sound like a very nice person, and I'd hate to have to live in a household with an asshole like you.)

The feeling is most mutual, you prissy, faggy asshole, and I think you are completely incapable of anything resembling reasonable debate. Please, please kick me out of your shitty "gay community".

And I know I've been contemptuously rude to you, but this is actually a very serious question: I am a gay man, but I think the "gay community" sucks, and I especially hate "GLBT". Can I still be a gay man if I don't want to be a "GLBT" or be part of the "gay community"?

Sincerely,
Jimmy
~

Jimmy Gatt | November 13, 2006, 11:27am | #

Bill Libbey:

I'm sorry that you thought David H's response was "reasoned", because I thought it was abysmally stupid. Your response, however, is much appreciated.

Jimmy, I live very much like you, having been in a monogomous relationship since 1973 - a time when such things were almost unheard of. Then we were mocked by our gay friends - but not now. However, despite not being much a part of 'the gay culture/lifestyle', I've nothing but gratitude and respect for my fellow gays - all those who came before and fought the hard fight, and those who continue to do so now, be it in an 'in your face' way, or with more subtlety. Everything we have now we owe to them and I will never denigrate a drag queen or a leather man, or any other gay; they are all my brothers even though I've chosen a somewhat different path.

My hat goes to you for having a successful relationship in a culture that does not value it. My partner and I have been together for ten years and have adopted one child. What is very encouraging is the fact that 100% of the gay men that we've told about this have said, "Wow, that's awesome!" I am serious: they are all very approving of it.

This is why David H's response is so stupid. He calls me "Stepford" and "conservative". I see him as the same stripe of gay asshole that used to mock you and your partner for wanting to be in a monogamous relationship.

Jimmy, in my opinion there is nothing existant in the gay world that doesn't also exist in similar form in the straight world. It just doesn't receive the same press. The goings-on in my own mainly heterosexual neighborhood are something to behold. I almost think we may be the only non-cheating couple on the street!

I think you are correct that the "gay sins" get more press than the "straight sins". (I don't believe in sin, mind you!) I also think it's correct that gay people fully participate in perpetuating the notion that the fast-track sex-and-drugs lifestyle is "gay culture". Gays do a lot of organizing, lobbying, and complaining about perceived injustice, so don't tell me this is solely a problem of the media.

Live life as you choose, but think a bit harder about how you're able to do so now, and perhaps you can begin to accept that the struggle has been long and hard, and for many, still is. Best to you, and all who wrote here. Bill

Thank you, Bill. I know that I stand on the shoulders of giants and am very grateful of the gay men who have blazed the trail for me. I am also very disdainful of the gay men who make my life worse, not better. Please understand that my criticism lies on those who deserve it, and I know that my being critical makes me look as if I don't appreciate those who have done good things.

Kind regards,
Jimmy

Jimmy Gatt | November 13, 2006, 3:02pm | #

To "I simply can't resist":

Your response is horrible.

However, there is one small thing he left out, and that is the task of pointing out the significant amount of hypocrisy you are spewing here. You condemn a segment of the American gay community (and contrary to what you believe - it is but a segment),

You're wrong. There are many different gay lifestyles, but there is one in particular that gets to be benighted in the "gay community". So it's not fair to trivialize it as "but a segment". It's more than that, and you know it.

then express incredulousness that any of *those* people have ever looked down their nose at you.

Again, you're wrong. It is joy, not indignance, that I express for being looked down on by *those* people. I want them to disapprove of me, because I do not want to be part of their community. Rather, I express anger that A) They speak for me when I don't want them to, B) They think I must be part of some "gay community", and C) They express denial that the very same "gay community" is defined by non-stop sex and hard drug abuse.

It is quite obvious that you have nothing but contempt for them (exemplified by your oh-so-snippy sign offs),

This is somewhat correct, but not totally. I only have contempt for them when A) They speak for me when I don't want them to, B) They think I must be part of some "gay community", and C) They express denial that the very same "gay community" is defined by non-stop sex and hard drug abuse. Otherwise, I'm content to live and let live.

Also, it makes my Hitlerrhoids flare up when stupid fags see my objections and then decide to personally attack me instead of addressing those objections. Maybe I should only occasionally say, "Oh, grow up!" Perhaps that would be safer than asking them to stop behaving like meth-powered fuck machines?

but believe that you yourself live far above anyone having contempt for the way you live your life.

Wrong again! I hope that they *do* have contempt for me. Hear me, David H? I don't want you to approve of me, David H.

I don't think it matters how you choose to live your life - whether you are sniffing poppers and grinding on the dance floor every night or living t
he proverbial "American Dream" raising 2.5 children in the house with a white picket fence

I totally disagree. I want people to excel and to flourish. It makes me sad to see people die as vicious predators and drug addicts as opposed to hav
ing long and happy lives. It particularly breaks my heart to see gay men throw their lives away as hedonistic drug addicts. Every individual's life belongs to them, but that doesn't mean I'm going to callously say "So the fuck what?" when a gay man overdoses and dies alone in his apartment. I'm just not as insensitive and self-indulgent as you are.

I also thank you for mentioning poppers. I was waiting to see who besides me was going to bring it up, since the abuse of that drug is a defnining feature of "gay culture". You win the popper prize!

you sir, are quite simply a jerk, and I don't like you based on that alone.

I have those same opinions about you!

I'd venture that a large majority of those who you feel have slighted you have done so based on that fact as well.

Hope all you want! My life isn't affected by trolls on internet message boards. Perhaps yours shouldn't be, either. Or maybe I'm not just some troll. Maybe my objections have merit and you couldn't allow that to go unpunished? I'll be happy to treat you with kindness and respect if you can drop the stupid personal attacks. But since you loved David H's colossally-stupid response, I'm fully expecting you to stay on the offensive.

David H. | November 13, 2006, 7:38pm | #

From Wikipedia: A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Your definition of the gay community as non-stop sex and drugs is your own definition, and never something I posited. Of course I don’t believe in requiring—or even advocating--you to join a community made up of such people. I was referring more to sexual subgroups of the community, which I thought I made clear with my more often use of the example of leather daddies.

It is not cowardly of me to blame the media for mostly showing leather men and other cliché aspects of the gay community (circuit boys, drag queens, etc.) while they ignore droves of men and women who are dressed casually, marching for marriage rights or adoption rights or something like that. It is sensationalistic.

And it is NOT the responsibility of a gay pride event, or The Gay Community, or whoever you think somehow controls everything, to pick and choose who can and cannot show up that day because they just might end up representing all of us on TV that night. I criticize the media for the sensationalism of gay life while ignoring the less sensational portion of it (re: most gay people, who are NOT circuit boys or into leather).

“I am NOT a "GLBT".”

I was using GLBT people to refer to the kind of people who usually go to a gay pride event, or congregate wherever there is an event meant for the “gay community.” It does not mean those things are the same thing, and I did not imply that. That’s your assumption, and it’s wrong. If you’re upset that the gay community includes more than gay men (and, more so, gay men who have babies), then that’s a separate issue entirely, and so mired in anti-trangenderism and anti-feminism, and probably anti-bisexuality, that I won’t engage you in it.

You claim in another post to be “standing on the shoulders of giants” and imply being thankful to the “gay men” who blaized the trail before you. You historical-revisionist. “Faggy” drag queens were right there alongside gay men barricading themselves at Stonewall. Those are the shoulders you’re standing on. And while it has nothing to do with what political views you should espouse today, don’t feign respect for civil rights leaders who would be appalled at your omission of those “faggy” drag queens.

“It is quintessentially faggy for you to reflexively think that improving gays' lot in life involves "making ourselves be seen" and engaging in political activity.”

You follow this by strawman-ing my suggestion into a parade of sexual deviancy. That’s not fair, primarily because of what I ACTUALLY SUGGESTED. Voter registration. Family-centered events (how about a play-date for your kids?). This does not lead to floats and parades of sexual deviancy and promiscuity and drugs.

My entire point was that the only way you’re going to be represented for who you are is to be seen for who you are. You argue as if the mere existence of gay people who are not you is tantamount to misrepresenting you. Otherwise, where would you like to see change? In the media? In your neighborhood? In your city or your country? Where must these other gays, who, like it or not, you do share that simple little sexual-switch with, where must they exist? And how vocal can they be? WHAT MUST THEY DO in order to not represent you?

Disappear?

If it looks like I’m misrepresenting your arguments, then I charge that you haven’t yet made any. All you’ve done is criticize, and you seem to think that well enough. If I accept your criticism that our community is represented in the media, including its own media (something we may actually be able to do something about), as sex-crazed, drug-happy, and ill-proportioned as to its level of sexual deviancy, and all that misrepresents you, okay. Fine. Now what? What are you advocating they we do about it?

By the way, you said it was quintessentially “faggy” to claim that gays should be politically active. Because I don’t have access to your head, and I don’t understand your definition of “faggy” as anything other than an adjective for effeminate with a negative connotation, you have to explain WHY it is “faggy” to be gay and politically active. And “quintessentially” was the wrong word to use, unless you mean that the purest form of femininity is political activism (ha-ha).

“And where did you get the idea that I was upset about being "underrepresented" in gay culture? I want "gay culture" to go to hell, not represent me!”

You’ve been screaming for the entire post “the gay community doesn’t represent me. It claims to represent me, but it doesn’t because I’m not blah blah blah. That’s faggy.” (That was paraphrased, and quite amusingly so.) If you complain that it claims to represent you and actually doesn’t, then it misrepresents you, then you are complaining that you are underrepresented.

However, I can see here that perhaps you’ll want to distinguish between gay culture and the gay community. Like the people themselves and the image of the people. The problem is that when we talk on a national level, assuming we’re not just speaking of the feud between you and a gay district in your city (in that case, uh…okay), then we have to talk about gay culture. Culture is the commonality that comes from a majority of the people, or, like I said earlier, it can be that which is most sensationalized about a group of people. Hence, we have stereotypes about different races, and, obviously, homosexuality. So, you can talk about the gay community on a local level, or you can talk about the gay culture on a national level, but you can’t go watch the stereotypes at the bar on a weekend and then claim to be talking about the nation’s gay community. You’re talking about its stereotypes, it’s culture.

(The only thing I would accept as a national community is a loose grouping of national gay organizations like GLAAD, HRC, and the media group that runs Planet Out and the Advocate and Gay.com)

And maybe here is where you are most chaffed. You often paint monsters, “faggy,” hedonistic and promiscuous drug-abusers who galavant about town caring nothing for the things you care for: family, parenting, and, uh, not being those bad things (I’m trying to find what it is you DO care for, since you seem to define yourself here most by what you hate).

Let me say again, the problem is that you can’t the gay community as the gay stereotype—that’s culture, and something we really have little control over. The lilly-livered varmints don’t even make up a majority of the gay community (as far as I’ve seen, and I’ve run a gay student organization and a local gay magazine); you’ve just fallen for the idea that they do because they’re stereotyped that way in the media.

And when I said “normal-looking” I didn’t mean not effeminate. The lesbians on TV did look masculine, and a number of the gay men looked effeminate. They just weren’t marrying three people at once, doing lines of cocaine, and dressed in leather, and the absence of that is what I found normal.

You says it’s an act. This in an interesting half-truth. I’ve seen many young gay men enter into the community and adopt some mannerisms; it’s a common psychological phenomenon when a person newly identifies with a group or minority. I find it harmless, if a little silly, and I wouldn’t berate someone for doing it. However, I was arguing that there is a close relationship between gender and sexuality, and that those who are a little effeminate are closer to crossing gender lines, and this may have something to do with being gay, as well. I could be wrong, there, and I admit that I have no scientific evidence. I think it is a more likely explanation, though, than that they’re all just faking it. Being effeminate is not so idolized in the gay community, there are quite a lot of “no fems, no fatties” in the personal ads. Many effeminate gay men I know wish to be more masculine.

“But it represents "gay culture" and you know it does. Since when has "gay culture" chosen to organize and "be seen" regarding our media appearances? On the contrary, "gay culture" LOVES "Queer as Folk" and adores all those shows on Bravo because it "makes us more visible".”

How can you cry that gay culture has never gotten together to decide how to be portrayed in the media, and a sentence later claim that they got together and decided that they love Queer as Folk and shows on Bravo because it makes them more visible? Huh?

I think powerful gay advocacy organizations, like GLAAD, have gotten together and decided to give awards to shows that sensationalize gay life (I particularly take issue with Queer Eye). Criticisms of this ilk should be leveled at those organizations, not the gay community. These organizations don’t represent the gay community, as evidenced recently by a larger percent of gay men and lesbians reporting to have voted republican than in 2004.

Maybe we’re all just stuck on the definition of gay community, and exactly who makes it up and gets to play “represent!”. I think you do have valid criticisms when our own media, and our own organizations, claim to represent us all with ideas that are largely not our own (like sex, drugs, leather, and—my own addition—fashion-obsession and superficiality). I think I understand you now. You have created a scapegoat in the effeminate, promiscuous, leather-clad gay man stereotype and then assumed that he somehow controls the gay community, or primarily makes up its visible ranks. You rage against this scapegoat because…well, I’m not sure about that. Maybe you think they are the barrier to equal rights?

I mean, you’ve said that you’re not discriminated against in your area, that they understand that you’re not like that, right? So why the chip on your shoulder? I doubt you have gay people running up behind you in a supermarket, pointing and screaming “hey! he’s gay, like me! And I’m nothing but a drug-addled whore! Look at my leather cock ring!”

So, if you don’t have to deal with these people because you don’t go to gay bars, if you don’t think a gay community should exist, if you don’t think you’re all-that discriminated against, and you don’t wish to be politically active (you called it “faggy”), then why the fuck should you care about what a group of people who are discriminated against, do care about politics, and do want to band together in a community—what do you care what they do?

What are you contributing to the debate at all if you’re advocating nothing in place of the problem of a gay community that has false images and, perhaps, skewed values?

In other words, go live your life. No one’s bothering you, by your own admission (except, apparently, gay people themselves, which you’ve apparently isolated yourself from except on the Internet).

And if you’re just worried about how the nation as a whole sees you, well, it’s been brought up before: they don’t like you because you’re gay, and that offends their religion.

It’s not because they see you as effeminate, or promiscuous, or drug-addled, or dressed in leather; it’s only because you like men, and their church doesn’t like that.

And my primary evidence of that is their opposition to marriage; if they’re only opposed the apparent degenerate values of the gay community, then they would praise the gay community that attempts to adapt to their own values (like marriage and family). Instead, they are disgusted by it. And they’re disgusted by you, no matter how much you try to be like them—they’re most disgusted the closer you get to them.

Now for some notes:

I am not effeminate. Not because I choose not to be, but because I’m naturally masculine. I am also not promiscuous, or drug-addled, or leather-loving, OR anti-family. I love my family, I grew up in the suburbs, and I say all this because at some point in your vitriolic reply you decided to try and paint me as all of the above. I don’t think that’s fair.

I am not anti-family because I don’t wish to be represented by family values. When are family advocates going to understand that the world is made up of more than just them?!? That there are people who would like to frequent restaurants, watch TV, congregate in bars, and have lives that are not limited by what would be appropriate for other people’s children—and these people are not anti-family.

You might reply to my fair comment that I said you had draconian values. Sure did. That’s because I can back that up with your opinions—the hatred that you spew towards sexual deviancy and promiscuity (and therefore advocating all that’s left as superior: monogamy and non-deviency) makes it a reasonable stretch to say that you have draconian (re: prudish, conservative) values concerning sex. The Stepford thing was a tacked-on dig at the cultural stereotype that suburbanites think they’re superior to everyone else by virture that they raise a family. I think you fit that stereotype wonderfully.

Finally, I think it is purely a sad coincidence that we appear to agree on some things that I would call rational criticisms, because you do not approach the subject with anything close to rationalism. Vitrol and hatred are always tacked-on; they are insults, and insults are not rational. They’re what’s called an “ad-hominem,” or “against the man,” and while I would certainly not say they should be banned from passionate argument, you over-use them, and painting anyone as a “thin-skinned pussy” who objects to your use of them is disingenuous; since these insults ultimately contribute nothing, they waste space, and mire your argument in negativity rather than any kind of rational light. I’m not saying place nice, I’m saying you look silly and it hurts your argument to be so mean and hateful. You think this means rational people are paying attention—ha!—I think it means they’re only amusingly watching a blowhard. Bill O’Reilly uses a similar kind of contempt for his detractors, and while people pay attention to him, few intelligent people would call him rational.

I think your criticisms deserve rational debate (if only to be unraveled), and that’s why I’ve chosen to respond. It has nothing to do with your vitriol. And I would engage you in public debate, in person, which I enjoy much more because it eschews the limits of internet comment boards, but I worry that no rational person could have a serious debate with you, because of the metaphorical spit raining all around, and discourages sober, reasonable consideration of your argument and, eventually, encourages one to tell you to just “fuck off.”

What’s sad is that you think it was your ideas that offended them when, in fact, it’s your bloated hate mongering.

Anyway, I wish you luck in fighting this mythical monster you’ve constructed and called the gay community. Rage on, you persecuted conservative you, rage on.

Sincerely,

Dave H.

(PS--Oh, and to "Mountain Queen," who said "yawn"...BRILLIANT! You, sir, have an impressive wit! That you can so succintly call out the obvious lack of cool and excitment with which we discuss and debate--albient some of more than others--these complex and controversial ideas--BRAVO! You are a worthwhile human being, and it is not bewilderingly stupid of you to appear to feign boredom by both readinf and then taking the time to post your ..."thought." Sir, I bid you well, you have contributed wisely).

(PSS--it may appear to some as if I have eschewed rationality with that last rant towards a yawn, and the answer is yes. Whoops. I guess it's easier than constructing a rational reply to a typed "yawn."

Eric | November 13, 2006, 10:35pm | #

I'm sure glad that I didn't grow up with Jimmy Gatt as my father.

Yikes.

OK, back to the non-stop fucking and hard drug (heroin!?) abuse...

Seriously, though, chill the fuck out. I know a fair number of guys who go to circuit parties, and they are perfectly nice people with respectable jobs. Their only crimes are liking dance music and going to the gym a bit too much. It's really not a big deal.

dalea | November 14, 2006, 12:10am | #

I don't deserve any sort of a response?
Nothing at all, after you have trashed several generations of gay me who struggled to get you to where you are? Not one word.

This whole thread shows me why southernerashould be excluded from all political disourse.

kittynboi | November 14, 2006, 12:25am | #

""""I understand that. I certainly haven't been very generous with people here, and the fact that others have chosen to moronically attack me instead of address my argument has not made me feel any more charitable toward the rich and vibrant "gay culture". At the same time, it could be due to the fact that my criticisms are touching a nerve in you, and that's why you're inspired to call me a "jerk". I can't control the way you choose to perceive me.""""

I didn't call you a jerk, that was somebody else.

""""You and many other gay men share this problem. It's a drag to hang around with people who have a persecution complex.""""

I was paranoid all through high school and after that the government was after me for knowing too much about UFOs, and just two years ago I was convinced the UPS truck outside had CIA/NSA/Shadow government surveillance equipment in it, so my paranoia goes far far beyond anytihng to do with being gay.

""""I'm really sorry you live among a bunch of "degenerates". Feel free to criticize the people you choose to hang around with all you want. """"

I'm pretty satisfied with knowing such people.

""""A) the notion that people in "gay culture" represent me simply because we are all turned on by members of our own gender, """"

I think the ONLY person HERE who thinks that is you. Everyone else here seems more than willing to dissasociate themselves from you.

""""This is a meaningless assertion. How did you divine that one form of convincing would be "impossible" and another "not impossible"? And why must "hat
ing" be so distinct from "controlling everyones' lives"? Don't bother answering: You're just going to give me more fuzzy, emotional reasoning.""""

Because changing a persons core belief about the world that is informed by religion, which is what homophobia is, is much more difficult than changing a persons idea about how the law and the government should interact with society.

As I said, you can convince someone that even though they dislike a thing, they don't have to ban it, just avoid it.

""""How am I supposed to know? You've already admitted to being paranoid about "many many things" """"
Most of the things I've been paranoid about involve government conspiracies, UFO's, or people I know personally plotting against me for material gain.

I don't know a lot of other gay guys who are paranoid over whether or not the government made up the idea of flying saucers as a front for mind control experiments.

""""I honestly don't think you know you're writing, "boi".""""

Why?

"""" I know that I'm coming off a lot meaner than I actually am, but that doesn't mean that my points are invalid and not worth addressing.""""

If you keep coming off like that, most people will dismiss you before they even get to any of your points. You clearly need some PR training.

NEL
""""I am single, class myself as a monogamy-oriented gay man, and get plenty of derision for it from men who want a quick fling. Oh well, their loss.""""

So am I. Well, at least you can shrug off derision and handle it much better than some of the other people here seem able too.

Gatt again.

""""Your response is even more atrocious and more stupid than the original article.""""

I guess this is another example of you coming off as more mean than you actually are.

""""I am NOT a "GLBT". I am a gay man""""

Well, it includes you, so don't feel too bad.

""""It's not a "straight" magazine. You admit: it's a "men's" magazine""""

Given that when it comes to the sexual stuff it has exclusively straight content, I would imagine it is.

""""And where did you get the idea that I was upset about being "underrepresented" in gay culture? I want "gay culture" to go to hell, not represent me!""""

Well, you don't seem to be doing your part by avoiding "Gay culture" since you keep coming back here amongst people you accuse of being associated with it.

I still wait your stance on my never having gone to a gay bar, not going to gay clubs, and never having hooked up or had a fling.

""""I bet you've noticed me using "fag" and "faggy" with aplomb in my reply to you. From one thin-skinned pussy to another, I fully intend to desensitize you to it.""""

I'm the one who called you a thin skinned pussy, not him.

""""I'm sure glad that I didn't grow up with Jimmy Gatt as my father.""""

I think he's the best argument against gay adoption I've seen yet!

Seriously, though. Gatt, I've seen some nitwits on here, and Bobby and ND30 have their moments of ignorance that shock someone as used to seeing ignorance as I am, but I think you are without a doubt the single stupidest person I have ever seen on this website. You're just blowing up at no one or no thing in particular, just the general complaint that people aren't agreeing with you, and thats all I've really seen from you. When anyone wuestions you, you bitch, whine, accuse them of this or that, and so on.

Assuming you aren't a troll, you're definitely an idiot. No one has given you a single reasoned response because you seem intent on flinging excrement at anybody who doesn't see your way, because if they aren't seeing your way, you don' think they're following through with your demands to criticize the things you don't like about the gay community.

I've loved watching you writhe and squirm over the last three letters in my name even though I've probably had less contact with the gay community in my entire life than you have. You thought it would be an easy shot to take at me because it gives the impression I'm something I'm not, apparently. You arent the first person I've baited with this. I got Bobby with it a while back too when he assumed I was like the kind of person you keep loudly decrying. (Maybe it was Bobby, it might have been ND30, but whatever.)

Regardless, I think your posts show that you are one of the most foolish, boorish, whiny, ignorant peons to ever come here, and I have little trouble saying this since you never seemed truly intent on having civil discourse of any sort anyway, all you wanted to do was vent, whine, and start an argument to make yourself feel better.

And you're still a thin skinned pussy.

Jimmy Gatt | November 14, 2006, 9:33am | #

vid H:

I would like to thank you for responding, as I think your response is much improved in tone. Yes, the issues I brought up are serious, and I perhaps could have broached them in a more sensitive manner. I found the original article by Paul Varnell to be both stupid and insulting, as he was behaving in a manner that I found to be completely in lock-step with politically correct gay thought and, thus, wholly unworthy of an "Independent" gay forum. My opinion about his article has not changed in the course of this discussion (namely because people persist in refusing to address my objections).

Your reply was meandering and brought up many different issues in different places. I'm going to try and consolidate them for reply. Please let me know if I didn't answer something that you think deserved to be answered.

1. I do, in fact, have an argument, and I do not think you have given it the thought or response that it merits. I am offended by: A) the notion that I am part of the "gay community" when I am not and do not want to be, B) the notion that I should be in a "community" with others based on the fact that I am turned on by members of my own gender, and C) the denial that the "gay community" is (partly) defined by hyper-sexuality and drug abuse. You have treated these objections either very poorly or not at all.

2. It is completely unfair of you to accuse me of "ad hominems" without first apologizing for the ones you have leveled against me, especially when you persist in slurring me as "draconian", "conservative", and "Stepford". If you want to make this discussion more civil, then please retract those statements. I, in return, will start treating you with respect and care. But as long as you don't want to play by the rules, then why should I?

3. When you write, "If you're upset that the gay community includes more than gay men" in regards to the retarded "GLBT" label, you are proving my point that there is a "gay community" that claims me (a gay man) when I don't want it to and wish it wouldn't. Furthermore, you are proving my point that there is a notion that I *should* be a part of this "community" simply because I am a gay man.

4. Your claims of my alleged "hate mongering", "anti-feminism", "anti-transgenderism", and "anti-bisexuality" appear to be your attempts to demonize me because you cannot engage me rationally on the issues.

5. You are displaying disgusting black-and-white thinking by assuming that if I do not appreciate all sexual behaviors then I am a "sexual conservative". There are shades of gray on this issue like most others. I think this is a big problem in "gay culture": because gay people were stating that others could not condemn them for their own particular sexual "deviancy", they subsequently lost the ability to criticize ANY sexual behavior. Do you remember the sign that Harry Hay carried in that San Francisco gay pride parade? It read: "NAMBLA marches with me". Is the "gay community" now "conservative" in your opinion for being almost entirely united in rejecting NAMBLA? Am I "conservative" (which, in your parlance, means evil) for rejecting both NAMBLA and coprophagia? Please explain, because you seem to be arguing that it is "conservative" (which means evil) for me to reject some sexual behaviors as disgusting.

6. When I referred to "standing on the shoulders of giants", I was not referring to drag queens. Drag queens harm me and do not help me. I do not accept the argument that drag queens are "harmless". I am disgusted by the fact that they get to share the same "gay" circle. They are one of the principal reasons that I do not want to be in the "gay community". Another one of those principal reasons I do not want to be in the "gay community" is the atrocious "gay pride" parade. I stand on the shoulders of gay people who helped me, not gay people who harmed me.

7. Being "active" and "being seen" are very much part of the "gay community". I remember when two guys came over to our house to ask us about adoption (we had many different couples, both gay and straight, come to talk about adoption with us because we had done it). They both came dressed head-to-toe in rainbow and pink-triangle wear. They both worked as "gay activists". They drove matching pink and purple Hyundai. Their cat was named "Stonewall". That was the moment that I absolutely decided I hated the "gay community" and wanted it to go to hell. But it gets worse! This couple went on to adopt a little girl and proceed to get lots of press (they craved the attention) in both the mainstream press and the gay press, and they called their family, "Two queens and a princess". They practically became the face of gay parenting in my city, and I was (and continue to be) completely appalled at the thought that some of my friends and associates (such as the parents of my son's friends) would see those self-indulgent faggots and think of my family. These two individuals went on to insist that our gay family group (the one I eventually abandoned) absolutely must make a statement about gay marriage (this was during the run up to W's re-election). In other words, being faggy and and in-your-face was what "being gay" WAS -- not just to them, but to all gay men, and if I didn't like it then I was "homophobic". Yes, I'm fucking pissed off about this, and I see you as agitating in the defense of those horrible faggots while stating openly that if I am hurt or angry then it's all my fault. It's why I'm not being very charitable on this message board.

8. You write, "If you complain that it claims to represent you and actually doesn't, then it misrepresents you, then you are complaining that you are underrepresented." No, that's wrong. It doesn't "misrepresent" me, it mal-represents me. It represents me when it shouldn't, I want no part of it, and I am offended that it continues. If I may be more direct, I tell my friends and family that I think the "gay community" is bullshit and that being gay isn't worthy of forming a community over. You continue to argue that I should be part of this community, which is my "objection B" listed in item #1 (above).

9. "Talking gay" and "acting gay" is an act. I know this is highly politically incorrect to say among gay people, but I think it is very worthy of discussion. When I came out, I was highly turned off by that behavior. I still am. I saw gay men acting (yes, it is acting) like that, and I asked myself, "Am I really gay? I'm not like that." That question is still valid at this very moment! I see people who act like that to be superficial tools who bow down to social conformity. I don't think it is "anti-gay" in any way to say that.

10. You ask, "How can you cry that gay culture has never gotten together to decide how to be portrayed in the media, and a sentence later claim that they got together and decided that they love Queer as Folk and shows on Bravo because it makes them more visible?" I think you misunderstand me. I maintain that the "gay community" has in no way resisted how it was portrayed by the media when the media broadcasts images of the parade-of-sexual-fetishes known as "gay pride". In fact, the "gay community" invites that kind of attention. The "gay community" also loves "Queer as Folk", which shows "stereotypical" gay people. (To its credit, I heard that the show actually had a gay adoptive family on the show which criticized "gay culture", which made me feel very happy about it. But I had long since abandoned that very politically-correct gay show.)

11. I think that "stereotypical" is the code that people in the "gay community" use to describe themselves when other people criticize them. In other words, they imply: "You can't criticize me. You are only criticizing a 'stereotype' of gay people." Instead, I think people in the "gay community" follow a particular sub-culture. It is a sub-culture that eschews criticizing sex, embraces embarrassing people through switching gender roles, promotes a manner of speech and acting, loves drama, and is politically Leftist. This is what "gay" is to many people, and they claim the term "gay" for themselves by calling themselves the "gay community". I want no part of this sub-culture. In fact, I think they suck. It's unfair that they claim to speak for me or punish me (or even disbelieve me!) for not wanting to be part of their crappy "community". I don't see any distinction between "gay culture" and the "gay community".

12. You write, "I am not anti-family because I don't wish to be represented by family values. When are family advocates going to understand that the world is made up of more than just them?!?" David, when are you going to realize that "family values" includes many good things as well as the really horrible aspect of gay-bashing? Just because I am gay does not mean that I am going to reject discipline, abandon virtue, despise compassion, and fail to protect my child from predators. "Family values" is often abused as code for gay-bashing. What this means is that "family values", like all aspects of our society (such as the Boy Scouts, and shame on all of you who think that my son joining the Boy Scouts was wrong!), will one day be integrated and will include gay people. I, too, have family values, because I have a family and nothing, NOTHING, is more important to me than my child. Not even my own life! Then again, maybe you were using "family values" as code for "conservatism", which you seem to have defined as pure evil.

13. You ask, "What are you contributing to the debate at all if you're advocating nothing in place of the problem of a gay community that has false images and, perhaps, skewed values?" It is neither my responsibility nor my desire to meddle in the problems of the "gay community". Instead, what I want is for the "gay community" to stop interfering with my life, particularly since I think it harms my child.

14. Your comments about religion and its relationship with homosexuality are a shallow treatment of the subject. I have many thoughts on this issue, but it's off-topic and this post is already very long.

It is my hope that your posts are on an upward trend toward civility. Believe me, it has happened many times where a discussion starts out with people at each other's throats and then comes back toward mutual respect. I'm ready to go there with you, and it is my desire that you'll join me there.

Regards,
Jimmy

Jimmy Gatt | November 14, 2006, 9:34am | #

Last comment was to "David H". Sorry, David, I didn't mean to mangle your name. This software isn't the most user-friendly for posting or editing!

Jimmy Gatt | November 14, 2006, 10:21am | #

dalea:

One more thing. I take great pleasure in knowing that you think Southerners should be censored yet you have no means of censoring me, particularly since my last message to you was so erudite and florid. Read my words and weep!

Kabloo | November 14, 2006, 11:26am | #

James Edward Stokes III...self-hating caucasion woman from the South. Please stop feeding the troll.

raj | November 14, 2006, 12:24pm | #

Jimmy Gatt | November 14, 2006, 9:52am |

Dalea:

No, faggot...

Sorry, I should have been paying attention. I was going to do a response to your earlier post to me, but, after doing a little bit of investigating--relating to the bolded excerpt from your comment to Dalea--it is clear that you are not worth the effort. It appears that you are nothing more than a whiny wimp (I'd prefer to use the formal word for a female dog, but I'll refrain) who isn't worth the time and effort dealing with. Go suffer in silence. Others of us have learned how to deal with the "excesses" that you have complained about--generally by ignoring them.

Jimmy Gatt | November 14, 2006, 12:26pm | #

Kabloo:

Hey, th