Keeping the closet door locked .

[Boston Guy]

>What a hopeless task that is!

 

Nah. He's a bright guy who represents a valid point of view. I don't agree with his point of view but it's as valid as mine. And if we only listen to those who agree with us, we never learn. :-)

 

BG

[+ Lucky]

I couldn't disagree more about regulation, er woodlawn.

[+ Lucky]

I couldn't disagree more about regulation, er woodlawn.

[woodlawn]

>It doesn't matter if you like it or not.

 

In other words, shove it up your ass. Okay, same to you, fat boy. Happy now?

 

>I don't accept any of it.

 

Doesn't matter if you accept it or not. This seems to be the kind of conversation you like. Seems childish to me, but if you insist . . . .

 

>Ran out of steam? Where have you been for the last 30 years?

 

I don't think you know much about what has happened during the last 30 years. In fact, most of the federal civil rights legislation currently on the books was passed 30 years ago or longer. Since then? Well, recent studies show that our schools and neighborhoods are just as segregated now as they were back then. The federal courts are dissolving the school desegregation orders they instituted back then. And polls show that two out of three Americans agree with Bush's position on the University of Michigan affirmative action case. This to you is progress?

 

>Marginal? Please, you can do

>better than that.

 

You seem to be satisfied with very little. In 1969, the year of Stonewall, gays and lesbians could not marry anywhere in this country, gay men could be kicked out of the military for revealing their orientation, there was no federal legislation prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, and there was nothing to prevent any state from making consensual gay sex a criminal act. All of those things are still true today.

 

>For as long as I've been posting here, you have pulled out the

>old "politically correct" label whenever you want to denigrate

>a point of view. At this point, it's really sort of

>meaningless and it's really lost any real descriptive quality.

 

No, it isn't meaningless and it hasn't lost any of its descriptive quality. It always has described and still does describe a leftist political viewpoint whose center is cultural relativism. I have never known you to deviate from that viewpoint and I have no expectation that you ever will. What that means is that I have no need to consult you if I want to know your opinion on any major issue of the day. All I have to do is look at the editorial page of The New York Times.

 

> But if by that you mean that I think we should not lose sight

>of the very real gains we enjoy because of the efforts and

>actions of the drag queens and activists who started the gay

>rights movement and who continue to push it forward,

 

What gains? That there is a sitcom on network television with several gay characters? Wonderful! To you it appears that makes up for the inability to marry, to serve one's country, and all the rest. Congratulations.

 

>It doesn't take a degree in pyschology to see what's happening

>here.

 

In fact it takes a great deal of training before you can credibly claim that you understand another person's deepest motives. Training that you don't have. But that doesn't seem to stop you.

 

 

>If you or others were completely comfortable with being

>gay and with who you are, you wouldn't care a bit who knew

>about it. If you knew that they'd be happy that you shared

>your life with them, you'd probably do so.

 

 

But there is no connection between being comfortable with your own sexuality and the issue of whether the people around you would also react positively if they knew about your sexuality. You assume that one equals the other, but it doesn't and that's why your argument fails. Among several other reasons.

 

 

(Perhaps not; you

>seem like a very, very private person. But most people do not

>tell out of fear, not out of wanting privacy.)

 

Excuse me, but how the hell do you claim to know what 'most people' in this situation do? You have now passed beyond the realm of asserting professional qualifications you do not have and entered the realm of claiming godlike omniscience.

 

>Sorry, this isn't bullshit and I think you know it.

 

Yes, it is utter bullshit. And despite your egotistical insistence to know what I know or don't know, you haven't a clue and you never will.

 

 

>For your sake, I truly

>hope that is not indicative of the state of your interpersonal

>relationshps.

 

 

Here we go again. What underlies virtually every post I have ever seen from you is this attitude that the behavior you find acceptable constitutes some kind of universal standard that applies to absolutely everyone. You are like Kant, but in reverse. What seems to you fit for discussion with others must also seem fit to everyone, otherwise you 'pity' (for 'pity,' read 'denigrate') them. You are one of the most parochial people I have ever encountered. You really should get out more. It's a big world out there, and it's packed with people who know nothing and care nothing about the standards of behavior you imagine are universal.

 

>For the record, I've hardly hired at all for quite some time

>now. The thrill seems to be gone.

 

 

Now who's copping out? The fact that you conceal this behavior is okay because you haven't indulged in it recently. Uh huh.

 

>If any of my friends asked if I had ever hired escorts, I'd

>most certainly tell the truth.

 

 

But you don't feel it 'necessary' to tell them except in the incredibly unlikely event that they bring it up. Now why would that be?

 

 

>Nothing I have said in this thread

>mandates or even recommends sharing the personal details of

>one's life with anyone and everyone.

 

Here we are again. You have decided what the line is between what should be kept private and what should not, and everyone else needs to accept that or be labeled 'sad.'

 

>There are many ways of

>being out. But hiding the fact that one is gay from one's

>family and close friends is just sad.

 

 

How did I KNOW that was coming? LOL!

 

>If you were that weary of hearing things you didn't want to

>hear, you wouldn't keep coming here, would you?

 

What an incredibly stupid remark that is. Why would anyone come to this or any message board if all he wanted to hear was the sound of his own voice? Of course, so many people here react so negatively to anyone who disagrees with them -- labeling them 'sad' or worse -- that one is given to wonder whether they realize they could avoid such unpleasantness by simply talking to themselves.

 

>But your writings here, the present ones included,

>demonstrate that you feel that "being gay" simply isn't "as

>good as" or "as valid as" being straight.

 

>No, I cannot go and point to where you've said that exactly.

>But it comes across loud and clear. Don't believe me? Ask

>the others.

 

You and 'the others,' a small group of regulars who come here to tell each other how wise and sympathetic you all are, are not likely to persuade me of anything by agreeing with each other, since that is why you're here in the first place. I don't think there is anything to distinguish you one from the other except your shoe sizes.

 

What my writings on this subject demonstrate is the one fact you and 'the others' refuse to acknowledge: we all live in a straight world, and we all have to deal with that whether we want to or not. That is why the attitude that it's actually good to shove into the faces of your fellow citizens things about your private life that disgust them is so self-destructive: because there are a vast number of them and a tiny handful of us. Do you really not get that?

 

 

>I have no idea where you live, how old you are, or what you do

>for work. But it's clear you're in the closet and clear

>you're old enough and smart enough to have thought through the

>reasons why. And those reasons still come down to fear of

>rejection or simply lack of acceptance.

 

More bullshit. Given your political views, it hardly surprises me that you have not even considered the one reason that actually comes close to the truth: that living in a community imposes obligations on every member of the community, not just members of the majority. Like most leftists you seem so transfixed by the notion of minority rights that it has never even occurred to you that the majority also has rights. Big surprise.

 

>In somes ways, it's akin to feeling a need to post here under

>different screen names to add legitimacy to what one writes.

>I've been posting at this place since it began and I've used

>exactly one handle -- Boston Guy. My record is clear and I

>don't apologize for anything I've written and I stand by that

>record. Can you say the same thing?

 

Well, it's very praiseworthy for you to have stuck to one made-up name in posting on this anonymous message board, and I can certainly understand why you keep patting yourself on the back for it, over and over and over and over again. But has it ever occurred to you that the fact you've never changed your opinion about anything in all the time you've posted here shows just one thing: egotism?

[woodlawn]

>It doesn't matter if you like it or not.

 

In other words, shove it up your ass. Okay, same to you, fat boy. Happy now?

 

>I don't accept any of it.

 

Doesn't matter if you accept it or not. This seems to be the kind of conversation you like. Seems childish to me, but if you insist . . . .

 

>Ran out of steam? Where have you been for the last 30 years?

 

I don't think you know much about what has happened during the last 30 years. In fact, most of the federal civil rights legislation currently on the books was passed 30 years ago or longer. Since then? Well, recent studies show that our schools and neighborhoods are just as segregated now as they were back then. The federal courts are dissolving the school desegregation orders they instituted back then. And polls show that two out of three Americans agree with Bush's position on the University of Michigan affirmative action case. This to you is progress?

 

>Marginal? Please, you can do

>better than that.

 

You seem to be satisfied with very little. In 1969, the year of Stonewall, gays and lesbians could not marry anywhere in this country, gay men could be kicked out of the military for revealing their orientation, there was no federal legislation prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, and there was nothing to prevent any state from making consensual gay sex a criminal act. All of those things are still true today.

 

>For as long as I've been posting here, you have pulled out the

>old "politically correct" label whenever you want to denigrate

>a point of view. At this point, it's really sort of

>meaningless and it's really lost any real descriptive quality.

 

No, it isn't meaningless and it hasn't lost any of its descriptive quality. It always has described and still does describe a leftist political viewpoint whose center is cultural relativism. I have never known you to deviate from that viewpoint and I have no expectation that you ever will. What that means is that I have no need to consult you if I want to know your opinion on any major issue of the day. All I have to do is look at the editorial page of The New York Times.

 

> But if by that you mean that I think we should not lose sight

>of the very real gains we enjoy because of the efforts and

>actions of the drag queens and activists who started the gay

>rights movement and who continue to push it forward,

 

What gains? That there is a sitcom on network television with several gay characters? Wonderful! To you it appears that makes up for the inability to marry, to serve one's country, and all the rest. Congratulations.

 

>It doesn't take a degree in pyschology to see what's happening

>here.

 

In fact it takes a great deal of training before you can credibly claim that you understand another person's deepest motives. Training that you don't have. But that doesn't seem to stop you.

 

 

>If you or others were completely comfortable with being

>gay and with who you are, you wouldn't care a bit who knew

>about it. If you knew that they'd be happy that you shared

>your life with them, you'd probably do so.

 

 

But there is no connection between being comfortable with your own sexuality and the issue of whether the people around you would also react positively if they knew about your sexuality. You assume that one equals the other, but it doesn't and that's why your argument fails. Among several other reasons.

 

 

(Perhaps not; you

>seem like a very, very private person. But most people do not

>tell out of fear, not out of wanting privacy.)

 

Excuse me, but how the hell do you claim to know what 'most people' in this situation do? You have now passed beyond the realm of asserting professional qualifications you do not have and entered the realm of claiming godlike omniscience.

 

>Sorry, this isn't bullshit and I think you know it.

 

Yes, it is utter bullshit. And despite your egotistical insistence to know what I know or don't know, you haven't a clue and you never will.

 

 

>For your sake, I truly

>hope that is not indicative of the state of your interpersonal

>relationshps.

 

 

Here we go again. What underlies virtually every post I have ever seen from you is this attitude that the behavior you find acceptable constitutes some kind of universal standard that applies to absolutely everyone. You are like Kant, but in reverse. What seems to you fit for discussion with others must also seem fit to everyone, otherwise you 'pity' (for 'pity,' read 'denigrate') them. You are one of the most parochial people I have ever encountered. You really should get out more. It's a big world out there, and it's packed with people who know nothing and care nothing about the standards of behavior you imagine are universal.

 

>For the record, I've hardly hired at all for quite some time

>now. The thrill seems to be gone.

 

 

Now who's copping out? The fact that you conceal this behavior is okay because you haven't indulged in it recently. Uh huh.

 

>If any of my friends asked if I had ever hired escorts, I'd

>most certainly tell the truth.

 

 

But you don't feel it 'necessary' to tell them except in the incredibly unlikely event that they bring it up. Now why would that be?

 

 

>Nothing I have said in this thread

>mandates or even recommends sharing the personal details of

>one's life with anyone and everyone.

 

Here we are again. You have decided what the line is between what should be kept private and what should not, and everyone else needs to accept that or be labeled 'sad.'

 

>There are many ways of

>being out. But hiding the fact that one is gay from one's

>family and close friends is just sad.

 

 

How did I KNOW that was coming? LOL!

 

>If you were that weary of hearing things you didn't want to

>hear, you wouldn't keep coming here, would you?

 

What an incredibly stupid remark that is. Why would anyone come to this or any message board if all he wanted to hear was the sound of his own voice? Of course, so many people here react so negatively to anyone who disagrees with them -- labeling them 'sad' or worse -- that one is given to wonder whether they realize they could avoid such unpleasantness by simply talking to themselves.

 

>But your writings here, the present ones included,

>demonstrate that you feel that "being gay" simply isn't "as

>good as" or "as valid as" being straight.

 

>No, I cannot go and point to where you've said that exactly.

>But it comes across loud and clear. Don't believe me? Ask

>the others.

 

You and 'the others,' a small group of regulars who come here to tell each other how wise and sympathetic you all are, are not likely to persuade me of anything by agreeing with each other, since that is why you're here in the first place. I don't think there is anything to distinguish you one from the other except your shoe sizes.

 

What my writings on this subject demonstrate is the one fact you and 'the others' refuse to acknowledge: we all live in a straight world, and we all have to deal with that whether we want to or not. That is why the attitude that it's actually good to shove into the faces of your fellow citizens things about your private life that disgust them is so self-destructive: because there are a vast number of them and a tiny handful of us. Do you really not get that?

 

 

>I have no idea where you live, how old you are, or what you do

>for work. But it's clear you're in the closet and clear

>you're old enough and smart enough to have thought through the

>reasons why. And those reasons still come down to fear of

>rejection or simply lack of acceptance.

 

More bullshit. Given your political views, it hardly surprises me that you have not even considered the one reason that actually comes close to the truth: that living in a community imposes obligations on every member of the community, not just members of the majority. Like most leftists you seem so transfixed by the notion of minority rights that it has never even occurred to you that the majority also has rights. Big surprise.

 

>In somes ways, it's akin to feeling a need to post here under

>different screen names to add legitimacy to what one writes.

>I've been posting at this place since it began and I've used

>exactly one handle -- Boston Guy. My record is clear and I

>don't apologize for anything I've written and I stand by that

>record. Can you say the same thing?

 

Well, it's very praiseworthy for you to have stuck to one made-up name in posting on this anonymous message board, and I can certainly understand why you keep patting yourself on the back for it, over and over and over and over again. But has it ever occurred to you that the fact you've never changed your opinion about anything in all the time you've posted here shows just one thing: egotism?

[bluenix]

>>Why don't you inform them otherwise, since you know their

>>impressions are false?

>

>And what exactly would you like me to tell them? Where can I

>find data about the numbers of gay men in America who live

>private, unremarkable lives?

 

I'm persuaded at last. I'll put out the word to cancel the parade.

[bluenix]

>>Why don't you inform them otherwise, since you know their

>>impressions are false?

>

>And what exactly would you like me to tell them? Where can I

>find data about the numbers of gay men in America who live

>private, unremarkable lives?

 

I'm persuaded at last. I'll put out the word to cancel the parade.

[+ Charlie]

In your angry and defensive response, you have made one objective observation that is certainly valid: despite apparent gains in cultural acceptance, gays have made remarkably few dependable legal gains on important issues like military service or marriage. What efforts have you made, or what would you propose that other gays do, to remedy that situation?

[phage]

>I'm sure you're not ignorant of the fact that many gay men

>feel as I do about these demonstrations. Trying to make us

>feel guilty about that is pointless, so you may as well give

>it up.

 

I’m sure there are others, but of course we don’t know how many because, as you pointed out to bluenix, there is no data about the numbers of gay men in America who live private, unremarkable lives. I wasn’t trying to make you feel anything. I was only pointing out that even though I also don’t want to march, I differ from you in the resentment that I feel for those who do.

 

>What do you say to the several posters in this thread who

>clearly resent and denigrate those who do want to fit into

>straight society? Like Rick Munroe, for example? That okay

>with you?

 

Of course not. I make a reasonable effort not to denigrate anyone. I often fail but never think it’s okay when I do.

 

To be honest I have gone back and forth with this in my own life. When my partner was alive, I was very, very out. Mostly for the reasons that Boston Guy mentions below. I was very much in love and it was impossible to know me without knowing the man in my life. Hiding it would have felt like a betrayal.

 

Since his death, there really isn’t much to talk about. I pretty much “pass” these days without making any effort to do so. However, I still wouldn’t get to know someone and consider them a friend unless they know. The life and death of my partner is very much a part of who I am and you can’t know me without knowing how that shaped me.

 

Let me ask you this. I still have a picture of the two of us on my desk. We aren’t hanging on each other, but it is obviously one of those professional family portrait kind of things. It’s the same kind of thing that nine-out-of-ten breeders have on their desk. Is this throwing it in their face? Is this flaunting my private sexual proclivities?

[VaHawk]

Coming out??? Being out??? Different strokes for different folks! The only one who can decide how they need to live their life, whether openly gay, closeted, or open to some and closeted to others is the individual him/her self. No one has the right to criticize how others feel they need to live their life, and/or why they feel they need to do so, whether political, economic, professional or personal.

 

What we should criticize is those who feel "embarrassed", or "ashamed" at others for being "in your face" open and/or flamboyant about their gayness or those who feel "every gay should be outed"!. x( Being accepting of other's differences should be, and I always thought was, part of the "gay personna".

 

I could never understand those who are "embarrassed" by the media attention to the drag and leather contingencies in the gay parades. Both have always been an integral part of the gay community, and those who feel otherwise need to pull their heads out of their butts and breathe the fresh air. Don't blame them, blame the media, which always goes for the so-call "visually shocking". It is the media that portrays this as what is all there is to being gay, not the gay parades or the gay community.

 

As someone who was very active in the leather community for many years, and as a lifetime fan and supporter of the drag community, I am honored and proud to be "gayly" associated with both!!!!

 

After all, let's not forget that the progress that the gay community has made in the last 30+ years got it's jump start by a group of drag queens at the old Stonewall in NYC, who finally said "enough is enough" to police harrassment. How many times, thruout the years since, have those who make up the drag community given unselfishly of their time and at what personal and financial costs to generate funds to advance the gay cause politically and to benefit gay life in all other areas, including AIDS research, helping those afflicted with AIDS and helping gay youth?

 

The same can be said for the leather community. Haven't you people ever heard of Brother Help Thyself??? For years and years, this group has held various fund raisers to generate money for all areas of the gay community from the political to health to youth causes to the arts and beyond!

 

This is what is meant by gay community. To me, being gay is more than what I do with my cock/ass or what I do with someone else's cock/ass!!! To delimit one's definition of gayness to sexual acts, is to define one's self to the way that the majority of the straight community perceives us to be. To me there is a sense of belonging, a freedom to be me, an acceptance of others regardless of race, religion, nationality or anything else and respect for others and all the varieties that life comes in!

 

I can only assume that those who define themselves as gay based only on a sexual act or desire and/or who are embarrassed to embrace the diversity of gay life, or indeed life itself, are indeed the breeding grounds from which gay Republicans spring forth!

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

>Let me ask you this. I still have a picture of the two of us

>on my desk. We aren’t hanging on each other, but it is

>obviously one of those professional family portrait kind of

>things. It’s the same kind of thing that nine-out-of-ten

>breeders have on their desk. Is this throwing it in their

>face? Is this flaunting my private sexual proclivities?

 

No. I don't consider this "throwing it in their faces." Matter of fact, I actually admire that you have the guts to do this.

 

It's becoming painfully clear from everyone's posts that there is a wide array of different definitions of "flaunting" or "throwing it in their faces." And I don't believe there is any single correct definition. It's all a matter of opinion and perspective.

 

So ... in my opinion, the following are NOT examples of throwing it in their faces: Acknowldeging you're gay, having a picture of your partner on your desk, bringing your partner to company or other public functions, even holding hands in public (although you risk the wrath of gay bashers ... but if you got the guts to do it, go for it!).

 

The following (again IMHO) ARE examples of throwing it in their faces: Deep kissing and/or groping while in public (something I think is inappropriate whether it be gay or straight) ... especially if the intention is to put on a show to provoke a reaction,

 

and for the parades: standing in the back of pickups simulating anal sex, simulating oral sex, playing with dildos or other sex toys, and/or grabbing your crotches as a salute to the spectators, etc. I just don't understand how people can think that behavior like this is an appropriate way to express gay pride or further advance gay rights!

 

Of course, anybody has THE RIGHT to act or express themselves as they see fit. But I and others also have the right to voice the opinion that it's vulgar, disgusting, insulting, and only reinforces the idea that being gay is simply about behavior and sexual perversion.

[Boston Guy]

>I don't think you know much about what has happened during the

>last 30 years. In fact, most of the federal civil rights

>legislation currently on the books was passed 30 years ago or

>longer. Since then? Well, recent studies show that our

>schools and neighborhoods are just as segregated now as they

>were back then. The federal courts are dissolving the school

>desegregation orders they instituted back then. And polls

>show that two out of three Americans agree with Bush's

>position on the University of Michigan affirmative action

>case. This to you is progress?

>

 

I think any objective study of race-based prejudice in the US in 1960 and in 1970 would show a dramatic change for the better. If you then studied 1970 vs. 2003, I think you'd seen another big improvement, probably most importantly in the fundamental beliefs underlying American approaches to race-based prejudice. I do not think that means there is no more work to do, for I think there is more to do, as a society and by us as individuals.

 

But the gains that have been made would most likely not have been made had the black rights movement not occurred and black people not stood up and demanded equal rights.

 

 

>>Marginal? Please, you can do

>>better than that.

>

>You seem to be satisfied with very little. In 1969, the year

>of Stonewall, gays and lesbians could not marry anywhere in

>this country, gay men could be kicked out of the military for

>revealing their orientation, there was no federal legislation

>prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, and there was

>nothing to prevent any state from making consensual gay sex a

>criminal act. All of those things are still true today.

>

 

True. But, once again, you can point to some things and say "but this isn't any better" and still give an incorrect overall assessment. Clearly gay people have made great strides in the last 35 years, in the US and elsewhere. And to deny that those gains are due to the draq queens and muscle boys and other activists who have stood up and demanded equal rights would be to rewrite history.

 

You can live your life quietly in a straight kind of way if you choose to. But, should you choose to do something else, you can also live your life today as an out gay man and still be successful and happy and healthy and respected. The choice is yours and it doesn't matter if you exercise it or not. The fact that you have a choice is due almost entirely to the massive efforts put forth by the gay men and women who have labored for equal rights.

 

As Americans, our focus is usually forward, to the future. I think that young people often don't realize just how bad it was only 40 or 50 years ago and how much things have changed. Can you imagine a gay bar in Boston being raided today just because it was a gay bar??? Could you imagine the headlines?

 

The fact that there is still work to be done does not remove the debt of gratitude we all owe those who have brought us to this place and these freedoms and these options.

 

 

 

>>For as long as I've been posting here, you have pulled out

>the old "politically correct" label whenever you want to

>denigrate a point of view. At this point, it's really sort of

>>meaningless and it's really lost any real descriptive

>quality.

>

>No, it isn't meaningless and it hasn't lost any of its

>descriptive quality. It always has described and still does

>describe a leftist political viewpoint whose center is

>cultural relativism. I have never known you to deviate from

>that viewpoint and I have no expectation that you ever will.

>What that means is that I have no need to consult you if I

>want to know your opinion on any major issue of the day. All

>I have to do is look at the editorial page of The New York

>Times.

>

 

Cultural relativism is the position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual and his or her environment. All ethical, religious, political and aesthetic beliefs are truths that are relative to the cultural identity of the individual. I wanted to explain that here to make sure that you understood the term, because it doesn't really seem to be germane to this discussion. But conservative folks often pull out the "politically correct" label as a way of trying to tar liberals in an ad hominem attack, rather than discussing the topic at hand.

 

In truth, I think that there are some beliefs that are relative to particular cultures and we gladly tolerate examples of them in America. For example, the various rituals practiced by different religions represent basic truths that those religions hold out to be true. As Americans, we don't have any trouble with the fact that one person believes in one set of religious beliefs and his neighbor another.

 

But as Americans we also accept and subscribe to many shared beliefs, which form a kind of core around which we are organized. The belief that murder is wrong would most likely be shared by many Americans.

 

Having said that, I do not find myself on ethical or moral quicksand and I do not believe that all truth is relative to the individual. I simply often disagree with you. The fact that we disagree does not make me believe that your beliefs are somehow invalid; quite the contrary, as I expressed elsewhere in this thread. And the fact that you disagree with me on various issues does not make me want to call you a reactionary or accuse you of somehow having a false footing for your ethical and moral judgments.

 

 

 

>But there is no connection between being comfortable with your

>own sexuality and the issue of whether the people around you

>would also react positively if they knew about your sexuality.

> You assume that one equals the other, but it doesn't and

>that's why your argument fails. Among several other reasons.

 

 

On the contrary, I think there is a very big connection. When straight people see a gay person who is happy, healthy, successful and comfortable in his or her own skin, that can go a long way toward dispelling myths. Stereotypes die one person at a time. And I suspect that the fact that I am happy and healthy has been one of the reasons why my friends have been so accepting of me as a gay man -- other than, of course, the fact that they are good people.

 

 

>Now who's copping out? The fact that you conceal this

>behavior is okay because you haven't indulged in it recently.

>Uh huh.

>

 

If you had read more carefully, you would have seen that I said I had not concealed it.

 

 

 

>>If any of my friends asked if I had ever hired escorts, I'd

>>most certainly tell the truth.

>

>

>But you don't feel it 'necessary' to tell them except in the

>incredibly unlikely event that they bring it up. Now why

>would that be?

>

 

Actually, that's not true. I was the one who first brought it up... sorry to disappoint you.

 

 

>What my writings on this subject demonstrate is the one fact

>you and 'the others' refuse to acknowledge: we all live in a

>straight world, and we all have to deal with that whether we

>want to or not. That is why the attitude that it's actually

>good to shove into the faces of your fellow citizens things

>about your private life that disgust them is so

>self-destructive: because there are a vast number of them and

>a tiny handful of us. Do you really not get that?

>

 

Thank you. I think this may be one of the most important paragraphs you've ever written here and I appreciate your honesty and candor.

 

To address what you have written, I need to do something that I normally frown on: deconstruct the paragraph. I apolgize to you if I misinterpret what you have written because I am utterly serious when I say that this paragraph is incredibly important.

 

If I understand you correctly, you are saying:

 

1. We all live in a straight world

2. There are a vast number of them and a tiny handful of us

3. Things about our private lives (I take this to be a reference to gay sex) disgust them

4. We have to deal with them whether we want to or not

5. It's self-destructive to shove things that disgust them into the faces of our fellow citizens

 

When it's put this way it seems to make good sense, at least on the surface, and I suspect there must be millions of gay men and women who feel exactly this way.

 

All I can say in response is this:

 

1. We do live in a world populated largely by straight people but we have -- or should have -- the same rights and the same opportunities that they have.

2. Straight people are often disgusted by gay sex, especially older straight people. I think those attitudes are changing among younger people and I most sincerely hope that's true.

3. We can choose how we want to deal with the people around us and, most importantly, with those who would deny us the right to simply be who we are. On a legal basis, we can fight them and, over time, we're winning that battle.

4. The line I have labelled #5 above could be the logic underlying a "let's not do anything to make things worse" sort of approach to any battle over civil rights. All of the things you have said could easily have been applied to blacks vs. whites in 1960 -- and were. Yet it was the right thing for blacks to stand up and say "No more!".

 

Ultimately, the line of argument you are espousing is a fear-based argument. It's one that accepts that somehow we are inferior (because something about us disgusts them) and we shouldn't rock the boat because maybe things will be worse if we do. I cannot accept this logic and the rights and advances we have seen over the last 30 years should show that even though progress can be slow and at times difficult, it doesn't come at all without trying.

 

 

>More bullshit. Given your political views, it hardly

>surprises me that you have not even considered the one reason

>that actually comes close to the truth: that living in a

>community imposes obligations on every member of the

>community, not just members of the majority. Like most

>leftists you seem so transfixed by the notion of minority

>rights that it has never even occurred to you that the

>majority also has rights. Big surprise.

>

 

Of course the majority has many rights. Our whole system of choosing governments is based on that. But our system includes many protections for the minority as well. Furthermore, I don't accept that walking down the street holding hands with my boyfriend is somehow trampling on the rights of the straight people who are walking by.

 

If straight people see gay people being affectionate as something disgusting, the problem is in the attitudes that they hold and not in something intrinsically wrong with the behaviour of the gay couple.

 

 

BG

[VaHawk]

>and for the parades: standing in the back of pickups

>simulating anal sex, simulating oral sex, playing with dildos

>or other sex toys, and/or grabbing your crotches as a salute

>to the spectators, etc. I just don't understand how people

>can think that behavior like this is an appropriate way to

>express gay pride or further advance gay rights!

 

The current gay pride parades have nothing to do with expressing gay pride or advancing gay rights, as in the early years of the parades when there were few if any laws on the books to protect gays in all areas including employment, housing and partner benefits. Today's parades are, imo, more about having outrageous fun and celebrating gay sexuality, ala the Mardi Gras for str8s. After all, if str8s can simulate, and many times engage in sex, with barebreasted women on national tv thru the streets of New Orleans, what is wrong with the simulated acts by gays celebrating gay sexuality in the gay pride day parades??????

 

>Of course, anybody has THE RIGHT to act or express themselves

>as they see fit. But I and others also have the right to

>voice the opinion that it's vulgar, disgusting, insulting, and

>only reinforces the idea that being gay is simply about

>behavior and sexual perversion.

 

And you post this after you identified yourself in one of your earlier posts on this same thread, as being gay based only on your sexual activities with bubble butted men? This seems to be a contradiction to your earlier posted comments. And BTW IMHO no consensual sexual act between adults is perverted, the only PERVERSION is in the mind of the observer/commenter! :-(

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

>And you post this after you identified yourself in one of your

>earlier posts on this same thread, as being gay based only on

>your sexual activities with bubble butted men? This seems to

>be a contradiction to your earlier posted comments.

 

Bullshit! I commented I like guys with bubble butts. I've NEVER said that I'm only gay based on my sexual activities with bubble butted men! You wanna disagree with something I've written, fine. Post a rebuttal. But don't fucking attribute comments to me that I didn't make.

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

You must be referring to the following comment:

 

"But I AM just like my straight friends (most of them anyway). The only difference is that I like bubble butts ... on a guy! We like the same movies, like to eat at the same restaurants, have the same stresses in life to make ends meet, have the same ideas on politics and other issues confronting our country, etc."

 

Fair enough. Although I think you missed the overall jist of my point. But you are correct based on the literal interpretation of the above. I apologize for the outburst in my previous post.

 

I would try (again) to convey my feelings on this issue, but it seems to be a lost cause. We're just not going to see eye to eye on this. And I'm ok with that.

[VaHawk]

Hey, LBB, let's not fight! as I respect your opinions, just disagree on some, and I'm sorry I misquoted you, but based my replies on the inference rather than the literal.

[Guest Love Bubble Butt]

You're right. Fighting over issues is stupid. And I'm getting frustrated with this one. The more I try to express my opinion, the more they're interpreted as contradictory. And I don't understand why they're viewed that way. And I've really, really tried to be diplomatic about it!

 

So ... I think my best bet is to quit while I'm behind and move on. x(

[Guest Everett]

Last year at this time I would have agreed with Spida. I think I'm close to my family, and at the time believed it would be better if they did not know. My parents are the only close family I have now, after a few deaths of other family members during the last two years. I have no brothers or sisters.

 

Not quite two years ago I stopped dating women, and about 14 months ago I went to a gay club for the first time, the first "gay thing" I ever did. My friends have been getting married the last few years and are starting to have families, and I did not want to lead that kind of life. I know gay men have married and had families, and no doubt continue to do so, but I could not live that life because doing so would not only be dishonest to myself, but it would involve someone else, unfairly in my opinion.

 

My parents have not put pressure on me to meet someone and get married, except for the rare remark from my mother that she wished I would meet and date a woman. She's probably made that type of comment less than half a dozen times in my entire life. I was a bit upset with her one day, as we were having a discussion about me moving to another state, and she said that she wished I would find some local woman to date, and that's when I told her. I cannot say she took the news well, and to this day when the topic is mentioned she gets this pitiable look as if she's about to cry. My father was more accepting, not happy to hear this, but accepting nonetheless. They are both in their mid 70s, very traditional, and part of a generation that whispered about someone's sexual orientation and that told and laughed at gay jokes. They don't like to talk about what I told them, and I'm sure my mother wishes that I was "normal." I try to get through to her by telling her that now she can know all of me, rather than just that part of me I believed I could display to the world.

 

I never wanted to tell them because I felt I would be disappointing them. It also did not help that I have no brothers or sisters on whom they can focus their desires for a daughter-in-law or son-in-law and grandchildren. I was also born when my mother was in her 40s, and after my father had suffered severe health problems that his doctors believed would prevent him from ever fathering children. All that made me hate the idea of telling them because I wanted to live up to their expectations and not disappoint. This has not been easy for me. I do not agree with some of the harsh tones taken by others toward those who want to keep their sexual orientation from their families. Whether or not to tell one's family is a personal decision.

 

Unlike Spida, I want to build a new life for myself. As soon as I can I want to move to another state and to an area that is gay-friendly. I've sent over 200 resumes to firms in a city where I don't know anybody. I'll have to get licensed in another state and pass that state's bar examination. In three weeks I have received 40 responses, all rejections. The only positive response was from someone who also relocated from PA and who offered to meet with me when I'm in the area to discuss some of the issues involved in his relocation to FL. Unfortunately, that's not much to rely on, and I worry about the tightness of the job market. I'm even considering whether I should change my career (to what I don't know). But I'd rather live in an area where I want to live and where I can be open about my sexuality and be around other gay men and will probably earn less money at some job I can't picture right now than live where I am now, an area that is very conservative and where I can't be honest about who I am but where I earn more money.

[Flower]

>Unlike Spida, I want to build a new life for myself. As soon

>as I can I want to move to another state and to an area that

>is gay-friendly. *****

>But I'd rather live in an area where I want to live and where I can be

>open about my sexuality and be around other gay men and will

>probably earn less money at some job I can't picture right now

>than live where I am now, an area that is very conservative

>and where I can't be honest about who I am but where I earn

>more money.

>

Bravo, Everette! It takes guts to do what you did and to do what you plan to do, but KNOW YOU DID AND ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING!!

 

I tried to IM you but your profile is disabled, but I"ll be leaving a very good practice in Northern Calif for something unknow in Southern Cailfornia--and I know it is scary--believe me, I know, but you only go round once (as the maucho str8 beer commercial says :7 LOL) so do what you really want to.

 

At least in California, the law profession seems to be somewhat gay friendly or at least accepting once you get out of the true northern part of the state. I imagine the parts of Florida where you must be thinking about will be the same or more so.

 

While I'm not a math wizz, I appears you are about 30 -- so you have much more of your legal career ahead of you than behind -- I'm just the reverse

 

I'd be interested in chatting if you care to email -- but it sounds as if we are on parallel courses. Anyway, good luck if I don't hear more from you.

[duke37]

If you move to Florida and get your license here I would love to hire you. Let us know when you get the move completed. Of course if you are, say a patent attorney, I might not have as much need of your services.

 

In any case Good for you!. Good luck.

 

Jeff

[woodlawn]

>In your angry and defensive response, you have made one

>objective observation that is certainly valid: despite

>apparent gains in cultural acceptance, gays have made

>remarkably few dependable legal gains on important issues like

>military service or marriage. What efforts have you made, or

>what would you propose that other gays do, to remedy that

>situation?

 

Why the fuck would I want to have a dialogue on this or any other issue with someone who has been as consistently hostile and venomous as you?

[+ Charlie]

Huh? Can you cite any posts in which I have been "hostile" and "venomous" toward anyone on any subject?

[woodlawn]

>I think any objective study of race-based prejudice in the US

>in 1960 and in 1970 would show a dramatic change for the

>better.

 

With you, the bullshit never ends. You can 'study' people's beliefs by asking them about their beliefs. But the only way to know what people believe is to look at their actions. And America is still just as segregated as it was 30 years ago. Spin all you want to, but you can't spin your way out of that fact. What has changed is what people say, not what they do.

 

>But the gains that have been made would most likely not have

>been made had the black rights movement not occurred and black

>people not stood up and demanded equal rights.

 

They certainly did it in a far different (and far more successful) manner than gays.

 

>Clearly gay people have made great

>strides in the last 35 years, in the US and elsewhere. And to

>deny that those gains are due to the draq queens and muscle

>boys and other activists who have stood up and demanded equal

>rights would be to rewrite history.

 

There have been no "great strides." The principal deprivations of rights that existed at the time of Stonewall still exist today, more than 30 years later, as I correctly pointed out. Whatever the drag queens et al. have done, it clearly hasn't worked. After 30 years of standing still, one would think people would realize a change of strategy is indicated.

 

 

>You can live your life quietly in a straight kind of way if

>you choose to. But, should you choose to do something else,

>you can also live your life today as an out gay man and still

>be successful and happy and healthy and respected.

 

 

Really? At a recent fundraiser I attended the speaker was a gay man who was not allowed to visit the hospital room of his dying lover of more than 10 years because in the eyes of the law he was not a member of the patient's family. This took place not in Texas but in New Jersey. If this man and his relationship were so 'respected' then why did this happen?

 

 

>The fact that there is still work to be done does not remove

>the debt of gratitude we all owe those who have brought us to

>this place and these freedoms and these options.

 

 

Like I said, I think you need to get out more. There is more to the world than Boston.

 

 

>But conservative folks often pull out the

>"politically correct" label as a way of trying to tar liberals

>in an ad hominem attack, rather than discussing the topic at

>hand.

 

Complaining about ad hominem attacks here is incredibly hypocritical of you. You are the one who first personalized this discussion. In your first post you could simply have said that people who disagree with you about certain aspects of this issue take a position you think is mistaken. But you weren't satisfied to say that, you had to go farther and say that the fact they take a position different from yours shows that there is something wrong with them. Don't lie about it, it's on the board for everyone to see.

 

 

>Having said that, I do not find myself on ethical or moral

>quicksand and I do not believe that all truth is relative to

>the individual. I simply often disagree with you. The fact

>that we disagree does not make me believe that your beliefs

>are somehow invalid; quite the contrary, as I expressed

>elsewhere in this thread. And the fact that you disagree with

>me on various issues does not make me want to call you a

>reactionary or accuse you of somehow having a false footing

>for your ethical and moral judgments.

 

 

But in your first post you did indeed make some very negative personal remarks about those who take a position different from yours on this issue. I don't see why you want to lie about that now. Would you like me to post a list of the negative words you used to describe such people? Shall we start with "ignorant?"

 

 

>On the contrary, I think there is a very big connection.

 

Nonsense. People who have been educated since birth to believe that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God are not going to change their minds simply because they meet a gay man who is comfortable with his own sexuality. If that were true then eliminating prejudice would be extremely easy.

 

>If you had read more carefully, you would have seen that I

>said I had not concealed it.

 

See below.

 

>>>If any of my friends asked if I had ever hired escorts, I'd

>>>most certainly tell the truth.

 

>>But you don't feel it 'necessary' to tell them except in the

>>incredibly unlikely event that they bring it up. Now why

>>would that be?

 

>Actually, that's not true. I was the one who first brought it

>up... sorry to disappoint you.

 

You are contradicting yourself. In the lines from your post that appear above, you specifically state that you only tell the truth about it if asked. Why lie about that? It's right there for everyone to see.

 

>Thank you. I think this may be one of the most important

>paragraphs you've ever written here and I appreciate your

>honesty and candor.

 

 

If you ever learn to treat people who disagree with you with respect instead of calling them "ignorant" and "sad" as you did earlier, those words might mean something. As things stand, they are quite empty of meaning.

 

 

>When it's put this way it seems to make good sense, at least

>on the surface, and I suspect there must be millions of gay

>men and women who feel exactly this way.

 

Then I think you should show some respect for their point of view instead of calling them names as you did earlier.

 

>4. The line I have labelled #5 above could be the logic

>underlying a "let's not do anything to make things worse" sort

>of approach to any battle over civil rights. All of the

>things you have said could easily have been applied to blacks

>vs. whites in 1960 -- and were. Yet it was the right thing

>for blacks to stand up and say "No more!".

 

But you have shown great disrespect for the many blacks who feel that abandoning the strategy of emphasizing similarities rather than differences is hurting their race and their cause. That is where you are led by the logic of your argument. You agree with those who accuse blacks of "acting white" because they want to be part of and benefit from a society and economy controlled by whites. In your words below you say they are acting out of fear and a sense of inferiority:

 

>Ultimately, the line of argument you are espousing is a

>fear-based argument. It's one that accepts that somehow we

>are inferior

 

 

I don't fault blacks who deprecate "gangsta rap" and "ebonics" and who want their children to learn the skills necessary to function in an economy controlled by whites, and I don't fault gays who understand that you don't get along with others by taking every opportunity to emphasize how different you are from them. You obviously do fault them. Stay in Boston. There aren't many other places where that position is going to work for you.

[duke37]

Yeah, please do.

 

I just read through a LOT of Charlie's old posts to find something venomous and I wasn't able to find anything. What are you talking about?

 

In my opinion and only from what I have just spent the last 20 minutes reading is that Charlie is a pretty hip nice older guy. Is that impression wrong?

 

If you don't want to answer his questions (or mine) you could just say "NO thanks."

 

Jeff

[Boston Guy]

>I don't fault blacks who deprecate "gangsta rap" and "ebonics"

>and who want their children to learn the skills necessary to

>function in an economy controlled by whites, and I don't fault

>gays who understand that you don't get along with others by

>taking every opportunity to emphasize how different you are

>from them. You obviously do fault them. Stay in Boston.

>There aren't many other places where that position is going to

>work for you.

>

 

In the post to which you responded, I said that one paragraph in particular was very important and I meant it. I didn't say why, exactly, I thought it was important, for I wanted to listen to what you had to say first.

 

The reason I thought it was so important was that it seemed to distill all of your philosophy into just a few lines and to allow the rest of us to understand where a lot of the things you say come from.

 

You've made it clear that you think that gay people need to fit in and not rock the boat and not throw stuff into the faces of people who you see as being disgusted by us. By inference, you seem to believe that we're best off when we look and act just like straight people in all places except perhaps in the bedroom.

 

Oddly enough, I agree with one aspect of this: during the business day, much of my time is spent in ways essentially indistinguishable from the way my colleagues and customers spend their time. My job allows me the freedom to travel extensively throughout the US, Canada and Europe and I find few substantive differences from place to place in the way people spend their time at work. But that's because most people believe that work is work and most personal things should be just left behind. Sex and sexuality have no place in business. So an outsider watching us through a plate glass window couldn't tell from what we wear or what we do or what we look like who is gay and who is straight.

 

But all of my colleagues and employees know I'm gay, as do many of my customers. We treat each other with respect and friendship. I won't pretend to be straight just to get someone else's false approval. I think that doing that sends a message that isn't even slightly subtle: don't mind us, we'll hide those disgusting things we do in the bedroom from you so you won't be offended and we'll pretend to be just like you so you don't get mad and take it out on us by discriminating against us.

 

If someone was beating you up, would you stand up and fight? Or would you cower and let them keep hitting you? It's the same thing with rights; the only way for us to get and keep our civil rights is to stand up openly and demand them.

 

And as we come out and our friends and family see us as gay people, they will realize that, in many important ways, we are just like them. Not because we're hiding or pretending to be something we're not or hiding our affection for each other from them. But because we really are just like them in most parts of our lives.

 

BG