RationalWiki talk:What's Wrong with Being Gay?

y hallo thar!1-αmεσ (decider) 00:35, 13 November 2007 (EST)

OMG! 2nd post! LOL!!!1!1!1!!!11!!!! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:09, 25 December 2007 (EST)

i herd u leik fagz lolzzzz --Kels 21:20, 25 December 2007 (EST)

In future

Sign here without your signature.

Can also be rendered

Sign here with three tildes ~~~. which gives this: CЯacke®

Question

Is this really an essay? If so, should it be moved to the essay namespace? Pinto's5150 ^Talk 22:22, 26 December 2007 (EST)

I think it's a community essay slash poll slash intel gathering for preparation to maybe do an actual essay.CЯacke® 22:30, 26 December 2007 (EST)

What is wrong with being gay

• The silence that falls when you walk into a room full of people (down the pub) and the sudden ensuing burst of conversation.
• The neighbours who have coffee mornings without inviting you.
• The question of how to refer to ones friend/partner/companion/roomie/oppo .... without causing offence to him/her or to the auditor.
• The less than understanding bank staff
• etc. ^{— Unsigned, by: SusanG / talk / contribs} Susan^purrrrr 07:15, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Nothing wrong with being gay, everything wrong with conforming to gay culture

I'm not anti-gay or anything, individuals are individuals and what they get up to is all well and good. However, I often wonder aloud, with an open mouthed gaze, how former school mates etc. who come out later in life adopt whollely new personalities. Its like they become different overnight, they even walk and talk different than what they used to. It seems to be gay is to conform to a ghastly gay stereotype which paints all gays as sexual deviants, obnoxious loudmouths or simple morons who answer every question with a flutter of the eyelids and a 'I'm stupid' look. I always admired a dear old friend of mine who in rather great difficulty told his dad he was gay. His dad threw him out of the house. My friend now lives with his partner in a normal apartment and leads a very uncolourful life. Speaking to him, you'd imagine he was just like any straight guy, none of the ridiculous bullshit you see in gay bars. Its almost like he made a conscious effort not to conform to a ridiculous stereotype, which so many gay people seem to revel in... MarcusCicero 13:43, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Any post that begins with "I'm not anti-gay..." is, like, "don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Jewish, but..." is bound to be problematic. MC, I know an awful lot of gay people and very few if any of them of them behave in the manner you're describing. Argument-by-anecdotal-evidence rarely goes well, so maybe you just need to meet more gay people--or acknowledge that some of the people that you meet who aren't acting like mincing queers are, in fact, also gay. I might also point out that young people tend to adopt cultural cues like dress, speech patterns, etc. that make them feel like they fit it to a new community. Given the particularly close links between sexuality and identity, it would hardly be surprising that that tendency is amplified when it comes to what you call "gay culture." TheoryOfPractice 13:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

This is very much of an argument by anecdote TOP, there's little other way of gauging an opinion on this. I recently spent three months in San Francisco so I know quite a lot about gays and have met quite a lot of them too! Probably what turned me off gay culture altogether (I used to hold comfertable little hippy idealist principles in relation to it)

Put it like this, if someone came up to you in a bar and felt your ass, your first reaction is 'is that a woman?' When you realise its not you mention quite kindly to them that your not gay. When they make a joke about it and walk on, then its a good person, if they don't and persist, then they are a dick. I don't care if the persons gay, it doesn't excuse a shitty action. I think this was my overall point, people like to excuse it when gays act anti-socially under the explanation that they are gay - my answer to that is that anyone who does that is a dick, and being doesn't gay doesn't excuse it.

Whats worse is again is seeing 'recent' gays coming out who are about 16/17 and begin to develop an entirely different personality as a result of peer pressure.

The only way this case/argument can be made is by anecdotal evidence, and believe, I've a lot of anecdotal evidence of my own. MarcusCicero 14:02, 26 February 2009 (EST)

"Whats worse is again is seeing 'recent' gays coming out who are about 16/17 and begin to develop an entirely different personality as a result of peer pressure." As opposed to all those other straight teenagers who are totally secure about their identity and how they fit in in the world and are completely confident in who they are and how they're supposed to behave and are never affected by peer pressure? TheoryOfPractice 14:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Why should your gay friends continue to conform to your stereotype of "normal" heterosexual identity when at heart they are mincing fairies?-- Antifly ^{Now with 50% less retirement!} 21:57, 26 February 2009 (EST)

MarcusCicero, may your neurons rot. In hell. Being constantly nibbled at by my legions of tribbles. --"C, U R^{the freeform, piloting gun.} 21:59, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I have long had a personal thesis that there are two different things, "gay", which is a lifestyle choice involving self-conscious conformity to the cultural norms of the gay subculture, and "MSM" (men who have sex with men) or "WSW" (women who have sex with women), which is the sexual orientation one can be born with. In other words, when Larry Craig claims he isn't gay and is straight, I'm inclined to believe him. The question to ask him isn't is he gay, but does he have sex with men? The answer to the latter is undoubtedly yes. As to the former, no, he's not gay, unless some footage of him speaking fluent Polari or eating quiche turns up. Many men, including those who have sex with men, find the whole effiminate behavior and obsession with fashion and divas thing to be repulsive, and a separate gay culture with its own behavior norms - especially if most other people instinctively find those behaviors repulsive - encourages gay separatism, which ultimately delays and hinders acceptance of differing sexual orientations in the broader society. Secret Squirrel 22:36, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Hey, my quiche eating habits are ENTIRELY on the straight and narrow, you covert sciurid! ;) --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 23:37, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Homosexuality does carry a particular personality aslong with it, but that isn't really a bad thing. It's a culture. .mymyrteax 22:53, 26 February 2009 (EST)

On the plus side, I have a whole new mental image to go along with the phrase "liberal MSM". --Kels 00:24, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I very much have to lend my support to this basic position, though the illustrations provided are not what I would have chosen. :) I think tremendous damage has been done over the years by this conflation of gay (a sociocultural identity and role) with homosexual (an ongoing sexual preference) and MSM/WSW (specific sexual behaviours). I understand that it's politically useful for the community, but it doesn't seem healthy for the individual members of that community ... and it seems to me to ratify and internalise homophobic prejudices, not counter them. And when the needs and well-being of individual members of a community are subordinated to the political needs of that community's dominant ideology ... Well. Draw your own conclusions. Arcadia

I can see where you're coming from, MC, but I disagree entirely.

I recently spent three months in San Francisco so I know quite a lot about gays...

So, are you suggesting that certain gay people in San Fransisco are representative of the entire gay community? There is a gay culture, but being part of it doesn't mean you have to embody a stereotype, and it is in no way cohesive. I know a fellow who runs a pride organisation. He also plays tabletop role playing games. He neither lisps nor is overweight and socially awkward (to pick another stereotype). He's a very down to earth guy. But he's very much a part of the community/culture. He's immersed in it.

...people like to excuse it when gays act anti-socially under the explanation that they are gay...

I know another guy who's flamboyantly gay. He's never come on to me or used his being gay as an excuse to be an asshole. If he did, I'd call him on it. People don't act like dicks because they're flamboyantly gay. They act like dicks because they're dicks and will use any excuse to be so, including being gay. It's not a symptom of any one social group.

Whats worse is again is seeing 'recent' gays coming out who are about 16/17 and begin to develop an entirely different personality as a result of peer pressure.

Yes, people changing their personalities to conform with a group, through peer pressure or whatever, is bad. Very bad. But it's not something that's isolated to gay people. Some people who convert to evangelical Christianity become douche bags. Some are all about loving your brother and living by the golden rule. There's no standard, man. People are who they want to be because people are different. Why isolate gays? And why CAN'T a guy be an effeminate fairy if he wants to? If that's his choice, cool. It's only a bad thing if he's doing it because he thinks that's the only way to be, or because somebody said he wasn't "gay enough". Maybe that's the case sometimes. But that by no means has anything to do with specifically being gay. That's just human frailty.

Saying all male gay culture is a bunch of limp wristed nancy boys is narrow minded. There's nothing wrong with being a limp wristed nancy boy. If you don't like it...well, tough shit, dude. I honestly don't think CUR is a cheetah, by any stretch of the imagination, but CUR can tell me to fuck right off, and that's his right. He's an irritant sometimes, but he's not hurting anyone. Now, if someone's harassing you, and he's telling you it's okay because he's gay, you call him on it. You tell him he's an ass. But he's not a representative of the gay community.

And what's wrong with being a "sexual deviant", as you put it? The only thing I would consider deviant in that realm is sex that happens without consent. As long as people are safe, they can have at it. I hope I don't sound confrontational, it's just that I get my hackles up when people paint with a broad brush, which is unfortunately what I think you're doing. This was long and maybe kinda ranty, but there's my thoughts. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 00:19, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks, Yossie, you saved me a lot of typing. I have one minor comment, though: when someone comes out as gay or homosexual or whatever, I would expect some aspects of their "personality" - as observed - to change. Either because they are now happier or more comfortable (or less so?), or because they feel freer to express things they had previously kept private. ħuman 00:46, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Or because Marcus now sees them as gay and expects them to act that way...TheoryOfPractice 00:48, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Many years ago (1960s) I worked in an office with a now (in)famous homosexual. The men were jealous of him because he could behave 'non macho' (he didn't have to "prove" his manliness at every opportunity) and wear clothes that actually looked good rather than conforming to the dress code - he wore some beautiful suits with rather flamboyant shirts (He was the youngest brother of a mining family). Although nowadays fashion alows men to peacock themselves, I wonder how much is jealousy? _and marmite 00:56, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Is being flamboyant any worse than having to constantly and conspicuously act in a way that you think is hypermanly? Corry^{Dr. Funke's 100 Percent Natural Good Time Family Band Solution} 01:23, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Not understanding your point, Corry. Back in the 60s it was almost compulsory to be macho, to the extent that it wasn't even remarked, whereas flamboyance would leasd to Oscar Wilde comparisons (Homosexuality was still a crime in the UK - or only just legal, I can't date it exactly). The guy I speak of was not overtly Homosexual but, with hindsight, he definitely was; his dress and manner (He was polite! Even to us grils) would even today be noticed. He's quite mainstream now and not at all flamboyant. _and marmite 01:37, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I'm trying to get at the fact that people also go to the extreme in the opposite direction- I think that acting super macho is silly. Corry^{Dr. Funke's 100 Percent Natural Good Time Family Band Solution} 07:58, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Nothing wrong with being straight, everything wrong with conforming to straight culture...

Houses, minivans, kids, staying home and watching TV. Fuck you, straight people. Buncha mindless sheep. TheoryOfPractice 00:33, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Do I have to pick just one culture? Because between American, middle-class, Jewish, white, irreligious, male, and bi-curious, I'm rather confused as to which culture I should be a sheep in. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:39, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Bi-curious, eh? ;) TheoryOfPractice 00:42, 27 February 2009 (EST)

i don't think he was bashing even gay culture but there are an awful lot of LGTB whos identity is defined by them being gay. These are the minority who wear the rediculous clothes, talk in a lisp, and hit on every guy with in their sightline. lets face it, its not only obnoxious, but its rude and it makes no consideration into how the people they are hitting on may feel. I don't let my bisexuality define my life, anymore than i let my red hair, white skin, blue eyes, or crappy job using tables define me. what i do let define me is how i treat mny friends, my enemies, my family, and how i make a positive difference in the world--BenB (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you really type that? Intentionally? Wow. ħuman 08:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with being freeform, everything wrong with conforming to freeform culture

Discuss. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:14, 27 February 2009 (EST)

This is unabashed liberal tripe! I won't stand for freeform cultures! All those guns are freeform guns upon our society. Only a(n) freeform culture is morally right! --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 03:39, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Teenage daydream. Phial. ħuman 03:57, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Hmm...

Maybe ye are right. My experience with homosexuals has been largely negative with a few noble exceptions. My original point was however an ambivelence towards the individual who is free to act as they wish, and a disdain for the culture which they adhere to. Say for example, I dislike a really camp person, its not because they are gay. The fact that they assume that I dislike them because they are gay as opposed to being annoying dickheads... well... That really 'grinds my gears'! MarcusCicero 16:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)

I for one appreciate that you appear to have actually read, and thought about, these many responses, and perhaps even adjusted part of your worldview as a result.

I am, however, disappointed that you dislike camp ;) I thought your beef was with dickheads who play "grab ass", one of the reasons I dislike straight men... ħuman 20:44, 27 February 2009 (EST)

What Silver Sloth removed...

...I put back in--it wasn't vandalism; the author invited comments and someone put (admittedly stupid) comments in. Since when do we filter for stupidity? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So now we allow any drive by bigot to add what they want? OK, if you say so. Silver Sloth (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Argue against his/her bigotry instead of removing it outright, how about? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The front page of this website reads "we encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue" and removing his comment because we don't agree with it isn't justified. SJ ^Debaser 12:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And I don't call what Foxx posted 'constructive' and, as he's now run away, there's not going to be any dialogue - just a pile of putrid hate. However, as I said with my last comment, if you feel it should remain... Silver Sloth (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, like most things like it, the comment is so inane it can't do anything but reflect badly on the one who posted it. Censoring it basically does them a favour. Besides, it's under a sub-heading marked "crap". ^bomination 13:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Essay space?

Should this not be moved into essay space? Ace^McWicked 06:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to say "yes" or "no".--Bob^{Not Jim} 11:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Putting it in RW space was Radioactive Guy's idea, but it doesn't really make sense since it's not really about RationalWiki, & similar things like Essay:Where do you fall in the abortion debate? are in essay or debate space. Maybe it could find a home in forum space? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The forumspace was made for things like this—it's not really an essay and it's not really a debate. It's just people talking with each about a general subject. I vote we move it to the forumspace! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And about my being the one who moved this in the first place—it was 2007. I was young and foolish then (the I comment I made towards the top of this page are typical of me at the time). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Debate might be better than essay. Not sure if we should move it to forum though, although that might work as well. ħuman 02:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)