next »

[systeme_d]

Polly, in most contemporary contexts in which I have found myself, "queer" is widely understood to signify the opposite of "heteronormative."  Heteronormativity, by definition, excludes non-mainstream sexual practices.  Many BDSM communities, for instance, identify as "queer" although the majority of their members would describe themselves as heterosexual.  

[promovenda]

No, Onion, I don't think I derailed this thread with my calm statement of dissent. I think you did that with your hysterical defensiveness. BTW, I do not hate you.

[stitch]

Well, I'm sure I taking this too seriously, but I object to the terms "homophobe" and "hater."

"Homophobe": One doesn't have to be afraid of LGBT etc. people, in order to disagree with their lifestyle choices.

"Hater": Disagreement does not equal hate.

The words "homophobe" and "hater" highten the division, because they make assumptions people on the other side do not necessarily hold.

Hmm.  See, I think going for an overly literal translation of "homophobe" borders on hysterical. 

No, of course you don't hate us.  You're just saying that the way we live our lives is wrong and evil.  You may think that's a valid distinction, but to the receiver of that contempt, it makes no difference.

[onion]

BTW, I do not hate you.

Oh, thank god.  I have lost so much sleep worrying over whether or not you hate me.  You just think I am immoral and misguided and deserving of pity.  Perhaps I can be saved!  I can change!  I can renounce my "lifestyle choice"!  There is hope for this dyke!

[t_r_b]

BTW, I do not hate you.

Hateful is as hateful does.

[promovenda]

Democracy is founded on the right and responsibility to disagree but still to live peacefully as one society for the common good. I wish none of you ill. 

[duchess_of_malfi]

Pray thee, why dost thou wrap thy poison'd pills in gold and sugar?

[t_r_b]

Democracy is founded on the right and responsibility to disagree but still to live peacefully as one society for the common good.

Sounds good to me. And assuming there are no serial killers browsing the CHE, I'm guessing that everyone here is living peaceably with those with whom they disagree.

The question remains: why on earth are you posting in this thread? There are plenty of places you can go to vent your "disagreements" with gay people. Go wave an "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" sign at a pride rally, if you must. But how does venting those disagreements here accomplish anything worthwhile?

[polly_mer]

Democracy is founded on the right and responsibility to disagree but still to live peacefully as one society for the common good.

Sounds good to me. And assuming there are no serial killers browsing the CHE, I'm guessing that everyone here is living peaceably with those with whom they disagree.

The question remains: why on earth are you posting in this thread? There are plenty of places you can go to vent your "disagreements" with gay people. Go wave an "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" sign at a pride rally, if you must. But how does venting those disagreements here accomplish anything worthwhile?

Unfortunately, I know the answer to "how does venting those disagreements here accomplish anything worthwhile?"  The answer is: If you don't let people of like minds gather together anywhere, then you have successfully isolated people.   Isolated people are easier to either harass into displaying "appropriate behavior" to conform in public or even convinced to leave a particular community.  Logically, if one takes the stance that no one should be allowed to have certain ideas or even contemplate certain behaviors, the best way to shut down those ideas is to make sure that no one anywhere is allowed to say anything positive, approving, or supportive about having those ideas or practicing those behaviors.  If one cannot stifle all mention, the very least one can do is attempt to make sure that "equal time is given to dissenting views", even if dissent is not at all the proper word to use regarding other people's life paths and the chosen forum is not one where dissent will change any minds.

Now, that kind of stance is in no way, shape, or form practicing tolerance in any traditional definition of the word, but that's a common tactic by many camps holding "I have the one true path to enlightenment.  Convert or die" views.

And

Polly, in most contemporary contexts in which I have found myself, "queer" is widely understood to signify the opposite of "heteronormative."  Heteronormativity, by definition, excludes non-mainstream sexual practices.  Many BDSM communities, for instance, identify as "queer" although the majority of their members would describe themselves as heterosexual. 

The question in my mind is whether the homosexuals in a alphabet soup group who identify as "queer" would accept some self-identified others as also being "queer".  Some of the discussions I have witnessed go along the lines of "Well, yes, we're homosexual, but we're not perverts like those BDSM people, the bestiality people, the pedophiles, the kitchen appliance lovers, or the furry lovers, to name a few of the bigger groups.  And legalizing gay marriage certainly wouldn't open the door to something unthinkable like polygamy or group marriage.  We're normal like the paired heterosexual people, just with a different combination of genitals."

I agree with the logic that homosexuals are normal, but a good many of the homosexuals I know are very quick to distance themselves from other sexual practices that are not "normal" so that "practitioners of such deviancy should not be allowed near our children".

[stitch]

Democracy is founded on the right and responsibility to disagree but still to live peacefully as one society for the common good.

Sounds good to me. And assuming there are no serial killers browsing the CHE, I'm guessing that everyone here is living peaceably with those with whom they disagree.

The question remains: why on earth are you posting in this thread? There are plenty of places you can go to vent your "disagreements" with gay people. Go wave an "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" sign at a pride rally, if you must. But how does venting those disagreements here accomplish anything worthwhile?

Unfortunately, I know the answer to "how does venting those disagreements here accomplish anything worthwhile?"  The answer is: If you don't let people of like minds gather together anywhere, then you have successfully isolated people.   Isolated people are easier to either harass into displaying "appropriate behavior" to conform in public or even convinced to leave a particular community.  Logically, if one takes the stance that no one should be allowed to have certain ideas or even contemplate certain behaviors, the best way to shut down those ideas is to make sure that no one anywhere is allowed to say anything positive, approving, or supportive about having those ideas or practicing those behaviors.  If one cannot stifle all mention, the very least one can do is attempt to make sure that "equal time is given to dissenting views", even if dissent is not at all the proper word to use regarding other people's life paths and the chosen forum is not one where dissent will change any minds.

Now, that kind of stance is in no way, shape, or form practicing tolerance in any traditional definition of the word, but that's a common tactic by many camps holding "I have the one true path to enlightenment.  Convert or die" views.

And

Polly, in most contemporary contexts in which I have found myself, "queer" is widely understood to signify the opposite of "heteronormative."  Heteronormativity, by definition, excludes non-mainstream sexual practices.  Many BDSM communities, for instance, identify as "queer" although the majority of their members would describe themselves as heterosexual. 

The question in my mind is whether the homosexuals in a alphabet soup group who identify as "queer" would accept some self-identified others as also being "queer".  Some of the discussions I have witnessed go along the lines of "Well, yes, we're homosexual, but we're not perverts like those BDSM people, the bestiality people, the pedophiles, the kitchen appliance lovers, or the furry lovers, to name a few of the bigger groups.  And legalizing gay marriage certainly wouldn't open the door to something unthinkable like polygamy or group marriage.  We're normal like the paired heterosexual people, just with a different combination of genitals."

I agree with the logic that homosexuals are normal, but a good many of the homosexuals I know are very quick to distance themselves from other sexual practices that are not "normal" so that "practitioners of such deviancy should not be allowed near our children".

Polly, give me a break.  Sure, there are some bad apples in any group, but the folks I hear putting furries and pedophiles together under the same umbrella are universally members of the religious right.

Just about every self identified queer person I know simply draws the line at consenting adults.  We don't care what you wear or what you do in the bedroom.  As long as everyone involved is over 18 and wants to be there, have at it.   

[t_r_b]

Polly,

To follow up on Stitch's comment, I think you are too hastily conflating "homosexual" and "queer." S_D clearly defined "queer," above, in much broader terms than "homosexual." The same goes for the various alphabet soup terms we've been discussing/mocking.

Are there homosexual people who do not identify with that broader notion of "queer" and who are intolerant of people who identify as bisexual, polyamorous, transgendered, etc.? Sure. Ignore them, just as you would ignore intolerant heterosexuals.

But the point of the term "LGBT" (as opposed to the term "gay") is precisely to be more inclusive, and the point of the seemingly endless addition of letters to the acronym is to extend that inclusivity to pretty much everyone who embraces the "if you and yours are consenting adults, you're cool" rule. So it makes little sense for you to turn up your nose and condemn the alphabet soup for not including a letter for you. If you want to add a letter (or otherwise demand inclusion), go ahead and say so: how do you think the soup got so thick to begin with? In general, the queer-identified people I've known are pretty welcoming of those who announce, "this is who I am, whether you like it or not." As long as everyone is a consenting adult, you're good.

[promovenda]

Democracy is founded on the right and responsibility to disagree but still to live peacefully as one society for the common good.

Sounds good to me. And assuming there are no serial killers browsing the CHE, I'm guessing that everyone here is living peaceably with those with whom they disagree.

The question remains: why on earth are you posting in this thread? There are plenty of places you can go to vent your "disagreements" with gay people. Go wave an "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" sign at a pride rally, if you must. But how does venting those disagreements here accomplish anything worthwhile?

Well, trb, I began reading this thread with a sincere interest in the acronym and its composition, and wanted to learn more. But then I objected to the terms "homophobe" and "hater" which others were using. I have no interest in making any kind of statement here; if you'd rather, I'll just drop it now.

[systeme_d]

And

Polly, in most contemporary contexts in which I have found myself, "queer" is widely understood to signify the opposite of "heteronormative."  Heteronormativity, by definition, excludes non-mainstream sexual practices.  Many BDSM communities, for instance, identify as "queer" although the majority of their members would describe themselves as heterosexual. 

The question in my mind is whether the homosexuals in a alphabet soup group who identify as "queer" would accept some self-identified others as also being "queer".  Some of the discussions I have witnessed go along the lines of "Well, yes, we're homosexual, but we're not perverts like those BDSM people, the bestiality people, the pedophiles, the kitchen appliance lovers, or the furry lovers, to name a few of the bigger groups.  And legalizing gay marriage certainly wouldn't open the door to something unthinkable like polygamy or group marriage.  We're normal like the paired heterosexual people, just with a different combination of genitals."

I agree with the logic that homosexuals are normal, but a good many of the homosexuals I know are very quick to distance themselves from other sexual practices that are not "normal" so that "practitioners of such deviancy should not be allowed near our children".

Polly, I've lived in several places in the good old USA over my fortysome years, and I have to admit that I actually have not encountered the sort of folks you describe here.  As Stitch and TRB note, self-identified LGBTQLMNOPXYZ folks, who increasingly (in my experience) identify as queer, do so precisely in order to include all non-heteronormative forms of sexual expression and personal identification.  That includes ALL adults who have sexualities that extend beyond "one man and one woman only, preferably married." 

To paraphrase Stitch, if you are over 18 and engaging in sexual activities in which all present are not somehow exploited or coerced, it's fine by us.  And we'd call you queer, as long as you didn't object.

[polly_mer]

Polly, I've lived in several places in the good old USA over my fortysome years, and I have to admit that I actually have not encountered the sort of folks you describe here.  As Stitch and TRB note, self-identified LGBTQLMNOPXYZ folks, who increasingly (in my experience) identify as queer, do so precisely in order to include all non-heteronormative forms of sexual expression and personal identification.  That includes ALL adults who have sexualities that extend beyond "one man and one woman only, preferably married." 

To paraphrase Stitch, if you are over 18 and engaging in sexual activities in which all present are not somehow exploited or coerced, it's fine by us.  And we'd call you queer, as long as you didn't object.

Hmmm.  So what you're saying is that while I have lived in several places in the US, my experience is not representative of your experience.  I can believe that other people have other experiences and what you are saying is true.

However, I can assure you that often groups in the geographic areas for young people who find that their sexual preferences do not match those of the church, family, and community are not particularly accepting of anything beyond a bare "two people only in a monogamous, til-death-do-us-part relationship with only certain acts acceptable".  So the very places that have the greatest need for support against the "One right way or get out of our fair city" mindset tend to lend themselves to even splinter groups that have "one right way or get out of our group" mindsets.

Of course, I also know a fair number of people who live green, go to rallies as supporters of a range of causes usually identified as liberal, but think that a woman's main purpose is to be the heart of a family with many children and that the pope is a good source of advice for organizing one's life.

Because of living in those kinds of communities, I don't want to be called queer.  I have a unique combination of traits from the wide diversity of human traits available, but so does everyone else.  In that sense, I get annoyed about the labeling of normal behavior.  You don't need a label for normal and you shouldn't need a group for normal. 

I understand why people want a group devoted to discussing topics related to sexuality and the organization of a broadly-defined family life in a place where the prevailing models are not relevant to one's own situation.  I support having those groups.  But, as a result of this discussion, I want to modify my stance that took us in this direction.  The people who are tolerant of everything between consenting adults should probably just call the group something inclusive like "Sexuality Discussions" and leave the alphabet for those who truly mean "This combination of letters and allies" because they usually have just a handful of letters.  Both types of groups exist and putting them both in the same category under liberal (in the political and social sense) and tolerant is a mistake. 


To get back to the OP's question, yes, I think everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that LGBT indicates lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual.  However, what being involved with a group like that says about you, your ideas, your political and social leanings, and your likely fit for any position even within another LGBT group, let alone a generic position at an institute of higher education, is not nearly as agreed upon as putting something like a degree in a history or teaching physical chemistry class on your CV.  You should take that into account when deciding how to frame your involvement beyond a bare statement of administrative duties.

[spork]

Is this where the hot chicks hang out?