Forum: Author Hangout

"We're all gay, get over it"

Do they have a death wish? I mean, seriously, the groups they're most hoping will adapt and accept to the new way of seeing things are not renowned for their subtle interpretations, but some are very inclined towards violence.

Someone explains that T-shirt to a skinhead and gets beaten up: I'd be asking the victim, "Well, what did you expect?"

Suggest these people show a little common sense. 'We are really no different to you' messages should not cause any offense, and rarely would. 'You are really no different to us' messages perhaps should not cause any offense, but certainly will.

refuse to be pigeon-holed as simply one or the other

Australian Governments (federal and probably most states by now) got this one right I think. All forms must have three options for sex: male, female, and not stated.

Contrast that to Indonesia where I have completed questionnaires at hospital emergency rooms that offered only five choices for religion: Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, and Jewish.

I started writing a description of some of the consequences I see as having flowed from a noble intention that the country's Constitution stipulates equal treatment for all (recognised) religions.

I thought better of that. A couple of years an Indonesian was jailed for six months after posting, "I am an atheist" on Facebook. I kid you not! It was deemed a Muslim making that as a public statement is offensive to other Muslims.

That prompts the thought that it may be time for some in more, if not totally, enlightened societies to stop trying to tell others to 'get over it' and be grateful for what they now have and 'get on with it' themselves.

I totally missed the joke.
My reaction was kind of based on what of my closest friends in Australia would have thought. He's a down-to-Earth and thoroughly decent Scot. When gays are usually mentioned he usually brings out one of his jokes, "I do not care what they do, as long as they don't try to make it compulsory."
I suppose my caution for your friends was to try to be careful in the way they phrase things to avoid suggesting the already converted may need to change more. :-)
And, I was in a snarky mood at the time.

Gay men sometimes marry women for camouflage so others will think they are heterosexual.

Funny that you mention it; I'm working on a story based on a true experience with a woman, "B". A mutual friend introduced us, telling me that B was lesbian, but that the two of us had lots of common interests and really were likely to become platonic friends, as we did.

She did ask me to escort her to some weddings and such, as her family really didn't know her preferences. After we were pretty good friends, she asked me to dinner at her apartment, and then said, "Once a year, I need to test to see if I'm still lesbian. With a couple of ground rules, will you be my tester this year?"

I agreed, and we had a fantastic night. In the morning, she decided her core preference was the same, but gave me the great compliment of telling me that I made love like a lesbian.

A bit later, when I was living with my to-be-wife, we did have some threesomes, without much physical contact between B. and myself.

She was upset when invited to our wedding. I have the impression she had hoped that I was willing to be her camouflaged husband.

I guess I'd have to call her bisexual.

Sort of agree, but some people use that very statement as an excuse to discriminate against those they object to, whether it is gay marriage, interracial marriage, minorities, certain religions different than their own, etc.

To me that option is a form of force. Its no one's right to decide who can marry or not marry except the couple involved. To me even arranged marriages require the mutual consent of the couple involved. Where its a matter of a cultural tradition, I refuse to judge them because of that difference in cultures.

Its no one's right to decide who can marry or not marry except the couple involved.

To leave the gender identity thread for a moment, is the age of the couple a possible reason for intervention? Say the couple is six years old. Or one of them is six and the other is much, much older. Or is Pedo ok in this brave new world?

Perhaps sadly, there is no competence test for marriage. The best society has found is the age tests.

Say the couple is six years old.

In some cultures that was highly possible for both age brackets. It was a custom going back hundreds or even possibly thousands of years. It is very hard to change those cultural traditions. Instead of judging them I try and understand the origins if possible then judge accordingly. Its like in some cultures nudity was and is considered normal yet in others its taboo. Which way I judge depends on their individual cultural standards.

Its okay to try and change those standards but its not okay to force them to change their traditional standards. Its okay to try and change them though example and debates, but not with force.

Instead, the more recent advice is, watch for changes in your kid, and if them seem ill at ease, encourage them to come to you and, if they're want to be a different sex, have the changes made before they enter puberty! Otherwise, it's too late to do anything about it.

So it's okay for a preteen or tween who is 'ill at ease' with their gender to make a decision to change it, but not to have sex with whomever they choose no matter the age difference until they are 18? And don't say that the adult shouldn't influence a minor to have sex. An adult shouldn't influence a child to change sex either!

However, if someone doesn't undergo sex realignment procedures (minimally hormone injections), they'll never successfully make the transition

Is that reversible? If not, I would be VERY WARY about who could know it was not wrong.
BEFORE puberty? I shudder to think. How could a child know then. The character Ricardo in 'My So-Called Life' would have known, but how many times would be decision be wrong in real life?
I see a common thread through many 'morality laws' which I think is absolutely correct. A benefit to the majority does not justify life-destroying consequences when a judgement call is wrong. The most obviously example being 'innocent until proven guilty'.

@Crumbly Writer

However, if someone doesn't undergo sex realignment procedures (minimally hormone injections), they'll never successfully make the transition

Is that reversible? If not, I would be VERY WARY about who could know it was not wrong.

BEFORE puberty? I shudder to think. How could a child know then. The character Ricardo in 'My So-Called Life' would have known, but how many times would be decision be wrong in real life?

I see a common thread through many 'morality laws' which I think is absolutely correct. A benefit to the majority does not justify life-destroying consequences when a judgement call is wrong. The most obviously example being 'innocent until proven guilty'.

That is what happened in a manner of speaking to me in the 5th grade. I had saved up and purchased one of those child chemistry sets (no allowance I earned the money). I purchased a college chemistry text from a yard sale. During recess at school I sat under a shade tree to read the text in order to learn a little more about the chemistry options for my set. The teacher suddenly decided I had to play baseball like every other student was. I refused, principle told me either I played baseball or he would use a board on my ass. I told him "you get first swing then I will kill you". I was expelled for refusing to be beaten into the normal mold for children. Namely I was not interested in any kind of sports related activities. To me that was wrong and I refused to be forced into the mold. I got into trouble many times over the years because I refused to be forced to fit the normal model for kids.

edited to add: Principle's brand new cadilac had a small chemical accident a couple of weeks later. Ruining his new car. Not covered under insurance or the new car warranty. Such a pity.

Not sure how that relates to my post ... but anyway, thanks for sharing.
I'll be cautious about posting things here that might irritate you :-)

Not irritated at all, seems more like a lively debate with lots of different views. Its just sometimes its hard for me at least to put that view in a way that others can understand. Those different view points actually leads to a better overall understanding as well at times.

Not irritated at all, seems more like a lively debate with lots of different views. Its just sometimes its hard for me at least to put that view in a way that others can understand. Those different view points actually leads to a better overall understanding as well at times.

Sorry, forgot the smiley face.
I didn't mean you were irritated. I was joking I should "be very afraid" and avoid irritating someone with a history of "creative responses" to the many arseholes they have encountered at various times.
:-)

Otherwise, it's too late to do anything about it.

Sometimes it can't be seen, even by the person. As an aside, my mother, a social worker, dealt early with intersex people, and I grew up unsurprised by it.

One tragic scenario comes when Mr. and Mrs. Jones, a lovely couple, finally go to a fertility clinic, and get the sort of testing not practical in routine medicine.

In fetal development, about gestational week 7, there is an event called Mullerian differentiation. The mother secretes male hormones (androgens), which, if the fetus has conventional XY chromosomes, starts the development of male genitalia.

There is a genetic condition, or actually a range of conditions, called androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which an XY fetus does not respond to Mullerian differentiation, and is apparently female at birth.

In Mrs. Jones' case, she was intensely athletic from an early age, which was the reason she assumed that she had no apparent periods. She became a beautiful woman, and, as far as she knew, married a man as a heterosexual. She thinks of herself as a woman.

What categorization?

What categorization?

I stated objections (or at least caution) to medical interventions before puberty on the grounds nobody could be sure it was correct.
In this example, where chromosomes and body do not match, I'd have no objections and believe the child should decide.
Is that what happened with Caster Semenya - the South African woman (? but yes) who is unbeatable over 800m?

"Don't know. Don't care."

Also phrased, ignorance and apathy.

Also phrased, ignorance and apathy.

Nope I have had friends who were gay. (used for both genders)

Those friends didn't force their lifestyle choices on me without hiding their relationships. In turn I didn't try to force my preference on them. As a result in most of those relationships we had a mutual respect for each other. It is just that it was not my place to judge their lifestyle choice unless they tried to force that choice on others.

I'm still not understanding what you mean by this statement.

Its the way some people push the choice on others. Kind of hard to describe in words for me however.

From Wheezer: I'm still not understanding what you mean by this statement.

Your: Its the way some people push the choice on others. Kind of hard to describe in words for me however.

For me it includes being told I should change my beliefs or attitudes when my actions are causing no harm to them (or others they are close to).
I find the way that many demands for tolerance are expressed are intolerant of others non-differences.
Criticise what I do, not what I think, and still only if it causes others harm.

it was not my place to judge their lifestyle choice

I agree with your sentiments, I just wish there was a better expression than "lifestyle choice". We would we say the natural desires of straights to form pair bonds are lifestyle choices? I see NO difference at all in that.

But - I cannot think of what the alternative should be.

Being gay or straight is not a "lifestyle choice" any more than being black or brown or white is a "lifestyle choice."

Gay or straight, being sexually active is a choice.

What's your point? Are you arguing the Catholic Church's current view, which is, "It's OK if you're gay, but don't actually do any sex"?

Yes and no.

If you are gay and Catholic, you have to chose between celibacy and leaving the church. You don't get to demand that the Church change it's doctrine so you can be Catholic and sexually active.

And yes, gay activists have made those types of demands.

[the Catholic Church] does insist on not committing the evil act itself.

What country has the greatest percentage of active homosexuals? If the truth were known, my guess would be the Vatican.

Being gay or straight is not a "lifestyle choice" any more than being black or brown or white is a "lifestyle choice."

Its all in the presentation. Some seem to want to shove it into your face hoping for a reaction. That is what I object to regardless of orientation or religion or culture.

Some seem to want to shove it into your face hoping for a reaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_UP#.22Stop_the_Church.22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence

Its all in the presentation. Some seem to want to shove it into your face hoping for a reaction. That is what I object to regardless of orientation or religion or culture.

Being a jerk or being dressed inappropriately are probably good grounds for refusing service, along with being high or drunk. None of those reasons were cited by the good bakers and florists---not to mention the court clerk---for refusing service.

Jerks are jerks, and found in every sexual orientation, no question.

bb

None of those reasons were cited by the good bakers and florists---not to mention the court clerk---for refusing service.

The clerk of courts was dead wrong. That isn't even a public accommodation issue, it's a straight up equal protection issue.

The baker and the florist are not as simple as you suggest.

If a gay couple come in to buy a pre-made cake or floral arrangement off the shelf, that is one thing and should solidly and properly be covered by public accommodations laws.

However very few people buy wedding cakes or flowers that way. Most wedding cakes/floral arrangements are custom, made to order, perishable art pieces.

When you start dealing with services (not off the shelf retail products) that involve at least some artistic expression there is at least some room for discussion over where the line should be drawn between public accommodation and the service provider's free speech/free exercise rights.

If there's a conflict between local (or state) law and Federal law, Federal wins.

Yes, but public accommodations laws are state law not Federal.

And sexual orientation is not unambiguously covered by existing federal anti-discrimination law.

Your odds of winning would be much better in the state courts using state public accommodations law

Email and Twitter and Tumblr and all that will ensure everyone, especially the interested parties, will know soon enough if there's a pattern of "unavailability."

A pattern of unavailability by itself is not enough. To win a public accommodation case or a federal discrimination case you would have to prove that the business was available to someone else who asked after you.

Even if you are in a protected class, you can still be legally turned down for unrelated reasons.

All the photographer has to do is say "I already had someone else booked for that day" or "I planned to take those days off." and the burden of proof is on you to prove that the conflicting event was booked after you were turned down or that the photographer worked on a day he said he was taking off.

Although it would be interesting to see whether a wedding photographer can refuse a request from a gay couple. Can a portrait painter refuse a commission from a gay couple? Interesting question. EDIT TO ADD: In neither case is there an "off-the-shelf" option.

Can a portrait painter decide to do near-realistic or stick figure renditions of customers based on their sexual orientation? Then they have the double feature of artistic expression and religious freedom.

When you start dealing with services (not off the shelf retail products) that involve at least some artistic expression there is at least some room for discussion over where the line should be drawn

VERY well put! One person's "rights" ARE NOT necessarily absolute, and may on occasions be outweighed by another person's rights. :-)

Sorry, but your "Some ... shove it into your face" is simply someone saying "I'm sick of hiding who I am because the bigoted refuse to change. I'm no longer going to hide, and if I feel like kissing my boy/girlfriend, I refuse to be intimidated by prudes"

Tell that to the Catholic churches in San Fransisco that have had services interrupted by gay rights activists dressed up as a parody of nuns.

I wouldn't consider simple PDAs by a gay couple to be shoving anything in my face. That doesn't negate the existence of gays who do shove their gayness in straight peoples faces. Granted the real face shovers are a tiny minority of a small minority sub-culture, but they are also the loudest and most visible segment of that community.

The "Act-Up" movement has long been controversial, even among the gay rights movement.

That may be true, but they are so loud and outrageous that they draw a disproportionate amount of press. I know people who think they ARE the gay rights movement.

as opposed to outrageous behavior in gay rights parade, which is seen as a safe environment for acting out.

Sorry, but with a lot of straight people that behavior in public parades is just as counter productive for the gay rights movement as Act-Up.

They see that stuff and get the idea that gays can't control themselves. I know that's not true, but I also know people who look at the public nudity and overtly sexual behavior at outdoor gay pride events and get that impression.

They see that stuff and get the idea that gays can't control themselves. I know that's not true, but I also know people who look at the public nudity and overtly sexual behavior at outdoor gay pride events and get that impression.

That is where the impression has created more problems than they were trying to solve. I have had friends who were gay couples and at least one that was married.

I have also known others that I thought were probably gay, but like that Hank Williams song phrase goes: "Mind your own business and you will be too busy to mind mine." (I may have misquoted a little bit)
Its funny how true that little phrase is however.

If watching a Gay Rights parade makes your blood boil with a seething rage, then you might be part of the problem.

Like the quote said not my business so I tend to ignore those things. I get my understanding from individuals I have actually met both good and bad.

edited to add: The only time it might become my business is if a child is harmed because of it. Otherwise as far as I am concerned its consenting partners.

Sorry, but your "Some ... shove it into your face" is simply someone saying "I'm sick of hiding who I am because the bigoted refuse to change. I'm no longer going to hide, and if I feel like kissing my boy/girlfriend, I refuse to be intimidated by prudes".

Wrong, the ones I was referring to are those who want to cause a fight. Those come in all colors, races, religions and cultures. Heck I don't care who kisses who as long as its not forced on either party. Mutual acts of affection are always acceptable to me. Of course I have always tended to look at things differently anyway.

No one gets any kind of genital surgery before age 18.

Circumcision could be considered genital surgery and there are recorded cases where gender reassignment surgery has been performed on infants born with ambiguous genitalia. Most of the cases I have read about of that happening, the parents were pressured into it by doctors.

I was speaking specifically to transgender issues, which are rather separate from intersex issues, never mind circumcision.

Genital mutilation qualifies, and it's often performed before women reach puberty, and is often pressured by the family and generally only done reluctantly by doctors who don't approve of forcing it on children.

Yes, genital mutilation is forced by the families and the doctors are reluctant. However, that's not what I was referring to.

I was referring to the "correction" of abnormal ambiguous genitalia.

There are at least a couple of cases of the later that I have read about where the unfortunate child has on both reaching majority and finding out what was done to them, sued both the hospital and their parents.

I've also read about at least one case where a male-to-female reassignment surgery was done on an infant because of a botched medical circumcision that destroyed the infants penis.

I don't understand them, I don't need too. I'm also prepared to tolerate them, though not celebrate them.

I have a good friend with similar sentiments to that. He's a down-to-Earth, elderly Scot. He usually expresses that view with "... as long as they don't try to make it compulsory."