|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality - the conceptual and linguistic divide
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I think we've really hit on all of these ideas here on Dead Horses in some way or other, but I found this really valuable because (1) it's concrete survey data, and (2) it was looking at the views of young people. In America, which may have an influence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpdsdk6J00E
Fundamentally, there are two major factors that fortify the conservative Christian mindset against gays:
(1) They think being gay is a choice.
(2) They think being gay is all about actually having sex.
EDIT: I think even those 2 things are linked, because one of the main reasons LGBT people themselves reject the idea that it's all about actually having sex is that they had an awareness of their sexuality long before actually having sex. As I've related a number of times, I came out before having any kind of sexual encounter with a man, and I had already thought I was gay for about 17 years when I came out.
[ 03. December 2013, 09:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I agree that sexual orientation is about more than just sex - although for some people their sexual orientation, romantic orientation, social orientation, etc., are all different things and different sexes, genders, and people fall into different categories.
I always worry as a gay man that if I live up to the stereotype by being promiscuous, by having a non-monogamous relationship, by getting divorced, by not being an otherwise "good Christian" at my gay-friendly Church, I am betraying non-straight people everywhere. I don't think I have to be anything for anyone, but I hate when my life decisions feel like they can become fodder for people who want to discriminate against people like me or worse, for young people still figuring out what to beleive about LGBT people and their rights.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I think there's a further issue that comes into play here in how different groups characterise sexual ethics. There's the category of what is OK and the category of what is not OK, and the things that are not OK can get smooshed together even if they're not very alike.
For secular liberals the two categories are usually "between consenting adults" and "not between consenting adults". Whereas for the conservative Christians it's more like "within a heterosexual marriage" and "outside of a heterosexual marriage". This leads to everything outside of hetero marriage being put into the same category, and treated as similar even when it isn't. People genuinely don't see that there's a big difference between stable gay relationships and sexually predatory behaviour, or even paedophilia. The slippery slope seems to be obviously in play here: once you start saying that sex outside of marriage is ok, aren't you opening the floodgates?
To which the answer is, no, of course not. If you're building your idea of sexual ethics on the principle of "between consenting adults" then there are many things which are never going to become ok, however acceptable gay relationships are. This is particularly important because many of the arguments against gay marriage, for instance, rely very heavily on slippery slope rhetoric. If you're in a hetero marriage which you chose to be in, and which is not abusive, congratulations - you're in the middle of the Venn diagram of "sex that people think is ok."
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Yes, but in the 70's arguing that a 15 or 16 year old can give consent didn't necessarily make someone a monster - but that was before all the stories of teachers, relatives, clergy, etc., taking advantage of teenagers (and younger children, but my emphasis here is on teenagers). So social liberals, at least in the US (I know the age of consent is different elsewhere), have largely hewn to the "18 years old defines an adult" absolute definition to avoid any association with abusers of youth.
I think there is nothing wrong with an 18-year age of consent as long as there is some wiggle room for people slightly over 18 in relationships with people who are 17 or so, but that is not my point here.
A liberal frame of mind infuriates traditionalists so they will often be successful in using the slippery slope argument to attack us in the public sphere. They can argue if we redefine marriage, why can't we redefine adult.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think there's a further issue that comes into play here in how different groups characterise sexual ethics. There's the category of what is OK and the category of what is not OK, and the things that are not OK can get smooshed together even if they're not very alike.
<snip>
Excellent insight on where the slippery slope comes from, i.e. the binary wherein the outside of heteromarriage is all "here be monsters" territory.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Well if people (including many on the Ship) are still stuck on homosexuality v heterosexuality, with no other kind of orientation existing, that in itself is a problem and shows a lack of understanding of sexuality. But conservatives don't want to understand sexual orientation as part of God's creation, they only want to understand God via a narrow interpretation of Scripture (which they erroneously call the Word of God) and understand creation via children's Bible illustrations.
[ 04. December 2013, 14:09: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
It was interesting that when Tom Daley came out yesterday, he didn't come out as gay, bisexual or anything else. He simply came out as 'not heterosexual' and being in a serious relationship with a bloke. No labels.
I think this makes him an excellent role model for the young.
"I don't need a label, but this is who I want to be with - deal with it!"
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It was interesting that when Tom Daley came out yesterday, he didn't come out as gay, bisexual or anything else. He simply came out as 'not heterosexual' and being in a serious relationship with a bloke. No labels.
I think this makes him an excellent role model for the young.
"I don't need a label, but this is who I want to be with - deal with it!"
It's not my business of course and he can define himself however he wants, but I see this as defining himself in terms of heterosexuality; what he's not, rather than what he is. I wonder how many others in the LGBTQ spectrum see themselves in this way?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I'm a bit wary, not of "I don't need a label" (fine, if that's how you feel) but of "you don't need a label." It can be used against LGBTQ people. It can be used as a way of invalidating our experience, or turning our own way of identifying ourselves into a phase or something it isn't. I've heard a version of "I don't believe in sexual orientation anyway - who needs the label?" from someone who was very clearly using this argument to push the idea that gay people are not really differently wired, just temporarily confused.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I'm a bit wary, not of "I don't need a label" (fine, if that's how you feel) but of "you don't need a label." It can be used against LGBTQ people.
I wasn't trying to say that; sorry if I was unclear. As I said people can call themselves whatever they want, and indeed it's empowering, especially for people in marginalized groups of whatever sort, to choose their own group moniker. No problem with that. Truly, I wasn't speaking about existence or lack of existence of labels. "Label" is another word for "noun" and there is no language without nouns.
I was merely pondering defining or labeling oneself in terms of someone else. Perhaps that's inevitable when one group has created a sociopolitical hegemony and defined everyone else as "other."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Label" is another word for "noun" and there is no language without nouns.
Quite. I don't really have a problem with people who say 'I don't need a label' but, as I see it, it doesn't follow that one doesn't have one.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It was interesting that when Tom Daley came out yesterday, he didn't come out as gay, bisexual or anything else. He simply came out as 'not heterosexual' and being in a serious relationship with a bloke. No labels.
I think this makes him an excellent role model for the young.
"I don't need a label, but this is who I want to be with - deal with it!"
It's not my business of course and he can define himself however he wants, but I see this as defining himself in terms of heterosexuality; what he's not, rather than what he is. I wonder how many others in the LGBTQ spectrum see themselves in this way?
I do, but I call myself gay often so as not to be invisible. I think that straight-ness, like white-ness, is an identity based on negation of what is deemd impure, inferior, or immoral. There isn't much to be proud of in being straight or white, because it is being proud of what you are not. There is lots to be proud of in being European, European-American, English, Italian, or in love with someone of another sex. I don't think people should be punished for identifying as straight or white, I think individuals should start thinking of themselves as of "primarily European ancestry" or "primarily attracted to another sex."
You might say wait - gays are primarily attracted to the same sex and are allowed to be proud of what they are! This isn't fair! I guess the problem here is that straightness is all about being in the "normal" majority and not acting out on any "abnormal" urges that anyone has from time to time. There is no such thing as straight culture, straight history, etc. - it's not about loving the other sex and making babies with them (queer people do that all the time), it's all about not being queer. Plus a "straight" person acknowledging that maybe one day they might have a chance sexual encounter or even a relationship with the same sex is different than a gay person saying that maybe one day they'll be straight. The first case is simply an acknowledgment that sexuality is fluid and unpredictable. The second is much more sweeping: it is saying that I can't feel secure in my queer identity - it might be just a phase and maybe one day I'll be normal like everyone else. A gay person saying that maybe one day s/he will sleep with or fall in love with someone of another sex, but later on in life s/he might sleep with or fall in love with someone of the same sex again is different again. It's just an acknolwedgment of all we know and don't know about sexuality.
As for there being no such thing as straight culture or history - any example you might give could kust as easily be said to belong to queer people because it is really the history or culture of all people in a given area. The same is true of so-called "white" culture or history. It always is, in truth, North American, European, Australasian, South African, Western, Mediterranean culture, etc., and does not belong to any one race. Queer history and culture is simply the history/culture of being sexually deviant or not in the majority. "Straight" people play a huge part in queer history and culture, too.
Does what I say make any sense? I hope that eventually, people will also feel less need to identify as gay insomuch as that means "I will never be attracted to another sex." as society changes and that is no longer necessary. However, for now, given people's limited understanding of sexuality, identifying as gay (or bi, for that matter) is good so as to raise awareness of LGBT rights. Is there such a thing as heterophobia? Yes, and it's bad just like homophobia is. But heterophobia is prejudice against people loving another sex or expressing that love publicly - it isn't opposition to the idea of straightness as an exclusive, elite, normative identity, which it is.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
stonespring
There may be no such thing as "white culture" but whites have dominated our culture for yonks, and have called the shots as to what is in or out. Racism, white hegemony, and white privilege are all artifacts of white control of culture (and vice versa -- it's been a closed loop). Even saying "Latinos and blacks have a culture but whites don't" is a subtle form of affirming that there's a default culture, dominated by and defined by the whites, and then "other" cultures.
White male heterosexuals are the "default" -- nobody says "Jones, a white male senator from..." unless they're specifically reporting on a story having to do with race/ethnicity or gender/sex. Would that it were not so. We've got a long way to go before we reach the "colorblindness" the conservative pundits claim we already have.
Also, see what I said above about people not needing labels.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
No one needs a label and no one should have a label imposed upon them (although some "labels" are statements of fact, like who your parents are and who you historically have had sex with, whether or not you were "attracted" to them).
I never said that whites don't have any culture of their own - I said that there is no thing as white culture. People who identify as white have European culture, the culture of whatever country their ancestors are from (or that they grew up in regardless of where their ancestors are from), and the American culture of all races to be proud of. And yes, whites (meaning people who choose to and are able to pass as white - what other valid definition of a white person is there?) have had undue influence on that culture for some time, whether or not they have been the majority in any particular region. But pointing out that a Senator is white has little value. What is worth pointing out is that he is privileged because of the lack of racial stigma he has to deal with (along with a lack of female stigma, queer stigma, non-Christian stigma, etc.).
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Labels are incredibly helpful for those of us in 'invisible' groups. If Tom Daley doesn't feel that there is an appropriate label for where he is on the sexuality spectrum, that is obviously for him to decide, but the whole 'labels are terrible' thing almost universally comes from people that have an identity that is acknowledged by society. For the rest of us, it's not that simple or easy. For bisexual people like me who deal with bisexual erasure, applying the bisexual label to ourselves helps us avoid invisibility. Labels are powerful and that power can be good as well as bad.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Labels are incredibly helpful for those of us in 'invisible' groups. If Tom Daley doesn't feel that there is an appropriate label for where he is on the sexuality spectrum, that is obviously for him to decide, but the whole 'labels are terrible' thing almost universally comes from people that have an identity that is acknowledged by society. For the rest of us, it's not that simple or easy. For bisexual people like me who deal with bisexual erasure, applying the bisexual label to ourselves helps us avoid invisibility. Labels are powerful and that power can be good as well as bad.
I totally agree that it's a good idea for bi people to be out as bi because of bisexual erasure and biphobia. I honestly don't know if I'm gay or bi-leaning-towards-a-preference-for-the-same-sex (ie, Kinsey 4 or 5). It doesn't really matter - but I don't want to disappoint either camp by claiming to be one and not the other (the implication that I am avoiding admitting that I really am X because of internalized X-phobia, etc.)
I'm not a huge fan of the label queer, either, but it does nicely sum up being non-straight, which is what I feel most comfortable identifying as. Call me gay, bi, queer, whatever you want, but please don't call me straight.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm not a huge fan of the label queer, either, but it does nicely sum up being non-straight, which is what I feel most comfortable identifying as.
But I thought 'queer' came with a political edge to it? (This has been covered elsewhere, but I still don't know what this is supposed to mean.)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm not a huge fan of the label queer, either, but it does nicely sum up being non-straight, which is what I feel most comfortable identifying as.
But I thought 'queer' came with a political edge to it? (This has been covered elsewhere, but I still don't know what this is supposed to mean.)
You don't understand what queer means, or the political edge to it? Both are surely easy to look up on the internet - Wikipedia has pages and pages on queer politics.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
and the American culture of all races to be proud of. And yes, whites (meaning people who choose to and are able to pass as white - what other valid definition of a white person is there?) have had undue influence on that culture for some time, whether or not they have been the majority in any particular region.
Not undue influence, it is largely their culture. That which people of colour contribute is often introduced by white people. The Blues, for example.
Not solely America either. Britain and Canada and Australia and.....
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We've got a long way to go before we reach the "colorblindness" the conservative pundits claim we already have.
This is not because they believe it, but because they are attempting to weasel out of fixing it.
----------------
Labels are how we humans think. I do not see this as ever changing because it is the foundation of language. What we need to do is change the values we assign some labels.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Even saying "Latinos and blacks have a culture but whites don't" is a subtle form of affirming that there's a default culture, dominated by and defined by the whites, and then "other" cultures.
There's a quote from the Good Shepherd that comes to mind;
quote:
Joseph Palmi: Let me ask you something... we Italians, we got our families, and we got the church; the Irish, they have the homeland, Jews their tradition; even the niggers, they got their music. What about you people, Mr. Wilson, what do you have?
Edward Wilson: The United States of America. The rest of you are just visiting.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
stonespring: quote:
There isn't much to be proud of in being straight or white, because it is being proud of what you are not. There is lots to be proud of in being European, European-American, English, Italian, or in love with someone of another sex.
I think you are slightly misconstruing labels here. People use labels (=nouns) in ordinary conversation to identify their membership of a group. If I were describing myself to someone else in the UK who had never met me, I would not use 'straight' or 'white' at all. As labels to distinguish me from the rest of the UK herd they are very nearly useless because they are shared by large numbers of other people.
If, on the other hand, I was on holiday in - let's say Kenya - then telling someone who'd never met me that I was white might actually be useful, because white people are a minority there.
So using more specific labels to describe yourself in a context where nearly everybody else is white and/or straight is normal. Why would anyone need to be reminded to do it?
And many labels which identify you as a member of a group also implicitly identify you as not being a member of another group. If I say I am female, I am also identifying myself as 'not male'.
[ 05. December 2013, 09:14: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
But I live in a city where the majority of people are not white. Still, when you refer to someone without giving them a label, the assumption is that the person is white. That does say something.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Fair enough. From the sound of it though, if white people really are a minority in your city the assumption says more about the person listening than the person speaking...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
