Ship of Fools: Why do Gays have to 'come out'?

Thread: Why do Gays have to 'come out'? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028573

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

In the UK we've just had a cricketer declare himself to be 'Gay'...the first Cricketer to do it.

Now I'm well aware that people enjoy lots of ways of having sex including..

being whipped, humiliate, doing the forsaid, rolling in custard, being 'peed' on, dressing up as babies etc. etc.

We also all have millions of secrets such as fancying the woman next door, fantasing over killing the boss, drinking too much, beating the wife/husband, fiddling expenses and Income Tax, driving too fast..

I have no inner prompting to tell all and sundry about my faults except maybe a priest whom I don't know...

So what is about 'Gay Inclinations' that make people want to 'come out' ? Is it guilt ? Is it becuase its no longer a crime like other failings ?

Pax et Bonum

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Isn't this crashingly obvious? Some gay people still feel they'll be abused (verbally, if not physically) if they say they're gay so they don't. They don't join in conversations about partners, previous relationships, which famous people they fancy and so on, meaning that declaring their sexuality becomes a major issue, an event.

I suppose it's the same if one is adopted, except I'm not aware of any prejudice against that so I presume people who are adopted don't have any trouble in saying so at the first appropriate moment. For example, you get into a conversation about how your parents met and the adopted person says, 'Oh, I don't know how my parents met, in fact I don't even know who my parents are.' No big deal. But if you're gay, it is a big deal I suppose.

Wouldn't it be fantastic, though, if gay people all felt free to 'out' themselves at the first appropriate moment instead of feeling they have no choice but to hide their sexuality?

(Wonder if this thread will avoid Dead Horse status...)

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

Because "I like to have sex like this" is private behaviour which is no one's business but my own and my partner(s), whereas "this is the person I love and want to spend my life with" defines a key relationship in my life that I ought to be able to make public without giving offence.

Being gay is not just about having an unusual way of fucking. It is about having important relationships of the sort that it would be most unusual for straight people to conceal. The approximate equivalent to "coming out" is not for me to tell you I prefer doggy-style to missionary - the equivalent is for me to tell you I'm married.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

First, it's not a failing. [Roll Eyes]

The vast majority of the gay people I've known who have come out have done so out of a desire to be honest with themselves and the world about who they are. Because there are still so many people who just assume everyone is straight, if gay people wish to be deal truthfully with themselves and others, they have to correct this assumption by saying that they are gay.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
So what is about 'Gay Inclinations' that make people want to 'come out' ? Is it guilt ? Is it becuase its no longer a crime like other failings ?

"Other failings"? Your sexual orientation is a "failing"?

Oh, well be grateful it's decriminalised!

I think it might be the persistance of such attitudes that make gay people feel compelled to assert their sexual identity.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Same reason heterosexuals come out.

We should expect no more or less of gay and lesbian couples than we expect of straight couples.

[ 28. February 2011, 17:41: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
We should expect no more or less of gay and lesbian couples than we expect of straight couples.

Seems to me you're setting the bar pretty low there...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Its also now much more socially acceptable to 'come out' now if one is gay isn't it?

As an orthodox Christian it is clear homosexuality is not God'd first choice for men and women.

Equally, neither is it God's first choice for a heterosexual man who is married to cheat on his wife multiple times (fornication in the old money), so sexual sin is that, it is sexual SIN whether it be gay sex or heterosexual bonking outside marriage. Sin is sin is sin.

You can sugar coat male buggery with the word 'gay' but it isn't what we were designed to do.

Plain and simples.

Saul the Apostle

[ 28. February 2011, 17:55: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I still don't get it.....

I have many aspects of my personality which I keep hidden.....I slowly reveal them to people I choose to, and when I think it necessary.

In the past several friends have told me privately that they are gay or have gay fantasies. They didn't tell the local newspaper.

I take it as a great honour they could trust me.

But other people also have trusted me with other aspects of themselves which they would never think of telling the world.

Maybe its more of a question about why people want to tell the world about themselves. I know some Christians who have become Muslims or lost their faith completely. They don't have to make it hugely public.

Its almost like getting something off your chest in the confessional. Its something that eats at you..

Why do we have to get somethings 'off our chests' or 'out in the open'.

Gays say they feel they are living a lie. Well I feel I live a lie in many ways. I keep things hidden for a reason...such as not upsetting some people....particularly about my faith which is very important to me.

Pax et Bonum

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

They come out because they are saying to attitudes like yours, "Talk to the hand!"

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

While I attempt to formulate a measured response to Saul the Apostle (fitting name, I'd say), a general response to "Why should or do gay people "come out"?" is because many people still have negative or preconceived notions about what a gay person is like. The only way to change these perceptions and attitudes often is for someone to realize they actually know someone who is gay (or, in the case of a celebrity, know OF someone). In certain professions (sports being one), the treatment of gays or suspected gays is much harsher, which makes it even more important for a sports celeb to reveal their orientation, shattering those preconceptions.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Siegfried and Saul the Apostle:
If you insist on having this discussion, I will move the thread to DH. Since other people clearly have something to say that is not a DH, why don't you both just go down there, flame to your hearts' content, and leave this thread to those who want to have a Purgatorial discussion.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I have many aspects of my personality which I keep hidden...

Is one of them the fact that you're straight?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What a stupid question in the OP!

May as well ask: Why do heterosexuals declare their sexuality by wearing wedding rings, talking about what they did with the boy/friends over the weekend as they gather for coffee break at work?

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I have no inner prompting to tell all and sundry about my faults

Then you must be quite exceptional. I should think it significantly inconvenient to hide your family. Is the telephone off limits when you are out of the house, lest someone whose presence is not meant to be public knowledge answer it?

Out of curiosity, do you consider the engagement announcements in the papers public declarations about what kind of sex people like to have? When the banns of marriage are read in church, does your mind immediately alight to water sports and bondage?

Do your married relations keep their unions clandestine, or are you acquainted with their spouses? Do you consider this knowledge an imposition of "too much information"? Do you yourself eschew all communication with the outside world (starting this thread answers that) - lest by admitting your existence you tacitly acknowledge that you have parents who yielded to sexual desire to bring about your life (surely they wouldn't appreciate you blatting their "way of having sex" to the Ship by being here as you are)? If so, then you may have a claim to consistency. But in fact, it's virtually impossible that what you're faulting gays for is not something that you yourself consider perfectly normal behaviour for you. So contra your claim to have "no inner prompting" to behave similarly, in fact you can hardly avoid doing so daily - it is only when done by gays that you consider it objectionable after all.

In learning about training autistic people in social skills, one of the topics we covered was "theory of other minds" - the ability to remember that others are not necessarily the same as us. The gay debate seems to incite a curious inverse phenomenon - the assumption that others are unlike us even in the absence of any evidence to that effect. Thus when heterosexuals marry, the answer to the question "Why?" is obvious - "for the hallowing of the union betwixt man and woman; for the procreation of children to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord; and for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, in both prosperity and adversity."

But for a gay person to express a desire to share in such a blessing with someone with whom s/he can form a household, suspicion is aroused. They must have some ulterior motive - a political statement, validation of their "lifestyle" (and heterosexual marriage is different because...?). The suggestion that the reasons enumerated above are universal and provide the motivation to marriage for all couples who do so is dismissed as somehow coy or smart-alecky. There's something awfully ADD about forgetting what your entire rationale for marriage is as soon as someone turns up you don't want to share it with and said rationale provides you with no grounds to get out of doing so. Then it's funny how quickly the "hallowed institution" suddenly becomes all about penises and vaginas.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Well done. LQ! You have just cross-posted with me and said more of less the same thing more eloquently that me.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I accept that it is still difficult to say to some people 'I'm a Gay'.

So why do people have to say it to the whole world, and risk bad comments ?

This is not anti-gay. I went to an all-boys school and am aware that a not-small percentage engaged in some sort of gay behaviour. It is not a big deal.

The Formula 1 chief liked to be whipped and humiliated by girls in german Uniforms. This is not acceptable sexual behaviour to most people. He did not find it necessary to tell the newspapers and indeed sued them for publishing private details.

I'm trying to get at why people have to go public about certain aspects of their personality.

Pax et Bonum

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Why is it any time someone says "I'm not anti-gay," the next thing out of their mouth is usually something anti-gay?

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
They come out because they are saying to attitudes like yours, "Talk to the hand!"

Aaaand off to the Quote File with you!

[ 28. February 2011, 18:35: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I'm trying to get at why people have to go public about certain aspects of their personality.

It would be helpful in that endeavor if you read the responses that people post to your query...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I accept that it is still difficult to say to some people 'I'm a Gay'.

So why do people have to say it to the whole world, and risk bad comments ?

Because it's hard to hate people you know personally. Back when people rarely knew that they knew anyone gay it was easy to dismiss them as moral degenerates unfit for decent society. One of the biggest factors in changing that attitude is that most people today know someone (often several someones) openly gay and can see that they are not much different from anyone else.

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :

I think there's one fairly important detail here which nobody has picked up on. That is that the person in question is a high profile professional sportsman. That environment tends to be very macho and testosterone-dominated (although I guess this is less true of cricket than some other sports). Unfortunately, that kind of environment is one place where homophobia can thrive so I understand why it is more of a big deal to be a sportsman who is gay than many other professions.

The other reason that I suspect* that he wants to make it public is to help shift attitudes in the sporting public and perhaps to be a role model for younger men in a similar position. But that may not be true at all.

* Disclaimer: I really don't know this, I'm just guessing!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because it's hard to hate people you know personally.

Well said.

Saul, you do realize that anal intercourse (or "buggery" as you so neutrally call it) does not define homosexuality? That many heterosexual couples practice anal sex, and many homosexual male couples do not? Ergo the mechanics of sexual pleasure are completely irrelevant to this conversation.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

In other words, because enough gays have come out they only "risk bad comments" instead of risking their jobs, a severe beating, electroshock "therapy", state-ordered chemical castration, etc.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The Formula 1 chief liked to be whipped and humiliated by girls in german Uniforms.

Telling people you're gay is NOT the same as revealing this level of personal detail. Telling people you're gay is simply saying you're attracted to members of the same sex, which is a very general thing. It doesn't give any details about how you like to have sex or what your particular kinks are.

I think this might all make a lot more sense to you if you could grasp this distinction. What you now know about the cricketer is what you knew about the Formula 1 driver before the revelations about uniform-wearing girls.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I keep things hidden for a reason...such as not upsetting some people....

So do gays upset you when they come out?

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I accept that it is still difficult to say to some people 'I'm a Gay'.

Does anyone say that? GH, if your acquaintance of gay people is confined to News of the Screws and Little Britain it might be wise to "go into a more silent mode" on the subject for a season.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

"Go in" for a bit rather than "come out", you mean?

Posted by five (# 14492) on :

Imaginary Friend hit it on the head. He's a role model, and a very good one to all the kids out there afraid to talk to people in case of reactions like Saul's or Garden Hermit's. Given that (coincidentally) today also had the news that a) The ABofC is going to ensure that no same sex marriages take place in CofE churches, and that b) a "Christian" couple were turned down for fostering care because they couldn't tell gay children, were they given any, that their behaviour was ok, I'm glad someone came forward and said "this is me." Particularly in pro sports, where competitive machoness (how many sex scandals were there in the Premier League last year? Or involving Warnie?) would keep most people so deep in the closet, someone had the strength to stand up for those who do suffer. (Well, and those that don't as well.)

While my mind daydreams with a large grin at the thought of Saul or Garden Hermit walking up to Gareth Thomas and saying the things they've said here, it also knows that many gay people have gone through plenty of pain and anguish and other expectations of other people and ultimately decided to be......happy as God made them.

Yesterday, Ashley Cole, who has exhibited all kinds of un-Christian behaviour towards his now ex-wife while they were married, shot someone. At work. "larking around" in the locker room. He caused someone pain. In a same sex environment, while not wearing a lot of clothes. He's also committed sexual sins, which are well documented. (Shudder.....) And yet I haven't seen a single thread whining and complaining about his behvaviour and how it offends God. This man has come out and said he's gay. He hasn't, at least in any reports I've read, said "I've engaged in any sexual acts with anyone." And of course, much like being straight, you don't have to have sex. You can be gay without ever having a sexual encounter. And indeed, were that to happen, I can't think of an actual denomination that considers that sinful.

Were he to come forward and start giving the sordid details about what he did and with whom, I'd be offended. But I wouldn't be any more offended than hearing the same from a straight man. Those kind of details are just uncouth. But this man stood up and said "yes, this is who I am." The rest of the cricket team, including the coach, seems to have endorsed with the news with a big "so what does this matter?" which is to their credit, and in the pro sports world just as newsworthy. Good for him, and good for them. This sort of thing could literally save kids lives from bullying and suicide.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I can imagine someone announcing he/she is gay simply to avoid unwanted advances from the opposite sex.

By the way, do you assume everyone who says "I am gay" is telling the truth?

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

Because being straight is seen as the default. It is often implicitly assumed in conversation. You don't need to explicitly 'come out' as straight, because people generally assume it.

I'm asexual, and I find it can be alienating when other women start talking about guys they fancy or commenting on guys who pass by, and generally talk about the need for a guy, assuming I share these feelings - a sort of female bonding thing. I can join in, pretending to feel the same, or I can be silent, or I can tell them I don't share the feelings, which might be awkward and spoil the general bonhomie of the moment. It's much easier when people know you don't share those feelings. Which involves some kind of 'coming out'.

I imagine it's even more important for gay people, as homosexuality is something that is often judged, and it's important for people to feel they are accepted as they are. It must be an awful feeling to know that your friends may reject you if they knew something about you which is a core part of your identity.

And also, if someone is gay, they may have a partner, and would probably like to refer to their partner in conversation, as straight people are often referring to their partners in conversation, and for the conversation to be equal, it needs to be two-sided. When a straight man refers to his wife, it is not seen as 'coming out', because people just carry on conversation with no surprise, but often when a gay man refers to his partner as 'he', there is a bit of a surprised silence and awkwardness. It's 'coming out' because it's different from the norm.

In terms of public figures coming out, well, the media hones in on people's public lives anyway, and does interviews in which plenty of public figures talk about their partners. When a public figure is gay, they may not talk about their private life, because of fear of judgement, but it makes sense that there will come a point where they decide they don't want to hide it any longer.

Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I have many aspects of my personality which I keep hidden...
Is one of them the fact that you're straight?

Something that is very closely related is my puzzlement over why someone introduces themselves, the first time we meet, with their sexual orientation.

This happened not long ago at a seminar, where we introduced ourselves briefly. A couple people said the equivalent of "Hi. I'm Mary. I'm bisexual." or "Hi. I'm Bob. I'm gay." I didn't understand the pertinence (at least not in that context).

It's not about what people do in the bedroom, but I confess to being flummoxed by a certain sexual orientation being such a primal part of one's identity that it's a bullet point in an introductory session. I can appreciate that some of the married people said that they were married, and that implies the sexual orientation, but, for example, divorced and widowed people didn't feel compelled to announce their status and/or orientation.

Maybe it's really because I don't care if some people are gay. What I care about is people being mistreated because of it.

As for the adoption issue - some people are still prejudiced, though not to the degree of years past. And it's not even close to being the same type of comparison. If I share that I'm adopted it's because some kind of issue arose where I believe it's appropriate to share that aspect of myself. But I will go months before even thinking about it - it's not like I go around every day saying, "I'm Angel. I'm adopted." [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
As for the adoption issue - some people are still prejudiced, though not to the degree of years past. And it's not even close to being the same type of comparison.

Hm, interesting that you say being adopted is not the same comparison as being GLBT, and then go right on to compare announcing you're adopted to coming out as GLBT.

You'd be surprised how often in daily life you run into hetersoexual assumptions. Been at work four hours, and I've had one coworker assume a gentleman I was discussing spending time with was my boyfriend, and another listening to a call with an ex-girlfriend assume we were 'just friends'. Not to mention all the bloody talk about weddings going around this place right now.

[Roll Eyes]

No, I don't dream about wearing a white dress and no, probably won't ever be marrying a man in a church (or a park, or Vegas) so I don't need to 'pay attention and take notes' for when it's *my turn*.

(Probably won't be marrying a woman in a church or a park or Vegas, either, but that's a personal issue.)

And don't get me started on the questions about when I'm going to settle down (assumption: with a man) and have babies. I'm the only woman who's not married and/or doesn't have kids, and all the other women talk about are their kids. And when I wander off bored, they usually make comments about "Oh, it'll be different when you have children."

Yeah, really different-- because I'll have slipped through a wormhole into an alternate universe.

[ 28. February 2011, 19:30: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I can imagine someone announcing he/she is gay simply to avoid unwanted advances from the opposite sex.

Supposedly [some] women in university announce that they're lesbian to avoid just that -- then magically become hetero again upon graduation. It's called LTG or Lesbian Till Graduation. Given what I saw in my time at university it's hard to blame 'em.

ETA: qualifier

[ 28. February 2011, 19:31: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I can imagine someone announcing he/she is gay simply to avoid unwanted advances from the opposite sex.
Supposedly [some] women in university announce that they're lesbian to avoid just that -- then magically become hetero again upon graduation. It's called LTG or Lesbian Till Graduation. Given what I saw in my time at university it's hard to blame 'em.

Back in my day (early Noughties) it was LUG -- Lesbian Until Graduation. Unfortunately, I married one of them while she was doing grad school, and when I finished paying her way through it, she said being queer was bad for her career and left me.

(Later I found out the $1000 USD her mother gave her to dump me ['moving expenses'] may have played a part, also. This is why I'm for legalizing gay marriage, California is a community property state and I deserved a share of that money!]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

GH, you can't seem to even pose the question without being (inadvertently?) offensive.

You assume I have something to be ashamed about. I don't.
You assume social animus is sufficient incentive against honesty. You assume wrongly.

You aren't aware of the hundreds of things you unconsciously do each day that bleatingly broadcasts your orientation for those who have ears to hear or eyes to see.

You must be aware that positive social change requires active and positive engagement by those who wish to effect that change. By making you aware that we exist, we do our part towards the goal that people who say "bad comments" are considered gauche and the related attitude and expressions socially passé, as they truly are.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I came out because of people like you, Garden Hermit -- people who don't respect me as a fellow human being and as a Christian.

Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
As for the adoption issue - some people are still prejudiced, though not to the degree of years past. And it's not even close to being the same type of comparison.
Hm, interesting that you say being adopted is not the same comparison as being GLBT, and then go right on to compare announcing you're adopted to coming out as GLBT.

You'd be surprised how often in daily life you run into hetersoexual assumptions. Been at work four hours, and I've had one coworker assume a gentleman I was discussing spending time with was my boyfriend, and another listening to a call with an ex-girlfriend assume we were 'just friends'. Not to mention all the bloody talk about weddings going around this place right now.

And don't get me started on the questions about when I'm going to settle down (assumption: with a man) and have babies. I'm the only woman who's not married and/or doesn't have kids, and all the other women talk about are their kids. And when I wander off bored, they usually make comments about "Oh, it'll be different when you have children."

I wasn't clear enough with the description of adoption v sexual orientation. I mean that I don't even think about my status as an adoptee until something provokes a thought - such as this discussion.

As to there being prejudice - the first to bring it up said that s/he supposes there is no longer prejudice against adopted children. There is occasionally prejudice, but it's very little and far between and mostly from folks no one else takes seriously, anyhow. That's not true when it comes to sexual orientation, where there is still a great deal of prejudice against anything other than hetero.

The other points you make - I think I can understand. Allow me to paraphrase to see if I get it: In order to avoid the presumptions of heterosexuals (which I'm certain I've made myself), some would choose to be out with it from the get-go so that it's clear during any ensuing conversations.

eta: oh, I almost forgot - the meddlesome folks you describe would try my nerves, too. [Disappointed]

[ 28. February 2011, 19:42: Message edited by: Angel Wrestler ]

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
As for the adoption issue - some people are still prejudiced, though not to the degree of years past. And it's not even close to being the same type of comparison. If I share that I'm adopted it's because some kind of issue arose where I believe it's appropriate to share that aspect of myself. But I will go months before even thinking about it - it's not like I go around every day saying, "I'm Angel. I'm adopted."

Sorry if I've caused offence, Angel Wrestler. I only meant that being adopted is, like being gay, something that people can't instantly see about you. They are both invisible differences from the societal norm (hope this is a non-offensive way of putting it).

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

iGeek:

quote:
GH, you can't seem to even pose the question without being (inadvertently?) offensive.

My reaction exactly when I read the OP: Is he for real? [Disappointed]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I hear tell that for many many kids currently in high school, the whole question of sexual orientation is moot. They just don't care. Of course there are others who are still little shits about it. Don't ask me what I think the connection is between such attitudes and parental religious affiliation.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
iGeek:
quote:
GH, you can't seem to even pose the question without being (inadvertently?) offensive.

My reaction exactly when I read the OP: Is he for real?

Kind of a homophobic variant of Poe's Law? Is he sincere or is it a parody?

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

My best friend (a deeply committed Christian) came out publicly about four years ago after thirty-five years of marriage. He has two grown sons. When he married, he did so warily; after ten years of it, amidst a terrible emotional and spiritual upheaval, he confessed his homosexual yearnings to his wife. They managed to keep the marriage together for over two more decades, not without difficulty; then they called it quits, at which point he told everyone else. He and she remain great friends; she is very supportive of him. Their two sons are as well. Why did he finally make his announcement? Because, having become honest with himself, he now needed to be honest with the rest of the world. It was a matter of integrity, pure and simple. What's not to understand?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I've a friend, a few years younger than me. When he was 17 - this would have been in the mid-80s - he came out to his mother, because he thought he could trust her and confide in her.

More or less her last words to him, as she threw a heap of his belongings out onto the front lawn, and just before she slammed the door in his face, were, "I wish I'd had a fucking abortion."

This is one reason that a lot of gay public figures come out - so that perhaps with a little more positive publicity, a bit more good role-modelling, people like my friend's bitch of a mother might become a thing of the past.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

Something else I should add, using Mousethief's comments as a springboard: indeed, the younger generation(s) regard this as a non-issue. I personally am convinced that in another decade to fifteen years, gay marriage will be be legalized in all fifty states. The walls of societal opposition are quickly crumbling, despite evidence to the contrary. Canada nationalized gay marriage several years ago, and while there are still pockets of opposition there, by and large it has ceased to be something of controversy. Maybe Sober Preacher's Kid could lend some thoughts to this. SPK ---?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I came out because of people like you, Garden Hermit -- people who don't respect me as a fellow human being and as a Christian.

Knowing LC in Real Life was just one of the reasons I could not read the OP w/o impotent (no pun intended) inarticulate sputtering and wild gestuclating. Fortunately, several others have managed to say quite well what I would have hoped to express. I just hope Garden Hermit and Saul will take a break and read them sometime soon.

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

Hmmm, possibly because it might actually cause folk to think about the type of language they use when in public meetings of the church. Such as throwing around comments like 'they are an abomination unto the Lord', feeling [mistakenly] secure in the knowledge that none of them would or could possibly be in the same room. Perhaps putting human faces on an 'issue' might just possibly stop dehumanising folk who aren't heterosexual, possibly prevent scapegoating, bullying and beating.
Dunno. Just might have sommat to do with that...
I concur with the post earlier: sexual orientation is not a failing. [brick wall]

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

As far as assumptions go I guess part of why heterosexuality is often assumed is simple statistics. If you take the population as a whole the percentage of homosexuals is smaller than heterosexuals, although I realise that that bipolar division doesn't represent all the shades of orientation in between. But given that we often don't consider the question in detail we default to the more likely option unless evidence presents itself otherwise. So perhaps that is a good reason for coming out if you don't want that assumption to be made about you, as Spiffy well expressed in her post.

The other problem is that there are still plenty of people, I suspect particularly men, who would be offended or upset if someone thought they were homosexual when they are not, perhaps because they feel it calls their masculinity into question or they are homophobic themselves, or have grown up with bullying that took the form of calling them "gay" or "poofter" or whatever to upset them. So I would be cautious of asking someone outright if they were gay even if I suspected it, I would rather they let me know if they want to either directly or indirectly. I look back now and think of conversations I occasionally had with a previous work colleague and cringe a bit because I had no idea he was gay. I only found out later on.

Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
As for the adoption issue - some people are still prejudiced, though not to the degree of years past. And it's not even close to being the same type of comparison. If I share that I'm adopted it's because some kind of issue arose where I believe it's appropriate to share that aspect of myself. But I will go months before even thinking about it - it's not like I go around every day saying, "I'm Angel. I'm adopted."
Sorry if I've caused offence, Angel Wrestler. I only meant that being adopted is, like being gay, something that people can't instantly see about you. They are both invisible differences from the societal norm (hope this is a non-offensive way of putting it).

It's all good. [Smile]

I was trying to clear up my point from before, anyhow.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
In the past several friends have told me privately that they are gay or have gay fantasies. They didn't tell the local newspaper.

But your friends weren't public figures to begin with.

A public figure 'coming out' is no different to the latest news on who a heterosexual public figure is dating. And your friends 'coming out' to you is no different to you hearing about the opposite-sex person a friend is interested in.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
Perhaps putting human faces on an 'issue' might just possibly stop dehumanising folk who aren't heterosexual, possibly prevent scapegoating, bullying and beating.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I'm going to quote one of the comments on the Daily Telegraph website because I think it hits this thread right between the eyes.

quote:
Sports personality announces he'll marry - comments - 'well done mate'

Sports personality announces new baby- comments - 'well done mate'

Sports personality announces new tatoo- comments - 'well done mate'

Sports personality announces he's gay - comments- 'who cares’,’ shut up', 'batting for the other side', 'I’m not homophobic, BUT', 'whys this news'

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Well done, orfeo.

Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :

Among other reasons, because I have a younger relative who Mr. Otter and I think may also be hanging out in a closet. Coming out might take some of the heat off if/when she does. My coming-out was actually was fairly anti-climactic, which is an even better example.

And because if enough of us do, we hope it will become as non-eventful as mentioning you like a particular hair color.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Because being straight is seen as the default. It is often implicitly assumed in conversation. You don't need to explicitly 'come out' as straight, because people generally assume it.

Oh really? You try being a single women in her 40s with a lesbian best friend. [Paranoid]

It doesn't bother me much - my friend is much more sensitive about it than I am, in case I come in for some of the abuse she occasionally gets. But it does feel weird that my sexuality is so much a matter of discussion.

So yes, weird though it sounds, every now and then I feel obliged to out myself as heterosexual. Mainly in case some nice man might be put off trying.

Posted by StarlightUK (# 4592) on :

I wonder how the OP thinks those of us who are gay should respond to people who assume we are heteosexual. I wear a ring on my finger, as does my partner on his. If somebody comments upon it and asks if I am married (and it has happened) I have the choice to collude in their underlying assumption that I am straight or simply be honest with them and tell them that I am in a Civil Partnership. I can no more deny an integral part of who I am than a straight person can deny themselves. To do so would in my view be psychologically and spiritually damaging.I (and all other gay folk) was created in the image of God in exactly the same way as straight people have been. God looks at what he has created and calls it good:-)

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Because why should anybody lie to hide something that important in their life?

People fall in love, you know. Most people agree this is very good and happy news - so why would want to "keep it to ourselves"? Would you ask heterosexuals to keep quiet about it? (Maybe you would, I don't know - I'm asking.)

People naturally want to talk about the joy in their lives, and loving somebody else is one of the biggest joys of all - but you're asking people to be ashamed of it, Garden Hermit.

And that's really just weird, when you think about it....

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Because being straight is seen as the default. It is often implicitly assumed in conversation. You don't need to explicitly 'come out' as straight, because people generally assume it.
Oh really? You try being a single women in her 40s with a lesbian best friend.

Ah, okay - I'll reword that. [Smile]

Being straight is seen as the default unless people think they see evidence to the contrary. Actually, sometimes people think I'm a lesbian too, because I'm single, I don't flirt, I don't wear make-up, and I am not very girly. And because I'm a Christian, they assume I must think homosexuality is a terrible thing, so they think I must be a conflicted closet lesbian. They say things to indicate they think this, but people rarely ever simply ask outright - hence the need to 'come out' if people keep assuming untrue things about you (which can also be coming out heterosexual in cases like yours, but more often is coming out to be not heterosexual).

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :

Aside from honesty, a political stance, serving as a role model, etc. etc. and whatever other lofty ideals, staying closeted just takes a hell of a lot of psychic energy, especially for a celebrity. You can't be seen in public with the one you love, or if you are, you have to have a cover story. You set up sham dates so the paparazzi have pictures of you with someone of the appropriate gender. You dread the the inevitable interview question "so what about your love life?" and have to do a dance or outright lie. You read the tabloids with trepidation waiting for the moment when that nasty ex decides to get back at you with an exposé. You have to watch what you say or do at every moment, lest people suspect. And they likely do, so you wonder what they're saying behind your back, if they don't have to guts to say it to your face.

Just about every gay person I know sees coming out as positive experience (though sometimes with some hindsight), describing it as a relief, or even a liberation, even if the immediate aftermath was nasty (I know people who have lost jobs, lost friends, lost family). Coming out means layers of pretense and fear fall away. They may have some issues to deal with, but in the end a weight is lifted off their shoulders and they can get on with life.

quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
A couple people said the equivalent of "Hi. I'm Mary. I'm bisexual." or "Hi. I'm Bob. I'm gay." I didn't understand the pertinence (at least not in that context).

I recently joined a Bible study with a small group I didn't know. I had no particular reason to think they were homophobic, but at my first meeting I made clear I was gay (though I was a little more graceful than just blurting out "By the way, I'm gay"). I figured it was just better to know up front where I stood, and of they were going to have a problem, it was better to know sooner rather than later. In that little group, intimate matters, or just "what did you do last weekend?", was likely to come up, and I didn't want to have to wonder about what I could or couldn't say.

Believe it or not, in my world people (half jokingly) say it's harder to come out as Christian than gay. Saying, "Sorry, can't make it to brunch, I have church," has raised more than a few eyebrows. I sometimes, when I can't be bothered, gloss over it with "I have other plans," but these days I figure if this person is going to know me, he or she might as well know now that I'm a card carrying, church going Christian up front, and let them be weird about it if they're going to. It's also true that if someone is going to be weird about something, be it gay or Christian or something else, being up front about it kinda pulls the rug out from under them.

[ 28. February 2011, 23:07: Message edited by: Wilfried ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I still don't get it.....

I have many aspects of my personality which I keep hidden.....I slowly reveal them to people I choose to, and when I think it necessary.

In the past several friends have told me privately that they are gay or have gay fantasies. They didn't tell the local newspaper.

Pardon me, but the above sounds suspiciously like a form of "some of my best friends are..." when one is about to say or do something discriminatory.

Public figures find it in their interest to come out publicly: open the closet door themselves rather than wait for an opportunistic scandal-monger to force it open at a time of his or her choosing. It's only prudent. Senator Craig didn't come out. He was outed, and today he is no longer a senator. Barney Frank came out and gets re-elected with nary a second thought among his constituents.

But really now, how many people in private life come out by issuing a press release? They just tell people whom they know, with various degrees of ease and casualness. Perhaps one of your fantasies is that these friends of yours choose you and only you to confide in. Why should they be telling you alone? What difference would it make in their lives to tell you and no one else? Assuming that they don't fancy you, why would the matter even come up with you in particular? As for sexual fantasies per se, I've never breathed a word of specifics about mine to any relative or close friend. What reason would there possibly be to do so? This claim of yours is a bit hard to believe.

To be sure, I must agree with you that there is something a little tacky and in less than the best of taste about any adult's making a production of coming out. It is probably different with kids, who are in a heterosexist environment by virtue of sheer numbers and may need to make a declaration in order to gain the space necessary to find kindred spirits. But in their case, I would also advise against making such a statement too final too soon. Adults should be able to forge their identities and be themselves without pigeonholing.

But as long as sexual orientation matters in the public sphere, coming out is a brave political statement with implications beyond oneself: i.e. it is altruistic. If Harvey Milk had not prevailed upon gay Californians to come out in their thousands, the whole country might today be living under various forms of "Briggs Initiative." We are now further from that threat than ever, and the reason is that ordinary people see too much of the truth about us to believe the old lies anymore. As much respect as I have for good taste, heaven help me if it causes me to "pass by on the other side" and overlook others in need.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

If it weren't for all the brave people who've come out before us, DP and I would be living in fear, and in an atmosphere of lying/unreality.

(I find it interesting that Real Christians[tm] who are adamantly against lying about anything else -- I've heard numerous pious folk say that if they were transported to the Nazi times they wouldn't even lie to a Gestapo agent about a Jewish refugee hiding in their cellar -- seem to think it's not only fine but preferable for their gay neighbors to lie, and lie about the most basic facts of their lives.)

I did have to keep quiet about my sexual orientation for much of my adult life -- as long as my parents were alive, in fact. I can tell you that my mental AND physical health both improved the day I stopped feeling the need to hide who I am and whom I love. It's made me a better, more authentic person.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Garden Hermit:

(1)You are conflating two different things: sexual activity and sexual orientation. Sexual activity =/= sexual orientation. (As many others have pointed out) straight people may engage in sexual activity that you may consider "gay" and gay people may engage in sexual activity that is common among straight people (other than penile-vaginal intercourse, obviously.) Sexual activity means "what bits go where". Sexual orientation is not about which bits go where: it is a social (and perhaps political) category. When someone says, "I'm gay" they are not telling you which bits go where, and it is simply incorrect (as well as rude) to speculate on their sexual activity.

(2) Sexual activity is a private matter. Sexual orientation is a public matter. Why? Because otherwise everyone assumes that everyone else is straight (that's called "heteronormative") and I imagine it would be damn annoying to be constantly assumed to be something I'm not. It's a way of announcing definitively to possibly well-meaning family and friends, "Look, stop fixing me up with people of the opposite sex. I'm not attracted to them." It reduces the invisibility of the gay community, and - horrors! - makes it more socially acceptable to be a functioning member of society and gay at the same time.

Garden Hermit, perhaps it would be a fun experiment for you to be perceived as gay in a context in which it is not socially acceptable. As long as you don't get the shit kicked out of you, of course. This might increase your understanding of, and empathy for, people who come out and say that they are gay and wish to be socially accepted as such.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
staying closeted just takes a hell of a lot of psychic energy

Amen. I had no idea just how much psychic energy until I stopped doing it!

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Lord things move quickly around here. Nearly two pages and all the time in the wrong place.

Hold onto your hats as this thread moves to where is should always have been.

John Holding
Purgatory Host

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Public figures find it in their interest to come out publicly: open the closet door themselves rather than wait for an opportunistic scandal-monger to force it open at a time of his or her choosing. It's only prudent.

A former acquaintance (friend-of-a-friend) who was a closeted gay applied to one of the secret services (I think CIA) and they said they wouldn't take him if he wasn't out. That way it wasn't something that somebody could hold over him.

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :

Well, that's an improvement. Back in the J. Edgar Hoover days, gay people were hunted out of government jobs ostensibly because were by definition security risks. Coming out wasn't an option.

[ 01. March 2011, 04:43: Message edited by: Wilfried ]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

So Garden Hermit, if someone were to ask you "Are you heterosexual?" would you say, "Um, I don't care to discuss my sexual orientation--that's a private matter"? I doubt it. For one thing, if you said that, they'd probably think you were gay.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

It seems to me that some gays still risk losing their jobs if they come out. Yes, there are laws to prevent such discrimination. But any employer has ways to ease someone out of their position, if they are judged to be damaging to the company. The actual issue at the heart of the matter may not be mentioned at all - and I know gay people who are scared that such a thing would happen to them if they went public.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Back in the late 1970s I started a college course with a residential weekend and I wore a gay badge of some sort. I was the only out gay person at the event and there were a few mutterings about why I was making such a show of myself in this way when other folks didn't feel the need to declare their heterosexuality - this was interspersed with conversations about wives, husbands, children, etc. from the other participants.

Some people seem unable to make the connections!

I think my response of choice these days is the Queer Nation one of

quote:
We're Here, We're Queer, Get Used To It!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Garden Hermit - it's brilliant he's come out as gay. Secondary school students around here still bully people they suspect of being gay - it's the favourite insult for anything. I have watched at least one year 11 (16 year old) falling apart when he couldn't face himself and probably his mother's reactions and it was devastating for all of us trying to get him through school and exams without damage - to him or anyone else. He was almost certainly gay - not that we forced the discussion.

The more positive role models out there showing that being gay is not a bad thing and not something that has be hidden, the fewer teenagers who are advised to stay in the closet to avoid bullying and the fewer teenagers who cannot live with themselves when they work out they are gay.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Curiosity, have the teens in your area starting using the phrase "talking to Mr Tumnus"? It means "So deep in the closet (wardrobe) that they've reached Narnia" and it's an insult slung at those who use homophobic insults. I.e. "You're only homophobic because you're in denial and really gay yourself."

There's a bit of me that thinks a snappy playground reply to homophobia is good, but it's a pity the snappy reply involves using being gay as an insult. [Disappointed]

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

I would say it involves being in denial as an insult - not necessarily being gay.

I like it. Although it is perhaps too subtle for its intended audience.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

I made a mistake in the title...I should have added on National Broadcasting.

It was the 'Nationwide' bit that I was querying...not the individual admission to friends and family.

I was also interested in why the BBC took this as 'National News' for broadcast during the day...when there was so much else going on (eg the Green Lobby being split over the new proposed Railway line.)

The 'coming out' must have been issued by a lobby group for it to have been picked up.

There are a variety of programmes on TV where people discuss the most intimate details of their lives. I just wonder why ?

And weekend papers just love to revel in all sorts of 'admissions'.

Sorry for any confusion.

Pax et Bonum

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I was also interested in why the BBC took this as 'National News' for broadcast during the day...when there was so much else going on (eg the Green Lobby being split over the new proposed Railway line.)

The 'coming out' must have been issued by a lobby group for it to have been picked up.

GH - have you read the interview he gave? It's in the Daily Telegraph. It sounds to me as though the England team's pr people would have set up an interview with the journalist, who breaks the news, which then spreads to the other media. You can read there his own words about why he came out, including the bit where he says "Once the secret was out...my friendships with the boys (the Englad Cricket Team) blossomed. It’s easier now I’ve got nothing to hide. I can get fully involved in all the banter, which I love. It took a few days to get back to normal. I cracked a joke about myself and after that everything was absolutely fine."

It's unusual, and therefore newsworthy, because he is an international sports player - very few of them are openly gay.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

News broadcasters picked up on this because they thought people would be interested. Now, I don't care what some sports personality's sexual orientation is, like I don't care which Hollywood star is marrying which other one, which celebrity got drunk and punched someone last weekend and who's announced their pregnancy. I agree that it isn't news. However, if the media thinks it's interesting and hypes it it isn't the celebrity's fault. Most likely all they did was attend an interview and give an honest answer to a direct question.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

My personal favorite gay sports quote is by Martina N. In an interview a male reporter asked her is she was still gay. Her response: "Are you still the alternative?"

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
It seems to me that some gays still risk losing their jobs if they come out. Yes, there are laws to prevent such discrimination.

In 30 US states it is legal to fire someone for being gay. 37 states it's legal to fire someone for their gender identity (which could include me refusing to wear skirts, ever).

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

Can I ask a vaguely related question to this thread?
If a sports person "comes out" in this way I could see a potentially uncomfortable situation with regard to changing facilities. As a woman I would not be comfortable taking off my clothes in front of any man apart from my husband (or a doctor for a medical exam)yet I'm quite happy stripping off in a women's only changing room. But I'm not sure I would be comfortable doing so if I knew that someone there had the potential to look at me sexually as I feel that is reserved for my spouse. Is that likely to be a source of discomfort? Is it likely to be considered discrimination if someone asked for a private changing area in that situation? How does this work in other situations where people share facilities without much privacy and are therefore divided up according to gender? (Army camp, group holiday hotel rooms, youth hostel, hospital ward etc)

Please forgive me if I am being an ignorant heterosexual here, I'm trying to learn and understand...

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
My personal favorite gay sports quote is by Martina N. In an interview a male reporter asked her if she was still gay. Her response: "Are you still the alternative?"

That's very similar to a quote from the film 'Bhaji on the Beach' where it is said by a feisty Asian lady to a yob.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Lucia, let's try reframing the question. If you were in a room full of naked men, would you be considering every single one of them an object of lust?

And, apart from a possible case of embarrassment, would you have any problem knowing how to behave?

It is almost 100% certain that if you have been happily stripping in front of other women, you have done so in front of lesbians. There may even have been a few who found you visually attractive.

The perhaps sadder truth, though, is that so many middle-aged overweight straight men are mortally afraid every gay man who gets a glimpse of them is going to want their body. Take it from me: we don't.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
Can I ask a vaguely related question to this thread?
If a sports person "comes out" in this way I could see a potentially uncomfortable situation with regard to changing facilities. As a woman I would not be comfortable taking off my clothes in front of any man apart from my husband (or a doctor for a medical exam)yet I'm quite happy stripping off in a women's only changing room. But I'm not sure I would be comfortable doing so if I knew that someone there had the potential to look at me sexually as I feel that is reserved for my spouse. Is that likely to be a source of discomfort? Is it likely to be considered discrimination if someone asked for a private changing area in that situation? How does this work in other situations where people share facilities without much privacy and are therefore divided up according to gender? (Army camp, group holiday hotel rooms, youth hostel, hospital ward etc)

Please forgive me if I am being an ignorant heterosexual here, I'm trying to learn and understand...

I don't have it to hand, but somewhere I did see commentary from a homosexual that they are likely to be MORE uncomfortable about those situations than the heterosexuals around them.

Especially before coming out of course, but even afterwards.

Very few homosexuals would see a changing room full of heterosexuals as some kind of sexual opportunity.

Perhaps you should turn it around the other way. If you had the opportunity to be in the middle of a changing room full of men, would you see that as a chance to look at them sexually? Let's say they're all gay men so that you're pretty confident that they're not lusting after you and you feel safe from being looked at sexually yourself. Would you be openly gazing at them all?

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Lucia, let's try reframing the question. If you were in a room full of naked men, would you be considering every single one of them an object of lust?

And, apart from a possible case of embarrassment, would you have any problem knowing how to behave?

Not every single one of them! But there might be someone who I found attractive but then it would feel extremely inappropriate to me that I was there with them naked and I would be very uncomfortable with that.

I would not want to see them naked and I would not want them to see me naked, because as I said for me I feel that nakedness and sexual attraction together is reserved for my spouse. So I suppose in theory if I was in a room full of gay men I would be less worried about stripping off! But it would feel extremely weird. [Ultra confused]

I realise that others feel differently, for instance people who enjoy nudist activities presumably don't feel that way.

x-posted with Orfeo

[ 01. March 2011, 20:51: Message edited by: Lucia ]

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Lucia, I would suspect for people in a locker room, it would become a matter of professional conduct--much the same way you (probably?) don't think twice about stripping for a male physician, and wouldn't consider it an imposition on what is reserved for your husband.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Very few homosexuals would see a changing room full of heterosexuals as some kind of sexual opportunity.

I wasn't in any way thinking of sexual opportunities in the changing room! Just more about the discomfort that could be felt by all parties.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Lucia, I would suspect for people in a locker room, it would become a matter of professional conduct--much the same way you (probably?) don't think twice about stripping for a male physician, and wouldn't consider it an imposition on what is reserved for your husband.

Thank you, that makes sense.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Lucia, let's try reframing the question. If you were in a room full of naked men, would you be considering every single one of them an object of lust?

And, apart from a possible case of embarrassment, would you have any problem knowing how to behave?

Not every single one of them! But there might be someone who I found attractive but then it would feel extremely inappropriate to me that I was there with them naked and I would be very uncomfortable with that.

I would not want to see them naked and I would not want them to see me naked, because as I said for me I feel that nakedness and sexual attraction together is reserved for my spouse. So I suppose in theory if I was in a room full of gay men I would be less worried about stripping off! But it would feel extremely weird. I realise that others feel differently, for instance people who enjoy nudist activities presumably don't feel that way.

x-posted with Orfeo

Well you've pretty much captured much of what this gay man feels in a change room. It's uncomfortable and awkward for ME.

You've also hit on something there with 'nudist activities', because I think there's a real issue equating bare flesh with sex. Obviously, bare flesh in the context of being with your husband can have a sexual context. But that doesn't hold true in all other contexts.

In fact, if the lesbians are looking at you with sexual attraction, they're probably not doing it in the change room much. They're doing it when they pass you on the street, in the corridor, in the shopping mall, as you're queueing, and so forth.

The fact that you're not AWARE of it, and that women don't suddenly jump on top of you while you're going about your daily business, shows that we're all quite capable of controlling ourselves and understand context.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
It was the 'Nationwide' bit that I was querying...not the individual admission to friends and family.

It is not something one "admits" as if it were shameful; it is an important clarification of one's identity. Once again, it is about a person's social identity, not their sexual activity.

It is important for gays and lesbians to tell society that they are not to be assumed to be heterosexual. I would guess it makes them feel less isolated and safer.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

For some reason, I find this to be appropriate. Changing room angst doesn't seem to have anything to do with sexuality.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For some reason, I find this to be appropriate. Changing room angst doesn't seem to have anything to do with sexuality.

That was great.

Yup. I'm gay, but I'm definitely in the 'I'd rather have two pants than no pants' category! [Big Grin]

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For some reason, I find this to be appropriate. Changing room angst doesn't seem to have anything to do with sexuality.

Yup that's funny!

Thanks for your replies. I appreciated that you answered me politely even if my question seemed a bit stupid. I don't know anyone in 'Real Life' to ask stuff like this or discuss it with. Most of the christians I know would probably be disturbed by the liberal direction I feel myself slipping in on the issue of homosexuality. And I don't know anyone well who is homosexual (as far as I know!)And discussions like this hopefully are helping me sort out some of the questions that pop up in my mind!

[ 02. March 2011, 07:53: Message edited by: Lucia ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

And Lucia, for my part I genuinely appreciate that you asked your question as a question, rather than framing it as a leaped-to conclusion.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I was also interested in why the BBC took this as 'National News' for broadcast during the day.

I'm pretty sure you're just taking the piss.

Your question is answered in your original post.

quote:
In the UK we've just had a cricketer declare himself to be 'Gay'...the first Cricketer to do it.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

My guess is that the whole point of the OP is that the OPer follows the cricket and is disgruntled now because he feels he can no longer tune in without imagining his sporting hero naked, sweaty, and in a clinch.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
My guess is that the whole point of the OP is that the OPer follows the cricket and is disgruntled now because he feels he can no longer tune in without imagining his sporting hero naked, sweaty, and in a clinch.

Brain bleach! Brain bleach!

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
My guess is that the whole point of the OP is that the OPer follows the cricket and is disgruntled now because he feels he can no longer tune in without imagining his sporting hero naked, sweaty, and in a clinch.

There's another reason to watch sports?

(I find my enjoyment of the sport is directly related to the tightness of the uniforms involved. Basketball, meh. Football? BOOOORING. Baseball? Tight trousers and lots of bending over? Season tickets, please!)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
(I find my enjoyment of the sport is directly related to the tightness of the uniforms involved. Basketball, meh. Football? BOOOORING. Baseball? Tight trousers and lots of bending over? Season tickets, please!)

My mother used to make noises like that about the Cleveland Browns. Their trousers apparently were tight in the sitzenplatz. She said she liked their "tight ends."

Posted by Lamentator (# 16278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Back in the late 1970s I started a college course with a residential weekend and I wore a gay badge of some sort. I was the only out gay person at the event and there were a few mutterings about why I was making such a show of myself in this way when other folks didn't feel the need to declare their heterosexuality - this was interspersed with conversations about wives, husbands, children, etc. from the other participants.

[/QUOTE]
Is having a conversation about your spouse or family quite the same as wearing a badge intended to display your sexual orientation to all who see it? I don't think it is that simple. It would be more appropriate to draw comparisons if you had had such similar conversations about your partner, for example, and this had drawn disdain.

Let me qualify this by stating that I am in no way justifying any negative comments you may have experienced then in response to the badge, but we should at least compare things accurately. Talking about family or whatever is, well, talking about your loved ones. It can hardly be said to be the same thing as standing up and declaring your sexuality.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

The thing is...I stand up and declare my sexuality whenever I'm with my partner in public situations (grocery shopping, at the doctors', etc. being just a couple of examples) where it's clear we share a life together...whenever we have to explain our relationship to one another on legal/business papers...whenever anyone sees our identical wedding rings and does the math.

My feeling is that for some of you this constitutes an offensive level of "outness."

To which I say: Get over it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamentator:
Is having a conversation about your spouse or family quite the same as wearing a badge intended to display your sexual orientation to all who see it?

Engagement and wedding rings also function as a badge - why do heterosexuals flaunt it?

Posted by Lamentator (# 16278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamentator:
Is having a conversation about your spouse or family quite the same as wearing a badge intended to display your sexual orientation to all who see it?
Engagement and wedding rings also function as a badge - why do heterosexuals flaunt it?

Do they? I guess in some senses, yes. However, it is quite clear that in fact such trappings are no longer the domain merely of heterosexual couples, or are you indeed suggesting that gay couples should not or do not wear rings on certain fingers? More realistically, I suppose an argument could be made along the lines of sexually-orientated (in a heterosexual sense) t-shirts or other garments being flaunted as a statement, and this I feel would probably be a more valid comparison. Having said that, of course, I would react with a certain level of disapproval to any such overtly sexual display, so therein lies another argument to be explored. The rings you mention are more about commitment, in my book, than necessarily being a statement of sexuality.

[ 07. March 2011, 18:47: Message edited by: Lamentator ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamentator:
The rings you mention are more about commitment, in my book, than necessarily being a statement of sexuality.

I'd have thought people had to be very committed to risk being beaten up in the street for wearing a gay T shirt or whatever.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

Except that, for a certain class of people, same-sex orientation isn't about love and caring. It's about sex. And that's likely why they react so strongly.

I also say, "get over it". I do take (probably perverse) pleasure in correcting people who assume that because I wear a wedding band, I have a wife. I find the varying reactions fascinating.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Well, for many str8s, love and caring are a lot less important than casual sex.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

And, for many religionists, sex that is in any way different from their practise of it is way more interesting than love and caring.

Posted by Lamentator (# 16278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamentator:
The rings you mention are more about commitment, in my book, than necessarily being a statement of sexuality.
I'd have thought people had to be very committed to risk being beaten up in the street for wearing a gay T shirt or whatever.

Not sure what you mean. I was saying that wearing a heterosexually-sexually-explicit t-shirt or other garment, say with a naked woman on it, would perhaps be a more valid comparison to wearing a 'gay badge' (as referred to by an earlier poster) rather than a comparison to conversations by people they assume to be heterosexual about their significant others.

Of interest is the fact that I havce just come back from having a pint (or four) with a gay friend of mine. I showed him this thread, and he agreed that he saw no value in showing any signs explicitly denoting his sexuality (read gay badges in the context of this thread), rather that he would talk about normal everyday things such as relationships, homelife, family, whatever, and that then people would figure out what they want - and that isn't what we all do????

[ 08. March 2011, 00:32: Message edited by: Lamentator ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I do actually see part of Lamentator's point. But in truth it was about a very particular expression of sexuality, and I don't think that the other 'expressions' of it, such as the one that prompted this thread to begin with, are quite the same.

It also doesn't pay to assume what this 'gay badge' looked like. There's a world of difference between wearing something with rainbow colours on it and, say, a picture of two naked men.

We also have to consider why there isn't a heterosexual equivalent of the rainbow colours. As is often the case, it's because heterosexual is the default. If you want to identify yourself as a heterosexual, you don't really HAVE to do anything. In most contexts, it will be conveniently assumed for you.

[ 08. March 2011, 01:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

People do assume. I think I look like your average middle-aged stereotypical lesbian - short hair, jeans, sensible shoes, no make-up.

I'm currently working with two sets of parents (I'm a family therapist) who are quite sure I have a husband. Because of their religious beliefs I can't set them right without destroying the working relationship. Their beliefs on homosexuality were made very plain to me at the first meeting in both cases (such an issue for them that they bring it up without it even being one of the struggles they've been referred for).

It is intensely irritating and upsetting to be in the situation of having to refer to one's life partner as "he" when this is not true. It feels like betrayal of my own relationship.

Not only that, but should they happen to see me in the street with my partner (unlikely, fortunately) that's that for the working relationship.

It would be so much easier if it was possible to wear a badge, but I'm not in the job to impose my will on others. But it upsets me. My team know this and they are wonderfully supportive. Sadly for me, I'm the only member of the team who will accept ultra-religious clients, so I guess I'm setting myself up in some ways. [Ultra confused]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Their beliefs on homosexuality were made very plain to me at the first meeting in both cases (such an issue for them that they bring it up without it even being one of the struggles they've been referred for).

In the context of this thread, it genuinely seems worth asking why people with anti-homosexual views feel the need to 'come out' like this.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
I think I look like your average middle-aged stereotypical lesbian - short hair, jeans, sensible shoes, no make-up.

I thought this was just stereotypical of a woman who is more interested in being comfortable than looking attractive. You just described me and most of the other middle-aged married women I know (when they're not expected to dress up for the office).

Of course, we might all be closet lesbians [Two face]

I wouldn't know; if gaydar does exist I don't have it...

Jane R

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
People do assume. I think I look like your average middle-aged stereotypical lesbian - short hair, jeans, sensible shoes, no make-up.

I'm currently working with two sets of parents (I'm a family therapist) who are quite sure I have a husband. Because of their religious beliefs I can't set them right without destroying the working relationship. Their beliefs on homosexuality were made very plain to me at the first meeting in both cases (such an issue for them that they bring it up without it even being one of the struggles they've been referred for).

It is intensely irritating and upsetting to be in the situation of having to refer to one's life partner as "he" when this is not true. It feels like betrayal of my own relationship.

Not only that, but should they happen to see me in the street with my partner (unlikely, fortunately) that's that for the working relationship.

It would be so much easier if it was possible to wear a badge, but I'm not in the job to impose my will on others. But it upsets me. My team know this and they are wonderfully supportive. Sadly for me, I'm the only member of the team who will accept ultra-religious clients, so I guess I'm setting myself up in some ways.

Just want to say thank you for your very honest and moving post Arabella. A demonstration of grace in the face of ungraciousness.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In the context of this thread, it genuinely seems worth asking why people with anti-homosexual views feel the need to 'come out' like this.

Sounds like this to me.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

Perhaps a better question is why some feel the need to push gay people in the closet. After all, if they weren't pushed in they wouldn't (and couldn't) come out, surely?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

All gay Christians should be in the closet, at least part of the time. Jesus said so.

Matthew 6:6

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
All gay Christians should be in the closet, at least part of the time. Jesus said so.

Matthew 6:6

Is it okay to turn it into an absolutely fabulous, glitzy closet? Or does it have to stay plain and dowdy?

Not that I have that kind of flair myself, you understand. But some of my friends might be happier about this if they're allowed to personalise their closet a little.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

Glitzy is fine as long as it also plays 'I am what I am' on a non-stop loop for added emphasis [Big Grin]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
Glitzy is fine as long as it also plays 'I am what I am' on a non-stop loop for added emphasis

The members of my family who are gay get over the 'straight assumption' thing by talking openly and naturally about their partners, folk they fancy etc - just as I do . Most people who 'didn't know' are polite enough to have their assumptions overturned without comment.

If there were no such thing as homophobia this wouldn't be an issue at all.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

So do my gay housemates, but they enjoy laughing at stereotypes by playing up to them as well...

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

The only people we aren't out to are our Amish friends. I'm not sure they would be able to process our relationship, with their worldview.

What they do know about us is that we're friends who don't have husbands and who live together (which is true; would that all marriage partners were!), that I'm a commissioned lay minister (which, interestingly, seems to give me some street cred with them even though I'm female), and that we're kind to and respectful of them. And that's enough, I think.

But it's one thing to make an effort not to cause offense with one small group within our constellation of friends, and another to spend our lives completely in the closet. Been there, done that, ain't goin' back.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
All gay Christians should be in the closet, at least part of the time. Jesus said so.

Matthew 6:6

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Is it okay to turn it into an absolutely fabulous, glitzy closet? Or does it have to stay plain and dowdy?

Ikons, candles, aromatics and some fabulous shiny and brocaded fabrics are de rigueur for my prayer closet.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Now I'm worried about you. Keep those brocaded fabrics away from the candles, ok?

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

Orfeo is answering the question.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Orfeo is answering the question.

Indeed I am. Didn't even realise it to be honest, in the sense of the link between threads.

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

Glad you did, Orfeo... replaces an 'issue' to be debated in the abstract with a living, breathing, feeling human being. Hugely important to fight the dehumanising process and rehumanise it.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Almost all of us come out sexually at some stage or other. Your weekend in Sydney seems to have been your real coming out Orfeo, and we wish you well.

For the vast majority of the population, coming out is not a problem. Instead of going out with your mates or a group, you tell your parents your going out with a girl; no great dramas. For GLBTs, there are very real problems - how to tell parents and family (I can imagine that telling grandparents may be very hard indeed), coupled with the physical risks of public displays of emotion. As others have noted, it's one thing for a boy and a girl to sit on a park bench, or walk down the street hand in hand. Gays doing exactly the same may very well be bashed.

Madame and I used belong to the school of accepting gays as friends and fellow congregants, but being annoyed by the "love which won't shut up". We thought that time would see an increase in tolerance and a diminution in the violence all too common. Over the years, we have changed, the final point being the harshness of the Uganda laws (and yes, we do know the cultural history behind those) followed by the vicious murder of the activist. The nastiness of the Phelpses helped our journey.

For these reasons, the public coming out by sportsmen and other public figures is essential. It demonstrates very clearly that sexual preference is just that; and not a threat to the community or others. Rather, their coming out provides support - such as the younger brother of one of Dlet's mates, who came out last year. He found it easy and is well accepted at school having done so.

Hope this does not sound patronising. It's not meant to.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Doesn't sound at all patronising. Thank you for that.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Orfeo is answering the question.
Indeed I am. Didn't even realise it to be honest, in the sense of the link between threads.

Most eloquently, too. I feel the same way.

In a major sense, I was too busy trying to be the best little boy in the world (cf. an alleged autobiography of the era which, while spurious in certain details, beautifully captured the essence of a closet for a kid) to have an adolescence until my late 20s. Suddenly there was no more closet because I had been outed. While I wouldn't have missed this phase for anything, playing catchup so belatedly can be a bit undignified as well as less than promising emotionally.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

I'm beginning to wonder if the experience that gays go through when they "come out" is in any way like the experience of anyone else who is considering making something potentially embarrassing about themselves known.

I'm absolutely not saying that being gay is something you should be embarrassed about; what I am saying is that it is something that people are embarrassed about. A gay person who is lacking in confidence and self-esteem is therefore less likely to come out than a gay person who is more self-assured.

Some might retort to that by saying that gays face violence. Well - yeah - but then again, people who support the wrong football team face violence too. But a person who's been to one or two self-defence or martial arts classes is more likely to be able to face that off than someone who hasn't. I know from my own experience that you certainly don't have to be out as gay in order to be bullied on the pretext of you being gay.

And playground competitiveness being what it is, I suspect that there are a lot of people who get called "gay" simply because they don't measure up on some arbitrary yardstick - such as athletic performance, perhaps. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of those people wonder whether or not it would get any worse if they came out as gay. Even if they aren't actually gay.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The post above seems to be saying that being gay is no harder than being different in any number of ways. If so, it shows a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics involved.

The Velvet Rage: Overcoming the Pain of Growing Up Gay in a Straight Man's World is a book by psychotherapist Alan Down. He insists that being gay is a unique experience and that no other minority group comes close. He talks of the dynamic of parenthood and how gay boys are felt to be 'different' from very early on, without knowing why.

At puberty, they cannot go on dates and have their sexuality validated - instead, they either go on sham dates - sometimes leading to sham marriages, or they develop a furtive, closeted sex life.

Later, they seek validation from being the best at their jobs, perhaps from sexual addiction but above all by splitting off 'real life'.

Coming out, thus, is vitally important to health.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I know my physical and mental health alike improved when I finally came out.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

Truth-telling is powerful.

When I first came out it was with trepidation. But with 30 years of suppressing, once I determined to be out, the dam rather burst. There's a tipping point where you realize that it feels good to tell the truth and damn the social expectations.

It's freeing to no longer be afraid that someone will discover the "big, dark, secret". You get to a point where you don't care who knows and telling the truth feels refreshing and good and healing and wholesome.

Coming out is walking OUT of and away from shame (and embarrassment).

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

The irony, of course, is that in the background there are a certain group of people not only hoping for but in some cases actually praying for negativity to enter our lives, so that we might have that metanoia moment that cures us of our "affliction."

I've had conversations elsewhere on the Internet with Christians who are all about praying for "hedges" to thwart perceived evildoers' bad intentions and fail/frustrate them into an appreciation of their sin. And gay folks are certainly included in their definition of people who need to be "hedged" by good Christians' black mag- -- I mean fervent prayer.

Friendly lot.

[ 25. March 2011, 11:23: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by joan knox (# 16100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The irony, of course, is that in the background there are a certain group of people not only hoping for but in some cases actually praying for negativity to enter our lives, so that we might have that metanoia moment that cures us of our "affliction."

I've had conversations elsewhere on the Internet with Christians who are all about praying for "hedges" to thwart perceived evildoers' bad intentions and fail/frustrate them into an appreciation of their sin. And gay folks are certainly included in their definition of people who need to be "hedged" by good Christians' black mag- -- I mean fervent prayer.

Friendly lot.

Ah, years ago, when my sister attended church, she decided to get the whole congregation praying for my healing. When she told me about this, I smiled and thanked her and noted I'd never felt better... she looked a little disappointed [Snigger]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by joan knox:
Ah, years ago, when my sister attended church, she decided to get the whole congregation praying for my healing. When she told me about this, I smiled and thanked her and noted I'd never felt better... she looked a little disappointed

How would "that explains it then - I'm finally getting those multiple orgasms" have gone down?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Hey, don't knock it. Going to a group that was trying to 'cure' me for 2 years was actually vital to my coming out process, because it enabled me to talk about my feelings without staring resolutely at the ground and bursting into tears.

I'm sure they didn't quite anticipate the end result, but God did good things with those lovely, caring, totally misguided people.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hey, don't knock it. Going to a group that was trying to 'cure' me for 2 years was actually vital to my coming out process, because it enabled me to talk about my feelings without staring resolutely at the ground and bursting into tears.

Interesting. Do you think it would be possible to replicate that process for young, gay people without the whole 'it's a sin' thing?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hey, don't knock it. Going to a group that was trying to 'cure' me for 2 years was actually vital to my coming out process, because it enabled me to talk about my feelings without staring resolutely at the ground and bursting into tears.
Interesting. Do you think it would be possible to replicate that process for young, gay people without the whole 'it's a sin' thing?

If it wasn't the for the whole 'it's a sin' thing, I wouldn't have been bursting into tears to begin with.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. But if you're asking whether it would be possible to help young gay people in the church come out as gay Christians, then I'd say the answer is yes. I've had some interaction with a group for GLBT people of Christian backgrounds, which is mainly based in Sydney and Melbourne, and I know they have provided a heck of a lot of support to a couple of young people. On one occasion, the group was contacted by a girl whose gay friend was planning to kill himself the next day because he didn't think he could be both gay and Christian. And boy did people swing into action fast in that situation.

Straight Christians could, in fact, also help young GLBT Christians to come out. But at this point in time, I think it's necessary for the older GLBT Christians to be at the forefront of convincing the younger ones - AND everybody else - that it's possible.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
the group was contacted by a girl whose gay friend was planning to kill himself the next day because he didn't think he could be both gay and Christian. And boy did people swing into action fast in that situation.

Growing up gay is never easy (although one hopes that it is much easier now than it was in the 1960s). But I never suffered a crisis like the above: thank God for our family's having become Episcopalians. Not that anyone's swishing down the aisle would have gone over very well. But for me it was just never a religious issue at any personal, confrontational level.

This was partly because I could distinguish between being and doing, and I had never yet done anything. But it was also partly because gay people had long had whatever it took (intelligence, sensitivity, taste?) to gravitate to this denomination. Some of those in my parish, or in the church at large, went out of their way to treat me well. Even though I didn't realize at the time what they were, they probably had me figured out before I had figured myself out. If I had needed them in such a crisis, they would have been there. And if I didn't, it was partly because they were already there.

Ye watchers and ye holy ones...

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

My pastor knows I'm a willing resource if he ever finds himself counseling a young gay person who's in a state of confusion or despair.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The post above seems to be saying that being gay is no harder than being different in any number of ways. If so, it shows a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics involved.

Maybe it does show a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics involved, maybe it doesn't. But simply saying that doesn't solve any problems.

The trouble with saying that gay people suffer uniquely in ways that non-gay people don't suffer, is that it belittles the suffering of people who don't consider themselves to be gay. It's hardly surprising if that results in homophobia. I think that saying that Jews suffered uniquely in the Holocaust causes anti-Semitism for much the same reason.

The reality, as I see it, is that we're all mortal, and we all suffer. Getting into point-scoring debates about whose suffering is the worst is a fool's game, in my opinion.

Specifically:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
At puberty, they cannot go on dates and have their sexuality validated - instead, they either go on sham dates - sometimes leading to sham marriages, or they develop a furtive, closeted sex life.

That may be - but the same thing is true of anyone who lacks social confidence, regardless of whether they consider themselves gay or straight.

It's no use telling me that this doesn't happen - because, as far as I'm concerned, I've experienced it myself.

I must admit, though, that I think that coming out as gay did improve things for me. The fact that I wasn't actually gay is beside the point. Coming out as gay still allowed me to connect with an LGBT social support network, that enabled me to overcome the problems caused by the homophobic bullying I previously faced - and, for that, I am grateful.

Being bullied for being gay might never have bothered me if neither I nor the bullies didn't think there was anything wrong with being gay. But I had to go through a phase of understanding that it doesn't matter even if I am gay, before I finally came to realise that I'm probably not gay after all. And making a pretence of coming out as gay was an essential part of that process.

But wait a minute - how can I be sure that I'm not gay? Actually - I can't. But I can't be sure that I am gay either. In all honesty, determining the question of whether I am or am not gay is not currently one of my immediate priorities; I have more important things to worry about. But you'll have to forgive me for being slightly sceptical of the teachings of the LGBT orthodoxy.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Straight Christians could, in fact, also help young GLBT Christians to come out. But at this point in time, I think it's necessary for the older GLBT Christians to be at the forefront of convincing the younger ones - AND everybody else - that it's possible.

How about parents?

They have some responibility here imo.

Before my two hit puberty I made sure that they knew they were acceped and loved just the same whether they were gay or straight.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
... The trouble with saying that gay people suffer uniquely in ways that non-gay people don't suffer, is that it belittles the suffering of people who don't consider themselves to be gay. ... That may be - but the same thing is true of anyone who lacks social confidence, regardless of whether they consider themselves gay or straight ...

No, it doesn't. "Unique" doesn't mean bigger or better. "Lacking social confidence" is not the same as "I'll get beat up if I dance with the person of my choice." OliviaG

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Before my two hit puberty I made sure that they knew they were acceped and loved just the same whether they were gay or straight.

One of our daughters was having some friends over. Josephine was cooking in the kitchen. She came into the kitchen; J didn't know her friends were watching from the doorway.

"Mom, I need to tell you something."

(stops cooking to listen) "Okay, sweetie, what?"

"I'm gay."

"Okay. Is there anything else you wanted to say?"

"No, that's it."

"Okay. Love you, honey."

"Love you too, mom."

(to friends) "See? Told ya."

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The trouble with saying that gay people suffer uniquely in ways that non-gay people don't suffer, is that it belittles the suffering of people who don't consider themselves to be gay. It's hardly surprising if that results in homophobia. I think that saying that Jews suffered uniquely in the Holocaust causes anti-Semitism for much the same reason.

One difference is that most people empathise with suffering for one's race or religion.

However, for most of history, gays have been told that it is their own fault. A gay son is often unable to tell his own parents that he is being bullied because they may (and often do throw him out on to the streets and disown him.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
At puberty, they cannot go on dates and have their sexuality validated - instead, they either go on sham dates - sometimes leading to sham marriages, or they develop a furtive, closeted sex life.
That may be - but the same thing is true of anyone who lacks social confidence, regardless of whether they consider themselves gay or straight.

It's no use telling me that this doesn't happen - because, as far as I'm concerned, I've experienced it myself.

Oh, really? You say you don't know whether you are gay or not.

Well, it might sort a few things out if we knew (1) how badly you wanted to go on dates and with whom; (2) if and when you did go on dates, was your sexuality validated?

Orfeo said that gays could not go on dates and have their sexuality validated. That statement is a little vague in one way but absolutely precise in another.

My problem was not that I couldn't go on dates as much as that I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. Girls were very nice to me, actually. I don't remember ever being turned down (speaking from a very small sample size). My first date, if you can call it that, I was a sophomore and she was a senior. She was a bassoonist and I was her piano accompanist. A classmates kidded me (probably with secret envy) about "going with" a senior. I explained that I wasn't really going with her, I was accompanying her. He came back with, "but to accompany means to go with, doesn't it?" As for the date itself, I don't even recall what the occasion was-- play or concert. Anyway, afterwords, we sat in the back seat of the car for a few minutes chatting (certainly nothing more) while Dad drove us around. That was the date. None of it was the least bit objectionable, but at the same time I had the vague impression that there must be more to going on a date to make guys look forward so eagerly to them all week.

At the very least, shouldn't there should be some time alone together? So I decided that I wouldn't try to go out on dates again until I could drive. Then I was ashamed of the family car, so I decided that I wouldn't get serious about dating until I had my own car. Which never happened. Etc. Altogether, I could count my dates in high school on the fingers of one hand. Basically, I was making such excuses to myself for the fact that I didn't care. And I didn't care because no date with a girl would validate my sexuality (although I didn't fully understand this at first).

Of course, if I had tried to "date" boys the way most boys were dating girls, there would have been a traumatic scandal. It would probably have validated my sexuality if it had occurred, but was presumably forbidden.

Can you not see a difference between something easy enough but meaningless, something permitted and even encouraged that an individual happens to find difficult, and forbidden fruit? I hear you calling all of these the same, because all you are thinking about is quantity of suffering along a one-dimensional yardstick. Not very insightful. [Disappointed]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The trouble with saying that gay people suffer uniquely in ways that non-gay people don't suffer, is that it belittles the suffering of people who don't consider themselves to be gay.

There are two problems with saying gay people don't suffer uniquely.

1. It's not true.

2. It belittles their suffering.

This is not to say that non-gay people don't suffer in countless other ways. Everyone who one way or another doesn't fit in during adolescence (and beyond) stands a good chance of suffering. Saying that gay people frequently suffer for being gay doesn't take anything away from the adolescent suffering of people who are shy, people who are fat, people who are handicapped, et al. But they're suffering for something else other than being shy, fat, handicapped, and it's different. Probably all of these sufferings have their unique qualities.

Pain is not a zero-sum game. There's plenty for everyone.

And frankly, I think anyone who can't or won't acknowledge the pain gay people suffer just for being gay because they feel like their own pain isn't being acknowledged needs to look at their own issues for a while. Do you really hurt so bad that it takes something away from you to have others say they hurt in a way that you don't? If you do, you need to do something about it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Pain is not a zero-sum game. There's plenty for everyone.

Quotes file.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Ah, Ruth. You rock.

And Jessie, there is no LGBT "orthodoxy," or if there is, I don't know that I've ever ascribed to it. Sounds a bit like the famous "lifestyle" that I'm also missing out on (cleaning the rotten zuccini out of the fridge this morning definitely doesn't seem to make the cut).

Most of the time I don't think about "pain" per se. Most of the time I live a very ordinary life, working, singing, cooking, going to the library, etc., etc. But every now and then I come smack up against someone's prejudices about lesbians, and I have to take a deep breath in order to carry on. You never know when it will happen. There's no fairness about it. It just happens and I have to deal with it.

It is qualitatively different, say, from some of my clients having a problem with my accent (posh for NZ) and making fun of it, which happens all the time. I can make a joke of that with them. But if they don't like queers, there's no joke to be had, in fact, no way forward. This means I tend to stay in the closet. Which is an extremely vulnerable position, given that Rosie and I live in a not-very-big city, and it only takes one person to see us wandering along hand-in-hand and telling their friend ... who happens to be my client.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
On one occasion, the group was contacted by a girl whose gay friend was planning to kill himself the next day because he didn't think he could be both gay and Christian. And boy did people swing into action fast in that situation.

The problem with the ex-gay organizations in the US, as I've heard 1st hand from many who've gone that route, is that the action would be followed up with reinforcing the idea that the person is somehow especially broken and that God's approval can only be gained by pretending to be straight with same-sex orientation issues. That might get a person through the immediate crisis situation but the long term emotional and spiritual damage can be horrific.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
The problem with the ex-gay organizations in the US, as I've heard 1st hand from many who've gone that route, is that the action would be followed up with reinforcing the idea that the person is somehow especially broken and that God's approval can only be gained by pretending to be straight with same-sex orientation issues. That might get a person through the immediate crisis situation but the long term emotional and spiritual damage can be horrific.

"Ex-gay" is a bit of a misnomer for those organizations. They're not about making gay people straight, just about keeping gay people celibate.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
The problem with the ex-gay organizations in the US, as I've heard 1st hand from many who've gone that route, is that the action would be followed up with reinforcing the idea that the person is somehow especially broken and that God's approval can only be gained by pretending to be straight with same-sex orientation issues. That might get a person through the immediate crisis situation but the long term emotional and spiritual damage can be horrific.
"Ex-gay" is a bit of a misnomer for those organizations. They're not about making gay people straight, just about keeping gay people celibate.

That's a distinction without a difference. The damage still stands.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
That's a distinction without a difference. The damage still stands.

Yes. And though I would agree that the nuance is slowly becoming more clear, people desperate to not be gay will read what they will into the not-so-clearly stated objectives of said ministries.

"Change is possible" is not particularly unambiguous, is it?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Ex-gay" is a bit of a misnomer for those organizations. They're not about making gay people straight, just about keeping gay people celibate.

What an unkind, cruel and thoughtless thing to want to do [Frown]

[ 08. April 2011, 19:18: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
That's a distinction without a difference. The damage still stands.
Yes. And though I would agree that the nuance is slowly becoming more clear, people desperate to not be gay will read what they will into the not-so-clearly stated objectives of said ministries.

"Change is possible" is not particularly unambiguous, is it?

Only two changes are possible. Either you become effectively asexual or you attempt some kind of heterosexual role. Either way, it seems to me a curious disservice/ingratitude to your Creator.

Posted by Gay Organ Grinder (# 11833) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
That's a distinction without a difference. The damage still stands.
Yes. And though I would agree that the nuance is slowly becoming more clear, people desperate to not be gay will read what they will into the not-so-clearly stated objectives of said ministries.

"Change is possible" is not particularly unambiguous, is it?
Only two changes are possible. Either you become effectively asexual or you attempt some kind of heterosexual role. Either way, it seems to me a curious disservice/ingratitude to your Creator.

How true!!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

An interesting illustration of "Why do Gays have to 'come out'?" from Louis Martinelli, an important figure in the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage. The piece is simply titled "I now support full marriage equality" (website seems slow), and unlike a lot of NOM's writings this is an actual change of heart, not a semantic game of the 'gays can marry . . . opposite sex partners' type. The key seems to have been getting to know actual gay people and realizing they're just like everyone else. A key paragraph:

quote:
At that point, between what I had witnessed on the marriage tour and RJ’s post about marriage equality, I really came to understand that gays and lesbians were just real people who wanted to live real lives and be treated equally as opposed to, for example, wanting to destroy American culture. No, they didn’t want to destroy American culture, they wanted to openly particulate in it. I was well on my way to becoming a supporter of civil marriage equality. You can read my statement retracting the statements I made about gays and lesbians here

The whole thing is worth a read, though the website seems to be problematic.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0