Welcome aboard, andygirl and quietgirl! I am indeed a frequent traveller to Rehoboth Beach as my family has owned a home there for many years and I live but a short drive away in Philadelphia. And I’ve read that column in CAMP Rehoboth – fun! I’m going down this weekend as a matter of fact with Dr. Boyfriend.
And of course I’ve looked forward to my enthusiastic return hug (and more) from matt. Nice to know your affections haven’t waned in my absence.
Doob, congrats on the airing out of truths with Dave. Glad to hear it went well.
Welcome aboard to Freyr as well! And nice to see you posting more often, Hastur.
Wow…it looks like I’m batting 0 for 2 – explanations follow.
Hastur, your choosing that name led me to believe you might be familiar with the Marion Zimmer Bradley Darkover novels in which a family with that surname plays a leading role. She of course copped the name from the Chambers and Lovecraft horror pieces, but what she did with it is quite different. May I urge you, if you can even tolerate science fiction or fantasy, to run, do not walk, to a bookstore and obtain a copy of her The Heritage of Hastur. And afterward, let me know whether I was right in wishing you a Danilo.
'Sprix and everyone else, Chuck and Buck is the name of a recent movie (which I’ve seen extensive reviews and interviews regarding but not yet seen the movie itself), produced and costarred in by Mike White, son of the Rev. Mel White. In it Buck, portrayed by White, is an emotionally stunted young gay man who is attempting to cling to a childhood relationsip (including sexual) with his best friend Charles (“Chuck” as a kid). It is from all accounts a powerful piece, but with non-P.C. imagery regarding gays. I’d hoped you’d seen it on vacation, Esprix, and had some comments on it.
By the way, when the heck are you going to go up to Montreal? I’m starting to feel really sorry for Matt and his unrequited love…
Nope. It’s from H.P. Lovecraft… the originator as far as I know of the name Hastur, if you don’t believe the Necronomicon is genuine(I don’t think it is). Sorry, I loathe Bradley’s books.
Well, that’s understandable. It’s impossible to get a decent tan in the St. Lawrence Valley; I have years of experience to prove it!
No, actually what’s happened is that Chuck is due to be married, and Buck keeps trying, in his spastic way, to turn him back into the boy he loved when they were kids together…usually with disastrous consequences.
According to the reviews, there’s a surprise ending that satisfactorily resolves the plot tension, but nobody’s posting or printing a spoiler.
Esprix, it’s definitely not a Fundie film. Not even close. Director Miguel Arteta also directed the movie Star Maps, which dealt in part male prostitution; and co-star Chris Weitz produced American Pie and wrote Antz, among other movies.
Ah, ok. I saw Rev. White’s name and since I always associate him with the radical right I always have to remind myself that he’s the liberal one fighting for us. So many people to keep track of!
I have always found discrimination against Gays to be ridiculous and counterproductive, even from a purely logical standpoint. After all, each Gay Guy increases the remaining Hetero guys share in the pool of available women!
Gay guys should be the hetero man’s best friend.
Unfortunately, the discrimination does exist.
That being said, do you think the fact that someone is gay and hence subject to discrimination not suffered by non-gays entitles the gay person to ANY rights and privileges not enjoyed by other members of society?
BTW. I know you know where this question is coming from, and I expect you to take that into account as fairly as possible before answering.
Tough question. On the face of it, I’d say rights, no, but a perhaps a bit more respect and consideration, yes. Everyone deserves to be treated equally, and to give one person more rights than another just tips the balance in a different direction. However, the fact cannot be denied that gays and lesbians are often treated unfairly and unequally, and that should cause us all concern. Similarly, because of the inequal treatment of blacks, Affirmative Action was instituted, and we all know what a maelstrom of controversy that is - does it work? Does it help or hinder the cause for equality? The jury is still out.
Personally, I have to give a lot of credit for a hard decision by one of my favorite people, Bishop Desmond Tutu. In order to get past one of the most difficult times in his country’s history, the policy of forgiveness that he instituted (I forget the name of the committee that oversaw confessions) was bold, brave, controversial, and only time will tell if it was effective. But perhaps it is a model for us to look to - admit our mistakes, forgive them, and move on, hopefully learning from them and working together. We live in an imperfect world full of imperfect beings, but hey, we gotta start somewhere.
picmr, it just might at that - I’ll talk to the mods upon my return.
Speaking of, I’m off to Walt Disney World for a week. Keep the thread alive this time, dammit! Lots of other queers… er, faggots… er, “us folk” are around to answer questions and keep those other interesting threads alive. (Oh, and there’s an update about me and Dr. Boyfriend and my impending move in MPSIMS, if anyone wants to get the latest dish.)
I’d like to second, word for word, Esprix’s answer to this question.
But I’d like to add that I’m not aware of any gay group anywhere that is asking for “ANY rights and privileges not enjoyed by other members of society.” So I presume your question is a hypothetical one. The demands I’m aware of are all in the nature of inclusion, not exclusivity. The only distinction I can think of is to include crimes against homosexuals as eligible for standing hate crime laws, where straight white males are generally not included. To deny this would be to deny that homosexuals are subject to violence based on prejudicial hatred, which I don’t think is in question.
This is not meant to invalidate your question, Scylla; only to take issue with the frequent but inappropriate confusion of the word “privileges” with the word “rights.” If marriage is a “privilege” of heterosexuals, or freedom of employment, I would take no issue with your wording at all. But neither is considered a privilege by non-homosexuals, so we shouldn’t be forced to think of them as privilieges, either.
In any case, to reiterate what Esprix said, and what I have said elsewhere, most other issues–including issues of language–fall under the umbrella of courtesy, not politics. If I refer to the “right to expect courtesy,” I wouldn’t mean to confuse that with the “right to demand courtesy,” which I think would be non-sensical under the Constitution. In that sense, my right would simply be the “right” of any human being to expect his humanity to be honored; not, you’ll agree, a legislatable right.
“This is not meant to invalidate your question, Scylla; only to take issue with the frequent but inappropriate confusion of the word “privileges” with the word “rights.” If marriage is a “privilege” of heterosexuals, or freedom of employment, I would take no issue with your wording at all. But neither is considered a privilege by non-homosexuals, so we shouldn’t be forced to think of them as privilieges, either.”
I see your point. I see the difference this way: Driving is a privilege contingent upon certain criteria, as is marriage (I.E. no disease, not already married,)
All people should have equal access to these privileges without regard to Race, creed, or sexual orientation as a matter of right.
When one doesn’t, their rights are being violated, and discrimination is being practiced.
I think most people who hear calls for “gay rights” and see them as “special privileges” misunderstand what is being asked for. I have the right to marry the person I love, and did so 25.37 years ago. I cannot see any reason why a gay person should not have the same right. (The traditional Christian understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman might be a bar to a church wedding, to be sure, but it’s pretty clear that the traditional Christian understanding of anything should not be the basis for our laws.) Taken a slightly different tack, nobody is suggesting that gays should have the (exclusive) right to marry someone of their own sex – they already have the right, shared with straights, to marry someone of the opposite sex – and it’s mildly obvious why few of them take advantage of it. What gay activists are calling for is the right for anybody to marry someone of the same sex – though vanishingly few straight people would take advantage of that right. (I mentioned once why I might – if my wife predeceases me, my estate at my death drops to a few hundred dollars, since much of what I can leave goes to me or my surviving spouse for life. If she dies first, I would strongly consider a civil union with my best friend, not for sexual purposes, but to make him my legal heir, entitled to “surviving spouse” benefits.)
One thing that any gay activists reviewing this thread might take into consideration is the number of domestic partnership benefits programs from companies that cover spouses of straight people and DPs of gay people, but not DPs of straight people who have not married. Granted that the gays **cannot[/b[ marry under virtually all laws, there is a disparity there that could come back to bite people. In your shoes, I would push for all formal DPs to be eligible for such benefits.
[Confidential to Polycarp: You’ll understand if I read this as patronizing, and wonder if your subtext is “I didn’t know you could respond without flaming.” To the extent to which this is nothing more than an expression of my own paranoia, I apologize and gracioiusly except your applause; but in light of recent exchanges in other threads, you’ll excuse me for being a bit thin skinned. To the extent to which my interpretation is accurate, feel free to search my many posts for a general idea of the ratio of flames to, um, non-flames.]
I’d be curious for specific examples: the companies I’m aware of don’t make this distinction.
Well, I am sorry that you saw it that way. I didn’t mean it as patronizing. I don’t like confrontationalism, and prefer to work from where someone is, without sacrificing my own principles, in responding to others’ posts. So without making a point of doing so, whenever I have had a post-series with someone that was confrontational in nature, I try to post in another thread where they have said something I do agree with, simply to “remove the bad taste of the confrontation from both our mouths,” so to speak.
And I thought that your comments above were very well done, and wanted to let you know that. I’m sorry it came across as patronizing; that wasn’t my intent.
I regret that I don’t have specific examples in mind to list of gay-DP-only benefits policies; there were notes about this being the policy at a couple of companies in an article I recently read, I think in the last Advocate. 'Sprix, goboy, any of you happen to know of examples?
Again, Polycarp, I apologize for misconstruing your applause. I understood before I posted the above that it was open to both interpretations and I was just as likely wrong as right, which is why I included a backup apology in the post.
