I’m against this for the same reason I’m against feminism- you don’t get to draft a billion people into your movement just because they share a similar characteristic. You don’t have a duty to fight for the rights of people with your trait any more than I have a duty to fight for white supremacy.
About as pertinent as mentioning whether were a natural birth or a c-section, in my opinion.
No. They have a duty to be true to themselves. Not everyone is destined to be a trail blazer
I’m straight, but my partner and I are not married. We’ve been together for so long that I know that lots of people assume we are married.
So, in a conversation, should I refer to my SO as my husband (technically incorrect, but day to day you couldn’t tell it’s not true), my partner (gender unknown) or my partner and specify a gender?
The short answer is, it’s really no one’s business if we are married or not, or what the gender of my SO is.
If I chose to divulge either one of those pieces of information, it should be because I want to, not because social norms say I need to. I would say that gay couples have the exact same rights.
Generally speaking, John Doe doesn’t have an ethical obligation to make it easier for Richard Roe to do that which Roe is ethically obliged to do anyway. For instance, Doe isn’t obligated to keep “lending” Roe money to pay his bills because that’s easier for Roe than working harder and tightening his belt.* Similarly, Doe (should he happen to be gay) is not obliged to come out of the closet to make it easier for Roe to facepalm and renounce homophobic bigotry – Roe ought to simply grow up and do so on his own.
*Cases of genuine distress, where Roe truly can’t meet his obligations without help, are a different issue that is not relevant to this thread.
This was a more interesting question then I thought, and not just because I used to be married without being married for 16 years.
I realise that it is about correcting an error. An incorrect assumption. The difference between being married and not is, to me, so minute, that it isn’t necessary to correct any assumption.
However, I feel that referring to a mans’ wife when he has a husband instead, is incorrect. An incorrect assumption that needs correcting. Hmn.
Gays, if I may ask: Which would bug you more? Someone incorrectly assuming that:
- you were single rather then in a committed relationship
- you were in an unsanctioned committed relationship, instead of being married,
- the sex of your partner?
- you being gay would mean all sorts of stereotypes;
- you being gay would mean you would hit on that someone, even if they were straight.
My guess would be that 5 would be most annoying, followed by 4, 3 and then I don’t know anymore.
There is no moral obligation to be “out” for someone who is gay than for anyone else who has a belief that isn’t mainstream. I would say that there is some level of obligation to let people close to you know, because it will ultimately make both yours and their lives easier, but the farther away you get, the less that impacts it. For instance, if some random stranger says something, like with the bratwurst example upthread, you can’t really blame him for assuming that a random person is straight since the large majority of people are, he’s just trying to be friendly and making a bad assumption. I wouldn’t say one should take steps to hide it either. It should just be what it is. If it’s relevant to the conversation, mention it, if it’s not, don’t. The way to make it not a big deal is to treat it like it’s not a big deal.
Not so much the same in terms of how society looks at it, but to give the closest example I can, I am Christian but don’t celebrate certain major holidays (notably Easter and Christmas). So if I run into a random person who says Merry Christmas, I don’t feel the need to correct them. But there are some times where it just comes up like someone casually asks what I’m doing for Christmas and it’s appropriate to say I don’t celebrate it, if they want to ask more they can, or not. Or to generalize, if someone just casually mentions how it’ll help a guy pick up chicks, just let it slide. I would treat mentioning one’s SO the same way, if a straight guy might say “let me ask my wife/girlfriend” I don’t see why someone who is gay couldn’t say the equivalent “husband/partner/boyfriend”.
No, they don’t have a moral obligation to announce it to everyone. But if anyone assumes they are straight, they should correct them. It should be a case of “I’m gay. Let’s move on.”
I agree. It’s not at all an obligation that gay people have to come out of the closet, but it’s almost always better for the person to live openly.
I don’t think it’s strange. It’s true that it shouldn’t be on gay people to be the wise teachers to straights and teach them how bigotry is wrong. But studies have shown that if someone knows gay people personally, they’re less likely to be homophobic. Here’s one study regarding marriage equality that shows that opposition to marriage is higher among Americans who don’t know anyone who is gay.
So let’s say that there’s John who lives next door to the Smith family. John is gay and in the closet and Michael and Michelle Smith are both slightly homophobic. John has no obligation to Mr. and Mrs. Smith regarding coming out of the closet and teaching them the error of their ways. John should come out of the closet so he can be honest about who he is and not have to sneak around. But a secondary benefit to John coming out would be that Michael and Michelle might realize that John doesn’t seem so bad so maybe gay people aren’t too bad. It’s not like they’d immediately join GLAAD, but maybe they’ll be less likely to vote for discrimination laws. It would also help that the Smith children Alan and Beth could see that John is a good and normal person just like any of their straight neighbors, despite what they’ve heard their parents say about gay people in the past. This would be good for Alan and Beth to see regardless of anything else, but if Alan and/or Beth happens to be gay then it’s especially good for them to see a happy, normal, gay guy.
Well, it’s either over-optimism or a shaky grasp of history. To pick just one group that’s been the target of blatant bigotry, most African-Americans don’t have any choice as to whether they’re “out”. This has not protected them from discrimination.
As a human (and heterosexual BTW) I have no obligation to disclose my preferences, fetishes, actual activity with anyone other than my partner.
My only obligation is to not hurt others. That does mean that rape, pedophilia, animal sex, and so forth are not OK. I personally happen to think that rule of not hurting others includes giving them the same consideration that I claim for myself.
Why should gay folks be any different from me?
That is what I have been saying. But I even wonder about that. Why should they correct them? The only reason I can think of is to save their conversation partner the embarrasment of making an error. But is that enough ?
I’m sorry if I seem to be the only one who wants to debate this, but it really bugs me.
I’d say that equality encourages being out.
Being able to say that “impresario Juan Moreno and his husband, José Rubio, have become the proud fathers of a daughter”* gives Mrs. Moreno and Rubio a very strong incentive to be out (being married makes it much easier for them to become parents), and also a very fast way to make their situation explicit if they so desire (“allow me to introduce my husband”). At the same time, they have no more obligation to explain their domestic arrangements to people than anybody else does.
- names changed because my memory sucks, but I promise it was an actual printed announcement this past week. Location: Madrid, Spain. Paper on which it was printed: one with national distribution.
That has nothing to do with what I said, but okay.
It’s not an obligation to be out, and it’s true that it’s no one’s business. But orientation is different than your bedroom preferences. I’m a straight woman, and there’s been many times when I meet someone and they ask if I’m married or have a boyfriend. It can be an annoying question sometimes since I’ve been single a long time, but I’ve never thought it rude or intrusive. If I was gay I could avoid the question or change the subject if I’d rather not be out to that person, or I could be open and say something about not having a girlfriend or not having met the right woman yet. Not once has someone in casual conversation asked me about my sexual activity or fetishes, and that would strike me as a very surprising and intrusive question.
I don’t know the proper etiquette, but I think it’s just like anything else a conversation partner might be mistaken about, like where you’re from, what you do for a job, how your name is pronounced, or whatever else. For some casual acquaintances, it might not be worth the bother to correct the mistaken assumption. For a closer friend it’d probably be better to correct the mistake, because it would probably keep coming up in conversation.
Exactly. But, that would require the gay person to " come out" at a time he might not have chosen himself, right? That is my link to the question in the OP.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I would say no, that the gay person is not required to come out at all before they are ready. No one is obligated to answer questions on their orientation or romantic relationships or whatever else.
John might avoid questions about who he’s dating because he’s afraid he’d lose his job or be constantly lectured by fundamentalists. Or he could avoid those questions because he’s just a private guy and doesn’t like to talk about his personal life. Or because he doesn’t want any more fruit flies who will want his advice on fashion and other stereotypical things. Or if John knows someone has an annoying gay cousin and he’s afraid of being set up. Nothing is wrong with any of those reasons.