Am I the only one imagining the meeting as a Life of Brian bit?
"Friends, we must unite against the common enemy!
What - the BLT?"
Regards,
Shodan
Please tell us how you would try to establish that you are not a negro-lynching racist.
I can understand the frustration about what image they are projecting versus what image they should be projecting. I’m a member of my school’s GLBTQIA Rainbow Alliance and there’s a straight woman in the group who insists that condoms play a prominet role in all of the group’s activities.
Re-reading that sentence, I realize it gives the wrong image entirely…heh, let me try again.
When we have club activities, such as the Club Fair, the Commuter Fair, the “it’s a nice day and we want to have a picnic!” Fair, Open Mic Night, etc, she always insists that we have a huge bowl of condoms near by to pass out, or our games incorporate condoms in some way, or we sell condom lollipops as a fundraiser, etc.
Now, I am all for encouraging and practicing safe sex, and hey, who doesn’t like free condoms? But making that the focal point of everything we do publically really undermines our efforts and re-inforces the stereotype that gays and lesbians are all a bunch of sex perverts and other negative connotations that really aren’t helpful right now.
But she just doesn’t get it. Fortunately the president of the club does and so he diplomaticaly deflects her suggestions…
I’m not really sure what your point is here. I wasn’t talking about the differential in experiences of gay men and lesbians. I was discussing the use of terminology.
High schools don’t teach gay history. Colleges rarely teach gay history, and never as a part of general history classes. Students won’t learn gay history unless they actually choose to take a class on it, if one is available.
So, identifying gay history separately from “regular old history” is entirely justified.
FWIW, Samp, I thought your post was great, apart from the insinuation that your opinion on raising gay awareness is more valid because you’ve been doing it longer. Your methods would be better, but on their own merits, not on yours.
Oh for crying out loud, lay off him. First of all, how tacky or appropriate his behavior was is entirely dependent on the ceremony as a whole, about which we know nothing, and it’s really an issue between him and the brides. Maybe his performance was tacky as hell and everyone was wincing. Or maybe this particular wedding was an informal, wacky, and slightly drunken affair featuring flamboyances left and right.
More importantly, on the grand scale of straight-men-and-how-they-interact-with-queers, someone who has lesbian friends who he (presumably) cares deeply for, attends their wedding, gets enthusiastic, and maybe goes overboard into tacky while attempting to love and honor and support said wedding, is ON YOUR SIDE for God’s sake.
You’re right. I do intend to become more involved so that I can steer and nudge just a little though.
Minstrel show behavior is not being on my side. Maybe it was a wacky whimsical wedding (with lesbians? Hmmm), but prancing about in a dress does not equate to “being on my side.” Moreoever, the sort of cluelessness evinced by this gem
indicates that Askeptic is in dire need of an education on gay issues.
Frankly, your post and that of Askeptic is the sort of paternalistic condescension that black people used to get from white folks who just didn’t understand why there was such a fuss over civil rights when their maids seemed perfectly happy.
Thanks Max! I guess I should point out that the entire ceremony was along the lines of a John Waters movie. Everyone was being silly and happy and expressing their love and support for two women who have loved eachother for many years. I would like to point out that the ceremony was not a solemn one because most of us felt that the commitment the two have already demonstrated solemnized their union. The official wedding was viewed as an opportunity by all to show how silly we thought it was that it took untill 2004 for two people who love eachother deeply to get recognized, however tenuously, by the State. We had fun. straight, gay, trans, bi, butch, nellie, my performance was far from over the top in that crowd.
This is the first time I have been made to feel that my participation despite (or because) being straight, was in someway offensive to some gay OR Lesbian people. No one at the ceremony indicated as much. Besides I only asked to act as the flower girl to demonstrate that some of us straght people are unconcerned with traditional gender roles. The dress was not my Idea. I had already rented a Tux when the brides asked if I would be willing to do it in a dress. I said sure, if thats what they wanted, it was fine by me.
Little did I know, that by trying to be an open minded straight person trying to support my friends, I would be ridiculed here of all places. Hell, is it my fault I am not gay? And just because I am not gay I get criticized for wearing a dress, by people who would shout down anyone who had the audacity to criticize an openly gay man for wearing the same dress. God knows, I post plenty of stuff worthy of ridicule, but I did not think that being straight and having gay friends was going to subject me to ridicule by gay folks on SDMB. Live and learn I guess.
Well, then I retract my comments.
Hey, you want to be a flower girl at a campy ceremony, go for it.
But some of us aren’t interestd in being campy. Not all gay men like to flounce, or wear dresses, or act silly. Some of us want the same dignity for our weddings that hetero weddings have. Acting like marriage for gay people is just some silly game you’re playing makes it that much harder for the rest of us to be taken seriously.
I’m not criticizing you for being straight, or for having fun at your friends’ wedding. I’m not happy because you (and they, I guess) play into the hands of the antigay forces by acting as if marriage is just a frolic and not to be treated as a serious commitment.
How does one straight guy playing out a John Watersesque scenario in a wedding with the two brides’ full knowledge, consent and active participation in the campy side of things make him insensitive to the concerns of ssm proponents? It was the lesbians’ wedding, open for them to make campy or make solemn. They chose to go campy. askeptic can hardly be blamed for trivializing ssm if the actual people being married chose to accept the theme.
I’ll be the first (well, after himself) to admit that askeptic can be an idiot, but I don’t really think this qualifies as an example of such.
Point granted, but STILL. . .
Sorry, gobear…I missed your last paragraph. Still, the idea that a wedding has to be solemn seems distressingly conformist to me. I’ve seen straight weddings in Klingon, Renaissance, LotR, Blues Brothers, and horrorgoth themes. Why do all gay weddings have to be tuxes and gowns and slow walks down the aisle?
Yes, the occasion involved is very important, and very special. That doesn’t mean it has to be dull…
gobear: It was a private ceremony, none of us were playing into the hands of anti gay forces, because there were none there.
I understand your displeasure at “flouncy” gay stereotypes especially when seemingly made fun of by a non gay person. I had no intention to make anyone seem absurd. I was just following the wishes of my friends. I would also like to point out that there are indeed many “flouncy” gay people, which I am sure you know. Why do you feel that they paint "serious gay people’ such as you in a bad light. Shouldn’t we all be fighting for acceptence of all types? Straight, Gay, Serious, “flouncy”, butch, fem, whatever, it should not matter. If two people love eachother and want to share their lives together, who are we to say them nay?
I think you attach too much importance to the ceremony. That is understandable considering that it has unfairly been denied to you. But consider the drive up Chapels in Vegas, frequented by many heteros, complete with minister dressed as elvis. Also consider that Brittney got married then changed her mind for a publicity stunt. Or any number of examples of the fact that State sanctioned marriage is not really all that sacred. What matters in my mind is the love and commitment shared by two people, straight or gay.
I respect your position and desire to be accepted as a “normal” member of society. I think it is pretty clear that there is nothing abnormal about homosexuality, but I also realize that I am not subjected to the discrimination most homosexuals have to endure. (the minor unfair comments in this thread and how they made me feel, has given me a greater appreciation for others who are unfairly criticized). I just wish we could devote our efforts to establishing a world where [please forgive me for changing the words of a great and important speech] our children are judged on the the content of their character not on the gender of their partner.
Other posters are right, my understanding of gay issues is limited, I welcome anyone who is willing to increase my understanding, I am certainly willing to learn. Those who pointed out that teaching Gay History is legitimate, I have come to see your point. Suffice it to say, that I am uninformed about gay issues, and pretty dumb in general, but I do support equal rights for people regardless of their sexual orientation. I hope that fact will at least make you willing to treat me like a well meaning but retarded brother as opposed to treating me like someone who whishes you harm.
Sincerely,
Jason
It’s been said before, but it bears repeating, an international protest against anti-queer violence is a good thing, but silence is odd tactic.
I don’t feel that amounts to “making the defining essence of homosexuality one of persecution and victimhood.” There are other issues to be sure, but we can’t just ignore the violence issue. This kind of violence still exists, in some places even in the developed world it’s still fairly common, and, in a number of countries it’s not just practiced by antisocial thugs, but by governments.
OK, I understand some of Sampiro’s points better. I think the DoS is an interesting method of activism, but it sounds like this particular student group may well have gone about it in an ineffective way.
That said:
I’m puzzled by the notion that any holocaust observance has to be underwritten by the local Jewish group to keep it out of the realm of drama-queen-ness.
The first of those two posts was indeed by Hamish, but the second one was by me. Sorry.
WITCHERY! WITCHERY! HE’S A SHAPE CHANGER!!!
They make a pill for that now, you know. 
I’m just surprised that (unless I missed it) no one’s yet commented on the irony of yelling at people to “shut the fuck up” on a national day of silence. 
Oh, and Bruce Villanch isn’t doing Hollywood Squares anymore.