For the most part I agree with you and do not find anything you’ve said to be hateful or homophobic.
Whether I, the rest of the gay people in the world, or open minded people think, being called gay is considered a slur.
It is used to defame and belittle.
I also found the comments about Poundstone offensive, especially in the context of the current allegations that she is living under.
The PC police needs to back the fuck off where this is concerned and realize that while it should be a neutral thing where the sexuality of others is concerned, currently it is not. To pretend it is otherwise is fallacious.
Well, Manda Jo, my “small town” is the small town where all (most) of the celebrities actually live and work. The "some guy"s that I get my information from are people who know, work with, are friends with, and sleep with the celebrities. I consider that reputable sources. Unlike you (by your own admission) the information I get turns out to be true 99% of the time.
You appear to be assuming that if I post on the SDMB, and you post on the SDMB, then your sources of information and my sources of information have equal weight, when that is clearly not the case. So while you might feel that information you pick up somewhere is just some made-up gossip, and find that to be true fairly often, that is not my experience.
(Which, before you go there, is not a “Brag”, it’s just a fact. The fact just happens to be about famous people.)
Wrong. You ARE talking about a press release announcement. Of COURSE Paula has told people about her sexuality…she just hasn’t * announced * it on the cover of Time magazine, and * you * are making the “wild speculation” that that means that no one she hasn’t slept with is supposed to know about it.
I’m not wildly speculating about anything. It does not follow that the lack of a press release about it means any discussion of it at all constitutes “wild speculation”.
I have also made it clear since the very beginning that I would not publicly discuss *anyone’s * sexuality, only people that I understand to be comfortable with it. That is my understanding of Paula. The lack of press release does not render this untrue. I do not think it is appropriate to “out” people who don’t want to be outed.
And as for your argument about labels…since I was referring to what I do, I’ll thank you not to tell me what I can call myself. I sleep with women sometimes and men sometimes. I can label it any damn thing I want and it’s not your place to correct me.
And I am done discussing it. There are obviously different opinions about what is ok to talk about and what isn’t. I’ve made myself clear and I’m not going to keep arguing the point. This is a matter of personal opinion. I have one opinion, you have another, Airman has another, and so forth.
I do long for the day when no one will bat an eye at anyone being gay, straight, or any variety in between.
I would think that if I could not it would mean that A I am wrong, or B that I don’t know enough to tell the difference. I consider it more like people react differently based on what they care about and a persons orientation changes what they care about.
I appreciate you taking the time the ponder my question, and also your honesy and candor.
I think I understand your point. I will try to explain my point some more.
I think we all agree that someone should be able to say “I am gay” without having to suffer consequences, and we would also agree that it truly is OK to be gay.
However, if I say “I think Joe Smoe is gay”, and people have a problem with me saying that, that is simply another implication that homosexuality is wrong. If people truly believed it was OK to be gay, they would have no problem with me saying someone was gay, even if I was wrong. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone, and having a problem with what they say. I would say that opening Pit thread would fall under “having a problem with it”.
I realize that people have suffered discrimination for their sexuality (big understatement!), but I truly believe that we are at a stage now that by treating the statement “Joe is gay” different from “Joe is Lithuanian” that is does more to perpetuate homophobia that to protect people’s privacy.
Besides, I can’t considered Stoid’s statements a violation of Cruise’s privacy. She just stated what she thought. If she had spied on him in bed or something, that would a violation of his privacy. Simply stating what you believe about a person is not violating their privacy.
I could imagine several reasons that Tom Cruise would dislike being labelled as gay. For one thing, it would seriously hamper his ability to get women like Nicole Kidman to marry him. For another, it’s wrong (well, I’m just going to assume here that he’s straight). Just because there is nothing wrong with being gay doesn’t make it correct to spread untruths about people.
Stoid, most small town gossip comes from towns where people actually live and work, and is about people that actualy live and work there. And far from 99% of it is true. Are you saying that gossip is incredibly more reliable in the small town that is Hollywood than it is the the small town that is Podunk, Alabama? That people in Hollywood are magically free from biases, from the temptation to embellish, from the temptation to out and out lie? I am not saying Hollywood gossip is any less reliable than the gossip around any other small town. But I don’t understand how you can claim it is more reliable.
Furthermore, the information you get does not turn out to be true 99% of the time because it is totally untested 95% of the time. Most celebrities never discuss their sexuality publically, and if they aren’t popular enough for anyone to know who they are dating, well, it is never discussed obliquely, either (i.e. confirmed by a publist that so-and-so is seeing so-and-so). Your certainty that you are right is based on the fact that most of the time no one is in a position to prove that you are wrong. This is true of most gossip the world over, and is hte reason is remains a popular pastime for nearly everyone.
But as long as rumors of Joe Smoe’s homosexuallity could adversely affect is livelihood, his standing in the community, even his personal safety, it’s not your decision to out him. It’s his. We are not currently living in that ideal society we all hope for, and until then it’s irresponsible to thrust other people into the front lines of the culture wars.
While it is true that Paula Poundstone has acknowledged her homosexuality, (I remember reading columns by her in The Advocate) I really doubt that Stoid has the ability to tell who is gay and who is not.
For example, talking about Angelina Jolie with a co-worker yesterday, I said that she’s all right, but as a gay man, I didn’t think her body redeemed the mess that was Tomb Raider. He refused to believe I was gay. Nobody buys that I’m gay initially until I insist that I’m a fucking Kinsey 6.
Stoid, you’re full of shit. Unless Ellen is sucking on your clit, you have no way to tell she is gay.
BTW, Stoid, I thought you didn’t “do the Pit”…
You know, I can tell when someone’s full of shit. I don’t need proof-it’s “osmosis.” And Stoid, I can tell you that you’re one of them.
I see your point, but I think there’s a difference between being outed and people just talking among themselves and one says “I think Tom Cruise is gay.”
Your point applies to mass media and such, but this issue is over Stoid making statements on this board.
Do you believe that members of this board cannot make statements like “I think so-and-so is gay” because it may damage the person’s career? What about people talking to each other on the street? Where do you draw the line between freedom of speech, and libel?
Except that Stoid didn’t say “I think so-and-so is gay”. She said “So-and-so is gay, and I know whether or not every other so-and-so is gay.”
Perhaps a better analogy would be pregnancy. There is nothing wrong with being pregnant, certainly, but it is alot more interesting than one’s status as a Lithuanian. Had Stoid claimed in the other thread to always know when other people are pregnant and to have never been suprised when someone announced they were pregnant, and to in fact be sure that several famous people had miscarried at some point becasue she knew they were pregnant but then no baby was ever announced, I would have had the exact same response.
I would object to people characterizing anyone without absolute proof. That is the very heart of this argument.
People are free to say whatever they want to say. But “free speech” isn’t really free, is it?
What would you do if someone started calling your daughter a whore? Or your wife? You’d be pissed, and rightly so. Those comments would jeopardize your relationships with people you knew, since rumors cannot be disproven.
Look at what happened to Richard Jewell, the alleged Olympic bomber. The man recieved death threats, was shunned by everyone around him, and to this day there are people who believe that he in fact did plant a bomb at Olympic Park. That he didn’t can be proven. But who believes him?
If you’re going to say something unsubstantiated, you have to be prepared to face the consequences. This thread is a consequence of Stoid’s off the cuff remarks that have no basis in fact.
I just wish people would keep other people’s feelings in mind when they state half truths and innuendos. The results of rumors can be quite traumatic, and all the more so when millions of people are shouting that same rumor at you all the time.
Gaydar is shorthand for ordinary intution and common sense 2+2-ing. Certainly not failsafe or always reliable, but generally it works a lot of the time. For someone to declare there’s no such thing as gaydar makes me think they haven’t yet fallen off the turnip truck.
But if Stoid is gay then how are she and I supposed to have our Throroughbred Liberal Love Child (a la Milossarian’s nightmare scenario)?
again, you compare being gay to being negative things. Being called gay is like being called a whore or a bomber?
This is my last post in this thread, I’m tired of repeating my point.
When you get upset over someone being called gay, you perpetuate the idea that homosexuality is wrong. Even though your intentions are good. Even if you are only getting upset because others think it’s bad.
RTA, Stoid isn’t claiming that she has “gaydar”. She is claiming that she lives in Hollywood and is up on all the latest gossip, which is 99% reliable.
Revtim:
I don’t often start threads, and certainly not pit threads–the only one I can recall starting was an excruciatingly polite objection to a moderator’s decision to move another thread, and even then I was more interested in discussing the theoretical difference between GD and IMHO than in discussing the specifics. It was only here because every discussion of moderation is supposed to be here. But I likely would have said something dismissive back in the original thread, which was my plan in this case until Airman Doors opened this one up.