Oh, really?
There is no “gay lifestyle” for one simple reason. Gay people exist in every social group you can think of. It is not something that you inheret from one’s parents (hereditary and genetic are different concepts) nor is it something you learn from your family or social group. Therefor it is not confined geographically, economically, or any other way.
I believe you - in fact I can think of two myself - “Greenwich Village” and “Chelsea”. But that doesn’t really support the idea that there’s some common “gay” lifestyle, just that minorities of all kinds in large cities tend to gravitate together in outer neighborhoods. As a city grows, these sometimes get swallowed up. Maybe within that neighborhood you could make some generalizations, but beyond that is pushing it.
Anyway, what JTR and Even Seven said was super. Thanks, kids. You’ve hit the nail on the head. So, um, to further my point, just read their posts again and pretend I said them.
Isn’t it interesting that this thread which was about gay people being demeaned by being told their lives are ‘lifestyles’ has been hijacked by a bunch of semantic obcessed jerks who saw a sarcastic remark about republicans as a slam against them when it was there to make a point?
Some people just always have to have it be all about them.
The oppressors are so pathetic when they percieve themselves to be oppressed, but heaven forbid anyone else should decry such treatment.
Now, Scylla and or tradesilicon will flame me and tell me I am wrong in 5… 4… 3… 2… 1…
Nyahhh, you’re just as putz.
Thanks, Davis. 
There are plenty of indicators proving this point. Take politics. It is a generally accepted myth that gays and lesbians must inevitably be Democrats. However:
I once read statistics showing that one third of gays and lesbians regularly vote Republican. Various reasons: 1) Reasons of local politics, such as a desire to improve the local school system for their kids; 2) Raised in Republican homes and can’t bear to abandon the ideology; 3) Lots of upscale gay and lesbian couples (double-income-no-kids) who vote their wallet or pocketbook instead of their sexual orientation; 4) Gays and lesbians have traditionally been kept out of mainstream employment paths, compelling many of them to start their own businesses. Small business owners tend to vote Republican for tax reasons. And so on.
By extension: Assuming that there are many potential gays and lesbians who feel obliged to vote Democrat for reasons of “gay politics” but would otherwise vote Republican, it stands to reason that there’s a big untapped constituency for the Republican Party should it ever decide to abandon its anti-gay policies.
Sorry I’m late, and boy did you completely miss my point (what else is new).
What I have against you has nothing to do with your preference/choice/need for male company in bed, only your willingness to stereotype when you think it’s acceptable - not your OP in this thread, but your statements in other threads where I’ve run into you. When it’s convenient for you, you are more than willing to paint with the broad brush, so just be aware of this little aspect of your otherwise liberal and charming personality. :rolleyes:
And as I’ve stated earlier, I hate categorizing people into groups,“communities”, etc.
That’s the best flame you’ll get from me today.
It seems to me that those folks were helping to make your point for you. Republicans are united at least by some common political beliefs. If they feel justified in decrying a “Republican lifestyle,” then gays and lesbians are far more justified in decrying a “gay lifestyle.” They come from every milieu, segment, race, and class of society and hold every possible variation of values and beliefs on the political spectrum, the moral spectrum, and so on and so on. They are the single most diverse “minority” in America.
I don’t see how that would be any more diverse than, say, people that like red hair. I’m sure there are rich, poor, white, black, tall, short, Christian and Atheist people who all like red hair… Ditto with any minority. Being a minority doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a carbon copy of other members of that minority…
MattTheCroc:
In my earlier post I said that gays “are the single most diverse ‘minority’ in America.”
You countered that:
You’re right. I’ve thought a little bit about the point you raised, and I agree that this particular debate really has nothing to do with “minorities,” as such.
As your post implies, the quality of “being gay” is only one physical characteristic out of the many physical characteristics making up a person, much like having red hair or being tall or being left-handed. “Being gay” doesn’t determine who a person is or how they live any more than “being left-handed” determines those things.
Homophobia in society, religion, and the law gives gays and lesbians a certain amount of common cause and even helps to create a distinct gay sub-culture by ghettoizing gays in some cases. But experience shows that the vast majority of gays and lesbians prefer to live exactly the same conventional lives as their heterosexual counterparts, at least as far as they’re allowed to.
So I agree with you, Matt. Among reasonable people I shouldn’t have to point out that there is great diversity among gays and lesbians, any more than I need to insist that there is great diversity among people with red hair. It would be better if I simply adopted the substance of your own final sentence and said that gays aren’t carbon copies of each other (that is, they don’t have the same “gay lifestyle”) any more than redheaded people are carbon copies of each other (or have the same “redhead lifestyle”).
Thanks for addressing that point.
Clarification:
I meant “physical” in that it’s not a matter of choice or decision. It’s pretty well accepted these days (even by most homophobes) that gays can’t choose to change their sexual orientation any more than heterosexuals can. At best they can only suppress it.
So sexual orientation is a much more immutable characteristic (hence a “physical” characteristic) than things like political affiliation, religious beliefs, etc.
http://www.fedglobe.org/news/wb022699.htm wherein Jesse Helms introduces a bill a prohibit the use of federal funds to enforce a Clinton Executive Order prohibiting discrimination against gays in federal civilian hiring. Helms actually uses the term “homosexual lifestyle”, but you get the point. A google search found 729 web sites when I searched for “Jesse Helms” and “gay lifestyle”
Sua