I don’t even mind saying “a majority of the gay community does this” and they pass it off as a “lifestyle” (whatever that means). It’s more the implication of “WARNING - we’re going to discuss homosexuality, and we all know how evil and sinful that is (much like Dennis Franz’s ass). Don’t look! Don’t let your kids look! It’s OUTRAGEOUS!”
:rolleyes:
Please. Buncha queers. Get over it.
Esprix
Maybe everyone here is actually missing the main point.
To me -and everyone’s mileage will vary on this - it is far more disturbing that we exist in a society where major companies/networks/individuals are so frightened that they may offend someone else that they feel they need to put such disclaimers up. Be it to protect themselves from lawsuit or angry mobs of parents upset that little Johnny was exposed to “such filth on the teevee” (did people forget how to turn the damned things off?), I am angered by the thought that our country is becoming a nation of idiots.
We are afraid of our own shadows. When exactly did it become so fasionable to be so pussified? Why exactly must one refer to a bilthering retard that leaps from a roller coaster as a mentally challenged individual? Not to sound like a blithering retard myself here, but really. It’s quite frightening to think that the PC police are running this once mighty country straight into the crapper for fear we may hurt someone’s widdel feewings…
Get a grip people, and stop taking things so damned seriously!!!
Sheesh!
While I’m thinking about this…
There has been at least one TV show that had two highschool-age girls kissing. It was on-screen and all that sort of thing. Yet for Boston Public, we see the two guys in question get startled by one of their mothers. We don’t see them kiss. When the vice principal talks to one of the kids, he shows the guy a tape of them kissing. We don’t see that.
What’s the deal here? Is there something that scary about two men kissing? Or are there enough people in Boston Public’s target demographic who would be put off by the evil, sinful act of two men kissing?
Seems a bit hypocritical to me…a show will have two girls kissing (and this was not peck-on-the-cheek kissing), but another show will skirt around two guys kissing by using videotape and an interrupted makeout session (two different television programs, in case that wasn’t obvious).
:rolleyes:
Sure.
The homosexual lifestyle is the sum of the behaviors, attitudes, habits, and choices that a person who prefers same sex partners engages in to accomodate their preference.
BTW:
The word “lifestyle,” aside, I agree with the idea that having to put up any such disclaimer is the real problem here.
Pizzabrat:
Can you give me an example, please?
Perhaps you should start a career in writing ad copy because this is absolute nonsense. Care to obfuscate any more? Or maybe you can try to address pizzabrat’s main point, instead of trying to nitpick.
But since you’d like to nitpick, I’ll give you an example of diminished lives because of bigotry and the practical application of a word.
A lesbian friend of mine was reprimanded at work and threatened with dismissal because one of the board members had seen her and her girlfriend engaged in “inappropriate” behaviour in public; specificially, holding hands. She was warned to not show affection for her lover in public.
Calling the behaviour “inappropriate” did not diminish her life, per se. But the fact that someone who has power over her job thought it was inappropriate, then it became a weapon to diminish her life.
I’m proud to say she defies the warning and continues to behave as she wishes.
So do you need more examples or are you starting to see the point?
I can see by your caveat, “any such disclaimer is the real problem here”, that you have a partial understanding. I’d like to help you break through to fuller understanding.
Homebrew:
Actually I was addressing a direct question from andros, so I don’t see how that’s obfuscating Pizzabrat’s point.
I’ve also noticed that when people start saying “nonsense,” at me, I tend to have a point.
Excellent! Let me throw my arms wide and prepare to embrace the full measure of your enlightenment! 
Ok. You seem to recognize that it wasn’t the word “innapropriate” that threatened to diminish your friend’s life. Seeing as that’s the case I don’t see how that answer’s my question.
It seems to me from your story that the actual word choice of the administrator is it’s least salient aspect.
It also seems to me that it is the administrator who is threatening to diminish your friend’s life based on his intolerance, but even worse, based on his attempt to control your friend’s life outside of the boundaries of the work environment.
If somebody stabs me with a kitchen knife, I don’t think I’d blame the knife, but even that metaphor is stretching things. It’s more like complaining about the sharpening stone that sharpened the knife.
Does the issue with your friend and her administrator really have anything to do with his vocabularly?
I await enlightenment.
The annoying problem with the term is that (a) it stereotypes all gay people into one “lifestyle” (which is apparently conceived of as being culturally about 75% of the way between “The Boys in the Band” and “Queer as Folk” – short pause for a chorus of all gay members of the board: “I wish!!” ;)); and (b) it is nearly always used as a pejorative by people who seem personally offended by the idea that gay people should be free to enter into such a lifestyle if they so choose.
Perhaps the most telling argument I can conceive of against the use of the term is a gentleman whose tragic death in the events of September 11 last was much in the news: Mychal Judge, OFM. Fr. Judge self-identified as gay, though like all good Franciscan friars he was celibate. But his orientation was such that what he desired but abstained from as a celibate priest and friar was sex with men. His lifestyle was that of a friar, ministering to those who needed his care including as NYFD chaplain, celebrating Mass and administering the sacraments as a priest, and helping his fellow man in any way he saw as appropriate. But since he was gay, that was “a gay lifestyle.” But somehow it doesn’t sound like the one that the demagogues on the religious right fulminate against!
Polycarp:
I remember hearing about that friar. He had a florist shop IIRC correctly, and was never really accepted by the general populace who used every trick in the book to drive him out of business.
Yet, he perservered.
Then they sent Hugh, the blacksmith to beat him up, and the florist left town.
Which just goes to show you…
Hugh, and only Hugh, can prevent florist friars.
Seriously:
How was this friar’s life diminished by unkind words?
::ahem::
As pizzabrat has already explained, the use of the word “lifestyle” is a common buzzword of the religious right and other opponents of gay rights.
The problem is that when we hear the word “lifestyle”, it is typically used in conjunction with condemnation of us. The people who use it accuse us all of being like the stereotypes they see at Babylon on Queer as Folk. That’s what they mean when they say lifestyle. But I know very few gay men who would fit that stereotype.
The fact is we don’t have A lifestyle, we have lives.
I have a life that centers mostly around my son when he is with me (his mother and I have joint custody). Is that the gay lifestyle? Or is the gay lifestyle what I do when he’s with his mom? (By the way, that’s mostly watching TV, baking and doing crafts around the house. I only go to the club about once every 6 weeks or so.)
I know a couple who are both nurses and have been together 14 years. When they aren’t working they shop, do yard work and continue restoring their 1940s era house. But they rarely go to the club, and then it’s usually associated with a specific reason such as someone’s birthday party. Is their’s the gay lifestyle?
Another couple I know have been together 7 years. One is a physical therapist and the other works at a floral shop. They are quite active in starting up the local Stonewall Democrat chapter. They are also restoring an old home. They are also seldom at the club. Is their’s the gay lifestyle?
I know a single guy who hits the club 3 or 4 nights a week. But he seldom drinks more than 2 or 3 drinks. He does no drugs. He never tricks. He is a dialysis technician for a local doctor during the day. He also likes to shop, almost compulsively. Is his the gay lifestyle?
I know a single guy who is a recovering alcoholic. He still goes to the club about once every week or two. Mostly, though, he works long hours as a manager at a convenience store. When he was drinking he tricked as often as he could. Now he longs for a stable relationship with one guy and sleeps alone while looking for Mr. Right. Is his the gay lifestyle?
I know a Lesbian who is publisher of several local weeklies, including the Christian Living mag. She is dating someone, exclusively. When she is not working, she is active in the Stonewall Democrats and fund-raising for AIDS charities. Is hers the gay lifestyle?
I could go on, but I trust you see my point by now. There is no “gay lifestyle”. Like straights, we have lives, not a lifestyle.
Syclla, you seem fixated on the point that the words are what we are objecting to. It’s not the words themselves. Like every other word, they are just uttered sounds. It’s the ideas and the behaviours behind the words that matter.
The people who use the term “gay lifestyle” are the people behind the Defense of Marriage Act. They are the people fighting against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. They are the people who want to ban gay priests. They are the bigots who want to hurt us.
Perhaps it is a futile effort, but some of us feel that if we can make them understand that their stereotypes are wrong, we can change their opinions. If we can get them to understand there is no gay lifestyle, there is no gay agenda beyond just basic human rights, that gay and pedeophile are not synonyms, then perhaps we can get them to discard their bigotry and live as neighbors in peace.
The time is gone, the song is over … Thought I’d something more to say
If you want an example of words diminishing the lives of gay people, you need to look at what it does to our youth. I’ve seen your picture, Syclla. You are a big, muscled, tough guy. You might not understand what’s it’s like as a skinny or rotund gay teenager harassed by his classmates.
Fag. Queer. Pervert. Sinner.
We’ve all heard those words used to hurt us or our friends when we were young. They create fear. They create self-loathing.
If you don’t think they hurt and diminish lives, then explain why the suicide rate is so high among gay teens. Explain why too many of our youth abuse themselves with drugs and risky behavior.
Words do matter. When being gay can’t even be discussed on television without a warning, then what message does the young person struggling with his sexuality receive? When he hears himself described as a pervert or biological error, what message does he receive?
As adults most of us on this board have developed a healthy self-image and thick skins. But it took time for all of us.
I denied my sexuality until I was 32, married and had a kid. Why? Because I was raised in an evangelical church where it was drilled into my head that homos were evil and would burn in hell. It took many years after leaving the church before I could even face the truth and get past those words. So yes, my life was affected by words.
Homebrew:
Allright, I see your point.
From my perspective, when I read these rants it always seems to me that it’s some word that’s getting focussed on, and not the people whose actions are causing harm.
I personally have never seen “gay lifestyle” used hurtfully to mean promiscuous drag queen hairdcresser or somesuch, and it seemed a pretty safe phrase to me.
Tom Cruise doesn’t get all up in arms about Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, so I didn’t really see the issue here.
I could see myself using the term “gay lifestyle,” without any loaded connotations, and I hate to see a word or a phrase get focussed on to the exclusion of the people who are acting in a discriminatory fashion.
It seems that if “gay lifestyle” becomes politically incorrect, another phrase will just be chosen.
It doesn’t seem that long ago to me that “alternate lifestyle” was the preferred polite term for gayness.
All I’d say, is focus on the actions, not the semantics.
I mean, if people are using gay lifestyle as a synonym for filthy queers it’s the people that have the problem not the phrase they use.
That’s all.
And, I know about being picked on. My hands were badly burned when I was fourteen and for years after they were red and scabby. They’d split and bleed, and looked gross. They used to call me “lobster claws,” and girls went “ick!”
That’s why I started lifting weights and acting tough.
It wasn’t the “lobster claws” that bothered me. They did look like lobster claws. It was that people were making fun of me, not how they did it.
It also seemed obvious to me that the worst thing I could do would be to object to the term. Since they were saying it to hurt me, letting them know that I didn’t like it would be validation.
When it got said I would just try to laugh like it was a funny joke on me, or look at my hands as if to say “Yep, they kinda do like lobster claws, that’s very clever.”
If I would have complained that would have been counterproductive and maybe even whiny.
The message the network is sending, however, is still clear, mostly because of the wordage they chose - and the fact that they chose any wordage at all. Both are amazingly telling and are clearly intended to send two messages - one, that the program contains same-sex content; and two, same-sex content is something to warn people about. Both messages are extremely telling about both the network and the public.
Esprix
Whoa, you guys are reading a lot more into the phrase “sexual lifestyles” then I am. To me “sexual lifestyle” could be in reference to prostitution, people who are in to spouse trading (swingers), some Springeresque “Sluts who wear underoos!”, or any number of sexual related themes. It appears though that the issue is really over the use of the phrase when applied to gays. Is the main objection that using the term “sexual lifestyle” somehow implies that all (or most) gays live in a certain stereotyped way? Or is the main objection the fact that the show felt it necessary to include a disclaimer at all? (i.e. “Watch out there’s icky gay things on tv!”) Or is it both?
If it’s the first what would be a better way for the broadcaster to indicate that the show discusses homosexuality? If it’s the second I’m not sure theres really a good solution. Presumably broadcasters gather all sorts of marketing and demographic data regarding the viewer base of each of their shows. It seems likely to me that the producers knew a sizeable portion (though not necessarily a majority) of the viewers wouldn’t be interested in viewing this episode. American society is slowly but surely becoming more accepting of gays. I don’t necessarily fault the broadcasters for including the disclaimer seeing as how broadcasters are a business. Businesses must understand their demographic. TV reflects (albeit often in a hyperbolic or exaggerated fashion) the current day societal mores and standards. As society changes, television content and it’s presentation will also.
With this in mind I’ll repeat what I posted earlier. I don’t see this as being an egregious offense. Irritating to gays perhaps but not really worth getting upset about. Maybe I’m just misreading the character of the OP but it doesn’t feel like a “Darn I missed the bus!” or “They no longer carry my favorite flavor!” style of trivial rant (and those are perfectly ok in the pit) but rather as something punha was pretty angry about.
Grim
I made this mistake once, to Hastur as I recall, and will gently chastize you so he doesn’t rip you a new one.
What matters to a person is what matters to that person. You haven’t lived the life of a gay person; you have no idea what is ego-destroying to them. For you to decide what’s “worth getting upset about” in their place is the height of arrogance.
(What makes matters worse is that for quite different reasons my childhood and adolescence were pretty much Hell on earth, so I ought to have known better.)
Boy, did I show up late. Well, for a definition, Scylla did very well. However, I’d have probably avoided doing so, as I personally don’t like using terms like that to describe anyone. It’s not the terms. “Lifestyle” is about as inoffensive as I’ve seen lately. It’s just…
Well, I’m still in the middle on this one, if ya’ll will allow me. I see the insult inheirant in singling people out like this (esp. with regards to the OP), even when it’s unintentional. However, I also see the innocent need to be able to discuss such concepts, and the verbal minefield we have to tip toe across is ludicrous.
Deep down, I believe that you can only be diminished by another if you allow yourself to be. So if we’re scrutinizing other people’s behavior, I’d rather focus on their level of intent to dimish others, rather then the practical effect. Or to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, you can’t open your mouth without offending someone. I can, at least, be conscious of what I’m trying to say in the first place.
inkblot
This of course is true. Everyone evaluates things according to their own scale. Lots of people get upset over things that I wouldn’t and the reverse is probably true as well.
I must apologize for my earlier post. I wasn’t trying to dictate what others may or may not be upset about. Rather that I don’t think that I, if I were in that situation, would find it more then mildly irritating. It was more a statement about how I evaluated the situation not that others should conform to my opinion.
[semi-hijack]
One thing I would like to add though is that IMHO it is impossible to live life without making valuations of this sort from time to time. Hypothetical: What if the OP was a person who was watching TV show that didn’t include a disclaimer that the show was going to be discussing homosexuality. This hypothetical person got upset because there was no disclaimer (even though the show wasn’t explicit and handled the material tastefully) and because the person had had some bad experiences with a few gays who were pushy in the past.
I can pretty well imagine what would have occurred. Intelligent posters here would have used a reasoned argument in an attempt to show the poster that the use of a disclaimer subtly implies an “otherness” to gays and is another way in which gays are marginalized. Your same quote applies to this situation IMHO. Would it still be considered the height of arrogance if gay posters didn’t feel it was worth getting upset about? Probably not since the reasoned logic presented which shows how a disclaimer damages gays would seem to indicate that the poster should take a broader view of the situation. This however would completely ignore the statement “What matters to a person is what matters to that person” as well as the fact that we haven’t lived their life. We all have to use external data from time to time to characterize events as the ability to share subjective perceptions is simply non-existant.
[/semi-hijack]
Grim