It Get's Better Project

[Pauliesonne]

My contribution.

What do you guy's think?

 

[Ziggurat]

...Every once in a while, when a high-profile christian fundamentalist rants about how all gay people are running around the Folsom Street Fair humping each other in a big pile, Dan Savage will post pictures of his crazy gay lifestyle. The last one I recall was baking cookies with his family. So far as I can see, this has converted exactly 0 fundamentalists to his cause.

Dan Savage isn't a prude. He doesn't act like a prude. He doesn't even try to pass himself off as a prude. But how, exactly, would you know what difference that made? And why do you think he does it, if it makes no difference?

...Also, lesbians, far from being known for crazy sexual lifestyles, are "known for" jumping into monogamous relationships with each other immediately. (I know it's a stereotype, please don't jump all over me. That's what this argument is about: perceptions about "gay lifestyles" by straight people.) So by your logic fundamentalists should be "comfortable" with lesbians.

I bet you that they are more comfortable with lesbians than gay men.

As for your hypothetical "high profile gay person who doesn't have a crazy lifestyle or promote one,"

That wasn't my hypothetical. There are plenty of prominent gays who seem to lead rather mundane personal lives. But that's not enough to make a prude.

Rachel Maddow pretty much fits that bill.

No, she doesn't. She's not a prude, at least not publicly. However conservative her own habits are, she doesn't make a habit of actively promoting such behavior among others. Hence, not a prude.

Or how 'bout the Log Cabin Republicans?

How about them? Can you name a single one of them? I can't. I doubt most people can.

The Log Cabin Republicans aren't high profile.

Also, who exactly is in favour of the sexualization of children?

The people who keep doing it. It's all over the bloody place in popular culture.

(Besides Billy Ray Cyprus...) Is this really something people need to come out against?

If you think it's a problem, then yes. And most fundamentalist Christians probably do.

 

[elipse]

Dan Savage isn't a prude. He doesn't act like a prude. He doesn't even try to pass himself off as a prude. But how, exactly, would you know what difference that made? And why do you think he does it, if it makes no difference?

I bet you that they are more comfortable with lesbians than gay men.

That wasn't my hypothetical. There are plenty of prominent gays who seem to lead rather mundane personal lives. But that's not enough to make a prude.

No, she doesn't. She's not a prude, at least not publicly. However conservative her own habits are, she doesn't make a habit of actively promoting such behavior among others. Hence, not a prude.

How about them? Can you name a single one of them? I can't. I doubt most people can.

The Log Cabin Republicans aren't high profile.

The people who keep doing it. It's all over the bloody place in popular culture.

If you think it's a problem, then yes. And most fundamentalist Christians probably do.

Huh. I was going to respond point by point, but I don't think I will, since I misunderstood you in the first place. I didn't think you REALLY meant "prude." It seems that you do mean it, however, so all I have to say is this:

You really think that having more people fussing about what other people do, in their own lives, that effects no one else, would be a good thing?

Once again, I disagree 100%. I disagree that it would be effective in changing christian minds, and I disagree that it would result in a net positive even if it did change christian minds.

 

[elipse]

What do you guy's think?

link is broken, for me at least.

 

[elipse]

All that I'm hoping for with the idea of a prudish gay person admonishing the outré lifestyles of less conservative gay people is this: That non-gay people will eventually have the attitude that gays and non-gays have more in common than not.

I know, it's just a fantasy, but why should people on either side try so hard to flaunt their differences?

My first reaction to this was irritation, but I am going to take a deep breath and answer calmly and seriously and not be sarcastic at all.

The entire gay pride movement is a reaction. It is a reaction to years upon years of being forced into the closet; forced into silence and shame by bigotry, hatred, violence, mockery, assumptions of mental illness, revulsion etc etc etc. Then, in the late 60's/early 70's, on the heels of the civil rights movement and the women's lib movement, the anger and frustration of the gay communities in big cities started to swell, and the Stonewall riots were a catalyst (although not the only one). Gay people started to fight for their rights, but they concurrently had to change their attitudes about themselves. The government, the mental health profession, the media, the stranger on the street and good old mom and dad: every message coming from everywhere was telling homosexuals that homosexuality was wrong and bad and shameful. How can you fight for your rights when you don't feel you deserve them in the first place?

So the gay pride movement was born. It was started by those who couldn't hide; the gay folks who were too different to "pass." It was about believing that everyone was worthy of being treated well; everyone should be proud to be himself. Being gay is in and of itself defined by difference. Straight is the norm, gay is the other. It was, therefore, a movement that was based entirely on being proud of differences. And since the difference is all bound up in sex, the movement that celebrates that difference has to embrace sex.

I hope you can see why asking why gay people have to "flaunt" their differences is a... loaded question. If society had never treated homosexuals the way it did, there would never have been any need for the "flaunting" of differences.

Also, would you ask that same question about another group? A cultural group, for instance?
("Why do you people have to eat that "soul food", anyway? Why can't you just eat what I eat? And the way you talk!!! Why can't you just learn how to speak good English? Why do you have to flaunt your differences? If only you would just act more like white folks, then maybe we could see that we have more in common than not. Like that Cosby family on TV. I liked them.")

If you still don't see, please read up on LGBT history before you ask another question.

 

[Ziggurat]

You really think that having more people fussing about what other people do, in their own lives, that effects no one else, would be a good thing?

I think it would improve relations between the gay community and fundamentalist Christians. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have any other effects, effects which you might not like. I'll leave it to you to decide whether you think that could ever be a net benefit.

 

[Puppycow]

And people who commit suicide, and gays in particular, have mental health issues. Platitudes and generic speeches that apply to everyone apply to no one. The videos give nothing to work with for a kid bullied in school anyway. "Your pain right now is inconsequential, in a few years it will all be awesome?"

The point is to give them hope for the future. Will it work? Who knows. I don't think it can hurt though. Getting hypercritical about whether it always gets better misses the forest for the trees.

Usually, it does get better. If you have the will to live and the will to choose your own life path for yourself.

 

[Mycroft]

My first reaction to this was irritation, but I am going to take a deep breath and answer calmly and seriously and not be sarcastic at all.

The entire gay pride movement is a reaction. It is a reaction to years upon years of being forced into the closet; forced into silence and shame by bigotry, hatred, violence, mockery, assumptions of mental illness, revulsion etc etc etc. Then, in the late 60's/early 70's, on the heels of the civil rights movement and the women's lib movement, the anger and frustration of the gay communities in big cities started to swell, and the Stonewall riots were a catalyst (although not the only one). Gay people started to fight for their rights, but they concurrently had to change their attitudes about themselves. The government, the mental health profession, the media, the stranger on the street and good old mom and dad: every message coming from everywhere was telling homosexuals that homosexuality was wrong and bad and shameful. How can you fight for your rights when you don't feel you deserve them in the first place?

So the gay pride movement was born. It was started by those who couldn't hide; the gay folks who were too different to "pass." It was about believing that everyone was worthy of being treated well; everyone should be proud to be himself. Being gay is in and of itself defined by difference. Straight is the norm, gay is the other. It was, therefore, a movement that was based entirely on being proud of differences. And since the difference is all bound up in sex, the movement that celebrates that difference has to embrace sex.

I hope you can see why asking why gay people have to "flaunt" their differences is a... loaded question. If society had never treated homosexuals the way it did, there would never have been any need for the "flaunting" of differences.

Also, would you ask that same question about another group? A cultural group, for instance?
("Why do you people have to eat that "soul food", anyway? Why can't you just eat what I eat? And the way you talk!!! Why can't you just learn how to speak good English? Why do you have to flaunt your differences? If only you would just act more like white folks, then maybe we could see that we have more in common than not. Like that Cosby family on TV. I liked them.")

If you still don't see, please read up on LGBT history before you ask another question.

Very well said.

 

[elipse]

I think it would improve relations between the gay community and fundamentalist Christians. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have any other effects, effects which you might not like. I'll leave it to you to decide whether you think that could ever be a net benefit.

I think that would work if fundamentalist christians were known for compromising and/or meeting people half way.

(I would just like to remind you at this juncture that Fred Phelps protested at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. Also, that fundamentalists believe masturbation is a sin, and that humans rode dinosaurs.)

Even if fundamentalist christians were known for that, and it did improve relations between gay people and christians, it would still not be, in my opinion, a net benefit. It would, in fact, just be a bunch of hypocritical homos. ("I know that I flouted traditional sexual mores in order to be who I am, but you shouldn't! Bad! Bad! Do as I say, not as I do!") Furthermore, it was a terrible idea when feminists joined forces with fundamentalists in order to combat the "menace" of porn, and only made the feminists look crazy. I am not in favour of gay people making a similar alliance.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that would work if fundamentalist christians were known for compromising and/or meeting people half way.

First, the goal isn't compromise, it's tolerance. Second, there's more than a little irony here. You speak of what a large and diverse group is "known for" in disparaging terms, yet isn't that precisely the problem? That people sit around thinking about how other groups, with whom they actually have little contact, are "known for" all sorts of terrible qualities? Christian fundamentalists aren't the only people on the planet with prejudices.

(I would just like to remind you at this juncture that Fred Phelps protested at the funeral of Coretta Scott King.

Fred Phelps is not representative of any large group. He is on the fringe even among fundamentalists.

Also, that fundamentalists believe masturbation is a sin

They also believe humans can't help but sin. So... not necessarily very significant.

and that humans rode dinosaurs.)

Some do. Many don't. There's nothing in the bible about dinosaurs, or humans riding on them.

Even if fundamentalist christians were known for that, and it did improve relations between gay people and christians, it would still not be, in my opinion, a net benefit.

Perhaps.

It would, in fact, just be a bunch of hypocritical homos. ("I know that I flouted traditional sexual mores in order to be who I am, but you shouldn't! Bad! Bad! Do as I say, not as I do!")

Nothing about being gay, or even engaging in gay sex, is in any way contradictory to the way I defined prudery. The perception that it is inherently contradictory is both false and harmful. You should be arguing against such prejudices, not basing your arguments on them.

 

[elipse]

You know what? I've been thinking about this whole "if only there were high profile gay people who weren't so CRAZY, maybe everyone could get along" thing...


List of famous "flaunty" gay people (defined as being known either for promiscuous habits or for being "flamboyantly" gay):
1.Rupaul
2.Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
3.Andy Dick
4.Dan Savage (could go either way, really; technically he doesn't fit my def. of "flaunty", but I'm sticking him here so no one can argue.)
5.John Waters
6.Boy George
7.Elton John from the 1970's


List of famous "non-flaunty" gay people:
1.Rachel Maddow
2.Log Cabin Republicans (like the Sisters, they are not known individually, but as a group)
3.Ellen De Generes
4.Ian McKellen
5.Barney Frank
6.Mary Cheney
7.Tim Gunn
8.Neil Patrick Harris
9.George Takai
10.k.d. lang
11.annie leibovitz
12.Chuck Palahniuk
13. Elton John today
14. The Amazing Randi


For brevity, this list contains only those who are still alive, and lexcludes anyone I don't think is famous enough to be generally known, even if he or she is famous in the musical theatre world or whatever. I am also excluding porn stars, since they are no more extreme than their straight counterparts.

Seems pretty clear that the problem that fundamentalists have with homosexual people doesn't really stem from the high profile flaunting of differences.

 

[elipse]

Fred Phelps is not representative of any large group. He is on the fringe even among fundamentalists.

They also believe humans can't help but sin. So... not necessarily very significant.

Some do. Many don't. There's nothing in the bible about dinosaurs, or humans riding on them.

Perhaps.

Nothing about being gay, or even engaging in gay sex, is in any way contradictory to the way I defined prudery. The perception that it is inherently contradictory is both false and harmful.

I notice you did not address my main point, about fundamentalist christians being known for compromising and meeting people halfway. The examples given were extremes, to show how far they will, in fact, go in the other direction.

Gay people, especially gay people having sex, is contrary to the way fundamentalist christians define prudery. Or morality or whatever they choose to call it. Their definition is the only one that matters, since they are the people you are hoping to influence. Also, even if we go by your definition, homosexuals who fuss about how others choose to have (consensual) sex are hypocrites. They flew in the face of societal norms regarding sex. To criticize others for flying the face of societal norms regarding sex is hypocritical.

I also noticed how you tried to twist my meaning there, to make it sound like I implied that two men having sex was all perverse and stuff. Nice try.

 

[elipse]

Whoops! The quote feature only quoted part of your post, so I only responded to part.

First, the goal isn't compromise, it's tolerance. Second, there's more than a little irony here. You speak of what a large and diverse group is "known for" in disparaging terms, yet isn't that precisely the problem? That people sit around thinking about how other groups, with whom they actually have little contact, are "known for" all sorts of terrible qualities? Christian fundamentalists aren't the only people on the planet with prejudices.

Achieving tolerance in the way you want to achieve it (having high profile gays and lesbians promote sexual "prudery") would indeed involve compromise. It would involve a compromise on the part of fundamentalist christians who currently believe being homosexual is a sin that's on a different level entirely than other sins. (Except abortion.) Yes, they SAY everyone is a sinner, but they don't kick people out of their churches, deny them basic rights, or fight to keep anti-bullying statutes from including them for any sin but homosexuality. Are you honestly trying to say that this is a mischaracterization of fundamentalist christians in this country? That fundamentalist christians do not vote in overwhelming numbers to keep gay people from getting the same rights as everyone else? That they don't preach against homosexuality from the pulpit and exclude homosexuals from their churches? Quit being a concern troll. Of course they're not the only group with prejudices. They are the group with prejudices that we happen to be discussing right now.

The "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" strategy has brought homosexuality from "illegal sign of mental illness" to the verge of equal rights in 40 years. It brought the AIDS epidemic into the light when Regan was trying to keep the lid on it. It has changed the minds of the majority of the younger generation.

Do you really think we should give up that strategy in favour of "oh, no, we're not all like that-- some of us are just like you!" just to try to win over a group that will lose anyway?

 

[Ziggurat]

I notice you did not address my main point, about fundamentalist christians being known for compromising and meeting people halfway.

Actually, I did, though perhaps you hit quote before I added that part with an edit.

The examples given were extremes

Exactly. That's why they were bad examples. Do I really need to explain the problem with using extremes to represent a group? Surely you don't think that the gay community should be characterized by its most extreme elements.

I also noticed how you tried to twist my meaning there, to make it sound like I implied that two men having sex was all perverse and stuff. Nice try.

I do not know what you meant, only what you wrote. You wrote that being a homosexual prude was inherently hypocritical. But that simply isn't true. And it's a position I would expect from socially conservative critics, not defenders.

 

[Ziggurat]

Achieving tolerance in the way you want to achieve it (having high profile gays and lesbians promote sexual "prudery") would indeed involve compromise. It would involve a compromise on the part of fundamentalist christians who currently believe being homosexual is a sin that's on a different level entirely than other sins.

I see no evidence of this.

(Except abortion.) Yes, they SAY everyone is a sinner, but they don't kick people out of their churches, deny them basic rights, or fight to keep anti-bullying statutes from including them for any sin but homosexuality.

When's the last time anyone really fought for equal rights for murderers? Or demanded ant-bullying statutes for rapists? Etc, etc.

You might want to think about reformulating your argument, because as it stands now, this is simply absurd.

Are you honestly trying to say that this is a mischaracterization of fundamentalist christians in this country?

Yes, and transparently so. You have, in fact, doubled down on your earlier generalizations by simply making them more categorical and more extreme.

That fundamentalist christians do not vote in overwhelming numbers to keep gay people from getting the same rights as everyone else?

What, you mean gay marriage? Yeah, they oppose that. Maybe it would help if, oh, I don't know, you could find a way to soften that opposition. Maybe allay some of their fears, at least enough that they don't bother turning up at the polls.

That they don't preach against homosexuality from the pulpit and exclude homosexuals from their churches?

Some of them do. But I bet you'd be surprised at how many wouldn't exclude gays.

Quit being a concern troll. Of course they're not the only group with prejudices. They are the group with prejudices that we happen to be discussing right now.

You missed the point, which is that YOU have prejudices, against fundamentalist Christians.

The "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" strategy has brought homosexuality from "illegal sign of mental illness" to the verge of equal rights in 40 years.

And that isn't actually incompatible with what I'm suggesting, any more than being a straight prude is incompatible with heterosexuality.

It brought the AIDS epidemic into the light when Regan was trying to keep the lid on it.

Funny you should mention AIDS, because that's where the gay community could benefit from prudery. Promiscuity has a hell of a lot to do with the spread of HIV, in case you didn't notice.

Do you really think we should give up that strategy in favour of "oh, no, we're not all like that-- some of us are just like you!" just to try to win over a group that will lose anyway?

If you want to expand the base of acceptance beyond what old strategies have achieved, then yes, considering something new is not exactly a strange concept. I'm not suggesting that the gay community needs to become uniformly prudish. But what message do you think it sends if there are NO visible gay prudes? Do you really think that helps get gays accepted? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, that might send a message that the community really doesn't share values with the public at large?

 

[bencg]

When's the last time anyone really fought for equal rights for murderers? Or demanded ant-bullying statutes for rapists? Etc, etc.

You might want to think about reformulating your argument, because as it stands now, this is simply absurd.

I think you are constructing a strawman here; the issue is not that murder and rape are sins that fundamentalists allow, its that lying, greed, pride and eating shellfish are largely ignored (or at the very least you are not ostracised for) whilst homosexuality is seen in a much worse way. Why is that? (hint: the reasons are cultural not theological in origin, even if fundies dont realise this.)

What, you mean gay marriage? Yeah, they oppose that. Maybe it would help if, oh, I don't know, you could find a way to soften that opposition. Maybe allay some of their fears, at least enough that they don't bother turning up at the polls.

Did you say the same about miscegenation when those dammed blacks starting marrying white girls? Maybe if they just toned down their blackness right?

You missed the point, which is that YOU have prejudices, against fundamentalist Christians.

Have you considered why you think prudery is inherently better? It's easy to say why promiscuity is bad but prudery is an extreme opposite. It seems obvious to me that US culture generally is unhealthily prudish and more so than most other cultures in the world (barring more fundamentalist societies). Have you considered your own US centric bias for prudery?

...I'm not suggesting that the gay community needs to become uniformly prudish. But what message do you think it sends if there are NO visible gay prudes? Do you really think that helps get gays accepted? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, that might send a message that the community really doesn't share values with the public at large?

two points;

1) You seem to assume that the community prudish values are desirable. This is a POV from the comfortable majority, but why is this correct - because it makes you feel right?
I think an overly prudish society leads to unhealthy attitudes about sex and the evidence is in abstinence only education, unreported sexual assault, unnoticed abuse in the home, janet jacksons nipple etc. as well as opposition to non mainstream sexuality (gay, trans etc.).

2) Are there Really NO visible gay prudes?

1.Rachel Maddow
2.Log Cabin Republicans (like the Sisters, they are not known individually, but as a group)
3.Ellen De Generes
4.Ian McKellen
5.Barney Frank
6.Mary Cheney
7.Tim Gunn
8.Neil Patrick Harris
9.George Takai
10.k.d. lang
11.annie leibovitz
12.Chuck Palahniuk
13. Elton John today
14. The Amazing Randi

None??

 

[bookitty]

All that I'm hoping for with the idea of a prudish gay person admonishing the outré lifestyles of less conservative gay people is this: That non-gay people will eventually have the attitude that gays and non-gays have more in common than not.

I know, it's just a fantasy, but why should people on either side try so hard to flaunt their differences?

Whoa there! What differences? People, regardless of sexulal orientation tend to be more sexually active in their teens and 20's. If there's some huge difference between a Key West spring break and the Palm Springs white party, I'm not seeing it.

People who are in a committed long term relationship tend to play it more subtle. There are millions of couples who do not make their sex lives part of their public personae. It really doesn't matter if Anderson Cooper or John Stewart are gay or straight. It doesn't come up.

Why should someone who is known to be gay but doesn't match up to some exaggerated fundie idea of the lifestyle focus on that aspect? "Oh look at what I am not doing!" doesn't help anybody. It reinforces the stereotype.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think it would improve relations between the gay community and fundamentalist Christians. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have any other effects, effects which you might not like. I'll leave it to you to decide whether you think that could ever be a net benefit.

I cannot imagine this happening.

My cousin is gay. He lives quietly in Iowa with his boyfriend. He speaks with no lisp, dresses in flannel, and works at a bank.

The side of his family that isn't related to me has completely disowned him. His grandparents removed him from their will, they don't invite him to family gatherings, and they constantly bombard him with Bible quotes (through snail mail, e-mail, and in person) to get him to convert. Their "gift" to him last Christmas was a paid trip to one of those anti-gay reprogramming center.

His family isn't even Evangelical. They're just good old fashioned Iowa Lutherans.

There is NOTHING he can do short of casting off his gayness to make himself acceptable in that crowd. It doesn't matter if he plays with one guy's dong or 50.

My hope, and I think this is largely true, is that the anti-gay attitude is generational. No behavior on the part of gays will change the attitude of bigots.

We've gone through this before: "If he didn't act so black, maybe people wouldn't have a problem...why are they so flamboyant..."

 

[Dr. Keith]

What might help is some high-profile gay prudes. Part of the fundamentalist discomfort with gays is that the community is often perceived as being very permissive about sexuality in general.

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details here, but aren't gays all over the country working very hard to be in state recognized monogamous relationships? As in spending tons of money and risking violent backlash for the right to be in state recognized monogamous relationships.

I mean, what is more prude than wanting to be married?

 

[Madalch]

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details here, but aren't gays all over the country working very hard to be in state recognized monogamous relationships? As in spending tons of money and risking violent backlash for the right to be in state recognized monogamous relationships.

I mean, what is more prude than wanting to be married?

Joining a celibate order of monks?