What a great article leaving plenty of food for thought. Perhaps our generation should let go and let the next generation of gays forge the alliance with the rest of the world. I do agree that more age appropriate activities must be part of the landscape and I don't see that happening in the immediate future. Incidents like the one in Orange Park, FL only show that there is plenty of work left to be done. In the meantime, Mr. West, thank you for your insight. It is most appreciated.

Now, get ready for the floodgates of hate to open.

Thanks Silas!

LOL...funny thing is, I'm not sure which side the floodgates of hate will open from on this one.

There's an interesting article out of Scotland's Sunday Herald Online from 2003 which makes a great complement to this piece. An interesting quote:

According to a report by Greater Glasgow Health Board, 80% of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transexual (LGBT) young people reported discrimination last year.

Listen to me, you little grunge faggot. I survived my family, my schoolyard, every Republican, every other Democrat, Anita Bryant, the Pope, the fucking Christian Coalition, not to mention a real son of a bitch of a virus, in case you haven't noticed, and in all that time since Paul Lynde and Truman Capote were the only fairies in America, I've been busting my ass so that you'd be able to do what you wanted with yours! So I don't just want your obedience right now, which I do want and plenty of it, but I want your fucking gratitude, and I want it right fucking now, or you're going to be looking down a long road at your nipple in the dirt! Do you hear what I'm saying?!

This is very good.

It's an indication that here is a human relation that is becoming more acceptable, not particularly unique, but just part of normal distribution of sexual orientations.

It is not just gays that are finding more acceptance, social progress is being made on many fronts. Blacks, Hispanics and other ethnic groups (not always minorities anymore) are living together more harmoniously. Women are more respected than they ever had been. Even much of the right wing would welcome Condoleeza Rice as president.

Progress will continue. It brings enormous social weight with it. There's no stopping it.

The disappointment that gay marriage has not made as much progress as some would have wished should be seen in this context. We are way ahead of where we thought we would be even a short while ago. No constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage has a snowball's chance in hell.

This is another reason that we should not get too bent out of shape over Supreme Court nominees. The Court cannot reverse this. They cannot and will not reverse Roe v Wade.

All the noise from the cultural warriors is a rear-guard action. They are loosing.

We will be and have been pushed back in some areas. The sharpest divide in this cultural war is over the right of women to control their reproductive lives. Roe will not be overturned but we should recognize that both parties are leading the fight against this most fundament right.

Is it really too much to ask that they have the right over reproduction before it happens? if you don't want kids, don't get pregnant, in fact, from the time they're born, girls should have a permanant birth control implant that can only come out when they intentionally want to get pregnant, really, just, for fucks sake, don't fuck around and let the spoogey tadpoles come looking for some hot egg ass, and then only worry about reproductive rights after you've been knocked up, god dammit!

> from the time they're born, girls should have a permanant birth control implant that can only come out when they intentionally want to get pregnant

See, here's another indication of progress. 'when the intentionally want to get pregnant'. Nothing about only after their married.

I don't give a shit about marriage, I have a 4 year old niece and my brother and his girlfriend have never gotten married (unplanned and unkilled), it's not really a big deal, just don't fuck every sailor that comes into port and then say "oh geez stupid me, went and got pregnant, well, better go kill this fuckin' little inconvenience" God damn shit frustrates the hell out of me, you want the right to create a life that doesn't even have the right to exist unless you say it can, and then you get to dismember the poor little bastard with a high powered vacuum cleaner, GOD DAMMIT DON'T GET MUTHA FUCKIN PREGNANT! DON'T WANTANLY CREATE VICTIMS, OR SHOULD I SAY, DON'T WANTANLY CREATE FRESH MEAT FOR THE GRINDER.

Luke,

Actually I'm glad that you are expressing what you feel.

I've said more than once around this blog that it is a very small minority that I consider the enemy. I don't think you fit that category and I should not have responded to you as I did.

I gather that you are in favor of birth control. Since you abhor terminating a pregnancy, I suspect you would not be opposed to the morning after pill, which in most cases, prevents pregnancy, the egg is not fertilized.

Supporting sex education, birth control, including morning after pill would be very positive and welcome.

Les

It is not just gays that are finding more acceptance, social progress is being made on many fronts.

But the question is, is social progress being made at this point because of the activist movements? Or in spite of them?

Good question. We've arrived to this point in large part due to the post-Stonewall activists. And maybe it's best that the new generation progresses in spite of the activism. They're not driven by the fear, shame and uncertainty as the outgoing generation has been. That gives them an advantage to advance the cause without all the anger and bitterness.

Within the gay community, there is a disconnect going on between the younger and the older generations.

I would say the social progress is being made BECAUSE of the activist movement. It was Stonewall that started it all. We have since fought for gay/straight alliances in schools, for equal treatment in the workforce, for equal access in all segments of life, etc. and it is this type of work done, that has made it possible for gay youth to grow up today in a world that those of us as young as 40 years old thought we would never live to see.

The drawback to this, is that our youth do not see the need that we still see, they don't see what could be, because they don't see what was.

The gay movement has morphed in strategy, from the days of in-your-face activists who blockaded cathedral doors and held rallies on the steps of Capitol Hill. When Bush made his announcement, years back, about supporting a constitutional amendment, that was a wake-up call for our youth. It got them to see that the older queers weren't just babbling fools, we spoke the truth.

But the activism went a different route, gay youth flocked by the millions to all sorts of anti-conservatism groups, that weren't exclusively tied to gay rights. Instead of us all banding behind the Human Rights Campaign for example, we had several million go to Moveon.org, we had several million jump on the Howard Dean campaign, we had gay youth form their own groups in schools, jump on all sorts of Presidential bandwagons (Kerry, Edwards, etc.) and become politically active like never before.

I would have to say the major difference between the future activists and the activists from Stonewall up until now, will be this lack of shame we now have. People are starting to see that there is no rational basis for such hatred and oppression.

That and the fact that this whole Christian movement, pushing commandments in courthouses, pushing creationism and prayer in schools, pushing God into government, etc. has forced people to open their eyes and make a decision about which way this country should go. It's not just a gay marriage issue anymore, but a 'how much dogma do we want to live under' issue, which helps marginalize the fundamentalists. It's nice to see them get demonized, comparmentalized, ostracized and shut out for once.

And as our gay youth continue to grow up in an environment where they need not fear being gay, and as social darwinism confines the strict Biblical literalists to the dust bins of history, I can only see our progress as continuing.

You make some good points, Steve, particularly about activism in the face of the gay marriage amendment.

But you're missing some other points.

What are we to make, for example, of the fact that gay youth are largely not interested in the activist movement? Or that members of the movement are themselves starting to say that the Christian right is more in touch with gay youth than the gay left is?

What are we to make, for example, of the fact that gay youth are largely not interested in the activist movement?

what you are talking about, is the same thing that happened to the liberal/conservative debate.

Liberal gay activists jumped on too many bandwagons, and gay youth say 'that's not me'. The gay left went with abortion, NOW, safe sex education, etc.

All fine principles/groups, to me, but they all aren't related to same-sex issues per se. Gay youth didn't like having to support 'all' issues that the gay left aligned itself with.

The same thing happened within the nation overall (straight and gay) with the liberal/conservative ideologies. Many people saw liberals as heading toward socialism, so they are pushing back, and now many people see conservatism as too close to something Talibanish.

It's the same thing that happened within our community. When they say they are closer to the Christian right, they are saying they want to raise kids, have a house with a white picket fence, or something along the lines of those values. They've gotten to associate the gay left with partying, drugs, parades and a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with left/right ideology.

I also feel that our community has a tendency to lean more towards conservatism natually anyway. As many of us do not have children, we become quite successful career-wise and financially, as we don't have the cost of children to consider. We can tend to become very pro-business, as that's where we spend a lot of time.

hmmm, there's also this:

Conservatism is against recognition of the relationship. Love the sinner, hate the sin and all that. It draws a distinction between the person and the physical act.

Liberalism is about acceptance, tolerance and non-judgement. It does not draw a distinction between the person and any form of self-expression.

So this is why you get conservatives like Rep. Schrock, Andrew Sullivan, Melhman of the RNC, et. al. who have phone sex, or place ads for promiscuous sex, etc. and you will find the liberals, like Melissa Ethridge, Rosie, or any of the main people at the helm of our equal rights group want to have families recognized.

Gay youth, don't see sexuality just yet as much more than the physical act. Like conservatives. They (the youth) will say, 'but being gay is just one part of me, it isn't all that I am'. They are talking about sex isn't what they are all about.

Ergo, they don't have families, they don't have relationships that they've built their world around, like we all do when we get 'married'.

So they define gay relationships the same way conservatives do, by the sex act and not by the expression of love.

Luke,
"GOD DAMMIT DON'T GET MUTHA FUCKIN PREGNANT"

Women don't go around looking for unplanned pregnancies, as you know perfectly well.

Also, it's interesting how you seem to think only women are responsible for birth-control, or only women should have to forgo sex.

"just don't fuck every sailor that comes into port and then say "oh geez stupid me, went and got pregnant"

Suggesting that women with unplanned pregnancies are whores is *extremely* counterproductive. Why do you think so many women young women are desperate to terminate their pregnancies? They know that other people, who almost certainly had premarital sex too, are going to demonize them and call them sluts or whores or whatever.

I do agree with you, though, that birth control should be *much* more widely available to women, young women especially.

>GOD DAMMIT DON'T GET MUTHA FUCKIN PREGNANT!<

Yes!!!!!

But luke as for your thing about NO Marriage at all, you have gone over the line. To keep this a morally balanced society we need things like marriage and LIFE (no baby killing).

>it's interesting how you seem to think only women are responsible for birth-control, or only women should have to forgo sex.<

No, men need to always where condoms and if women forgo sex, then how are men supposed to have sex???

Why is it that only women can get pregnant??? It sounds like mother nature is a self hating women.

> But the question is, is social progress being made at this point because of the activist movements? Or in spite of them?

Neither. I don't think there is a movement, not in any social arena. There are activists, demonstrations, parades.

Stonewall was in 1969, yes it was a tremendous explosion and shock waves were felt for years, but is now 36 years ago.

Stonewall was at the height of several movements that started with Black civil rights. These include the anti-war movement, women's liberation including reproductive rights, and gay liberation. There were many others such as the Gray Panthers.

1971 was probably the peak. By the end of 1972 the momentum was lost. It was January 1973 that Roe was decided.

There were a number of actions and issues later in the decade and into the '80s and beyond. All the movements were becoming more conservative. There were fringes that may not have been conservative but they were becoming less and less significant.

There were some important battles and some big demonstrations, but none sustained.

So how did we get here with progress not only being made but significant and sometimes startlingly rapid?

The answer is that the gains we made were not universally applied, they were seen by many as foreign, not theirs, but for others. Decades of digestion has increased the social weight of those gains. More people not only accept them but consider them rights, part of the social fabric.

During all this time the composition of the population and workforce has changed dramatically. Besides skin colors, we live with different nationalities, languages and religions. More women are working in jobs that were totally closed off from them back in 1969. We know people with different experiences. In turn they know us.

At the same time we are together confronting economic problems. We now know that homelessness and lack of health care, etc, are not just somebody else's problem. We are in it together. We are developing solidarity.

"Suggesting that women with unplanned pregnancies are whores is *extremely* counterproductive. Why do you think so many women young women are desperate to terminate their pregnancies? They know that other people, who almost certainly had premarital sex too, are going to demonize them and call them sluts or whores or whatever."

That's not exactly what I was saying, if a woman is a slut, and doesn't use birth control, then basically she's decided to have fun now and kill a baby later, unless she has it. So fuck all you like, but don't for the love of god get pregnant.
Having said that thoe, I don't think of all women that way, my brothers girlfriend is a good mother, and he's a good father, they both took responsibility for their happy mistake.

"But luke as for your thing about NO Marriage at all, you have gone over the line. To keep this a morally balanced society we need things like marriage and LIFE (no baby killing)."

That's not exactly what I was saying either, the family unit is the important thing, marriage is just a piece of paper or a word on a govt. computer screen, in my country defacto relationships for all intents and purposes do the same thing, if you tell the govt. on your tax return that you're living with your partner, and have 'x' number of dependants, then you get the tax breaks, i dunno, it just doesn't seem like society will collapse just because some people didn't feal like getting that nice little piece of paper that says their relationship is officially recognized.

Luke,

Asking the state to issue you a marriage license is asking them to introduce an element of state compulsion to your relationship.

It also may let you gain financial advantage from tax code or spousal benefits.

If housing were sufficiently cheap, health care totally available for free, and attractive child care were available, the institution of marriage would loose much of its appeal.

Les

Great article, and powerful. But something is missing.

The idea that the gay activists are not only acting up for the gays of the future (for surely they are), but that they are even more so acting for themselves.

I am well aware, as a 19 year old homosexual male, that my peers really could care less who I like, date, have sex with, whatever. And I'm glad to be living in such an accepting generation.

Unfortunately, those of 10, 20, 30+ older than myself and those of my age range are not as accepting. Those are the people who are trying to take away our basic rights.

I'm not an activist, per say. I do volunteer at my local GLBT (however you want to assort those letters) and I help register people to vote. I feel it is necessary to at least inform those people of my generation, straight, gay, bi, curious, what-have-you of the things that are happening among those of the older generations. I also feel it is important for them to have an opinion about such actions.

So, while I absolutely agree that kids my age and lower just want to be normal, the activists that are fighting so hard are just trying to make it to where, when us "children" are old enough to get married, have children/adopt, and a variety of other things, we HAVE that option.

At this very moment, my state (Texas) is proposing an amendment to our state constitution not only making sure that gay marriages/civil-unions are illegal, but that any legal rights that a gay couple could possibly share will be withheld.

Those activists are fighting against this amendment so that when I am ready, I can marry the man of my choosing. That I can share in the benefits of hospital visitation rights, right to an attorney, right to custody of the child we share...

Are they pressuring the younger generation a little too much? Possibly. In fact, almost assuredly.

Does the younger generation need a good, firm kick in the butt to get into some sort of action instead of just letting themselves be discriminated?

You bet your assets.

Zach Vernon
19
Student of the University of Texas at Austin

Steve S, you're convincing me on a lot of points.

I do have counterarguments, but before I present them I'd like you to answer a question for me:

How old are you?

Stonewall was in 1969, yes it was a tremendous explosion and shock waves were felt for years, but is now 36 years ago.

This is one of the important points, I think. The current crop of activists are largely old enough to remember Stonewall; if they are too young to remember it, exactly, they are old enough to remember its after-effects, which only really started calming at ALL in the early 90s.

But the up-and-coming generation, they can't really relate to Stonewall any more than they can to, say, the Haight-Ashbury "Summer of Love." Not only have they largely grown up believing that it's okay and healthy to be gay, but their peers have too.

Maybe that's the reason the gay movement's star is falling with young homosexuals: it doesn't present them anything they can directly relate to?

ZACH! (Comment 20)

You nailed it. I almost want to go back and delete my previous posts, this is so right on.

Still, let me pose a hypothetical:
Suppose homosexuality is teetering on the brink of complete mainstream acceptance in America. All it's waiting for is for the next generation to assume power in this country and iron out the last remaining wrinkles.

Is it possible that, if the activists make too strong a push at this crucial moment, they will move backwards instead of forwards? That they will unwittingly alienate the straight mainstream that's now on their side (or at least warming up to it) by seeming too "shrill?"

Please don't take that as an insult. I intended it as a sincere question, and one that I would imagine has to be seriously considered by the activist movement.

"If housing were sufficiently cheap, health care totally available for free, and attractive child care were available, the institution of marriage would loose much of its appeal."

Well all I have to say to that is, in America the institution of marriage will never lose it's appeal, but here, in Australia, we have a peculiar social structure, and most of that is because our women are mostly not dumb, and as a result, the population grows in the negetive, so we supplement our loss with immigration, the good thing about this is that Australia is an island and a continent, there're no borders which are easy for immigrants to cross, so we choose to only allow skilled migrants who're beneficial for us to accept, but because the government prefers us to be born here, the government gives families as much allowances and tax breaks as it can to make kids seem like not such a great burden, they try to reduce the negetive aspects of raising a family, and yes, we do have free healthcare and affordable housing.

Michael, regarding comment 21. I'm 40.

I once lived in a lesbian lifestyle. I have been set free by the blood of the Lamb..Jesus Christ. By saying this is okay you are telling teenagers that they can live there life as they will. I have been down the road I know where it takes you. My heart goes out to all people living in this lifestyle. GOD did not make people gay. It is a choice that you maynot understand but I do. I know why I lived it for so long. I also know that I was miserable during those years. No it is not right to put gays down. I can remember when I had been beaten for living a lesbian lifestyle. I am saying this in love ...I love anyone choosing to live in a homosexualy lifestyle. May you be blessed in Jesus Christ.

i saw Blood of the Lamb once, they opened for Slayer.

no wait, it mighta been Metallica.

> i saw Blood of the Lamb once, they opened for Slayer.

> no wait, it mighta been Metallica.

I'm an atheist, my day was made when I saw Faith No More opening for Metallica.

Casie,

> I once lived in a lesbian lifestyle.

This seems rather abstract. Could you tell us if this was experimenting or were you attracted to girls at an early age. Did any heterosexual experience predate your lesbian experience?

How did you come about seeking to solve this 'problem' through faith? Was it difficult? How long did it take? Are you still attracted to women at all? Do you attend support groups or is this through the congregation as a whole?

I wish you the best.

Les

Casie, you are a great and brave person.

You are a role model to all little girls who believe that they were born different.

Nice read. I am glad that the new LGBT generation is definitely more comfortable in their skin. I think that's only true because of the activism of the past generation. I think that this new well-rounded generation of gay america is one of the biggest achievements of the movement of the past generation.

On the other hand, I don't think the will hinder the pace of the current gay movement and eventually the will probably end up doing some activism themselves. The fact of the matter is that that congress has not been able to pass an Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) or a nationwide hate crime policy.

I just think that this new gay generation doesn't have a collective conscious as activists but that they are willing to standup for themselves: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/08/state/n012252D58.DTL

Cheers,

Edit:

Nice read. I am glad that the new LGBT generation is definitely more comfortable in their skin. I think that's only true because of the activism of the past generation. I think that this new well-rounded generation of gay america is one of the biggest achievements of the movement of the past generation.

On the other hand, I don't think they will hinder the pace of the current gay movement and eventually they will probably end up doing some activism themselves. The fact of the matter is that congress has not been able to pass an Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) or a nationwide hate crime policy. Ther'es still a lot to achieve.

I just think that this new gay generation doesn't have a collective conscious as activists but that they are willing to standup for themselves

Cheers,

> On the other hand, I don't think they will hinder the pace of the current gay movement and eventually they will probably end up doing some activism themselves.

There is much left to be done, but what I see is the beginning of the end, of not only gay activism, but of gays themselves.

We will end up with a human community where sexual orientation will not be a significant factor in defining a person.

There is much left to be done, but what I see is the beginning of the end, of not only gay activism, but of gays themselves.

We will end up with a human community where sexual orientation will not be a
significant factor in defining a person.

And maybe to accomplish that end, what America now needs to see is not angry, agenda-obsessed activists. Maybe what they need to see is gay people who grow up into average, face-in-the-crowd Americans.

> And maybe to accomplish that end, what America now needs to see is not angry, agenda-obsessed activists.

What will be, will be. There seems to be a trend though.

> Maybe what they need to see is gay people who grow up into average, face-in-the-crowd Americans.

The Time article (finally read it last night), shows that happening. Of course this is one view but I think it has much truth to it. The stereotypes now are being pushed by the sitcoms.

What is gay culture? It has a material base in society. As society changes, so will that base.

Maybe what they need to see is gay people who grow up into average, face-in-the-crowd Americans.

Tell them to visit my blog. It's all about gay parenting, book-a-thons, recipes, and is linked to other average gay families.

How do people not see us as average humans? What do they see us as?

> How do people not see us as average humans?

Average is not used in a mathematical sense here. What is meant by not average is other than average, outside.

A white male has some difficulty in seeing a Black woman without mystifying both her Blackness and femininity. Part of this was dealt with in 'Feminine Mystique'. This is also true of homosexuality. It is mystified, consciously or not, as being extra human.

how odd, we are demonized because we are mystified?

One thing that should be countered each and every time, is the use of the word lifestyle, as per comment 26.

Gay people raise kids, we attend pta meetings, we mow the lawn, we pay taxes, we keep the white picket fence painted. We do laundry, cook, clean, there's the gay lifestyle.

> how odd, we are demonized because we are mystified?

Not always demonized, the flipside is glorification.

give me an example of somebody who glorifies gay people above the 'average human' please.

> give me an example of somebody who glorifies gay people above the 'average human' please.

There are gay people, a part of the gay culture, that see themselves as superior to the average.

I am positive that there are heterosexuals that glorify gayness. It is still a mystification.

This is also true of heterosexuality. It ain't what it's huffed and puffed up to be. It is also mystified. The flipside here is that it is, in fact, looked down upon by some gays.

I think you missed the tack I was taking, Steve S. When I said, "average, face-in-the-crowd Americans," I meant for all those adjectives to be lumped together. I wasn't talking about average human beings, just about average face-in-the-crowd Americans.

Because the Average Joe in America is not a political activist, doesn't go to protests and rallies and Pride parades. He doesn't much care about them one way or the other.

You say, "Gay people raise kids, we attend pta meetings, we mow the lawn, we pay taxes, we keep the white picket fence painted. We do laundry, cook, clean, there's the gay lifestyle."

This is true. But I suspect a large number of Americans also see "political agitation" as part of the gay lifestyle, and rightly or wrongly finds it a bit grating.

But for the up-and-coming generation, there's less to agitate for: their peers respect their social and political rights. Studies show that a majority of people currently under 25 even support gay marriage.

So I'm saying, maybe the best political tack is to simply live life without so much fanfare about it. I'm saying that maybe the best strategy for the next generation of gay Americans is to say, "Look, we're trying to get by in life just like you, and we're not getting in your face about our rights to marry and adopt kids. We're NOT rabid and one-track-mind activits, we're real people with real lives.

"So since you can see that we're just regular Americans, isn't it okay to finally let us get married and have kids like regular Americans?"

Does that make sense?

I understand what you are saying Michael, I just disagree.

Disagree away. :-) We can argue all we want about what the next generation of gay Americans should do, but in the end they'll do whatever they want. :-)

Too true. I would just hope they remember that gay people have been around for thousands if not millions of years. I say thousands because we know from ancient art/pottery, etc. but it's certainly most likely that we've been around since caveman days.

And up until Stonewall, we did just live our lives. And look where it got us after all that time. If people just sat around, waiting for equality, we'd be sittin and waitin for several hundred more years at least.

And I hope gay youth keeps in mind that some people, and that currently includes people in power, will never see acceptance, even if you live your life as an 'average face-in-the-crowd'. Consider that celebrity status aside, Ellen could be exactly that average face, but she is referred to as Ellen Degenerate. And she doesn't attend pride parades in chaps or lobby on Capitol Hill. But she is still demonized. I blog about my average life about raising my child and I'm demonized right here at BlogCritics with calls for my family to be ripped apart for the well being of my child.

The average heterosexual face-in-the-crowd wears their sexuality on their sleeve. It is exhibited in wedding announcements in the paper, in spousal photos on the office desk, by public displays of affection, by holding each other while standing in line, etc.

It's done without thought, it's not done to make a statement. The same for the 'average' homosexual, however it generates a completely different response.

I hope our gay youth is not lulled into a sense of complacency, for future generations sake.

We had this discussion last night, Steve, and one of my boys brought up a point I never considered. Let me throw it out to you. Do you think that the real gay activists in the next generation won't be gays, themselves, per se, but their children? Is it the PFLAG generation that will do more to achieve equality as our children become adults? Will our best weapon against the random bigotry and hate be our kids? I'm sure you know, through your daughter, that our kids for the most part are well adjusted human beings with a great capacity for all that is good in humanity. Will it be their example that opens the eyes of those who don't see?

It's done without thought, it's not done to make a statement. The same for the 'average' homosexual, however it generates a completely different response.

I hope our gay youth is not lulled into a sense of complacency, for future
generations sake.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but the responses you're talking about are those of your generation and its predecessors. All indications are that among those currently under 30, things like gay wedding announcements and spouse photos in the office DO NOT generate a hostile response. They're not even seen as out-of-the-ordinary.

When you say you hope gay youth doesn't become complacent, are you saying that you hope they don't begin to take their social acceptance for granted? I thought that's the point we WANTED to get to--one in which homosexuals could take their acceptance as much for granted as the heteros do.

Certainly, if I had a gay son, I would want him to be able to take it for granted that he'd be welcome as a member of society. And it cerainly sounds like he'd be welcome among his peers with little-to-no consideration of his sexual orientation.

combining posts:

Do you think that the real gay activists in the next generation won't be gays, themselves, per se, but their children?

well, most likely, if there is a need. I do see gay activism as fading out with a generation but mostly because of the (hopeful) rising backlash against the fundamentalism that is going on. That and a lot of it's 'leaders' are beginning to face indictments and it's tied with a failed foreign policy, etc. It's losing steam.

I see if there is a push for a secular state, it will solve gay issues overall, rather than having to resolve all gay issues (workforce/military/marriage, etc.) individually. So I see gay rights being 'dropped from having a need to exist' by solving a much bigger issue, actually.

Because of the inherent nature of homosexuality and religion, I don't think there will ever be true equality as long as religion is allowed to play a factor in civic/state matters. At least not any religion that condemns homosexuality.

When you say you hope gay youth doesn't become complacent, are you saying that you hope they don't begin to take their social acceptance for granted?

No, I'm saying I hope they don't take the advice of just sitting back and chilling out, waiting for equality to be given to them, when people get around to dealing with their prejudices. It doesn't work that way.

I think as long as there is religion in government, there is a need for gay rights. The sentiment of the majority should not matter, it would be great if they would be supportive and it's great that it's becoming that way, but ultimately when it comes to human rights, majority rule should not be a factor.

Steve,

Fair enough.

I suspect that they'll handle it on a wait-and-see basis. That is, if they discover a need to become activists, they will. But right now it seems as though they don't see that need, so why put pressure on them to become activists anyway?

I don't know what you mean by your question. I don't pressure anybody to become an activist and am unaware of any 'movement' within my community that pressures anybody to be an activist.

I wasn't addressing you personally, Steve. It was a rhetorical question.

I was reiterating my point in the original post, a response to the TIME article that is largely about the gay movement, the expectations it places on gay kids' shoulders to become activists, and the fact that gay kids aren't particularly interested.

Folks, nothing I've written, either in the comments or in the original post, should be interpreted as a personal accusation or attack. It's all intended as straightforward, intellectual discussion.

I didn't take anything as an accusation or attack. I don't know what the article means by expectations it places on gay kids shoulders.

We, of one generation, hope the torch is passed, but I know of no mounted effort to force such. Perhaps Time knows something I don't though.

With numerous states having voters vote to amend constitutions to discriminate and delegate gay people as second-class citizens, and make life beyond being single and alone much more difficult, I wonder though, what gay youth see as important enough to become activist about?

Good questions, Steve. I can't answer them.

Why not pick up a copy of TIME? It's still the current issue, I believe...

As for what gay youth see as important enough to become activist about, I can't answer that either. Really, only gay youths can.

It may just be that since they're largely at an age where marriage seems miles away, they can't relate to same-sex marriage (or lack thereof).

I read the discussion above with great interest. I see the points of both sides. I'm 20, gay, and go to college in Boston. I guess that puts me among "the next generation" of gay youth. Am I an activist? Yes and no. I've given money, written letters to Congress, attended Pride, but I've never been to a protest or been on the payroll of an activist group.

I would agree with Michael that the current generation of gay youth sees less discrimination and has fewer incentives to become activist. It's true that we just want to live our lives without having to sacrifice every move we make to "The Movement".

But I also know that without the movement I would not have the luxury of making that choice. Here on my campus there are hundreds of gay people, but only about ten to twelve a week show up to the university's on-campus GLBT group meeting. Most people are more interested in other things than to spend their time fighting for acceptance in a city that already accepts them. We mostly just want to have fun.

On the other hand, Steve makes the excellent point that complacency is a danger because, cultural acceptance notwithstanding, this is still a deeply conservative nation (at the moment) and there are a great many people who are trying to reverse that acceptance. I would submit that gay activism and anti-gay activism are inversely related: as one winds down because it is "no longer needed", the other feels threatened and revs up for battle. There is also a significant regional effect; one is much more likely to see the need for activism living in Roy Moore's Alabama than in San Francisco or New York (or Boston).

So I suppose my conclusion is that even though many may feel there is a decreasing need for the gay "movement" or "community", such community occurs naturally and the need for activism, at least in some form, is likely to continue for the forseeable future.

well said, Justin. I have been involved in the gay community my whole life practically and have no knowledge of any pressure to be an activist or to join a movement, but I realize that doesn't mean that isn't the case.

So I guess I would just point out my thought about comments like this:

...is grooming/expecting/pressuring them to become the next generation of hardcore activists.

made in the original post, although I'm unsure if it's in the Time article or not. But I wonder exactly how neutral any reporting is with comments like that. What exactly is a hardcore activist? You either believe in marriage or you don't. You either work for it or you don't. Where does the hardcore come into play? Is there anyone out there working for forced marriage? I would define a hardcore activist as someone who blockades cathedral doors or, well, I dunno, but I don't know of any 'hardcore' activism going on right now.

All I see are people fighting for the right to be married and an article saying maybe that isn't necessary, just wait and cut out the 'hardcore' stuff.

Thanks, Justin. If you're representative of the new generation coming up, we're in good hands.

Wow. Thanks, Justin; with your comment here, I really can't think of anything else to say.

an update is in order about this Time article, there is important information completely left out of this review.

I wondered about the bias of the article when I read 'hardcore activists', as I noted in comment 56.

The 'poster boy' for gay youth, the boy on the cover of Time, was interviewed while he was at a Christian camp attempting to deal with his homosexual feelings.

He came away from the camp with the decision that homosexuality is a choice, so no wonder he doesn't want to fight for equality. He's all messed up inside.

source

Steve S, I don't know if you're accusing me of bias or not, but I hope you don't object if I defend myself:

- I had absolutely no idea that the kid on the cover was Corey Clark. Nothing in the article identifies Clark as the cover subject.

- Despite being on the cover, Clark plays an EXTREMELY small role in the article. In fact, he appears in one paragraph of an eight-page feature.

-The points he made, both in the TIME article and the source you provided, do nothing to detract from either the article or my review thereof. From the TIME article:

"Corey Clark, 18, belongs to his GSA at Governor Mifflin Senior High in Shillington, Pa., and says he sees nothing wrong with being gay. He attended Youth Day because he wanted to better understand his evangelical church and friends who say he should change."

(NOT, as you suggest, to deal with his homosexuality."

And in the article you linked to, he didn't REALLY say that homosexuality is a choice. He said that you choose whether to ACT on your homosexual instincts. He also noted that he came away from the camp with NO INTENTION of changing his homosexuality.

"I want to be happy," he said. "If being gay makes me happy, who is anyone to tell me it's wrong?

"Let me live this life and pray it goes right in the end."

LES,
Yes I was attrcted to women at an early age. No I am not attracted to women now. GOD has delievered me from a homosexual lifestyle. I had been involved with a men before living a gay lifestyle. It had NO effect on me choosing to live gay. I did not think at the time that a man is whom I was to be with. For many years I believed I was born gay! I now know that I am not born gay NOR is anyone else born homosexual. I believe that things happen to a person to lead them to live a homosexual lifestyle. GOD does not create people to be gay. HE loves all but HE does not accept homosexuality. It was not hard ot give up the gay lifestyle due to the fact that I was so broken. I was dying and lost and I was in need of a Saviour! That is when I came to Teen Challenge. GOD used it to change my life around. IF you are interested any more Id be glad to shre my testimony with you!

May you be blessed,
Casie

I a=say lifestyle due to the fact that it is a lifestyle. GOD did not make anyone gay. I was gay for many years. I had a girlfriend and I lived a miserable live. I know that you can not understand until you have had a revelation! I chose to live like that due to my childhood. I did not comment to put anyone down. I love all on here and my pray is that you all be set free by the love of Jesus Christ. I can toally understand you all. I lived a crazy hard life. I have seen it all and done it all. I do not comdemn anyone for the way he/she chooses to live!

Casie;

What about the millions of gays who had normal, happy childhoods, who say that they were born gay, and did not choose their sexual preference?

There's one small problem.... if it is really a problem.

Gay people can't procreate. Not a bad thing, if leaving a legacy isn't your thing. But there are extreame and cultural biased towards gay folk adopting children to raise... if they choose to not procreate by being gay and not having the abilities of relegated to amphibians. As perverse as it may sound.... if you are gay, you chose NOT to leave offspring. That's natural, and it's Darwinian... now which way do you want it. Both ways? Isn't that odd?

Casie, you're just a sellout, what the hell is wrong with being a lesbian, most people think it's cool, at least I do, as long as they're lipstick lesbians and not the butch variety, C'mon, you know you still wanna tap that hot fem ass. You were probably miserable because you live in hillbilly buttfuxville, miserable is what you'd be if you did the other thing that religious hillbillies don't like, date a black fella. You don't even need to be a lesbian, some girls just do it for the fun of it, and I really can't blame them either, from a dudes perspective, I can't figure out why girls like guys in the first place, if I was a girl I'd sure as hell be a lesbian, and get into hot kinky lesbian orgies with all kinds of toys melted candle wax and golden syrup.

Casie is entitled to be miserable in one life and find happiness in another. HOwever it's wrong to assume that what works for her works for others.

She says she was miserable in a lesbian lifestyle. Then get out of it. Good thing you did.

Just because you were miserable doesn't mean others are. many of us are quite comfortable being true to our inner selves.

While you can go on spouting your opinion that God condemns homosexuality, many of us have also read the bible too and see a great many things that God condemns including women wearing makeup. We do not respect the opinions of hypocrites, so you are entitled to your opinion and we are entitled to ours. And with that, God Bless.

Michael (comment 60), no, I'm not accusing you of anything. I have come to the conclusion though, from what I've gathered here and elsewhere, that the Time article is biased.

NOT, as you suggest, to deal with his homosexuality."

well, granted, that's what is said and so we have to take it at face value, however, I am suspect about anyone who joins anything designed to help you overcome what they perceive as an addiction or a disease, just to browse around and see what's happenin. So I retract that statement but not the feeling that caused me to say it.

He said that you choose whether to ACT on your homosexual instincts.

yes, but anybody who thinks about it for a moment knows that when it comes to emotional intimacy with another person or a lifetime of solitude, there really isn't a choice. Not a realistic one anyway. All humans need love.

Gay people can't procreate.

we can, we do, and we did.

Gay people can't procreate.

Too many straight people procreate for the wrong reasons. Gay people CAN procreate and DO procreate. These children they create are wanted, celebrated, nurtured and revered. They are appreciated. So, in the final analysis, those gays who DO procreate have not only received a precious gift, they're giving one to the world.

I have come to the conclusion though, from what I've gathered here and elsewhere, that the Time article is biased.

But have you read the TIME article itself? If not, your conclusion that it's biased isn't exactly a fair one.

But have you read the TIME article itself?

yes, I don't get the bias from just reading the article, per se, (except for keywords that I've mentioned already that set warning bells off), but it's the extraneous info left OUT of the interview that leads me to believe it's biased.

I'm entitled to my opinion of course, as you are entitled to yours. Of the gay blogs I visit that discuss this topic, it seems to be about 50/50. (reception of the article)

addendum: although the sentiment on the blogs is about 80% are leaning towards the fact the youth interviewed are too naive about life.

I apologize if I have offened anyone. THAT is not my attention at all. I care about everyone. I know the truth and that is all. I said all that I said in hopes that someone would want to know the truth. May Jesus Christ Bless you

Steve to be such a happy person you sure are defensive. I pray that you will come to know the truth one day. GOD wishes none would perish!

OK, Steve. I had the misimpression that you hadn't read the article, just read ABOUT it. You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I'm not sure if I agree that the kids are too naive about life (which I'm hard-pressed to say, being firm in my belief that teenagers don't know anything), I guess we'll find out before too long.

Steve to be such a happy person you sure are defensive

perhaps it's your comments.

I know the truth and that is all.

you know the truth that works for you casie. And you make blanket statements that it is the only truth for all.

The truth is different for everybody. I am happy Casie. I have a wonderful husband and a wonderful child. That is MY truth.

Reads like:

I have been freed from misery. I have found the truth. Homosexuality is a complete harmful and destructive sham.

Gosh, gay guy, why are you defensive.

I suppose another good topic for discussion might be: If gay youth are identifying less and less with traditional gay identity, what will happen to gay culture as we know it? Will it dissipate and disappear? Or will it simply change? If so, into what? And if it will disappear, is that a good or a bad thing?

- Justin

Michael, the conclusions toward the end of your post are not accurate.

The gay community is not "demanding that people conform to a specific model of gay". Its just not happening.

In fact, gay people are the best qualified (simply from experience) to know that gay people have different and diverging interests.

In reality, the only people who define people by their sexual orientation or "demand" that they live up to some model are those who don't like gay people.

They weren't conclusions, Jordan. They were questions.

In fact the only conclusion that I definitely drew from the TIME article is that there were certain questions that needed to be addressed. So I asked them.

Justin, re: comment 77, I don't know how much of a tangent I'll be going off on here, because I'm not exactly sure what you mean by gay culture. I don't doubt that there may be one, but I don't know what it is.

When I was your age, it was 1985. I had Bon Jovi hair, and wore concert t-shirts and leather jackets. My roommate was a 50-something momma's boy. The friends I ran around with were a gay gigolo and a gay preacher, and about 10 straight partiers. What culture was I in? I dunno.

I never encountered pressure in anything about activism or equality or pressure to be out (I was about halfway out at that point). Many times there were assumptions that I was liberal and toed the liberal line, but there was no pressure to do so. Conveniently I lean left, so that wasn't a problem for me.

Define gay culture (and straight culture for that matter) to me and then I can tell you if it's a bad thing if we lose it or not.

I had to change the word to gigolo because I got a message that (hust - ler) is a banned word?

Steve, I think you're right, the article was biased. There are specific code words, and an overall tone that was taken. The tone of the article was that gays are only interested in selfish pursuits ("hardcore activism", or clubbing) and that they are trying to indocrinate or manipulate gay teens. The article then paints ex-gay groups as being loving, kind, and the victims of prejudice by gays. They have extensive praise for Chad Thompson yet they never mention that on his website he claims that gays can be "completely healed". They try to undermine GLSEN's statistics about safety in schools by implying that since GLSEN is actively involved in the "battle" over gay teens, they must overinflate or exagerrate for their own purposes. Can you imagine an article on torture where Time implies that Amnesty International overinflated or made up statistics just because they are so involved in the movement? It's absurd and dangerous thinking. The entire article seems designed to sugarcoat ex-gays and to make gays feel like there is nothing left for them but submission into a more "normal" ex-gay environment.

Michael, I wanted to address this comment:

"The only problem is, gay kids who are growing up in a more tolerant, less oppressive America than their forebears -- an America in which three-quarters of high school kids consider "fag" an offensive epithet -- have far less incentive to become activists."

I certainly won't argue with the statistic you cite, but in many schools today, words like "fag" and "that's so gay" are used over and over and over. Some states like Georgia are working on legislation to shut down gay/straight alliances. Millions of young people listen to homophobic, violent music. They go to see movies like Wedding Crashers and 40 Year Old Virgin and Longest Yard which make fun of gays and paint gay as the absolute worst thing you can be in life. A survey of college students released early this year showed a marginal increase in support for sodomy laws and opposition to same-sex marriage.

Some in the media and some like John Cloud may want everyone to think that young gays are just loved and accepted by everyone, with the implication in the article that being gay is now passe and that is why people go ex-gay - the article barely if at all mentions that many young people are forced into ex-gay places, like Zack from Tennessee, or their church and family guilts them and pressures them until they finally go. But from my own experience, gay youth still faces a LOT of hostility and they are hurt, not helped, by the assumption that it's all over and everything is fine. The Time article is one of many articles in the media that purports to cast homosexuality as a lifestyle, or as a trend, something that is caused by society and can be turned off. It's basically giving confused or unhappy young gays justification to try to brainwash themselves with ex-gay groups. This is a very alluring and destructive fantasy, and given John Cloud's cheerleading for Ann Coulter, I guess I shouldn't be surprised if he buys into that fantasy.

Thank you James, for adding your point of view. I am in agreement.

Steve,

I will steal from Michael Bronski's "The Pleasure Principle" and define gay culture as the sum total of how gay people live their lives: "how they have sex, where they socialize, how they dress, how they create extended family and social networks, how they regard themselves in relation to heterosexual society, how they express themselves artistically."

I grant that this definition is overbroad, but I suppose that my premisses are that (1) gay culture, whatever you define it to be, evolves out of gay "identity" and (2) if as John Cloud and Rich Savin-Williams argue, gay teens are embracing the gay "identity" less and less, then gay culture will become less important, no?

I suppose for convenience's sake you can define gay culture as "what the majority of gay people are expected to know or be aware of", be it in fashion, entertainment (e.g. "Friends of Dorothy"), art, life in general, etc.

I guess that's the best I can do right now.

- Justin

well, Justin, in that case, the teen on the cover of the Time article is a 'flamer' with his pooka shell necklace and hairstyle. He IS gay culture by your definition.

Conversely, I 'pass for straight' in my appearance, I have a family, a house with a white picket fence and all that.

So I would say that by this definition, gay culture isn't dying out but being born?

Some gay teens - too overwhelmed by anti-gay ideologies manifesting within their families, churches, schools and communities - never confront the homophobia around and within them. They've been silenced.

I feared the numbers of these 'silenced' would temporarily grow given the increased visibility of our movement since 'gay marriage' came forward as a national issue and the resulting increased vigor of those in opposition. John Cloud's "The Battle Over Gay Teens" (full article here), if nothing else, lessened that fear.

Some gay teens today live openly in insular accepting environments which now include not just college but also high school. Not surprisingly, some don't understand what's at stake for them later on in life. They have, it seems, fallen victim to the illusion - brought about by the very recent emergence of openly gay celebrities - that being gay is 'no big deal'.

Convincing these gay teens as they approach adulthood that it is important to talk about their lives without denying their innate homosexuality may at first prove difficult. But I suspect, as happened with me, they will eventually grow to appreciate what the gay activist leaders of the past have achieved and have not achieved for them.

For most out gay teens today, they will mature into a country (USA) that will, for the most part, bar them from marrying the one they love. Many may enter adulthood in states that categorize them as unfit to foster or adopt children. Many will be banned from clubs, churches and organizations and face job and housing discrimination with no legal recourse available to them.

Still, to be fair, I think for many if not most gay youth, figuring out how to BE in a heterosexual world is confusing and frustrating enough. But then they are confronted with the extra burden of understanding the forces seeking to not just deny them equality under the law but also to equate them, as a whole, with rapists, alcoholics and the mentally ill.

I'm surprised, given all that, how many gay people do 'come out' okay and relatively undamaged. I'm not surprised at the anger and passion out there. That anger and indignation is what has galvanized our movement. I'm confident most gay youth will come to appreciate this anger expressed by many activists as not a militant anger but a valid sensible one given all that has been said by leaders such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and the Pope.

Afterall, we fight for the full humanity of people who are gay. The Fundamentalists and all those anti-gay forces they've rallied around them fight for a hypocritical immoral ideology based on lies and hate. As I've said before, ideologies come and go, but we gay people are here forever and now that we've emerged from the closet of medieval superstitious ignorance about sexuality, there's no going back.

With that in mind, there is too much at stake for any gay person, young or old, to believe we have reached any sort of post-gay lesbian civil rights movement identity. Gay teens who believe their place at the table of society has been permanently set are in for quite a shock when they try to sit down at that table later in life. Therefore, we still very much need new generations of outspoken Gay and Lesbian leaders to speak with force, courage and steadfastness on behalf of those without a voice, still too afraid to speak.

Yesterday was National Coming Out Day. Now as silly as it sounds, there was a purpose to it and those who celebrated it touted the core message of this year's celebration: "Talk about it". Being gay isn't a choice as some would have you believe. Being an accountant is a choice. Being a Christian is a choice. Being homo-, hetero- or bi-sexual isn't a choice. To reduce such a complicated aspect of a human's personality to such a level is to have no respect at all for human life.

well said, Patrick and Silas. When I was a gay teen, the last thing I cared about was speaking up for my equality. But at that time in my life was when it was needed most.

"I thought that's the point we WANTED to get to--one in which homosexuals could take their acceptance as much for granted as the heteros do."

That is certainly the point I pray your nation and the rest of the world will reach. Acceptance in some quarters is increasing, and this is wonderful. But as long as GLBT people are unequal under law, the struggle -- however shrill the already-equal mainstream finds it -- continues. No justice, no peace.

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. I really wanted to spark some thoughtful debate here, and I think we've pulled it off.

I don't really know the answers to any of the questions I asked. But your answers have all been pretty fascinating. Thanks again.

"With that in mind, there is too much at stake for any gay person, young or old, to believe we have reached any sort of post-gay lesbian civil rights movement identity" - Patrick

"To reduce such a complicated aspect of a human's personality to such a level is to have no respect at all for human life." - Silas

"When I was a gay teen, the last thing I cared about was speaking up for my equality. But at that time in my life was when it was needed most" - Steve

"But as long as GLBT people are unequal under law, the struggle -- however shrill the already-equal mainstream finds it -- continues. No justice, no peace." - Natalie

These are some of the most important reasons I find for being opposed to Rich Savin-Williams' prognosis of the equal rights movement, and more reasons for me to continue to plan to go to law school so I can make a contribution in the struggle for equality.

- Justin

some additional info:

Patrick (commenter #86) says on his blog:

Newsbusters.org - a GOP blog of apology - denounces the Time magazine article The Battle Over Gay Teens by John Cloud as playing with the facts.

It seems more and more people from both sides of the aisle are finding problems with the article.

I want to change a previous answer. The question was is it good or bad that gay youth are turning from gay culture.

If by gay culture, we mean identity (pooka shells, tribal armband tattoos, fashion, etc.) then as you can see by my own example, we outgrow that. We outgrow the need for such identity as we settle down and start relationships and/or families.

So what it seems is going on here, is that the gay community is maturing younger and younger.

And that is a good thing.

So what it seems is going on here, is that the gay community is maturing younger and younger.

And that is a good thing.

Absolutely the best and most well-thought-out comment I've gotten on this thread so far. Thank you, Steve S.

"If by gay culture, we mean identity (pooka shells, tribal armband tattoos, fashion, etc.) then as you can see by my own example, we outgrow that. We outgrow the need for such identity as we settle down and start relationships and/or families."

But Steve, wouldn't you admit that there is a counter-argument (not one I'm necessarily a proponent of, but still) that gay culture has always defined itself as outside the mainstream, and by "maturing", to use your word, what we are actually doing is buying into the heteronormative command for career, family, and pursuit of wealth? If gay culture is a function of gay identity, and we no longer have gay identity (because we assimilate), wouldn't gay culture have to diminish, if not die out?

Think of it this way: the only way gay people are actually different than anyone else is sexual attraction. Because of that, we engage in nonreproductive sex, i.e. purely for pleasure. (This is one of the reasons so many people dislike us). But the model for normalcy is reproductive heterosexuality, so we try to "prove" our normality by acting straight (monogomy, families, etc.) rather than celebrate our difference.

Now, is *that* good or bad for the gay community?

- Justin

...the model for normalcy is reproductive heterosexuality, so we try to "prove" our normality by acting straight (monogomy, families, etc.) rather than celebrate our difference.

Now, is *that* good or bad for the gay community?

Forgive me for giving my opinion on a matter to which I'm not a party, but I'm not sure if acting straight OR celebrating your difference is a good thing for the gay community.

Put too much emphasis on "acting straight" and you reinforce the idea that "acting gay" is bad.

Put too much emphasis on being different and you reinforce the idea that gay people are a different class of human being than straight people.

The only thing you can do, it seems to me as an outsider, is to just be. Be as comfortable in being an individual as you are in being an Average Joe/Jane. (You are, of course, both of those things.) Don't force yourself to enjoy activities that are stereotyped as "gay" anymore than those that are stereotyped as "straight."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see that the life or death of gay culture is all that important an issue. What's important is that gay men and women stop being second-class citizens and gain the inalienably equal rights that are due them as human beings. In the face of that, is it really important whether a certain segment of social/popular culture continues to exist or not?

But Steve, wouldn't you admit that there is a counter-argument (not one I'm necessarily a proponent of, but still) that gay culture has always defined itself as outside the mainstream, and by "maturing", to use your word, what we are actually doing is buying into the heteronormative command for career, family, and pursuit of wealth?

oh, yes, there is a counter-argument. The most vitrolic and hostile people against gay parenting for example, are usually other gay people.

If gay culture is a function of gay identity, and we no longer have gay identity (because we assimilate), wouldn't gay culture have to diminish, if not die out?

I think there will always be a gay identity and therefore a gay culture, but I think it will just be different. Just off the top of my head (meaning, maybe not the best example), take Will from Will and Grace. He's a lawyer, doesn't he dress like one? He doesn't wear pooka shells or go-go pants, etc. But look at how he identifies and who he hangs around. He's still part of the gay culture right? He still identifies as part of the community. The culture/identity is still there but manifesting itself more subtly. And that is probably a good thing.

But the model for normalcy is reproductive heterosexuality, so we try to "prove" our normality by acting straight (monogomy, families, etc.) rather than celebrate our difference.

This is why other gay people are the most hostile towards those of us who are parents. They accuse us of 'selling out' of being Uncle Toms. I've been run out of one or two gay sites for example because I talk about my daughter.

BUT, I didn't have a family trying to prove anything. I didn't try to prove my normalcy. I had a family because I had parental urges and needed to have a family, just like anybody else who wants to start a family. When gay people have families, they aren't doing it to prove anything. THey are doing it because it's needed to make their life complete. That's what I think. But the assumption is that we don't have the parental urges therefore we just want to copy.

If I wanted to copy a heterosexual family, I would marry a woman and have kids.

It's not a matter of if we are viewed as 'normal' or not. That is irrelevant. You will find that out in time. With the striking down of the sodomy laws, we are not criminals. And we pay taxes, so we are legal, law abiding, tax paying citizens. That gives us rights. We don't have to prove whether we are normal in order to get those rights. Besides, you will find out, when it comes to your opponents, those who are active against you, you cannot prove you are normal, so that is just a timewaster.

rather than celebrate our difference.

Other than the fact that I love a man instead of a woman, what difference would there be to celebrate? The only reason for me to celebrate my 'difference' is to experience pride in the face of adversity, and yes, hopefully that need will fade away.

and career and pursuit of wealth are by no means a hetero constraint.

Thanks Steve,

I actually agree with you, but I was just curious as to what you would say.

I don't think any of us knows the answer to this question, but I wonder if the monogamistic, parenting impulse is hard wired to our brain or something we learn from culture.

- Justin

I would think that would be 'impulses', as I don't think there is any connection, or at least a very tenuous one, between parenting (an impulse to nurture) and monogamy (an impulse to stay with one person).

Monogamy, I think, is cultural, I don't think it is natural within us. Parenting, of course is hardwired for survival of the species.

"I wonder if the monogamistic, parenting impulse is hard wired to our brain or something we learn from culture"

Hardwired.

We are not fundamentally gays who happen to be human. We are fundamentally humans who happen to be gay. Therefore, all impulses that predominantly manifest in humans no matter of what ancestry, ethnicity, dialect, race, nationality, religion or politics will also manifest in humans no matter the sexuality.

The more freedoms we are given to participate in mainstream activities, institutions, rituals, etc. the more gay people will do so. The drive to participate and assimilate will in the long-run win out once we achieve equality and protection under the law for we are not fundamentally driven by our ideology, we are fundamentally driven by our humanity.

The Gay Lesbian Civil Rights Movement's most important success will be that of creating an environment in which gay people feel free and welcome to express their basic core humanity without regard to their sexuality. The energy that out gay people now must expend in order to make their place openly and honestly is unfair and distracting.

Most gay people, no matter what their outward face, desire a life of community in which their sexuality is irrelevant but acknowledged. The ways in which our humanity expresses itself are indistinguishable from the ways in which all other peoples have expressed their humanity throughout all of time: creativity and relationship. Ultimately gay people are only as queer as our environment makes us. The current gay subculture is mostly a temporary reactionary formation that will subside once the mainstream more fully welcomes us as the full human beings we already know we are.

Some gay activists go too far in rejecting all things that were previously denied to us. That, I think, is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Wanting a family, children, a monogamous committed relationship, acceptance, respect, belonging, normalcy, etc. isn't a sign that some sort of fascist heterosexism is at play but a sign that standard human impulses are at play and that they are inescapable and undeniable. Any attempts to paint them as artificial notions brainwashed into us is rather silly and confused.

Gay people are not from Mars.

I agree. When I say that monogamy is cultural and not naturally within us, I'm speaking of humans overall, not just gay people.

Although most cultures today, or a great many of them, promote monogamy, throughout history, it's been more of a communal thing. Either via polygamy or 'it takes a village' type commune where the village raises the children, etc. several examples of this still exist in certain African cultures.

It's my understanding that the one on one type of thing is relatively new, maybe only 10,000 years old or so.

No such thing as gays. This isn't a religious thing, this is common sense and science all in one.

No such thing as Anthony Grande, that's for sure.

So, 'you people' can not handle virulent disagreement, huh? I say anyone who uses the term "gay" is part of the problem, not the solution. Just in case y'all forgot, the males sodomize each other and do oral sex on each other. The 'pitcher or catcher' syndrome. They are sodomites, nor gay. They are queers, not gay. Dykes, butch's, homosexuals. They are perverts and pervert the Word of God to gain acceptance among the weak-minded. They are responsible for 'spreading the misery' of aids. Instead of being quarantined, isolated, they cried foul and ended up spreading a deadly disease to more innocent people, such as hemophiliacs, just so they could indulge in their filthy, nasty lifestyle. And you perverted liberal, yankee's support them. Well, you got what you wanted. Aids is pandemic. Satisfied??

i think people who are "Gay" should be treated just as equal as other people i am not gay but i certainly do not have a probleme with gays.

I think everyone should have to try gay sex just once to find out if they are or not. How do you know you don't like it if you've never tried it.

Read comment #105 by Shirley.

The rant is a great example of pure unadulterated irrational arrogant supremacist claptrap. It paints with the same brush as racists and anti-semites did when they sought to belittle and scapegoate their chosen and mostly powerless minority. The rant boils with the froth of ugly nasty passionate hatred.

And as always, it deludes itself with righteousness by twisting and mutating parts of the Bible to serve its purpose of denigration and segregation while invoking the name of God. And of course, any part of the Bible which contradicts or even embarasses the ranter is rigidly ignored.

While Shirley's rant is frightening in its extreme nature; it is also curiously bizarre.

I'm all for guys to be gay. Whatever goes on behind closed doors and all that. But what i disagree with is the flamboyancy that they go about with. I mean is there any need for all that prancing and screeching and so on? NAW!!! Its very uncomforting!

On the other side of the same coin, is there any need for some of the mannorisms of straigh men?
Im sure we can all think of a few examples...