When John Edwards heard the translator utter those words, he fluttered out of the Hello Kitty beanbag and threw his favorite pink boa at the TV screen, yelling "Meanie! You big, fat MEANIE!"

"I guess we need gays to be alive and free before we can hate them."

They're just people we love to hate - and tolerate. Tap Tap Tap.

Where are the nation's rump rangers? Where is the outrage? Oh the humanity! Oh yea...that's only for Boooooosh!!!

Conservatives do not hate gays. They simply want gays to "know their place", in much the same way they once wanted women to "know their place", and blacks to "know their place", and immigrants to "know their place". What people mistake for hate is the idea that these people have a place, which is on its face a prejudicial and arguably bigoted perspective.

Unfortunately, it's also true. Everyone of every variety and in every group does, in fact, have a place. The place you have now may not be the place you have tomorrow, and a smart conservative recognises that. What these conservatives are trying to promote is the idea that while gays/women/blacks/immigrants certainly can and should aspire to have all the same rights and privileges and status that white men have, it is counterproductive to force the issue by ramming "EQUALITY NOW" down the country's throat.

Historically, forcing the issue when the culture is not ready causes a backlash which results in more pain and suffering than the original state promoted. The similarities between the emancipation proclamation and prohibition are generally avoided as a dangerous subject, but they remain instructive.

I for one do not believe that gays would be better off mostly-closeted as they were in the 1970s. I believe they are better off now. I believe the entire American culture is better off now with more acceptance of gays. I believe that we will be better off still when gays are fully accepted as members of American society and nobody even considers one's personal sexuality worthy of note.

But I do not believe that is what we will get if we make a law that says you MUST fully accept them (e.g. by extending marriage to include them). I believe what we will get is underground cells of homophobic jerks who go out and do real damage to real people to make a political statement about homosexuality. I believe that this is an unconscionable result that must be avoided at all cost, even if it means people accuse me of being homophobic for the rest of my life.

If we just wait, nature will take its course and homophobia will become a quaint oddity of 20th century culture. It's the long view. Surely we can endure a few fag jokes in exchange for a culture that really does accept homosexuality, rather than one which gives lip service to the idea in public while continuing to fear, resent, and persecute homosexuals behind closed doors.

Oh, I don't know about all that. I can think of at least one possible Iranian homo. Doesn't it seem odd that Ahm-in-da-jihad is as neat & well groomed as he is, especially for a Mooslim?

Treat them with respect, indeed. Maybe "respect" is his codeword for "reach around".

Somebody get a look at his nails & see if they're manicured or not; that'll cinch it.

Hey...the feminists and the Homosexuals at Columbia don't seem to mind...maybe this guy is on to something!

As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned, (pardon my being crude and tasteless, here...) where are all the campus shooters when you really need one...

Oooh Ooh a troll! Oh... I can't think of any good bait.. well except to point out that conservatives are indifferent towards gays, and think they deserve to not be killed, unlike liberals who merely use them to advance a political agenda, and don't seem to give a $#!^ whether or not they are being killed in Iran.

Alan...can you see R Lee training this twit! "What's your name...Ama...what? Where are you from BuggerBall? Iran? The only thing to come out of Iran are steers and queers and I don't see any horns? Are you a queer BuggerBall? I can't hear you! Do you suck dick$? Are you a Peter Puffer? I'll bet you can suck a golf ball through a garden hose! I'll bet your the type to give it without the courtesy of a reacharound! I'm going to be watching you BuggerBall!

You want to talk about stereotyping & discrimination, Cal? Listen to gays & liberals talk about Republicans.

Personally, I could care less about gays one way or another; they can do whatever the hell they please, so long as they respect others. No one wants to hear the details. However, I really have to wonder about a group of people who structure their political orientation based on their sexual one.

What gave him away AR? ...the six paragraphs...

Actually, hate to break it to you Caliban, but there's actually no such thing as a "homophobe." No one is terrorized by the thought of roaving gangs of transvestites and George Michael look-alikes.

Persons like myself simply don't approve of a perverse lifestyle that has been considered a mental illness for thousands of years and is considered taboo in all of Christianity, and don't want it promoted to our kids in elementary school.

If you find a like-minded individual that wants to do the same-sex dirty with you, have at it...just don't demand that the rest of us applaud you for it.

I think something was lost in translation when he was asked about gays in Iran.

What he meant is, there are no *happy* people in Iran, which makes perfect sense.

YUP. Absolutely. No gays in IRAN. None at all. We got all the GAYS- they got all the sand-digging, goat-humping, camel-jockey, Jew-baiting SCUMBAGS.

Face it- we got a GREAT deal, folks.

I heard that Ahmadinejad listens to Coldplay whenever he macrames himself a pair of jean shorts.

GEEEZ I would expect every queer in the US to be tromping "protest" all over anyplace this guy goes but they're not because they like his "US out of Iraq" policy...WTF??? sounds like a bunch o'hypocrites to me.

Strnj1, yes the Six Paragraphs... also the use of the phrase "I feel" repeatedly, and the lame handle. I bet you anything he is a PaulBot.

What bothers me is not so much gay people being ostentatiously gay. They're here, they're queer, and we're used to it. Even given the most orthodoxly heteronormative education, a few are going to turn out queer. Some people just can't manage to make things work out in the normal way.

What annoys me like nothing else are those who, beyond simply demanding equal treatment in areas where sexual orientation doesn't really have much effect, wish to attack the very idea that heterosexuality is considered normal. To which I say balderdash.

Considering some things to be normal and leaving the rest to be attended by niche institutions is hardly bigotry. It's how society gets along with itself without forcing people to adopt self-destructive positions.

For example, the Imperial measurements are normal in America, and the metric system generally isn't outside of certain fields. It works, we're getting along with each other, and the fact that all our highway signs measure things in miles doesn't mean we need to push Metric Awareness Month in all our schools.

For another example, Wal-Mart carries hats in sizes S to XXL. Most people fall into that range. That's normal. It's perfectly reasonable to calculate that carrying sizes outside a certain range would cost more in keeping the stock up to date than you would likely make in profits from actually selling them. And I can go to BigHatStore.com for my XXXL hats. I don't hate Wal-Mart or try to tell Wal-Mart to stop discriminating against large-headed folks.

In short, I don't care what GLBT+OTHERPRETENTIOUSINITIALS do with each other. But there's a reason for setting heterosexual relations and nuclear families as the norm, and that's because most people are going to be happy with that sort of achievement.

Hey George-

That could be a great T-shirt!

OK OK, We Get It:
You're Here
You're Queer
Shut Up About It

> yes the Six Paragraphs...

I am not going to apologise for having a thought more complex than 90% of what gets posted on blog comments anywhere. If you really don't want to hear what I have to say, just be a dick, and I'll leave.

> I bet you anything he is a PaulBot.

Yeah, see how easy it is? Just keep that up.

Aww... Sowwy your feewings got hurt, Cali.

I think that the ideas you were trying to get across were genuine, but they seem a little disingenuous. Trying to play both sides against the middle is no way to prove your point. Either be clear about your point, or go back to painting politics by numbers.

I don't mean that as an insult to you; I might agree with what you might have been saying- or not- but you didn't make it clear.

George guy, while I agree with you about how annoying things have become since we lost our queers and had this little political party move in, please shut the hell up about big heads. I can't buy hats or shoes at any of the chinese embassies, and if it wasn't for the Japanese firms I couldn't get a condom either. Big-headed Americans have happily stayed in the closet for generations, and your outing won't do us any good. I didn't ask for this head; I was born that way.

Have some tolerance for the gay guys here...most just get sucked into the lifestyle...

There Are No Gays, But Men Do Sodomize Each Other

Like a VIKING!

Iranian men aren't gay, they just have wide stances.

If you really don't want to hear what I have to say, just be a dick, and I'll leave. - Caliban Darklock

That was my plan...

> I think that the ideas you were trying to
> get across were genuine, but they seem a
> little disingenuous.

In the "honest" sense or the "ignorant" sense?

Or maybe just honestly ignorant? ;)

My central point is that we have a two-pronged problem when it comes to how conservatives view gays.

From the gay perspective, conservatives deny them the right to be gay, because we complain about things they consider part of their essential lifestyle.

From the conservative view, the things we complain about aren't essential. They're just subcultural weirdness.

The whole thing about knowing your place is just understanding in what world you live, and in what way you fit into it. Yes, it is unfair that you don't get to do whatever the hell you want. Welcome to the club. Now STFU and act like an adult. Being gay doesn't give you a license to dress up as Dorothy and skip down the street throwing condoms.

I'm not razzing you here, but I gotta ask: Are you gay? If so, do you really think that you actually have a "right" to be gay? The fact of the matter is that whether or not it's a right is moot; no one can stop you from living a gay lifestyle; after all, we're not in Iran!

I don't think that homosexuality is "subculture weirdness". I think it's a choice people make.

> I gotta ask: Are you gay?

That rather depends on whom you ask. Straight people say I'm gay, gay people say I'm not. This is largely because most straight people see gay as being what you think, while most gay people see it as being what you do.

Personally, I don't call or consider myself gay. But I can understand why others might disagree.

> do you really think that you actually have
> a "right" to be gay?

I think that technically this comes under "the pursuit of happiness". I have a right to pursue the relationships I want to pursue, within reason and the law.

That begs the question, what if the kind of relationship I want to have is illegal? Is that an infringement of my rights?

Personally, I say no. If the law says I can't have a particular kind of relationship, that doesn't actually infringe my right to pursue happiness; it only blocks off one of many avenues whereby I might pursue it. I think we can all think of something that would make us happy, but is illegal. Controlled substances are a cheap avenue to consider on that front, for most people.

> I don't think that homosexuality is
> "subculture weirdness".

That's not what I said.

I said that conservatives complain about subculture weirdness, but gays protest that it's part of being gay and simply refuse to accept the clear-cut reality that it's just subculture weirdness.

Dressing up as Dorothy and skipping down the street throwing condoms is not part of being gay. It is subculture weirdness. And yes, it is a choice. A choice which - wonder of wonders - you could choose NOT TO MAKE. And most gays, the vast majority of gays, do not make that choice.

A straight person could make that choice, if he were batshit insane. And we would treat him as such. He would probably end up on medication. But gays do this sort of thing, and they say "it's our lifestyle!", and we say "no, it's WEIRD, cut it out".

But somehow, this behavior - willful, deliberate, CHOICE behavior - is being conflated with what components of homosexuality are none of the above (genetic, environmental, evolutionary... the jury's still out). So when we criticise this behavior, the gay community paints it as though we are criticising homosexuality itself.

There is indeed a small component of homosexuality which is not a matter of choice, but it's really pretty minor. It's basically whether looking at naked men arouses you. If you're not gay, this simply doesn't happen. If you are, it does. And whichever side of that fence you happen to be on, the physical response is simply not under your control.

TMI.

is it TMI to say that I get aroused by buff naked men? Oh wait, I'm a chick...nevermind...

BTW, ya think the guy on the www.realjock.com advert at the bottom of this post is gay?

Caliban, I'm confused.

You're missing the point somewhat. To a conservative, everyone has 'a place' in society. It's a function of their interconnectedness with society.

Being gay is not 'subculture wierdness', but crossdressing is? I guess subculture wierdness is in the eye of the beholder. As far as I'm aware, they can be totally unrelated behaviors.

Why would a heterosexual crossdresser be 'batshit insane' but apparently, a gay one wouldn't? Pot, meet kettle.

I could get contraversial and ask what your views would be on homophobia if it were found it had a genetic component. Would a guy beating a gay to death be 'somewhat acceptable' if someone could prove to a jury that it was nature, not nurture that drove him to it? After all, in that case, his homicidal tendencies might only be a relatively minor matter of choice.

The real deal is that identiy politics conveniently stereotypes anyone who disapproves of homosexuality as an evil bigot. Just as it categorizes nominally similar people as 'the black vote', 'the gay vote', 'the feminist vote', etc.

Just as you have the right to claim you should be treated the same as 'everybody else', you claim special pleading rights because some people disapprove of what might or might not be a lifestyle that nature and/or nurture may have served you up. I work in a company full of raving feminists. Can I have special pleading rights too?

Heaven forbid it's determined that political ideology is also determined by heredity. Will I get special pleading rights for being a fiscal libertarian?

America doesn't execute gays. Iran does.
America doesn't imprison people who exercise a constitutional right to free speech. Iran does.
America doesn't propose exterminating the citizentry of a sovereign nation. Iran does.

Notice a pattern?

While America has a way to go before it addresses all 'reasonable' gay demands, the gay community really needs to recognize that America was founded by, and is characterized by heteronormative behavior.

You're right - conservatives don't hate gays - and as the left is happy to inform us - many conservative/republican politicians and operatives ARE gay.

If what you say is true (and I don't have the attention span to debate it) - that conservatives want gays to 'know their place' it's that they're fed up with the squeaking, whining rhetoric that tells them that they're oppressing gays. Conservatives for the most part reject this kind of 'identity politics' because they see it for what it is. An effort to disunite, not to unite.

Incidentally, until and unless laws are passed that dictate that I *must* know what you find sexually titillating, I'd rather not know.

'K THX.

OK. Let the comedy resume.

> To a conservative, everyone has 'a place'
> in society.

Yes. That was rather inherent to the idea of saying people of all sorts should /know/ their place. That's not to say this place will never change, or that you must stay in it at all times - but you should know it.

> Being gay is not 'subculture wierdness',
> but crossdressing is?

Dressing up like Dorothy and skipping around throwing condoms is not "crossdressing", and being gay - which is to say "having sexual attractions to one's own gender" - is not /observably/ weird.

> Why would a heterosexual crossdresser
> be 'batshit insane'

It's not the crossdressing. It's the ENTIRE SET OF BEHAVIOR. A gay man SHOULD be considered batshit insane for that behavior, too - but he's not. Which is why I call it "subcultural weirdness". It's a form of weirdness sanctioned by a subculture for no rational reason.

> I could get contraversial and ask what your
> views would be on homophobia if it were
> found it had a genetic component.

The same way I do now. You're entitled to hate anyone you like, and you're even entitled to say it out loud. What you're /not/ entitled to do is go around harassing and abusing people.

This applies to pretty much everybody. I don't care who it is you hate, you should be allowed to think it and feel it and say it all you want.

> The real deal is that identiy politics
> conveniently stereotypes anyone who
> disapproves of homosexuality as an evil
> bigot.

And this is wrong. Tolerance fundamentally means you aren't going to make people's lives difficult. It doesn't mean you have to make it easy. You don't even have to pretend you like them. There is a difference between tolerance, acceptance, and approval, and I don't think you can demand the latter two from people.

> you claim special pleading rights

Like what? As far as I can tell, I'm just stating my opinion, and it seems to be about equally critical of both sides in the gay/conservative conflict.

> While America has a way to go before it
> addresses all 'reasonable' gay demands

No it doesn't. America has already addressed all reasonable gay demands. That's not to say there aren't a boatload of UNREASONABLE ones, but we're pretty much as far as we can be expected to go right now, and the pride parade crowd needs to give it a rest.

> Incidentally, until and unless laws are
> passed that dictate that I *must* know
> what you find sexually titillating, I'd
> rather not know.

And you don't, because I didn't tell you.

OK, Cal. So you are an alleged a-middle-of-the-road conservative who may or may not be gay. Big deal.

This presentation of "I am... or maybe I'm not" is just juvenile nonsense. When you find your voice, come back. Until then, you're just background noise. Of course, you could just be another lingering troll & we'll just laugh at you, if you want.

Wouldn't be the first time someone said that they were like "us", but totally different & obviously smarter.

Bye!

> This presentation of "I am... or maybe I'm
> not" is just juvenile nonsense.

It all depends on what the word "gay" means. You tell me what it means, and I'll give you a straightforward yes or no answer. If you're willing to accept my definition - a gay man is aroused by images of naked men - then I'm not.

Which is precisely what I said: I don't call or consider myself gay. Neither does the gay community. Certain people in the straight community say I'm gay, and once you manage to nail down what they mean by "gay" they're usually right.

And since at least one member of this crowd would RATHER NOT KNOW, I don't find it particularly instructive or helpful to belabor the question of what those specific definitions are and why they do or don't apply to me. There are two broad-brush definitions of gay that tend to cover most people's opinions:

1. You're gay if you WANT TO have sex with the same gender

2. You're gay if you ACTUALLY DO have sex with the same gender

It's useful and productive to examine how these different definitions can create misunderstandings around what is or is not "gay" culture. It is NOT useful and productive to examine how these different definitions may or may not apply to me, or you, or anyone else in particular.

Your refusal to read most of what I write and failure to understand what you read is not my problem. It doesn't mean I'm smarter than you... but it certainly does make it look that way.

No. Not really. And yes, I did read much of what you wrote. Maybe I'm just being stubborn.

But this is why I think you're more of a liberal that a Conservative, at least on this issue. I've read your other comments & for the most part, you seem to be on the level. But when it comes to this, you're doing what a so many liberals do in just every debate they engage in: Redefine the terms/argue semantics

Granted, "gay" IS a widely used term to unflatteringly describe, from a "hetero's" point of view, something or someone appearing as homosexual, effeminate, wimpy, garishly emotional, and so on. However, as I understood it pertaining to a specific culture/sub culture, a "gay" person is one who exclusively engages in intercourse with others of his/her own sex.

And I'm digressing from my point in these general definitions. My point is that arguing semantics on the issues doesn't clarify things, as many people seem to think. Rather, it brings most conversational progress to a screeching halt because, not only do you not agree on the issue, but now you can't even agree on what terms can be used, or how.

Long story shortened, either you got it or you didn't. Did you not understand that the subject of American & Iranian gays referred specifically to homosexuals, or did it seem like a forum for correct utterance?

Trying to say what you mean & mean what you say is fine. Articulate speech and meaning is important. Meticulous usage of every spoken word & debating semantics to the point of horse-beating the conversation to death doesn't do much in the way of getting a point across.

I might add that if you want to be better understood, then feel free to clarify your position at any time. You seem to have made a firm commitment to be middle of the road on this, and I say so again because you haven't actually clarified what the meaning of the term is to you. I did read what you wrote, but so far all I'm seeing is you baiting the questions with "well, it could be this, that, or t'other" responses. I noticed that you did not come forward and offer any real clarifications about yourself.

I know that I did ask you if you were gay. Either you knew exactly what I was asking or you just wanted to spin the issue some more. You don't have to answer straightforward or even at all; your orientation matters little to me. It actually wasn't any of my business to ask. (BTW, it's still a moot point about the 'right' to be gay, "pursuit of happiness" or not- no one's going to make anybody stop being gay or living the lifestyle openly. Nobody's going to impose their will on anyone's sexual orientation.)

What I'm saying is that if you want to be understood, then make yourself clear about what you are trying to intimate. And for what it's worth, I agreed with some of what you said initially, like-
//But I do not believe that is what we will get if we make a law that says you MUST fully accept them (e.g. by extending marriage to include them).//

> Maybe I'm just being stubborn.

No, I'd call it willfully ignorant.

> you haven't actually clarified what the
> meaning of the term is to you

Actually, yes, I did: "It's basically whether looking at naked men arouses you. If you're not gay, this simply doesn't happen. If you are, it does."

> you did not come forward and offer any
> real clarifications about yourself.

Well, no, because: "It is NOT useful and productive to examine how these different definitions may or may not apply to me, or you, or anyone else in particular."

> I know that I did ask you if you were gay.

And I answered you: "I don't call or consider myself gay."

> if you want to be understood, then make
> yourself clear

I thought I did: "My central point is that we have a two-pronged problem when it comes to how conservatives view gays. From the gay perspective, conservatives deny them the right to be gay, because we complain about things they consider part of their essential lifestyle. From the conservative view, the things we complain about aren't essential. They're just subcultural weirdness."

What part of that don't you understand? The problem is that each side of the debate thinks "gay" means something different. Until they can agree on a definition, nothing can be resolved.

//What part of that don't you understand?//

Sigh... OK, we'll work backwards; maybe that will help.

//From the gay perspective, conservatives deny them the right to be gay, because we complain about things they consider part of their essential lifestyle.//

Not only is that untrue, but ignorant. Complaining hasn't denied someone's right to do anything. Ever. And you left out that many conservatives object to homosexuality, not because it's "subcultural weirdness" or what not, but because they believe that it is an offense to God. And not even that has stopped homosexuality. Ironically, many people think there ought to be a total separation of church & state, unless it comes to gays having the state-recognized "right" to be married in the eyes of God! And about that weirdness...

//From the conservative view, the things we complain about aren't essential. They're just subcultural weirdness.//

Umm.... what? Which "we" were you speaking of there? The conservative "we", or the gay "we"? Or "they"?

//"I don't call or consider myself gay."//

Actually, you left something out of that. What you said was, //That rather depends on whom you ask.//

Uhhh.... I asked you, directly. But you went off on this tangent-

//Straight people say I'm gay, gay people say I'm not. This is largely because most straight people see gay as being what you think, while most gay people see it as being what you do.

Personally, I don't call or consider myself gay. But I can understand why others might disagree.//

And why would straight people think that? I'm guessing there must be some reason for why others disagree; wearing a pink shirt or owning a Lhasa Apso doesn't make you gay, but it must be something you're broadcasting. Are you a misunderstood "Metrosexual"? Do you live in South Park? (lol!)

//I don't find it particularly instructive or helpful to belabor the question of what those specific definitions are and why they do or don't apply to me.//

And yet, you were the one who brought it up.

I appreciate your desire for me "STFU" & stop being "willfully ignorant". I appreciate it in the sense that when someone is being misunderstood, it's obviously because everyone else just isn't as smart. I've noticed that wanting someone to shut up & calling them ignorant because they just aren't agreeing with you & seeing you for the obvious pillar of reason that you truly are tells more about you than your comments ever could. Unless you were just playing devil's advocate. But I'm sure that you'll agree that I'm wrong all this & you're right.

I mean, how else could it be?

So anyway, if you want to win this little debate so badly, then I say-

Congrats! You win, Cal! Now perhaps you ought to go forth with this decisive victory & declare war on your own perceived notions, because despite the fact that you seem to have it all figured out on behalf of gays & conservatives, you do not speak for anyone but you... and that needs serious work.

Take care!

> Not only is that untrue, but ignorant.

Yes, which is rather my point.

> Which "we" were you speaking of there?
> The conservative "we", or the gay "we"?

I think it's pretty obvious, if you have half a brain in your skull. After all, I've said twice now that I don't call or consider myself gay.

> Actually, you left something out of that.

Yes, I left out the part where I said IT DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF THE TERM.

> I'm guessing there must be some reason for
> why others disagree

Yes, and I said that. What that reason is doesn't really matter, does it?

> And yet, you were the one who brought it up.

No, you were. You asked whether I was gay. I said:

1. It depends on how you define the term
2. This is how I define it
3. By that definition, I am not
4. I don't think discussing the specifics is productive

Chasing after this as though there is something to find is just retarded.

> I appreciate your desire for me "STFU"

That was directed toward the gay community.

Are you trying to tell us something?

> calling them ignorant because they just
> aren't agreeing with you

Actually, you ARE agreeing with me. You think you disagree because you don't understand what I'm saying. You don't understand it because you aren't paying attention.

And that's willful ignorance.

Have a nice day.

I have a few points to make:

A. I'm conservative-libertarian. Read Barry Goldwater sometime to get an idea.

B. I'm irritated by the apparent need some of you have to sling insults at me just because of who I am.

C. FOR GOD'S SAKE IT IS NOT A CHOICE. I should know. I tried to choose the other thing ("straight"), and spent years trying to change. It doesn't work. I ended up depressed. I feel way better, though, now that I've admitted who I am and have talked to my friends (mostly from church, but also from College Republicans) and my pastor here at school. The only choice that was mine to make was whether to be honest with everyone or go on acting for the rest of my life. And, by the way, the bulk of evidence currently leans towards biological factors (both genetic and hormonal, especially prenatal hormones) as causes.

D. Cut it with the petty stereotypes (or don't complain when others do it to you). I love [college] football. (GO STATE BEAT ILLINI!!) I am not terribly "fashionable". If you saw me, you probably would not be pick me out as gay. (In the interest of full disclosure: I do love Broadway musicals, but unless you grab my iPod how are you going to know what I'm listening to?) Maybe after talking to me for a while, you might, but, really, most people don't know until I tell them or I mention something in passing.

And for another thing, that "SEX SEX SEX" stereotype is about as true as the other ones (i.e., not at all). It's just that the people who behave in that manner are much more visible than plain, little, ol' me, with my Log Cabin pin my only "identifying mark".

E. Oh, yeah, I mentioned church. I'm still actively involved. I attend several services and Bible studies every week, and all my closest friends I met through the Lutheran community here. And, imagine this; it's open knowledge, and nobody has any trouble with me. (I used to have trouble with me (pre coming-out), but I worked that through with God...took a while, but after long study, prayer, and scripture reading, He got me where I needed to be.)

F. And here's a definition for you, just so we're clear. When I say "gay", I mean that I am attracted, physically and emotionally to other men. Period. Note the lack in my definition of anything involving "intercourse". That's very, very intentional.

So, in closing, dear fellow commenters, take your stereotypes and shove them.

Thanks.

Just wanted to add one more more thing about stereotypes, since I'm pretty sure I know more gay people than most (perhaps any) of you.

Caliban, out of all the gay people I know, there is not a one who, to paraphrase you, skips around dressed up like Dorothy and throwing condoms. So where you go the idea that most of us choose to behave in that manner, I will never know.

> When I say "gay", I mean that I am attracted,
> physically and emotionally to other men.
> Period.

1. Is this your definition of what GAY is, or what YOU are? The latter is reasonably irrelevant except as it relates to your definition of the former.

2. Do you mean "attracted, period" (i.e. you don't need to act on the attraction to be gay) or "men, period" (i.e. if you are attracted to women [read: the opposite sex] you are not gay)?

3. Assuming this is your definition of what makes someone gay, do you propose this definition is shared - broad-brush style - by the gay community at large?

4. Given that your definition of gay does not include any form of intercourse, is someone explicitly NOT INTERESTED in such intercourse still gay?

5. If someone has such intercourse WITHOUT the aforementioned attraction, is it simply impossible for him to be gay? Could someone habitually and repeatedly have sexual relations with his own gender, but by virtue of not having any physical or emotional attraction to that gender exempt himself from being gay?

6. Would a randomly selected member of the gay community be likely to answer these questions with similar responses to yours?

Your definition looks a lot like mine. It also bears a significant resemblance to the definition I've ascribed to most conservatives, as it should, since you are yourself an avowed conservative. My point - as I've said repeatedly - is that this definition IS NOT the definition preferred by the average member of the gay community, and their definition takes broader account of BEHAVIOR as opposed to attraction or mental processes.

At some point, we could probably debate whether emotional attraction is nature or nurture. It seems you consider it nature; I consider it nurture, with the caveat that any other form of nurture (once the nature of physical attraction is known) would be irresponsible at best and abusive at worst. Attempting to "change" or "cure" or even "reduce" someone's homosexual tendencies should not even be on the table. Behavior is another matter, but I am rather of the opinion that self-esteem is not behavior.

And just to address this bit:

> where you go the idea that most of us choose
> to behave in that manner, I will never know.

Let me make this explicitly clear.

The behavior I was describing was an example of "subculture weirdness". It was not typical of anyone. It was, indeed, far beyond the bounds of normal social convention.

But when a gay man chooses to do something like that, for whatever reason (and such is his right!), any criticism of his BEHAVIOR is interpreted and publicised by the gay community as a criticism of his HOMOSEXUALITY.

This is simply not true. The criticism conservatives (or, indeed, most people) level at individuals behaving in that fashion is not about who they are, but what they are doing. Calling such criticism homophobic is an endorsement of the behavior as natural and normal among mainstream members of the gay community, which it MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT.

1. Both. I state that I am gay. Ergo, when I define gay, it, firstly, defines that word in my lexicon. Then by syllogistic reasoning, it defines me.

2. I meant "That is my definition. Full stop." i.e., "That is my definition, there is no more and no less." But to answer your fuller question, let me give this definition (pardon, please, the mathematical grammar, it comes w/ the Comp. Eng. territory).

X is a man. M is the set consisting of all men. W is the set consisting of all women.
If X is attracted only to elements of M, X is gay.
If X is attracted only to elements of W, X is straight.
If X is attracted to elements of both M and W, then let M' be the subset of M, and W' the subset of W, consisting of all elements which X is attracted to.
If size(W') >> size(M'), then X is straight.
If size(M') >> size(W'), then X is gay.
If size(M') [is almost equal to OR equal to] size(W'), then X is "bi".

Sorry if that's a bit formal, but, that's how I roll. And I'll grant that there is still some lack of absolute exactness in the "bi" section, but, we really aren't dealing with something that's easily expressed in terms of absolutes.

3. I think generally, the people who I know and of whom I know, share this definition.

4. If someone is not interested in intercourse (for whatever reason), but still feels romantic affection for the same sex, then, yes, I do think the person could be categorized as "gay". There are straight people who are admittedly straight, but feel they are called to celibacy. That doesn't make them any less straight. Same for gay people.

5. Is it impossible? No, very few things are impossible. But for a real answer, it is very possible for people to satiate sexual drives through same sex intercourse, but not be gay. (As for the reason: perhaps unavailability of the gender one is attracted to? Not to be overly-stereotypical, but think about all the prison jokes...) The attractions, physical and emotional, are really the key to the definition, I think. As for repeatedly and habitually, I think that would be unlikely in normal circumstances, but given the right conditions it would be possible. Let me state, in a demi-aside: I think that for a person who is not gay to have same-gender sexual relationships purely for sexual release is flat immoral, like any other sex just for sexual release. This by no means should be taken to mean that I think everything else is OK. I'm just laying down one case.

6. Would a PBAC (particular but arbitrarily chosen) other gay person give the same answers? I know there are plenty who would (have a gander at GayChristian.net for one set of them). Most I think would agree with my definition, though it is almost always possible to coax out some cognitive dissonance from someone if you set them up right. I think many in the community at large would disagree w/ my answer on #5, and say that clearly if one has a habitual relationship that they're gay. They would say that to continue such behavior indicates an unacknowledged "gayness" (under normal circumstances only, I generally agree).

I think most real gay people place the emphasis on the emotional side or in the attraction. Sure there are the nuts that the media trot out, but remember how unkind the media are to conservatives so often. They're just as bad to gay people, in that we are portrayed as sex-crazed pride-paraders. Most of the gay people I know are very normal people and regard their sexuality largely in the same way as heterosexuals.

As for the typicality of "strange behaviors", I guess I misunderstood your earlier statement. I thought you were ascribing the weird cross-dressing stuff to the gay community as a whole and saying most gays choose that behavior. I was saying that most of us do not behave in that outlandish manner.

I agree that criticism of such behavior is not essentially anti-gay. (Clarification: I don't think such criticism must be or always is anti-gay.)

However, that said, when such criticism is taken from, "That specific behavior there is wrong," and extended into, "AND THAT BEHAVIOR IS TYPICAL OF GAYS!! THAT'S WHAT ALL GAY PEOPLE ARE LIKE" then that is wrong. And it is anti-gay, then. Because it is inherently untrue. And lying is wrong. And you don't defame people you don't have a beef with. While not all people do this, it happens way more often than it should. (EXTRA IMPORTANT NOTE: I am NOT accusing you of doing this. I think that's obvious, but I just want to be perfectly clear.)

As for what I said in my original post about the nature of the origin of homosexuality, and the fact that I do not regard it as a choice, that was not directed at you, so much as other members who keep referring to my being gay as a thing that I've apparently "chosen", in their view.

As for nurture vs. nature and debating that, you seem very reasonable, and I would be delighted to do so sometime, if you'd like. I've posted the address of my woefully untended blog on this comment, and you could drop a comment there if you wanted to have that conversation. (Or just keep going here.)

Wow. That was long. Sorry.