When asked about Iran’s execution of gays, Ahmadinejad said there are no gays in Iran. He added that while his country had been bad to gays, he would love to treat them with respect now, but unfortunately they had killed them all so it’s a moot point.
Why is it that conservatives seem to be the ones most concerned about the persecution of gay people in places such as Cuba and Iran? I thought conservatives were supposed to hate gays? I guess we need gays to be alive and free before we can hate them.
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
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…
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’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.
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 http://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.
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!
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).//
//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!
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.
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.
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.