Tuesday, December 29, 2009

'Gay' certainly comes in all stripes

There are some highly unusual characters over at the Independent Gay Forum. Dare I say, queer?

I've read articles at the site for at least a year or two, and contributed comments on occasion but rarely followed those of others. It didn't seem that very many people posted there and I was busy with a lot of other, more mainstream forums.

Sometime in the past 6 months or so it seems posting became more frequent at the Independent Gay Forum, and I've been spending more time there.

In that time I've read some very good articles and some interesting, well-informed, intelligent comments. It's very encouraging. But I've also read some patently ignorant, offensive, bigoted garbage, too.

There are clearly many conservatives and even militant Republicans that post there, some of which are just beyond belief. Like the homosexual man who only votes Republican, likes Sarah Palin, reads Anne Coulter, watches Fox News, listens to Rush Limbaugh, despises the 'war on Christmas', clearly isn't fond of Muslims, loves guns and war and hates liberals.

In spite of all this typical, militant conservatism, he also claims to have had 50 sex partners (I suspect that he is younger than 30), assumes that he's safer from disease by using condoms with strangers than trusting to do without the condom with a monogamous partner, and he saw nothing offensive about Adam Lambert's AMA performance. In fact, he seems to look upon Mr. Lambert as some sort of role model who has somehow advanced the homosexual struggle for equality by shoving simulated oral sex into the faces of the mainstream America who was watching the show that night...

Seriously, I could not make this up.

Another right-wing blogger there is far more socially conservative than this. To the point of being fascist. He relies on nauseating, regurgitated propaganda to implicate the entire homosexual population based on the actions of some. Oh, yeah, and we're just as guilty as them if we don't all band together and stop those who engage in inappropriate behavior...

He manages to paint a caricature of homosexuals in general as being sex-crazed hedonists who tend to prey on children and either participate in or defend despicable and/or criminal sexual behavior. Publicly, by the way. And (in his reality), none of us ever get arrested for this, either. Apparently law-enforcement has recently become too afraid of lawsuits to arrest homosexuals for committing crimes. Hmmm... News to me.

He also depicts, what he calls “gay-sex marriage” advocates, as attempting to destroy marriage and society. Oh, and we're hypocrites because most of us don't vote Republican. Why hypocrites? One reason is because we claim marriage is a “basic civil right” {see Loving vs. Virginia} but yet we don't defend adults marrying children and people marrying animals, etc. Ah, but in other posts, to the contrary he claims that we (all) do defend these and other highly controversial forms of marriage. Apparently you can have your cake and eat it, too.

The supposed moral to the story is, “gay-sex marriage” is just a “smokescreen” for destroying marriage and furthering the agenda of the “Obama party”. Yes, he derisively refers to the Democratic party as the “Obama party”.

Speaking of which. We're also, according to this homophobic troll, hypocrites because most of us voted for Barack Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage just as nearly all (or is it all now?) Republicans do. Oh the hypocrisy!

He fails to grasp the obvious flaw in all this specious (and despicable) reasoning of his.

I clued him in on it, and he's still having fits over it. I informed him that President Obama and most Democrats support letting the states decide same-sex marriage, many even support legalizing same-sex marriage; most Democrats support ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell; eliminating the so-called Defense of Marriage Act; ending discrimination against homosexuals in employment (some of which has already gone in place for the Federal government); and the Democrats pushed for and passed a Hate Crimes bill which includes sexual-orientation. (Which, by the way, Democrats had to attach to a defense spending bill to do so. Unscrupulous, I admit, but the damn thing got passed in spite of the groaning and moaning of Republicans, most of which wouldn't dare vote against a defense bill.)

Juxtapose the above to Republicans who have passed constitutional amendments in some 30 states banning same-sex marriage (all in an effort to elect more Republicans, mind you); attempts to pass a national constitutional amendment permanently establishing marriage exclusively for heterosexual couples only; writing and passing DoMA; fighting anti-gay Hate Crimes legislation; opposing court decisions which overturned unconstitutional laws targeting homosexuals, including anti-sodomy laws in Texas; deep opposition to same-sex adoption and even their so-called “compromise” — same-sex civil unions in various states. The list goes on and on...

Yes, yes homosexuals are such “hypocrites” for supporting the only major national party which has actually improved, rather than undermined our efforts for equality. As I informed this blogger the other day, he is the worst example of cognitive dissonance I have ever encountered anywhere.

{Be aware that the rest of this post is dealing rather frankly with sexual content that could be considered graphic to some}

Another odd duck is the heterosexual woman there who has a scatological fascination with the sex habits of homosexual men. In particular, she feels it necessary to lecture us that we have too much homosexual intercourse. And by too much, I mean, at all.

She also finds it all-too-easy to insult and demean us with some particularly vile detail and language — most of which are based on gross distortions or mere assumptions. E.g. (all) homosexual men are hedonistic and promiscuous, (all) homosexual men are secretly pedophiles, (all) homosexual men engage in anal sex and anilingus, (all) homosexual men are unhygienic and likely to carry (highly contagious) disease. The kind of disease that a newborn baby would likely catch if we held one...

I'm completely serious about this. How's that for intellectual, civil discourse? Oh, she's a laugh-riot.

Of course, none of this is anything I hadn't dealt with in my years of posting at local and mainstream forums and blogs. I've ran circles around these kinds of bigots for a long time. Too long. But these encounters are on a forum for the homosexual community. I can understand why hate-mongers would want to irritate us where we gather, but I keep wondering who, really, are they trying to convince? I don't think they've managed a convert, yet.

It's truly bizarre at times. Like in the case of the second troll that I mentioned, he is supposedly a homosexual! Oh, sure he is. And I'm a Catholic Bishop. Of course, I still haven't seen him admit this yet, so apparently he's not very secure with being identified as such. Though, if I believed what he did about us, I'd not dare write it in sand before high-tide for fear that someone, somewhere, would see it.

If he truly is of the homosexual persuasion, then he is definitely the most homophobic one that I've ever encountered (that I know of).

Another homosexual blogger there tries to push the “Frot” ideology.

It's definitely one I don't buy into. In fact, I find it rather misogynistic in its depiction of anal intercourse as un-egalitarian and submissive because it involves penetration.

I say misogynistic (among other things) because such a conclusion would have to also hold that vaginal penetration is submissive, and therefore, must be inherently wrong in some way. So much for perpetuating the species...

The counter claim to this appears to be taken from the Greeks, that it's only wrong when men submit. I wonder then if, like the Greeks, that doesn't apply to minor boys being 'dominated' by older men? Maybe this is part of the movement as well which would be another reason to give it little serious consideration.

My question then is why the double-standard about male penetration and female penetration? Is it because women should “submit” and men should not? Because it shows some sort of weakness? Like I said, misogynistic... And baseless. But to each his own. I don't care what they do, but I won't be shamed about things there is nothing to be ashamed of.

I also don't buy into this submission claim. A more enlightened view of intercourse would be that it is a mutual exchange, done consensually and with a degree of care and dignity. In its essence it isn't violent and it isn't about dominance. If it is in some cases, then they're probably doing something wrong.

Another blogger, who is undoubtedly one of us, was lecturing on the usage of “homosexual”. He insists that the reason we are exclusively associated with sex in society is because “sex” is in the label we use (i.e. homosexual).

I disagree with him. I look at it like this: we are (still) associated with sex to such a degree because society is still hung up over our being different (unnaturally so, in their view), and in part because there is a great discomfort many have of the sexual activities that we would typically engage in. This is slowly eroding.

In addition, I also believe that a lot this comes from both the image and to some degree the reality that homosexuals (men in particular) are typically hedonistic, promiscuous, and crude. Basically, their perceptions of our lifestyle and attitude about sex and decency is completely radical and foreign to them. And many of us, I will admit, are only contributing to the stereotype...

While words are important, in this instance I really believe that this blogger is obsessing over semantics and pushing unnecessary political-correctness in the process.

You can call us a “ham sandwich” if you want, but it won't make people any more endeared to us. We need to change people's perceptions of us as individuals and a community. And we need to do this, mostly, through our actions.

Frankly, if we act like sluts who treat sex with strangers as casual and monogamy as an outdated old custom, then most folks won't take us seriously. And I don't blame them. I don't take those kind of people very seriously, either, and I'm fairly open-minded about sexuality. One has to be to some extent to reject the archaic prejudices against same-sex relationships.

The words that he suggests — “homophile”, “androphile” and “gynophile”) — are linguistically interesting ones. I like how the suffix “-phile” focuses on one being a “lover of” something or drawn to it. Though I have to wonder, if a gynophile is a lover of women, then wouldn't that apply to heterosexual men, too?

And if a boy is described as an androphile, a lover of adult men, does this mean he is only attracted to “men” rather than males his own age?

These are examples of several flaws I see with those terms. Being a “lover of” something can tell a person a lot about what it is you are attracted to, but it says nothing about the orientation of a person. Unless, of course, one emphasizes the gender of the subject in question.

The suffix “-sexual”, however, clearly describes the person's orientation sexually to others. And both “hetero” and “homo” clearly establishes if that orientation is to the same or the opposite gender.

Another flaw that I see in using terms like “homophile” is that, 1) “heterosexual” isn't likely to disappear anytime soon, 2) adopting “androphile” and “gynophile” would simply be quite confusing to most folks, 3) and lastly, “homophile” would probably be thought of by the uninitiated as some sort of variant of “pedophile”. And in my experience, people already get confused and even belligerent when someone bothers to make distinctions between “pedophile” and “ephebophile”.

Perhaps it would be nice if these terms went into wider use someday. But I don't think this is an effort that is worth our time, particularly when we have more important things to deal with. Including the over-sexualization of our culture today, particularly homosexual culture.

So, these are some of the odd experiences I've had lately.

I'm not knocking the forum at all — though I wish they would implement a system in which one could create permanent usernames — it's actually very good for our community that there are forums like the Independent Gay Forum out there. It provides our community with a good medium for discussing important issues that tend to be overlooked, and to get a lot of different perspectives on those issues.

It is definitely a rather diverse and independent-minded readership. However, with the good, one must take the bad as well. I'm quickly learning who is, and who isn't worth my time.

No comments: