Short answer – there is no direct, 1:1 connection between a man calling himself gay and an oppressive force being used against me. People can and do call themselves a wide variety of things that don’t affect me at all.

I don’t have an extreme position. I don’t want to view others as extremes, as binary, oppositional or necessarily confrontational, in all-or-nothing categories. Through BTB we see real opposition every day: a beating at McDonalds, a sanctioned kidnapping by a university, intolerance by religious leaders etc. It becomes easy, even normal, to view everything as a fight – and if what I say sounds a little bit different, they must be fighting words too. Not so.

I admit I was naive when I first posted here. I have followed gay RSS feeds for a while but never really delved into the message forum areas. I simply and mistakenly expected other people to be like me – and that is why my response on “language wars” was abrupt, densely worded and perhaps even overstated.

I expected more trickle-down effect of academic thought – but what appears to be the ‘centre’ of the understanding is that which “naturally flows from one’s same-sex attraction” (to paraphrase T Kincaid).

In fact I am a neighbour. I agree with Timothy on this point:

T Kincaid, 20th March: I think that the most important part of gay identity, at this point in time, is how it impacts the inherent distinctions that direct our lives.

It is my discussion of ‘impact’ and ‘distinctions’ that ignites a confrontational reading in those who are very attached to one reading of the way identity ‘naturally flow[s]‘.

Do gay rights naturally flow out of a straight man feeling sexually attracted to women, and a straight woman having sexual attraction towards men? They don’t. Tolerance and acceptance of difference are socially and culturally learned (these values are also good and real).

To answer your question a longer way:
* if a man calls himself gay and then uses his sense of identity to demand conformity to, and consensus about identity…
* so that he only listens long enough to put someone into a box of ‘friend’ or ‘foe’…
* to the extent that someone who has a diverse voice can be viewed as a malicious, destructive and deceptive threat…
* so that in talking to this person a mode of rhetoric is sanctioned – that means he need not answer their questions, and he may make a variety of false claims about them without quoting for proof, ultimately to their exclusion from debate…
* that the pleasure of rejecting the diverse voice is shared with others through social agreement because it is easier to dismiss than to engage…
* then would you say that it is unreasonable to connect one man’s gay identity to a system of regulating knowledge that at times sacrifices diversity and tolerance for consensus?

This is not always the case.
I don’t speak in a totalising way.
Not everyone who says “I’m gay” is invested in regulating sex, gender and desire norms in other people – they just go with the flow of what feels natural. I am interested in those who are active, online, in a public political forum.
I even say “I’m gay”, but I do it with a nudge and a wink because I know that my ‘impacts’ and my ‘distinctions’ are likely to be ignored in favour of a generic white-gay-male stereotype.

I hope at least my short answer was clear.

In fact, kids committing suicide after being bullied is a good reason NOT to believe in a loving God.

who don’t think identity has a stake in marginalising others,

use policies of compassion, tolerance, civility, honesty and hopefulness to

shun me. . .

It’s a bit like a scab on your knee – you know you shouldn’t keep picking at it, but there it is.

And yes, my students persuaded me to try roller-blading.

Silly me.

We are civil. We speak, and we listen. We consider other points of view, and we formulate our arguments with respect to those points of view. We will acknowledge when opposing arguments are valid, and we will point out errors of fact where we find them. We will carefully characterize opposing positions without putting words in anyone’s mouth. . .

The gay lobby is not one single unit. GOProud is as much a member as any other faction, and in that respect some of my views are left-and-radical, some moderate.

It is improper rhetoric to demand a blanket acceptance of a diverse set of ideas and it is uncivil to write what you have when I ask for clarification. I wish you would consider the BTB principles before posting.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

EA

We are tolerant. …Gays and lesbians are members of each of these groups, as are those who oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians. That’s why we must remember that group leaders are unable to speak for all members of their group, nor can every member of a group be held accountable for the actions of every other member of the group.

I was raised Catholic.

When a Catholic says, “Sex is only made moral withing the heterosexual, non-contracepted, union of husband and wife.”

I reply, “The rightness and universality of heterosexuality is a cultural fiction, repeated, reinforced and regulated until it gains the appearance of reality. Sex acts have no intrinsic morality. Sex acts can be healthy and productive seperate from marriage.”

I find two inconsistencies in your writing:

1) That you have testified that the homosexual orientation and the gay identity are fully intact prior to engaging in sexual behaviour. Why are you comparing me to an Archbishop who also says that sexual orientation is understood as seperate to behaviour? Your argument seems similar to his.

2) You seem to have an anti-religious bias, an anti-Catholic bias and I am not the only person to draw attention to this. The nature of a bias is that it is inaccurate. The inaccuracy that concerns me is that my ideas which are completely contrary to Catholic natural law are taken as being the same as Catholic natural law. How are you able to consistently misread me? I appeal to you to replace suspicion with hope.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/About/Principles.htm

We hope. We hope — we believe — these efforts will allow everyone to be better informed… we can allow everyone to understand each other better – with compassion, tolerance, civility, honesty and hope.