The Empty Gay Larder

With Mal spending much deserved quality time doing . . . something, and the magical little brownie of soul-wilting torment at my office informing us we must have a gob-smacking amount of paperwork done by the end of the week (we're apparently supposed to have client records in order by the end of the year. Which is ace, because the entire concept of client records has been eluding me lo these many months), I do admit to being at a loss for blogging material.

Let's be honest. The gay community? Obsessed with gay marriage. Robbie? Not so much. I have begun to wonder if the gay community hasn't jumped the shark with all this marriage business. Entering the word "gay" into the google news engine results in scores of articles on whether or not Samuel and Ricky can scarf down a tacky cake with pink frosted roses deep in the bowels of Estonia or some other former Soviet republic whose main export seems to be radioactive mushrooms. Given the number of "married" gay men I know who are banging anything and everything that moves, I admit to being bored to tears with the subject. What we really want is gay health insurance, and that's not very interesting.

The other big story is Papal Rumble '05, with Benedict the Butch taking on Our Lord Lavender in a scripted cage match to the death. The Catholic Church isn't fond of homosexuality. This is apparently a breaking story to anyone who hasn't read a newspaper or a book in, oh, two millennia. I don't believe anyone is really "shocked" and "outraged" about what the Catholic Church is on about. We've known for quite some time. It's all a well-rehearsed pose of indignation (we're becoming really rather good at that). It's no different from the media types gasping this week because the Pope dared to oppose abortion in his Christmas homily. "The pope is against abortion! Can you believe it?!" Oddly enough, I can.

So, right. The gay community needs something new to talk about. I'm all ears at this point, because reading gay news full of nothing but marriage and priests day in and out for months on end leaves me contemplating reparative therapy, just for the change of pace.

Comments

[Scott]

What's a larder?

[Robbie]

Where food is stored.

[Scott]

At first, I thought you had written "The Empty Gay Lardass" and I imagined that tens of thousands of us--perusing this site--would have, if only briefly, thought you were writing about us. Hoewever, I have heard of a larder now that you mention it. It is not a word used much below the Mason-Dixon Line.

[Ethan]

AMEN Robbie!!! This is a great topic and of course ignored by the hands that reach into the larder!

[Jack Malebranche]

I think there are a lot of people wondering what exactly the gay community, such as it is, should be talking about.

Same-sex marriage bores me as well. I'd be suprised if half of the men who say they want it really want it for any reason other than the fact that they feel cheated out of it. Especially the presents and the money. For all of the talk about it, you'd think homos universally loved monogamy.

The Catholic Church flap is about as much of a serious issue as the 'war on Christmas.' The news would have been if the Pope would have said anything nice about homosexuality.

I guess there's just celebrity gossip and the next Madonna video to look forward to, then.

Not much of a community, is it?

Honestly, I think our common culture really is eroding, and that is a good thing. (Sullivan didn't invent that concept...) Homos are out persuing their interests beyond general fagotry. They get together and swap porn, and yap about sex and dating every once in a while...but really, what else is there to talk about? What else do these guys have in common?

In a way, this isn't just gay culture, but culture generally. Groups are becoming more and more specialized, because people with similar interests can find each other so easily via the Internet. Being a homosexual man isn't enough to create an instant bond...because the stigmatization is weaker, homos are out on message boards talking about their favorite TV shows, or director, or historical period, or automobile manufacturer, or recording artist, or software platform, or career path, or whatever. We aren't so damaged and ostracized anymore that we can't share interests with guys unless they also suck dick, or girls unless they're faghags who love fashion and musicals.

What does the gay community have to talk about besides the experience of homosexual preference? Not a Hell of a lot.

[Essem]

"because reading gay news full of nothing but marriage and priests day in and out for months on end leaves me contemplating reparative therapy, just for the change of pace."

Very funny! A sign of mental health.

[Aatom]

"Not much of a community, is it?"

i would submit that sites such as this one seem to contradict that statement rather effectively. a 'community' doesn't have to be a borg-like monolith. it can be a patchwork of various interests and perspectives, stitched together by a common bond, in this case our sexuality. we're a community whether we like it or not, and even if that means that we splinter off into a colorful array of interests and obsessions, at the end of the day we still make up what the rest of the world thinks of as "gay".

i would agree with you that being gay is less of a defining factor in our lives, and i think this is a good thing. and i couldn't agree more about the Catholic Church. yawn. but Robbie knows that I differ with him on the marriage issue. i think it goes way beyond seeking partner benefits and could very well be the next big turning point in our civil rights history. Does this mean that I am obsessed with getting married myself? Hell no. I don't even have a prospective partner yet. And who knows, I may turn out to be an old gay spinster. But this is about a larger issue than just me and my personal needs. If and when I do find someone to share the rest of my life with, I'll want to know that we did everything possible, as a community, to insure that I can get the most out of it as well as feel as if I am part of a larger cultural institution. Because gay people deserve to be institutionalized too, ya know what i mean?

But more importantly, the next generations of gay kiy kids that grow up in a world where gay marriage is possible will develop psychologically in ways that we dared not even dream about. gay teen suicide rates will plummet and rampant drug use coupled with wild unsafe sex practices will decline. Big predictions, I know, but isn't even the possibility worth fighting for?

[Jamie]

I usually agree with most of what you say, Robbie, but not this time. And if most of the "married" gay men you know are "banging anything and everything that moves," then personally I'd change who I associate with. I really don't think you can justifiably say that those people are a representative sample of the "gay community." At least I hope they aren't.

I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, there are those who want to get married merely to make a show of it and shove it in the straight people's faces. (SHAME ON YOU, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE.) But there ARE those of us who are truly fighting for marriage because we love the person that we're with, not just for the shock value.

Jack made a good point in his comment about gay people being "out persuing their interests beyond general fagotry." I don't live my life according to some "gay agenda," nor do I accede to other people's rhetoric when they try and make broad, sweeping statements about gay people. I talk with my gay and straight friends about the same things regardless of their sexuality. And this is a major societal discussion right now, not just within the gay community. We'd be naive, at best, if we did NOT discuss it.

But if you need something to talk about besides "gay marriage," how about slapping some of the reckless homos upside the head for their life-endangering behavior? (I just realized Aatom said almost the same thing as this, but...) how many blogs do we have to read that mention recreational cocaine use, multiple bareback sex partners, or "bug-chasers" before we start shouting, "YOU IDIOTS!!!" from the mountaintop? It's as if the younger gay generation has no clue what happened in the 70's and 80's. So many young men, gay AND straight, can't seem to keep their pecker in their pants anymore. Maybe it's time we convinced some of the younger gay set to learn from OUR lessons?

[Mike]

I think there are a couple of things going on with the younger reckless homos. Firstly, that medical science will stay on step ahead with any disease issues, and secondly, that even if it doesn't they can live fast and leave a beautiful corpse. Fetishism of the male body exascerbates the problem.

Young people are not only a key market, but they've chosen to become products as well. I've said to friends that young gay men - most of whom have never had the "mistake-making in a supportive environment" adolescence of the peers - should be discouraged from gay bars until they've got a real life.

[hank]

There is no "gay community".
You couldn't possibly stitch together so many disparate groups and call it a "community".

BTW. Talk at the dinner party I attended on Christmas, was that the Pope is gay. I know,I know. Too delicious, (that is except for the poor guy he's doing it with . "shudder"

[Jack Malebranche]

Jaime I really don't think you can justifiably say that those people are a representative sample of the "gay community."

I beg to differ. I've lived in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, OR and York, PA.

Monogamous homosexual men are so dramatically in the minority that it seems like sheer delusional propaganda to state otherwise. Just because the religious right says it doesn't mean it isn't true.

That doesn't mean that serious, committed, monogamous homosexual men don't exist, but please. Robbie's statement is actually very representative of the 'gay community' and men, generally.

I've been with my boyfried for 8 years. We're committed, but not exactly (though we are mostly) monogamous.

So many young men, gay AND straight, can't seem to keep their pecker in their pants anymore. Maybe it's time we convinced some of the younger gay set to learn from OUR lessons?

Historically, young men have a hard time keeping their peckers in their pants. That's why sexually oppressive religions and laws were invented.

And new generations rarely learn from their predecessors. People rarely learn. They do what they want until it slaps them in the face.

Aatom -

"Not much of a community, is it?"

i would submit that sites such as this one seem to contradict that statement rather effectively.

Really? I enjoy this blog, but I think you're overestimating it's importance just a little. But if a blog and a group of regular readers and commenters 'proves' that there is a thriving gay community...well...actually I feel my point just solidified by that example. I reiterate:

"Not much of a community, is it?"

There are a gazillion little communities like this on the Internet. I belong to several. I understand that you're making a point that homos are still out there talking and interacting, and they share some vague sense of common culture. Sure.

Anyway, I think that if you talk to a lot of homosexual men (who aren't particularly passionate about politics), I think you'll find a general disinterest in being part of the 'gay community.' It's not just me. And Robbie isn't the first person to say, "I'm bored."

Does this mean that I am obsessed with getting married myself? Hell no. I don't even have a prospective partner yet. And who knows, I may turn out to be an old gay spinster. But this is about a larger issue than just me and my personal needs. If and when I do find someone to share the rest of my life with, I'll want to know that we did everything possible, as a community, to insure that I can get the most out of it as well as feel as if I am part of a larger cultural institution. Because gay people deserve to be institutionalized too, ya know what i mean?

I had a friend who felt vaguely this way recently. I'll never understand it. Why fight so hard for something you know nothing about? It seems like a 20 something girl reading 'Brides' and thinking how great it will be to be married someday, even though she doesn't have a boyfriend and most marriages end in divorce, anyway. Don't drink the Kool-aid. Getting (and staying) married is not the only way that you can live a happy, productive existence. Homosexual men, generally excluded from marriage anyway, should be the first people to be able to understand that there's a lot more to life than 'getting institutionalized.'

Basically, no, I don't know what you mean.

[Jack Malebranche]

Hank - There is no "gay community".
You couldn't possibly stitch together so many disparate groups and call it a "community".

YES!

I have less in common with transexual Jewish lesbians than I have in common with your average straight man! The "gay community" is a socio-political construct.

[Aatom]

"Getting (and staying) married is not the only way that you can live a happy, productive existence."

This has never been the argument that gay marriage advocates are making, Jack. But I'll be damned if I can understand the logic behind the argument that since many gay men do not choose to model their relationships on a monogamous model that we should forfeit the right to even consider it as a choice. Having the right to get married doesn't make it mandatory for christ's sake. Sounds to me like an internalized victim mentality masquerading as sexually liberated bravado.

And while I do enjoy this site immensely, I certainly wasn't trying to argue that it alone represents a siginificant portion of the gay community. I was merely pointing out that this site, and thousands of others like it, are helping connect the disparate elements of the global homosexual population in ways that are new and exciting, providing a much richer conversation than we have previously had access to when it comes to gay issues. My secondary point was that even absent this interconnectivity, we have no choice but to be viewed as a community by the world at large, and as such we have some sort of responsibility to figure out what that means to us. I don't think everyone has to talk about the cock-sucking Pope or gay marriage to be a 'valid' part of the gay conversation. Far from it, I think it's crucial that we tap into the entire spectrum of gay thought in ways that we have never been able to so that we don't continue to get trapped by the kind of gross political stereotypes that have been slapped onto our foreheads for the past 30 years.

I like your style though. You're feisty. I added you to my blogroll. ;)

[Dan]

If anything, this whole string underscores one basic concept: blog world != real world. If I were to bring up the pope or gay marriage in any other social context, it'd be greeted by something between half hearted agreement and total indifference. To tweak Robbie's point a little - the blogosphere needs to catch up with the real world.

Incidentally - != means 'does not equal' in some programming languages. Yes, my CS degree in action.

[Jack Malebranche]

Sounds to me like an internalized victim mentality masquerading as sexually liberated bravado.

Huh? I can honestly say I've never heard that analysis of my viewpoint before. Victim mentality? Nope. I'm not a victim. I like being a homo so much I think more people should try it. I think homosexuality is where it's at, especially when I compare my relationship to the dysfunctional communication between men and women that passes as normal.

I accept the fact that, yes, I have a preference that is a little different from most people's preferences. I take responsibility for that, and don't need them to love me for it, and as long as they stay out of my way, I'm not asking for anything from them.

A victim mentality is making the case that I have an affliction I can't help, and that the majority should change their institutions, designed for entirely different purposes, to include me so that I can feel loved. I could marry a woman and have 2.5 kids. I'd just really, really rather not. Absolving oneself of the personal choice to conform or not to conform is like AA step I: "We admitted that we were powerless..."

That's actually, I think, the definition of a victim mentality.

But I'll be damned if I can understand the logic behind the argument that since many gay men do not choose to model their relationships on a monogamous model that we should forfeit the right to even consider it as a choice.

Just say it: "most." Not "many." Most.

Reality, not idealism, should be at the heart of any argument.

Monogamy doesn't require the approval of civil authorities. I don't really think the government should be in that business at all, now that women are no longer the property of men. Traditional marriage died with sufferage.

The fight for gay "marriage" has never been about 'the right,' it has always been about approval and acceptance.

The reference above to a future where gay kids don't want to commit suicide implies that underlying motivation. If more people accepted us, if we could be included in all of their institutions, we wouldn't hate who we are.

THAT is a victim mentality, mon ami.

I like your style though. You're feisty. I added you to my blogroll. ;)

Thanks! Fiesty, I am. And none of the above should be taken personally, by the way. Just my consistent opinion that only gets stronger every time I have this discussion.

[Jack Malebranche]

Dan - If I were to bring up the pope or gay marriage in any other social context, it'd be greeted by something between half hearted agreement and total indifference.

Agreed. I think these are issues that interest a very select group of people, who on some level enjoy this sort of discussion. Most people would rather be shopping or watching a movie or something. That's the way it is with most things, a few people end up speaking for many who may or may not agree with them, just because the rest of the people are busy doing other things or plain just don't care.

That's actually how I feel about the whole 'gay establishment,' actually. I think it is a group of a few passionate people who attempt to speak on the behalf of many--many who just don't care. That's probably true of 'people of faith,' or any other group of people as well.

Honestly, when I decided I was going to start writing about homo stuff a few years ago, I really had to force myself to read up on 'gay stuff' because it had never even remotely interested me before. What made me do it was the fact that I felt like I had something to say that was being said in private conversations between men everywhere, but was never being read or published. There are a lot of guys that don't give a damn about the gay community, who try to avoid it whenever possible, who have no interest in gay culture, who are well-adjusted, who are doing fine, who have friends and families and boyfriends and don't care if mainstream America accepts them, and who are just happy living life on their own terms, without all of the usual baggage and social obligations that straight people have to deal with.

[Aatom]

"the blogosphere needs to catch up with the real world."

it seems to me that it is quite the reverse.

i think we're all arguing in a bubble just a bit. most people are, by and large and regardless of their race, sex, sexuality, etc., completely indifferent to the hot-button issues that affect them. that's what the whole 'inside the beltway' phenomenon is about. a small representative sample of any population, political perspective, or special interest always speaks and argues for the larger whole, and then pollsters go out and manipulate the rest of the dunderheads into saying whatever it is they want the numbers to say to gain "popular support" for a position. that's how it works. it's not a perfect system, but it's a damn sight better than most.

there has never been a point in gay history where a majority of the population is politically engaged. the Stonewall groups and AIDS-era activists were allowed, by and large, to speak for a much larger population of invisible gay people in America. Later, a much smaller group of GOP upstarts became the voice of gay conservatism in the form of the Log Cabiners. Both groups are quickly becoming a bit irrelevent as a more technologically sophisticated generation of homosexuals discovers that they no longer have to watch in silence as others speak for them. If anything, the blogosphere has opened up the floor to a much wider cross-section of gay voices, but still only the ones that have an active interest in being engaged on some level. That still leaves a lion's share of the population shaking their heads like sheep in agreement with whoever leaves them with the most recent talking points, and by and large most of them would continue to pull the lever in favor of Democrats even if they ran an actual donkey as a candidate.

so you'll forgive me for not hoping that we "catch up" to that kind of ignorance.

[hank]

My partner and I have been together for 12 years, and have no interest in getting married.
I don't get , for that matter,why anyone gets married (except for end of life issues, or contention inheritance problems).But thengain, I don't get alot of things. Like drag, or even why women dress as women.

[Aatom]

"That's actually how I feel about the whole 'gay establishment,' actually. I think it is a group of a few passionate people who attempt to speak on the behalf of many--many who just don't care. That's probably true of 'people of faith,' or any other group of people as well."

jinx. we just said essentially the same thing.

[Aatom]

"Reality, not idealism, should be at the heart of any argument.

Monogamy doesn't require the approval of civil authorities. I don't really think the government should be in that business at all, now that women are no longer the property of men. Traditional marriage died with sufferage."

the argument that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all is the ultimate idealistic flight of fancy. so as long as they continue to be in that business, and realistically they will always be in that business, we should demand to have a right to participate in it if we so choose.

[Jack Malebranche]

jinx. we just said essentially the same thing.

Indeed, we did, though the tone and intent was certainly different.

Enjoyed the discussion, though.

[Aatom]

me too. and i suspect that you care a bit more about these issues than you claim to... :)

[Robbie]

I don't have tons of time to post (work's killing me), but I think my original post was misunderstood somewhat.

I'm not saying marriage isn't valuable or a worthwhile goal. I was more lamenting the fact that it seems to dominate so much of "official" gay conversation. When blogging, I often skim around various news sites to see what's going on in the world and it's "marriage, marriage, marriage!" Tedium. Especially tedious because most of the gay men I know either A. have no interest in it, or B. seem to acquire it like a fashion accessory. "Me and my boyfriend, we're married now," or they're partnered or what have you. And they're still sleeping around. Marriage is the new black.

While Jamie says he hopes that isn't the norm, in my experience, it really is. There are exceptions, of course. There are people out there like Mal and his hubby who are totally devoted to one another, but they are very much the exception.

I don't understand how marriage became the conversation, when most gay men don't even pretend they're going to abide by the traditional strictures. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a gay thing - it's a male thing. If heterosexual men could get away with it, they'd be doing the exact same thing.

I'm also not knocking whatever anyone chooses for themselves. Do what ya like, it's your life. It's not my job to rap knuckles.

I simply think the drive for marriage, especially with its "We're going to sue you until you give!" tactics have burnt an awful lot of goodwill the gay community had built up over the years. All this sturm and drang and bad blood, for something most of us won't even take advantage of (and mark my words, we won't. We just like the idea of having the option because it denotes abstract acceptance. Look at the marriage rates. We're not getting married in droves in the places we can). I think our time and resources could have been better spent on more concrete issues of discrimination and other venues of acceptance. I think we've gone for marriage too hard and too fast without building a solid foundation for it, and we really have derailed somewhere along the way. Now it's all we talk about while smaller, more important venues of advancement increasingly fall by the wayside.

Those are just my political and social thoughts on the matter, though - not necessarily my personal ones. Me? I'm geared towards monogamy. That's just how I am. I assume, at some point, I'll get married and all that. Whether or not the state recognizes it is a different kettle of fish, and I admit to being somewhat apathetic about it.

[Jack Malebranche]

the argument that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all is the ultimate idealistic flight of fancy.

Oh, I agree there. That isn't going away any time soon. Though, that is my position. When you allow the government to authorize sex and relationships in the first place, you set up more systems of control to have issues with.

so as long as they continue to be in that business, and realistically they will always be in that business, we should demand to have a right to participate in it if we so choose.

Should we? Is that something that we require for our happiness and well-being?

I think it's the desire of a minority within a minority, and the state doesn't really need to accomodate that to please a few idealists. They do too much of that already.

I firmly believe that most homosexuals think they should 'have the right' to marriage, but when they get it, they will truly be far more frivolous with it than straight people could imagine being, and they will embarass all of the people who argued 'on their behalf.' Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

I do also take issue to the fact that this idealistic minority within the gay community keeps pushing this issue down people's throats as if it is the most important thing to every homosexual person. It isn't. In fact, the rest of us have to hear about all of the things 'we gays want' all of the time. And a lot of us are sick of it. I don't want anything from anyone that I don't already have. Sodomy has been decriminalized, and that was really the true injustice.

My last point (it wouldn't be, but I have things to do) is that, like 20 something single girls who want more than anything to get married, having access to marriage DOES change the rules and expectations for all of us. Straight people can't live up to those expectations, and I know homos can't. Ultimately, access to marriage will, as Sullivan hopes, dissolve all of the more realistic options, like domestic partnership, that many people have access to now. And that's sad, because those are more pragmatic solutions for moden living.

[Jack Malebranche]

Robbie - Don't get me wrong, this isn't a gay thing - it's a male thing. If heterosexual men could get away with it, they'd be doing the exact same thing.

I agree with that statement completely.

Hope it didn't look like I was twisting your words. I think it's pretty clear that I have my own, distinct agenda. I just enjoy it when people at least partially hint at some of the points I make.

[Dan]

I guess I'm less skeptical about the general public than your are, Aatom. Admittedly, recent political setbacks would make it seem like there is a lot of animus towards gays and lesbians (FMA/DOMA crap, etc...). But realistically this 'hatred' is only skin deep. Most of the people in flyover country who vote against gays don't spend much time thinking about gay rights. And when they do think about gay issues it generally doesn't get beyond the 'eww - gross' stage, so they vote against us. When you get towards the major urban centers, where the straights are forced to interact with gays on a more regular basis, this ignorance-fueled malevolence tends to evaporate pretty quickly. A vast majority of my straight friends (including my managing partner, a devout orthodox jew) take gay rights and even gay marriage for granted. We're here, we're queer and they don't care. It's only when religious wingnut groups like the AFA and lefty wingnut groups like ACT-UP start getting into a pissing match that everybody starts taking sides.

I'm not saying we should be timid - we should always live proudly. And I'm not saying that groups like ACT-UP at one point served a useful purpose. But I think that continually kicking up a shitstorm on an issue that will take years (if not decades) to resolve is just piss-poor strategy. We've already kicked up the shitstorm on marriage and the pope. Time to let people think.

[manhattan offender]

If anything, you've encouraged me to post about gay marriage, which for the most part, I generally don't. But you've really encouraged me to do so. The conversation does not end until I know that my man of seven years (with whom I have been monogamous, despite the thousands of offers) is regarded with the same respect by my country as he would be if he were a she.

We are an oppressed population, and if you choose to be complacent about it, then you deserve what you get. Perhaps the resolution for 2006 should be: Get angry!

[North Dallas Thirty]

Mal and Robbie, a pox on your Trackback......at any rate, Robbie got me thinking enough to where I posted my own thoughts.

Basically put, I agree with Jack, for one simple reason; legal recognition does not a relationship make, nor does it grant the intangible benefits of commitment between two people. My relationship with my partner, to hear HRC and NGLTF tell it, is incomplete and hollow because I do not have a piece of paper from the government validating it; I consider that no different than the insecure queen who refuses to be seen in anything less than Prada in public.

I also take umbrage to manhattan offender's statement that we are an "oppressed population". The fact that heterosexuals can have one-stop shopping when it comes to adding the legal accoutrements that make life simpler and less expensive is an inconvenience, not oppression. True, the theory on which these conveniences are denied is wrong, but in the grand scheme of things, it is nothing but amateur dramatics to compare our "oppression" of extra paperwork and smaller tax refunds to the choice for glbts in Iran of gender reassignment surgery or hanging.

Finally to the point about gay marriage.....I have trouble believing that the "gay community", as exemplified by HRC, NGLTF, and the other groups, really supports gay marriage when they spent mere thousands on fighting initiatives to ban it, but millions on politicians who supported banning it. For instance, in Missouri, HRC spent barely a hundred thousand dollars opposing the state's antigay constitutional amendment; I daresay they blew more on parking and party hats at their DNC convention gala to celebrate the selection of the candidates who supported said amendment.

In short, the problem with gay marriage is that a) several of us don't care and b) the bulk of the people who claim to care are more than happy to give money in support of banning it if it gets a Democrat elected.

[Jack Malebranche]

Aatom:

me too. and i suspect that you care a bit more about these issues than you claim to... :)

Oh I do. But not in the way that you think. I'm dead set against same sex marriage. And when it happens, which I think it sadly will, it will be a travesty. The idealism of a few will be thrust upon a majority that thinks it 'sounds like a nice idea' but for whom it is not a feasible arrangement. They won't have to get married, as I'm sure you'd point out. But they will be expected to. Which, because monogamy is something that is not as functional in theory as it is in reality for most men, will mean more divorces, more wasted court time and administration, needless financial crises and obligations, familial and social pressure to marry instead of living with someone (which makes more sense, for anyone without kids), more disfunctional marriages, etc, etc.

All of that, so that a few very vocal idealists can feel 'equal.' Sounds awesome. For wedding planners and divorce lawyers.

[Jack Malebranche]

NDT -

Basically put, I agree with Jack

I never thought I'd hear that in this discussion. Sweet.

legal recognition does not a relationship make, nor does it grant the intangible benefits of commitment between two people.

And that's the funny thing. To hear me talk, you'd think I lived some swinging lifestyle. Actually, I just made my boyfriend a nice steak for going to the gym with me even though he felt like crap. We're 95% monogamous...but having options is kinda nice. We're together by choice, and not because the government or some church joined us. Honestly, I think the fact that it would be so easy to walk away, but we love each other so much that we stay together, makes our relationship infinitely better than most marriages. We don't need a lawyer to break up. I could walk out right now and we'd just have to deal with the co-owned car. We have an agreement between men, that works for both of us, based on our own personalities, needs and wants. We don't need a pre-fab framework for happiness because we're smart enough to figure out what we need and we don't worry about what everyone else needs. We have the privilege of being able to make things up as we go along. Because there is no institution, each same sex couple has the opportunity to do this, in a virtual vacuum of social pressure. A lot of straight men get pushed into marriage, because it's what women want, and what their families expect. Those marriages end beautifully. Why would anyone want that? Why not create our own relationsips based on our unique needs? Relationships between men and women aren't the same as the relationships between men. The dynamic is different in many ways. This one-size-fits all approach is extremely ill-advised. The gay rights establishment really does come off, to me, like a girl in her early twenties who thinks her life won't be squared away until she finally gets to walk down the aisle. Then she'll be happy and content. Of course, that's no more real for those girls than it is for homos. But both will refuse to believe it, until life smacks them in the face with reality.

[rod townsend]

NDT:
"amateur dramatics"?
sorry you didn't like the word choice. not too fond of some of yours either.
agreeing that oppression is too strong of a word and asking:
"what is the proper word for a population that is treated as second-class citizens?"

random thoughts:
monogamy argument: I've never met a straight man that did not, at some point, cheat.
curious: of those that 'don't care' about gay marriage, how many are in a relationship?
overreaching thought: is self-loathing so ingrained in some of us that we don't feel worthy of equality?

[rod townsend]

for clarity's sake:
manhattan offender = rod townsend
work computer settings vs. home computer setting

[Jamie]

Wow. This conversation is so much better than most forums, and it's a comment page! Speaks volumes for Mal & Robbie's loyal fan base.

I never claimed that we "need" a piece of paper or governmental recognition. What I "need" is for society to evolve to the point where IF I choose to marry my partner I can do it without some jackass from Kansas standing outside the door shouting, "Boo! Die!!" It's a long way to go, but I intend to keep hacking away at society until people listen.

Jack, I notice that all of the places you listed are fairly large cities. Which are usually not representative of the rest of the country. I live in quite a rural environment in Vermont, and while I certainly know people who aren't monogamous, most of my gay friends actually prefer it. So I guess it depends on where you live, but I still don't think the "anti-monogamy" attitude is prevalent everywhere. Perhaps in the big cities, but then I'm just a country mouse happy to sit at home with my cowboy. (Yep, we even have horses.)

This whole discussion really showed me just how lucky I am. Thanks, guys.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"what is the proper word for a population that is treated as second-class citizens?"

"Single".

This is where the whole "innovative thought" comes in for advancing and moving forward the fight on equality. I'm sure there are several other single people in the world who would like to designate a portion (or all) of their estate to someone other than their blood relatives, or give someone who's not a family member their medical power of attorney, or have friends who aren't relatives visit and check on them if they are ever hospitalized. But instead of exploiting that existing need and seeking alliance and help with people who want the same things we do, we blow them off with, "Well, you can get MARRIED."

In answer to your "don't care" question, I AM in one, and one that could, by virtue of where it's headquartered, be legally bound in domestic partnership. But the problems that we keep running into are deal-breakers, such as the fact that the property that we individually own in vastly-disparate geographic areas under different taxing structures would be pooled. Creating a prenup would solve that problem, but that's as much hassle as simply cherry-picking the benefits we need for us on a day-to-day basis (limited and medical power of attorney, rewriting our wills, etc.). And honestly, from what my gay lawyer friends tell me, there are a LOT of gay couples in California that are in the same pickle. It's just plain hard trying to force relationships that are very different on a lot of levels, including the degree of social pressure to form or stay in them, into a model that was built for heterosexual couples with children.

There's another thing, though, and it's exemplified by this (emphasis mine):

Five years ago Carolyn Conrad and Kathleen Peterson became the first same-sex couple in the nation to have their relationship legally recognized.

The women, who at the time had been together for five years, were the first couple to have a civil union in Vermont.

Now, Conrad is asking a Brattleboro court to dissolve the union.

"All I want to say is that the civil union was a big source of pride for me and now it's not," Peterson told the the Rutland Herald.

The gay community already has enough problems with shallow value assessments. Leather goods aren't good on you unless they're Prada. Our car has to be foreign for us to be worthy. The label makes up for the fact that those jeans make your butt look like the trunk of a Buick. Anyone over the age of thirty is no longer pretty. Sex without tina isn't fun. And now, apparently, our relationships are no longer worthwhile unless they're legally recognized.

This is not odd, psychologically, for a group of individuals who have spent huge swaths of their life being deemed at best neutral and at worst, being damned to hell. But what it makes us susceptible to is putting too much value on things that are objective, like pricetags or legal documents, and, like toddlers around the world, throwing a tantrum over the toy we ditched five minutes ago because now someone else is playing with it.

Like I blogged yesterday, on an abstract level, I fully and completely support equality regardless of sexual orientation. But you simply can't convince me that "equality" comes from receiving exactly the same laundry list of benefits and protections as heterosexual couples with kids do. Again, we're buying based on label instead of how the clothes actually fit.

[manhattan offender]

Prada is so five years ago.

[Dan]

I sympathize with what you're saying, NDT. As a pragmatic liberal (emphasis on pragmatic, not liberal), I really don't want to get caught up in what seems like a semantic argument.

Fundamentally, however, I can't help but notice parallels between your argument and the arguments segregationists used to support 'separate-but-equal' laws. I'd highly recommend reading the famous "Brown v. Board" ruling to clarify what I mean. Bottom line is that anything 'separate' is inherently unequal. There's no logical reason to exclude gays from marriage other than overt discrimination. Discrimination is anathema to democracy. So prohibiting gay marriage is detrimental to democracy, QED.

Yeah, I know it sounds like I'm being overly picky. But sometimes you gotta draw a line, and I think this is an area where we need to take a principled stand. Where I disagree with people like aatom is how we go about taking this stand. I think if we're not careful we're gonna sound like a bunch of whiney bitches. We've made our case; time to shut up a little. As the SJC ruling in Massachusetts shows us, people are listening.

[Aatom]

i couldn't agree more with this, Dan: "There's no logical reason to exclude gays from marriage other than overt discrimination. Discrimination is anathema to democracy. So prohibiting gay marriage is detrimental to democracy, QED"

that's pretty much the entire basis of my argument. I'm not sure where exactly I started to sound whiny. you've hit the nail on the head with the 'bitch' part though. guilty as charged.

look, i don't think we need to be parading in front of city hall throwing eggs at people. i'm not sure why my comments seem to strike several of you that way. maybe it's because i argue for this issue so passionately. but it seems to me that the basic argument here is whether or not you believe marriage, as an institution, has any value for a society at all, gay or straight. if you do believe that it does, and I do, then you pretty much have to believe that gay couples deserve the right to participate. the process of constructing legal shelters and binding contracts that even begin to simulate the thousands of tiny legal and financial benefits granted automatically to married couples in this country is long, arduous and way too confusing for most couples that don't have access to over-priced lawyers to deal with. not to mention the automatic benefit of granting access to this country if you happen to be dating someone who isn't a citizen.

I'm no activist lurking in a church pew waiting to throw condoms on people. Just a concerned gay citizen who happens to believe in marriage as a stabilizing and inspirational force for society. I happen to believe that we should strive to achieve this legislatively, and with as little overt court action as possible. for this to work, we have to have some popular support from the voting public. and i agree that the signs are pointing in good directions for this and that we shouldn't go out there with the aim of offending those that disagree with us at this point. I don't care if all gay people don't agree with me about this, that would be rather depressing honestly. but just because you may enjoy sitting at the back of the bus (i know i always did, that's where the cool kids liked to sit) doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to have the option to sit up front if we so choose.

[Jack Malebranche]

Jaime - Jack, I notice that all of the places you listed are fairly large cities. Which are usually not representative of the rest of the country.

Well, York, PA, is not a large city. It's where I grew up, and I'm fairly familiar with its homo scene. My experience there, and even with Portland, is that everyone manages to screw everyone in the small scene and then settle down because they've tested all of their options. In a bigger city, you constantly have more options. I don't think the people are different, I think the selection is different. It's often the same problem with straight people in larger cities. There really is always someone hot just around the corner worth checking out.

What I "need" is for society to evolve to the point where IF I choose to marry my partner I can do it without some jackass from Kansas standing outside the door shouting, "Boo! Die!!" It's a long way to go, but I intend to keep hacking away at society until people listen.

That doesn't sound like a need. It sounds like a want. Sounds like you and your cowboy are doing just fine without 'the word.'

And I want to reiterate that I'm not anti-monogamy, I'm pro realism. I think one of the best things about male/male relationships is that men tend to be very realistic with each other about 'being men.' Instead of trying to conform to a pre-fab morality construct or being saddled with the sexual insecurity of many women who aren't even comfortable with their men looking at porn, two men tend to better understand each other's needs and make arrangements that can satisfy those needs. Monogamy comes to some of us naturally, others like to know that they can have other experiences as long as they (to paraphrase Jack Fritscher) "remember the home team." As Robbie mentioned, most straight guys would want the freedom to sample other fare if they could get away with it.

Rod - overreaching thought: is self-loathing so ingrained in some of us that we don't feel worthy of equality?

Why does a difference of opinion signify self-loathing? Why does equality necessitate marriage?

The married couple downstairs spent all last night screaming at each other and their new baby.

I don't want "equal."

I want "better."

And that doesn't mean trying to fit a round peg into a square hole by clamoring for an institution that is broken, when I already have something better, that suuits my needs.

overreaching thought: is self-loathing so ingrained in some of us that we need to feel oppressed to feel 'special?'

Just asking.

[Jack Malebranche]

Aatom - but just because you may enjoy sitting at the back of the bus

That's a little condescending. And comparing who I decide I want to fuck with someone born with black skin is always a slippery slope to nonsense. It's not exactly the same thing. Sometimes similar, but not the same.

but it seems to me that the basic argument here is whether or not you believe marriage, as an institution, has any value for a society at all, gay or straight.

That is a far more interesting debate than this one. I don't know if that is the self-evident truth that people make it out to be. I think what NDT and I are both saying is that maybe before we all storm the White House we need to have a better discussion about whether or not that is actually true or just seems like a nice idea. And it may not be, and if it isn't let's make something better than an institution that hasn't included us for the whole of human history...even in periods when homosexuality was tolerated. Maybe we need something slightly more tailored to fit our needs and our relationships as they differe from others. Or maybe straight people need something different, too, (it certainly seems that way) and we can lead the way instead of trailing behind.

the process of constructing legal shelters and binding contracts that even begin to simulate the thousands of tiny legal and financial benefits granted automatically to married couples in this country is long, arduous and way too confusing for most couples that don't have access to over-priced lawyers to deal with.

I agree. But when you look beyond the romatic ideal, marriage also creates perhaps TOO MANY legal binds. My sister just got engaged. I'm happy for her and everything, but like most kids in their 20s, she and her future husband are both up to their ears in debt that was created seperately. If they get married, and he gets hit by a car the next day...she's liable for virtually all of that debt. If they were not married, the debt would disappear. No one ever thinks about things like that. (The alternative is paying for life insurance.)

When you have two people capable of carrying their own weight, why do you want the government to create legal and financial binds that are as inflexible as marriage? People are too caught up in the romance of marriage, and don't think enough about all of the potential problems it also creates.

Call me crazy, but I think that two men who are both fully capable of supporting themselves maybe don't need all of the bells and whistles that marriage offers. It was designed for a different sort of couple, in a different time.

[Jack Malebranche]

Isn't a little ironic, given the original post, that we're all talking about marriage? Again.

[Robbie]

Just a concerned gay citizen who happens to believe in marriage as a stabilizing and inspirational force for society. I happen to believe that we should strive to achieve this legislatively, and with as little overt court action as possible. for this to work, we have to have some popular support from the voting public. and i agree that the signs are pointing in good directions for this and that we shouldn't go out there with the aim of offending those that disagree with us at this point.

Aatom, we agree 100% on this.

I'm not opposed to marriage, and I do believe gay couples are more than deserving, if that is what they want and they intend to take the institution seriously. My complaint is more one of emphasis and tactics. Aside from a few isolated places that are bluer than the sky, the "marriage by suing" has backfired into a sleu of amendments. I don't believe a national amendment is passable at this point in history. But, I think, if people kept pushing the courts, and one federal court came out with a decision, we just might see that federal amendment come to be. Many of the senatorial hold outs against FMA have used "I don't think it's necessary," and/or "DOMA is enough." Should a Ninth District-like entity decide that isn't the case, gay couples who want marriage could be very much hosed.

So, my attitude is, the gay community (i.e. the HRCs and Taskforces of the world) need to chill a little, use their resources on creating a societal foundation for the rejection of homophobic discrimination, and generally foster a culture - especially with youth - where gay marriage is no big deal among a large majority, and legislative action becomes a reasonable, realistic goal.

[Robbie]

Isn't a little ironic, given the original post, that we're all talking about marriage? Again.

LOL, I'll be honest. I wasn't fishing for a marriage debate. I was just making a post basically saying "I have nothing to blog about."

But this is a very, very interesting discussion, and I hope it continues.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Dan, I don't think you're being overly picky at all, and you make a perfectly-reasonable argument. And you're right that there ARE some parallels between what I am saying and the arguments that segregationists were making.

However, what I think you need to keep in mind is that the segregationists' argument was based on there being some major, inborn, biological difference between white people and people of color, with that justifying the separation. Mine is based on there being a major, inborn, biological difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples, and that one is pretty obvious -- two of the same sex versus two of opposite sexes. We're working from the same general premise; it's just that my argument is supportable and theirs wasn't.

The reason this is important is because, as I've alluded to above, marriage in the legal sense is built for heterosexuals with children. It takes into account gender differences, biological relationships, and many other things that simply do not exist in gay relationships -- or many straight ones, for that matter. What I fear is that we're seeking "laundry list equality" -- that is, we won't be equal until we have exactly the same benefits as straight married couples, regardless of whether they make sense to apply to us or not.

From a pragmatic standpoint, the other reason I feel this way is the disparity in peoples' viewpoints. If you ask people whether or not they support gay marriage, a majority will answer in the negative. But if you ask them whether or not they support some legal benefits and protections for gay couples, a similar majority, if not more, will answer in the affirmative.

What the gay community needs to do, in my opinion, is figure out what benefits/protections people are OK with gay couples having, find out which ones they emphatically don't want gay couples having (which probably won't be many), take an honest look at whether those objections are reasonable and supportable, and construct a model based on that -- and then lobby to apply it to all couples in similar situations, regardless of orientation.

What I think you'd find, for example, is that most of the touchy provisions in marriage law are those dealing with children and the associated tax breaks. If that is the case, disassociate those benefits and tax breaks from marriage itself and make them conditional on children AND marriage, regardless of orientation. At the same time, you change divorce laws so that THEIR provisions that are meant to protect children (i.e., California's common property statute) apply only to marriages WITH children.

In other words, in exchange for recognizing gay marriage, we make marriage less painful for straights who are in the same situation as most gay couples, while clearly delineating that it is in society's best interest to promote and benefit committed couples who want to raise children. We've kept the root basis of marriage, which is a commitment between two individuals, and we've changed the benefits structure to recognize what we want to incent in this modern age. And, most importantly, we've based benefits and protections, not on prejudice or potential, but on presence of what they are meant to protect and promote. Everyone is treated equally and with the same level of meaningfulness.

[Jamie]

Jack:

You're right, we are doing quite well without "the word." I don't know if we actually would get married if we could. It does cause problems as well as find solutions, which many people seem to be ignoring. But it should still be my choice, not the choice of anyone else, any person, any government.

I do appreciate the fact that you're not "anti-monogamy" but rather "pro-realism." I just think we can change that reality.

I still don't think you're on the money with the premise that all men are a bunch of horndogs, for lack of a better term. Sure, many straight men would stray if they could get away with it. But that attitude of "getting away with it" holds much of the allure in and of itself. I think once the gay "community" matures--we're still in our childhood when it comes to living our lives without concern for public scrutiny--that the attitude of many gay men will change. Like the idea of "courtship." A lot of gay men shudder at the thought of it, but courtship and romance, imho, are still worthy concepts. And, indications are that today's youth are more conservative on most issues, but still highly tolerant, if not wholly accepting, of gay men and women.

On the other side of what you were saying, VT, where I live, only has 600,000 people in the whole state. So York, PA is still pretty big to me.

[Jack Malebranche]

We've kept the root basis of marriage, which is a commitment between two individuals, and we've changed the benefits structure to recognize what we want to incent in this modern age. And, most importantly, we've based benefits and protections, not on prejudice or potential, but on presence of what they are meant to protect and promote. Everyone is treated equally and with the same level of meaningfulness.

This sounds, to me, a lot more like practical problem solving than emotional pleas for cookie-cutter equality...and I like it. This is what I would agree needs to be done. The part about children would be interesting to work out, though I'm certainly the wrong man for that job. The baby crying in the apartment below is to me what the neighbor's dog was to David Berkowitz.

I really think that some sort of domestic partnership or civil union would not only work better for many homos, but for their straight counterparts as well. I think that in places where 'gay marriage' is legalized, these more pragmatic solutions will be morally subverted by the same people who brought you hits like "no sex before marriage."

Can you imagine "no sex before marriage" being pushed on homos? That's just comical. Marriage is the 'all or nothing' option, and people will be expected to either put up or shut up. Which, I think, would actually place most homo couples exactly were they are now: with no or minimal legal protections. If you offer a pragmatic solution like the one offered above, that would be attractive to a broader range of couples, you would actually have a greater portion of the homo population benefitting from those benefits at a given time.

That's not just 'equal.' It's 'better.'

[Jeff]

This isn't an open discussion, its a friggin' Epistle according to Jack Malebranche! Whaddya think your the next Martin Luther Queen or sumthin'? Hell, when we do get marriage rights, remind me not to let Jack give the toast.
Oh man, I'm exhausted.

[Jack Malebranche]

Jaime - I still don't think you're on the money with the premise that all men are a bunch of horndogs, for lack of a better term

Not all, but many if not most. Men DO have a higher sexual drive than women. That's pretty much an established fact.

I just think we can change that reality.

Why would we, necessarily, want to?

That seems like imposing an artificial morality that doesn't suit the human animal.

And again, let's not deal with abstract dreams. Let's deal with reality in the here and now. Almost every religion and society has sought to curtail a natural male tendency toward promiscuity. And the success rate has not historically been fantastic.

Again, it's funny...I'm not referring to you specifically, but I keep hearing that my ideas imply an internalized homophobia, and yet somehow all of thse grown men who are just wild, crazy kids who need to be told how to behave? Maybe they're just men, without women to stop them from being men.

A lot of gay men shudder at the thought of it, but courtship and romance, imho, are still worthy concepts.

Again, do we just follow the model? Do men bring each other flowers and candy and who gets down on one knee to propose? The cookie cutter doesn't fit. We're men, we deal with each other as equals, and like other men, we make agreements and define our terms. That's not to pooh-pooh love, but it's not that Mars/Venus love, it's something a little different. Let's figure out what works for us. We're on the ground floor here, really. Instead of co-opting existing institutions that really don't fit, if we want institutions at all, we can and should define our own, in the context of our different relationships. Maybe it's just me, but I find that exciting and inspiring.

And, indications are that today's youth are more conservative on most issues, but still highly tolerant, if not wholly accepting, of gay men and women.

Public opinion blows in the wind. I wouldn't count on that when constructing ideas about the future. There could be a huge economic crash or a war or a cultural shift.

On the other side of what you were saying, VT, where I live, only has 600,000 people in the whole state. So York, PA is still pretty big to me.

PA is actually pretty spread out. I've never even been to Pittsburg, I've actually only visited Philly 2-4 times, and there was a cornfield in my backyard. I feel pretty comfortable with the fact that I was, indeed, raised fairly redneck, in a rural environment. Whenever I would go home to visit the one gay bar, and it is now closed, I'd see the same 20 faces with a few new ones. Over a 10 year period. Many were in relationships, but they were taking what they could find. In a place like LA, you will never run out of new, hot guys, no matter what look or scene you are into. That's the difference. Populations are growing, not declining, and more places, not less, will become like that. It is the very small town, not the urban and suburban area, that is becoming less prevelant. The small town I grew up in where no one ever left, and everyone went to church and knew one another--Red Lion, actually, York is just the bigger dot on the map--is slowly becoming a suburb of Baltimore, MD. Which is over 1.5 hours away. That is the future. Sad in some ways, but true.

[Jack Malebranche]

This isn't an open discussion, its a friggin' Epistle according to Jack Malebranche!

I don't know, I thought several people disagreed with me...sorry for having something to say that isn't just a refrain of the same old lines.

Whaddya think your the next Martin Luther Queen or sumthin'?

Liberation begins when we stop referring to each other as women.

Hell, when we do get marriage rights, remind me not to let Jack give the toast.

Don't worry, somehow I doubt I'll even be invited to the party.

But I'll take the hint and try to get some other work done.

[Robbie]

Yeah, but they're enjoyable epistles. I'm getting quite a lot of out of the discussion, thinking about the issue in ways I haven't before.

So no one's allowed to stop discussing this until I give the all clear signal.

Otherwise I get out the glitter hose.

And trust - no one wants that.

[Jeff]

Jack! Jack! Never let go Jack!

PS: Doll, (oops,sorry I meant Sir), your on top of the invite list! Hell, I bet you'd make a hell of a bridesmaid. (Groomsman, dammit I meant groomsman).

Cheers, and Happy New Year!

[Jack Malebranche]

Jeff -

That's right...you can call me 'Sir.'

*grabs crotch and spits*

Now, on that note, I really do have to do something today.

[Barry]

Jack is a man obsessed with straight people. His blog includes vitriol spewed about women which is actually a very "gay" attitude circa the the 20th century and he links to a porn site of men f-ing women.

A whole lotta talk. But in the end, he does protest too much, simple as that.

[AGJ]

"Liberation begins when we stop referring to each other as women."

An interesting discussion in this thread, but this statement here really resonates with me. I'm sick and tired of grown men acting like "pretend women" and so-called liberals using frankly misogynistic language just because others have an opinion which doesn't mirror the Mindset. Fuck the Mindset. I'm gay that's true but I never signed on to marching lockstep with anyone while checking my brain at the door. Thanks Robbie, Jack, and the others here I've enjoyed this, wish I had more time to post.

[Jack Malebranche]

Barry - Jack is a man obsessed with straight people.

That's a convenient snap judgment. Interesting that I am not the one proposing that we act just like them. Thanks for the investigative journalism, though.

His blog includes vitriol spewed about women which is actually a very "gay" attitude circa the the 20th century

I am a little bit of a misogynist. I don't hate women. I do think they tend to over-rate themselves, and men have been forced to buy it for the past generation or so, and have been expected to become more like women. I also don't like the fact that blatantly feminist and matriarchal ideologies dominate the discussion of homosexuality. I'm just a man who appreciates men, and would like to see them retain some of what it is that I like about them. But that's all a little off-topic.

he links to a porn site of men f-ing women.

Hey, it's hot. And I'm not the only homo tuning in. And porn pay$.

A whole lotta talk. But in the end, he does protest too much, simple as that.

Nice personal attack....nothing of substance to add, then?

[Jack Malebranche]

AGJ - I'm sick and tired of grown men acting like "pretend women"

Me, too.

If you're really a man who is happy with and proud of the fact that you are sexually attracted to men...why emasculate yourself in doing so? Why make yourself a 'hermaphrodite of the soul?' Why check your manhood at the door? Believing you can't be both a complete man and a homosexual is the ultimate 'internalized homophobia,' because it assumes that accepting one's own homosexuality demands the acceptance of an innately flawed or lacking masculinity.

I think that the technology is available, and those who want to be women should take advantage of that technology.

[Jaimee]

Jack - While I completely understand how annoying it is when lots of gay people try to be "pretend women" and try and act more feminine than they actually are (and I definitely agree that internalized homophobia contributes to it - and possibly the need to "fit in with the gay community" which might be fostered by the often alienated youths of gay people), it sounds a bit like you're resentful even of those who come by their femininity naturally.

I suppose its debateable whether or not any gay man really does come by femininity naturally, and it might all originate nurturally (to invent a word) through social situations and society and such. But do you honestly believe that? So many gay men are undeniably effeminate: can internalized homophobia really be the source in all these cases? Even if its not genetic or something physiological like I think it must be, many of the social situations, that would cause it, happen so early and are so unavoidable that they might as well be considered "natural."

That said, I don't see why feminine men would necessarily want to "take advantage of the technology" and become women. I think most of them can be more than content with their penis AND their feminine qualities.

And while it is annoying that matriarchal ideologies make up the loudest voice coming from gay men, when there are clearly those like yourself, who would rather smash society's cookie-cutter of monogamous marriage into little pieces, I think a lot of them do legitimately hold these values (probably not the majority though!). Yes, their sex drives probably outweigh their desire to be monogamous a lot of the time, but I still think that desire exists moreso than in straight males, and isn't just some frivolous emotion that they would ignore if they hadn't checked their brains at the door.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are too many unanswered questions to assume that everyone who's less than completely willing to devote themself to an all masculine set of values is just a "pretend woman" and a self-loathing gay. Lots of gay men are feminine, and although the biological reality of being a man exists, with all the "spread the seed" instinct that goes along with it, does that mean that it is impossible for men to have a female sensitivity and nature, contradictory as it may be?

And wow, that was irrelevant and long. Sorry if I'm a retard.

[Jack Malebranche]

That was irrelevant to this particular discussion, but it was a thoughtful response and deserves to be addressed.

Some men are undeniably more less masculine than others. This includes straight men. I think we've all met some very fussy straight men. I don't think that we should round up the queens in 'camps' or anything. They contribute their own unique perspective, and while I don't really necessarily find them as entertaining as they find themselves, I don't think they should be discriminated against in any way. They will always face a certain stigma that has nothing to do with homosexuality; men naturally revere manhood, and whether it's right or wrong, naturally want the men around them to act like men.

However, I do think, and you seemed to agree to an extent, that a large percentage of effeminate behavior is learned. It's a defense mechanism. Homos learn to hate masculinity with the left hand and revere it with the right. I think it is becoming less and less necessary for them to do this, and we're seeing more and more young men who don't have to call themselves 'girl' because they feel so cut off from the world of men.

People who fear homosexuality would prefer that we at least acknowledge that we are half-men. We're 'OK' as long as we aren't real men, and we defer to straight men, who are, after all what real men should be.

Anyway, I will email you a link to more of my thoughts on this, since it is off topic.

[rarevestine]

Bourne is totaly worth [URL=http://advance-payday-sacramento.kvadratdvd.com]extra dollar[/URL] then Rush Hour 3! I think 3rd part rearly as interesting as the first! But this was great!

[Joy]

It's good topic and your opinion is very good.