GayAmerican.org

I'm glad you can at least see some of what I see in this "candidate"....he changes his story way too often for me.

Hope you are doing well :)

Check this out, babe:

http://www.banterist.com/archivefiles/000184.html

A thanks to Radosh.net for the link back. And I did miss that "unit cohesion" joke, I'll chock it up to nerves over where the gun's being pointed.

James D, excellent! That pretty much sums it up for me too.

Sheilah, I appreciate your comments here, but I believe that Bush changes his position on important issues just as much. The Flip-Flopper title is just there to distract us from the real issues.

Not to mention the word 'gay' appears in the Republican Party Platform not at all. In fact, they prefer calling us 'homosexual', a turn of phrase meant to dehumanize us.

The Republican platform states that they wouldn't allow Gay Americans to serve in the military at all, specifically:

We affirm traditional military culture, and we affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

That's why I like you so much, because; I can feel free to disagree...and you still like me :)

Just a thought, but I don't think most heterosexuals have any idea that the term "homosexual" is considered dehumanizing by some gay folks. Most folks, including many bigots, don't use that term with any ill-intent (maybe some would if they knew better).

And maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't imagine that many top-ranking Republicans have enough knowledge of the gay community to cheapshot gays with sly wordsmithing...after all, what's the point of being subtle in that area when they already feel free to be overt with their beliefs/prejudices.

If gays are being offended every day by heterosexuals using the term homosexual, I don't think the message is getting out very well. It's like with the term same-sex...how many heterosexuals used the term same-sex, muchless had ever heard of it before the recent push for same-sex marriage licenses and the defense of marriage initiatives?

Now as for reasons to abolish don't ask, don't tell, I'll have to get long-winded sometime and relay a couple ugly stories of how that policy has gone wrong in the military, from a retired insider's view.

Gordie,

I think you're right, most people do not know that the term 'homosexual' can be offensive to Gay men and Lesbians. And I doubt many of us mind when it is used in the context of 'heterosexual vs. homosexual' orientation and I have even talked here about dealing with my homosexuality, though seldom -- I more often use 'sexual orientation.'

But calling me 'a homosexual' calls to mind a diagnosis more than an orientation. Especially when 'homosexual' is the only term used in referring to Lesbians and Gay men.

Have no doubt though, that those who are against the civil rights of Gay Americans are familiar enough with the subject matter to know that the preferred term is 'Gay' -- the use of the term 'homosexual' is meant as a pejorative; demeaning and dehumanizing:

From Jerry Falwell's Web site: "I am greatly concerned over recent Canadian and American liberal court rulings in favor of homosexual "marriage", the legalization of sodomy, and other actions damaging the traditional family."

It is amazing the amount of time people devote to denigrating fellow human beings.

I will leave this all too long response with this way too long quote from Wikipedia, which I think indicates that this isn't just some bug I have about the term:

In particular the description of individuals as homosexual may be offensive, partially because of the negative clinical association of the word stemming from its use in describing same-sex attraction as a pathological state before homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973. The use of the word homosexual in describing individuals and same sex relationships may also be inaccurate.

Likewise, the use of homosexuality to describe sexual behavior between people of the same sex can be seen as insulting and may be inaccurate. Same-sex oriented people seldom apply these terms to themselves, and public officials and agencies often avoid them. For instance, the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington's Glossary for school employees advises that gay is the "preferred synonym for homosexual," and goes on to advise avoiding the term homosexual as it is "clinical, distancing and archaic":

Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adjective). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred, at least in the Northwest.

The Guardian Style Guide, Newswatch Diversity Style Guide, and the Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern of the American Psychological Association's Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language all agree that "gay" is the preferred term.

Heh, you know... I guess this is just me being weird, but... I don't really mind either which way. Homosexual is a technical term, and gay is a slang term; so long as people know what you're saying, and don't intend offense... (I feel really silly posting here... everyone else's posts are so professional >

I'm first going to respond to Gordie, then I'll address the situation of "Don't ask, don't tell."
Gordie states that it's dehumanizing to refer to a gay person a "homosexual". At the same time, it's not a problem to call a straight person, a "heterosexual"... This is not dehumanizing but the ladder is? This sounds like a classic case. Gays (I won't use homosexual anymore, I wouldn't want to make anyone feel like they were a less than human) Gays state that the use of the word "fag" or "faggot" is profane. I can see how this derrogatory remark would bother anyone. But the use of a scientific termonology bothering someone is bizarre to me. But for the sake of being as unoffensive, while still having beliefs of my own, I will further refrain form using the word homosexual.
The classic example I was refering to is of course the word 'fag'. I never hear any straight people use the word anymore. I think since about 1999 to about 2001, depending on what part of the country you live in, this was now considered taboo, largely from media attention and the slow introduction of the gay lifestyle by a host of different sources.. MTV, being the biggest avenue.
But, now we have gays saying it rather frequently and loosely which completely nulls and voids any claims that it is offensive. It's the same thing as the word 'nigger'. It's offensive, but only we can say it? No, that's not how it works. If you don't like the word, then you don't get to say it 5 times a day.
As far as the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, it's like putting a band aid on an amputee. If I were gay, I would be horribly offended. I understand the crisis that the Clinton administration felt. "Well, if we say they can't be in the military, we'll lose our vote to the gay public. If we say they can be in the military, this is going to cause a major rift in the US military." But all he had to do was go by the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice). It's nobody's buisness what your sexual preference is. But at the same time, they seperate men and women to lessen sexual desire. So what are we supposed to do? Have a straight male bathroom. Have a gay male bathroom. Have a straight female bathroom. And a gay female bathroom??? And that goes for showers, rooms, racks, and everything else that is in the military. It's a huge conflict of interest. Because I'm a man, they would never place in me in a barracks room with a female in fear that we'd (ahem, you know) or that I would be harrasing her. The same can be said of military officials with the gay situation. Now we have to worry if someone is gay and his roommate is constantly self-concious 'cause the man in his room is checking him out everytime he gets out of the shower. No! Why should we accomdate for you what we don't accomodate for ourselves? Now, I have to somehow place gay men with straight women and gay women with staright men, while discerning between placing straight men with straight women, shit I'm confused! Why don't some gay people offer some of the solutions to problems they've never considered. I was in the military very recently. I was an MP, so I worked the gates alot. I've seen about a million very obvious lesbians come through. I've seen Marines wearing fuckin' eyeshadow come through my gate! Iv'e seen it all. And check this out. If I spend a few weeks time working with someone, I'll know if you're gay. So common sense would indicate that most other people would be able to too.
The end result is that the military does not condone the gay lifestyle. We know they are in the military. But you need to understand why it's a conflict of interest. Don't simply get mad becasue you're gay. Think of why it is. Shit, if I tried to count all the world's injustices on both hands, I'd run out of fingers. What was offensive 20 years ago is now condoned, and it's the complete opposite. If I had to worry about offending someone, I'd never be able to speak.

'Homosexual' is not dehumanizing every time it's used, it just depends on the context. It all comes down to weird grammar. Think of it this way: "gay" is an adjective, so to use it you'd have to specify what kind of noun you were talking about--"gay people." You'd have to admit we're people. "Homosexual" can be used as a stand-alone, and _is_ a technical term so it feels scarier. Not to mention it's a bigger word, so saying "the homosexual agenda" is like--OMG! They're going to get us! "Gay agenda" sounds a lot more stupid. "Those damn homosexuals want to get married"--OMG! End of the world! "Gay people want equal rights"--well, ok, who doesn't agree with equal rights?

On one side, Andrew, you can see it as us being paranoid, everyone's out to get us. But then you realize that the kind of people who use the term "homosexual" exclusively actually do think that we aren't real people.

(On a side note, I'm on the boyfriend's computer and he obviously ahs way better eyesight than me because I can't see what I'm typing.)

The "gay lifestyle" is a myth. The military understands that there is a habit of military men to harrass women. It's been a problem in the past, mostly because punishment hasn't been enforced. The military _doesn't_ understand that harrassment of women dosen't come from sexual desire but from a belief that (gasp!) women aren't real people. If gay men were allowed to be "out" in the military, the issue would not be the gay men harrassing the straight men--it would be the other way around. Straight men would sexually harrass gay men. Gay men would get raped. This wouldn't happen because straight men have sexual desire for gay men but because gay men are _not people_ to straight men. Sex crimes are not about sex but about control.

And for the record, Keith runs the site. I'm just here too much. :P

As far as the roommate situation--constantly worried that the gay man is checking him out--lots of problems with that scenario.

1) I have lived with men since I was 16, and yet I've still never had sex with a man. Self-control is such a radical concept, is it not? Yes, I have lived with attractive men. That doesn't mean I'm trying to look through the key-hole when they are in the shower. This kind of reasoning from you shows that you've never lived with a woman except for your wife. Unlike tv, friends can sometimes just be friends without loads of sexual tension.

2) If the roommate is attractive enough for the gay man to be as desperate as you describe him :), the roommate would surely be used to people checking him out by now and would've gotten over it a long time ago. He should be flattered. Gay men, as a rule, try to stay away from straights (as far as attraction goes) because it turns into a huge mess.

James,
Do you seriously believe that most people, even from the extreme right, think that women and gays aren't real people? Where are you gathering your data from for starters? If we're on the subject of myths, this certainly classifies. This feminism and homosexual outcry is a little ridiculous. This assertion is based on what exactly? I do not agree with this Gloria Steinem outlook on life that is a total fabrication of what realy is going on.
As far as the problem with gays in the military, i think I was very clear. And you're right, alot of gays get harrassed in the military. It's not right, but all the more reason to understand what I'm saying. It causes huge problems. I'm sure some might be raped. And just so you know, I've been more harassed by women in the military than I've seen a woman being harassed. I'm not exagerating either.
My point was not that all gay men and women are desperate and are going to look inside a keyhole. You are aware that men shower together, are you not? If a straight man was taking a shower with a women, he'd a have propensity to look, whether he was being overtly perverted or subtle. And if someone was ogling you, would you like that? I wouldn't.
I'm quite comfortable with self-control. I'm glad to see that you are too. I'm also glad to hear that you've never had sex with a man. Not because I don't want you to have sex with a man, but I think chastity is a very honorable virtue that is seldom exercised. I really believe that if people would wait until marriage, it would cause a genuine respect for that person and the divorce rate wouldn't be out of control. Aside from this, STD's and abortions would be virtually non-existant. That's a fact devoid of errancy. Yeah, teach safe-sex but at the same time, teach abstinance. They just compound the problem by saying do it, but use this. Condoms are about 7o to 90% effective. I don't want even a 10 degree margin for error. The making of a new life and the transmition of a sexual disease is more important than getting your rocks off. I, unfortunately was a little hornball in the past. Yeah, i was hootchie! I regret it, but at the least I recognize the reasons why it wasn't what society claims it to be.
Also, I'm aware that many sexual crimes are crimes of rage first, and crimes of sexuality second.

Andrew, I want to jump in with a few comments, even though I think that James is making some really great points -- and of course I appreciate your interest in having a discussion here.

I would like to start with a quote from a public hearing recently here in Oregon: "My name is Ray Zeta, first I'd like to identify what I'm talking about, the word "gay" is often used, the fact is gay means happy, happy is good and there's nothing good about sin, so let's call it what it is it's homosexuality and sodomy."

For me that really boils down the use of the term homosexual -- as James puts it, "But then you realize that the kind of people who use the term "homosexual" exclusively actually do think that we aren't real people."

If homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuals aren't really people who are deserving of their equal rights, they are people who engage in a despicable practice. And as long as those against our equality can keep this about what we do, vs. who we are, then they win. Identifying us as Gay Americans, would only serve to strengthen our right to exist. Something that they clearly have no interest in.

As for Gay Americans serving in the military, here I am just reinforcing what James is already saying: Get over it.

Right now Gay men are showering with you at the gym. They're in the locker rooms on college football teams, and even in professional sports, right there with teammates showering after a game. They even hit the urinals with everyone else after a movie that's lasted a little too long. And gosh, if what you say is true -- that they are already serving in the military, and anyone that wants to can identify them -- then it is sort of hard to understand where exactly the problem lies.

Well, unless the issue is that some people would be so offended to see Lesbians and Gay men treated just like everyone else.

That likely is it.

And what more do you need to know, as James says it: "Gay men, as a rule, try to stay away from straights (as far as attraction goes) because it turns into a huge mess."

Not a truer thing has been said. Too many straight guys think that we're going to be after them, when in reality we're much happier keeping to our own. I think, personally, that if homosexuality were just some act -- rather than an orientation -- it would be much likely different. Then, I think your concerns might be well founded -- because as an act, there is not so much concern about who it is committed with. As an orientation, there is a desire to have your affection, feelings and even love, returned.

Love. The very sound of it offends me. :P

How do you figure that gays aren't real people because they sin? If this were the case, no one would be a real person. Lying is a sin. If you've lied, then you're a sinner. Wanting the very thing someone else possesses is a sin. Adultery is a sin. We can keep going down the list. I'm a sinner to the millionth degree. Even still, I qualify as a human, especially becasue I have the propensity to sin.
Gay men showering with me... I'm certain it's happened a number of times. Gays in the military, yeah a few are friends of mine. Yes, don't double-take. A few are friends of mine. This of course does not mean to say that I agree with it. I have friends that cheat on their wives... Not good friends becasue bad company corrupts good character. But if I verbally abuse them and rake them over the coals, how does that represent God? It doesn't. In fact, it pushes people further away. I could be just as offended by the Xtians that are all about fire and brimstone. But see, I know what the Word of God says. Over and over and over again, Jesus and Paul and John say that lifting a person up with love is the only way. Those people give God a black eye and he won't hold them guiltless for it. Professing the Word of God is a serious matter. And it irritates me that people will quote the sriptures from the Old Testament and not understand anything about it. Instead they'll hyperfocus on key words such as death and abomination. But most of the time, it's explaining a hisroical event, not what God condones or doesn't condone. It's often taken completely out of context simply becasue they don't know how to read it or won't devote any significant time to it. I hear people all the time try to discredit the Bible, and yet they can't name me 5 books in the Bible off the top of their head. When asked if they've read the Bible: "Oh yeah! Of course I have!" Well, I know that if someone reads the Bible from cover to cover, there is a certain amount that anyone will retain. Even a alzheimers patient could retain something. So what does it really say?
So, I don't want to be associated with groups like the KKK which say they follow Christ and yet butcher it so badly theat it doesn't even resemble anything of Christianity. the Pope in my opinion falls into the category.
I'm going to make an assumption. Please correct me if I'm wrong. My wife and I were watching Margaret Cho's stand-ups one night, and during the opening credits it shows a number of different people standing in line outside of the show. One group was a about 5 or 6 gay men wearing "Ass Masters" t-shirts, obviously to be flamboyant and get some sort of reaction. Now, I'm assuming that gay men like that embaress you, becasue this is what the American public only sees of gay people. Does this embaress you and can you see how the KKK or Jerry Falwell embaress Chrisitans that opt to follow Christ's messag?

"Even a[n] Alzheimer's patient could retain something." (Sorry for correcting bad grammar; it's a habit.)

Actually, they couldn't. The whole point of Alzheimer's is that the brain can't store new memories. If someone in an advanced state of Alzheimer's read the Bible for the first time, cover to cover or otherwise, they wouldn't remember any of it--just like they don't remember what they ate for lunch yesterday or five minutes ago. Incoming stimulation doesn't get any furthur than sensory memory (what is happening here and now).

I can certainly see how the KKK would be an embarrassment to the entire human population. I'm not _embarrassed_ of other people's behavior because it's their behavior, and if you are stupid enough to think that represents all gay men or all of any subgroup, I don't give a shit what you think of me. The only behavior I'm concerned with is my own, and I try pretty hard to never do something to embarrass myself.

My Alzheimers remark was me being facetious.... (Witty, aren't I?) Yes, the KKK is an absolute travesty for everyone. My only mention of "Ass Masters" is that is the demographic being portrayed. If it doesn't bother you, cool. But I think it's tacky for anyone to wear an Ass Masters t-shirt irrespective of their sexual preference.
As far as what I think of you, I've been pretty clear, I think. I think you command alot of respect. I think you've spoken to me openly and honestly and I can't help but to admire that.