: Lark, though I disagree with you I don't buy the portrayal of you in a horrendous light, and I think that SDF's post was actually over the line in comparing you to a racist. Word! SDF, 'though he's a fellow slug, is kind of giving UCSC a pretty harsh rep. Tollerance has to cut both ways or it's useless. Using a "racism" analogy will ultimately only alienate potential allies, and I feel that we've had more than enough of that, frankly. (Sam, please don't take me wrong, I'm not getting personal. I worked for City on a Hill for a while, and the weekly production meetings all ended up as "lefties fighting lefties;" as in:
(A) "this should be a GLTB issue"
(B) "no, this should be a wymyn's issue"
(C) "no, this should be a persons of color issue"
(D) "no, this should be a differently-abled issue"
(floyd, sarcastically,) "maybe we should just fight each other so that we finish each other off before the right wing has a chance to do so!"
Ultimately, no "left" cause ever benefitted from the fights, so from a practical standpoint, they were serious wastes of time, at best, and more frequently advanced the causes of our mutual enemies.)
Still, there are some troubling implications to Lark's comments [addressed below].
: While I agree with you that the blatant lifestyle can be offensive,
I don't agree with this at all, N.J., sorry. "Gays" operate in a different cultural context than "straights," and it is no more appropriate to judge homosexuals by hetero standards than to judge Africans or Asians by European standards. "Gay American," and "Gay European" are just as much unique cultures as "Yanomamo" or BaMbuti." All of these are are independent cultural traditions, and evaluating ANY of these groups on the basis of their similarity to the "straight-white-middle-class-christian-male" culture is ultimately counter-productive.
:I don't think that you are factually correct, because I know gays who act just like anyone else, you'd never know they wete gay.
And I know a few confirmed straight folks who, other than the fact they have reproduced, seem like perfectly normal, well adjusted queers. My only point in this discussion is that the cultural norms of one group can not logically be considered as "absolutes." Arguing that "some gays seem perfectly normal" is simply ridiculous. Nobody argues that some Catholics seem perfectly Protestant. Nobody has ever suggested that Europeans in Australia are waving their ethnicity in the faces of the Aboriginal population. No _rational_ person has ever said "gosh, you're pretty White, for a Black man." We are looking at a "culture-contact" situation. Yes, it's true that people who live in societies that are different from our own seem odd, strange, even surreal sometimes, but they are following their cultural values and norms just as much as you are following yours. They are therefore no more "wrong" than you are. Like musical preferences or favorite films, there is no way to judge the relative merits of other cultures. "Gay European" and "Gay American" are cultures. (I am not interested in arguing whether they are "choosing to be gay" or "genetically driven to be gay," because these are irrelevant, non-operational criteria. The relevant data is that some people prefer to experience sexual gratification in ways that you might not. So what? Some folks also have a different favorite flavor of ice cream. Some heretics even prefer Mozart to Beethoven! Again, so what? There is no such implement as a "morality-meter," and until one is invented, there is no way to resolve the issue. Live and let live, and let's work together on those goals we all have in common, alright? Damn!
-Floyd
