: Floyd I'm totally egalitarian mate, I'm not heterosexist in any supremist or bitter sense, what about the homosexists? Do we excuse them because we that where nothing to do with us oppressed them once?Naturally "homosexists" (if such a thing exists, in the sense of homosexual supremacists) could also be taught the benefits of egalitarianism. However, some might argue that the institutional framework of church and state is what permits the existence of heterosexism, in the supremist sense, and therefore it is impossible for homosexism to exist in this society.
On this topic, Rosenblum & Travis' (2000) _The Meaning of Difference_ is a valuable resource, IMHO. R & T's thesis is that "diversity," per se, is inherent in human relationships, but ranking (differential valuation) is not. It's geared toward non-specialists, so it's pretty accessable and easy to read (I'm using it in my introduction to anthro class this term). It puts the struggle for minority rights in a philosophical context. One section, in particular (p. 178-186) is specifically directed towards an explanation of "flaming," so you might find it of interest. Homosexuals "flame," according to the authors, for many of the same reasons that Chicanos speak Spanish when Anglos are present, knowing full well that the Anglos don't understand them. The "acting out" of other stigmatized groups also makes sense in this context. It is a way, as SDF said, of demonstrating that they are not ashamed to be who they can't help being.
I still suspect that the only reason non-stigmatized groups don't think that they, themselves, are "flaming" in this sense is a frequency issue. If interpreted in this light, there are a LOT of "flaming straights" around here, broadcasting their sexuality constantly. My mother still wears her wedding ring, for example, which is broadcasting her sexual activity, (well, former sexual activity, now that dad's gone) and therefore her sexual preference. And yet society doesn't disaprove of married people blatantly expressing their sexuality through wedding rings. You see? In a sense, it's a matter of context. If 50% of the population was homosexual, we probably wouldn't even notice "flaming" when it occurred (if it occurred at all; R & T suggest that open advertising of this sort is uncommon when a minority group comprises >15% of the total local population).
In hetrospect...uh...I mean reterospect ;-) I appologise if my comments implied to you that I thought you were a hetro-supremist, that isn't what I meant. I meant that I've been interpreting your posts as suggesting that you oppose the drive by homosexuals to be allowed to express their identity as frequently and as blatantly as straights express theirs. IOW, I was under the impression that you were opposed to homosexuals' wish to openly express their sexuality. Was I mistaken? In any case, take a look at Rosenblum & Travis' book. It should be available at your local Uni library or bookstore. Best.
-Floyd
