: :I was under the impression that you were opposed to homosexuals' wish to openly express their sexuality. : Well, think of it like this, there was a heterosexual revolution in the summer of love etc. and now it's not a major issue for heterosexuals it isnt the defining point of their lives, they are more likely to talk to you at parties about their employment than their sexuality, this is good in my opinion, so what is good for the geese is good for the gander and homosexuals should know this too.
You make a very good point there, Lark. Do you suppose that maybe the "sexual revolution" among heterosexuals had to happen, in order to shake off a certain amount of repressiveness? IOW, perhaps het's couldn't get to the point where it wasn't a big deal until after they'd gone a bit overboard about it? Maybe het's couldn't get to the point where sex was just this minor deal until after they'd gone through the "let's do it in the streets" phase.
If so, do you suppose that maybe we are seeing the same thing going on in the gay community right now, and it's going to continue until everybody realizes that it's no more a big deal that it is for the straights? When we reached general social tolerance for straight sexuality in the early 1970s, sex sort of gradually faded from its central position as a "lifestyle," and lost its "revolutionary" status. Maybe when we reach a point where gay sexuality is widely socially acceptable, the same thing will happen, and "gay" will lose its "revolutionary" status too.
I've come to realise that you are not anti-gay, but anti-public sexuality. Am I correct on that? If so, perhaps the most effective thing to do is support the "out" gays, in order to more rapidly reach the point where they are no longer an oppressed minority in need of "revolution." That's how the 1960s/1970s sexual revolution happened. Maybe we can take a lesson from that and let the 2000s/2010s "gay revolution" run its course as well. It's a thought.
: Does it have to be your life? And if it is, thinking of the asocial or antisocial consequences, is that really legitimate?
Well, again, the 1960s/1970s sexual revolution is a good example. Did it have to be the hippies' lives? I don't know. It was their lives, whether it had to be or not, and as a result, straight sex is no longer considered "radical" enough to even bother flaunting. I might also remind you of the accusations of anti-sociality that were thrown at the sexual activists of the last revolution as well.
Again, I'm not saying you have to like it (I don't much care for hippies, myself). I'm only saying that the quicker the gay community becomes socially accepted, the sooner these public displays will fade away, as they become no longer necessary. See my point? I hope so.
-Floyd
(P.S. I'm visiting Belfast this summer. Any suggestions for good pubs?)
