Are we all bisexual?


A while ago I happened across an exhibit on bisexuality put up by the “Gender Equity Resource Center” on the U.C. Berkeley campus.


One of the signs (sorry for the blurry photo) said, “Bisexual: The capacity for emotional, romantic and/or physical attraction to more than one sex or gender. That capacity for attraction may or may not manifest itself in terms of sexual attraction.” This contradicts the standard definition of bisexuality, “sexual behavior with or physical attraction to people of both genders (male and female), or a bisexual orientation.” The question is: Why intentionally broaden the definition to include “the capacity” for attraction, which would include just about everybody?

The sign got me to thinking: Is there really a “gay agenda” in modern academia? It does seem at times that the message “Everyone’s gay; you’re gay too, even if you don’t realize it yet” is pretty omnipresent in certain departments.

This sign (which is more than just a sign — it represents the philosophy of the “Gender Equity Resource Center,” and was taken from “The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s Bisexual Health book”) is a new twist on the concept: OK, maybe you’re not all gay, but you are all bi. The key word in the sign is “capacity”: In order to be classified as bisexual, all you need to have is the capacity for any sort of emotional connection with people of more than one gender. And really, everybody has the capacity for anything, even if it isn’t expressed — right? Q.E.D., everyone is bisexual. Whether or not they know it.

Is there now jockeying within the politico-sexual academic world for control over the right to dictate humanity’s sexual orientation?

What if I made my own sign:

Heavyweight Boxing Champion: Anyone with the capacity to train really hard and then become so good at boxing that they could win a championship match. That capacity for victory may or may not manifest itself in terms of actually winning a match.”

Anyway, the bisexuality sign got me to thinking, and I’m still thinking about it, though perhaps not in the way the designers intended. I haven’t reached a conclusion yet. What’s your opinion?

178 Responses to “Are we all bisexual?”

  1. 1Simon on Apr 6, 2009 at 11:10 pm:

    Spot on.

    In 6 months you’ll be reading a newspaper report saying that “35 % of people under the age of 25 years are bisexual according to new research from the Gender Equity Resource Center on the U.C. Berkeley campus”.

    That’s why I don’t read newspapers anymore.

      

  2. 2Quadrasect on Apr 7, 2009 at 12:01 am:

    More politically correct squazzledoozie from liberals.

    Next they’ll start saying, “We are all Barack Obama”

      

  3. 3John on Apr 7, 2009 at 12:07 am:

    I have a hard drinking friend that replied to this sort of argument (20 years ago) as follows.

    We all drink a lot of booze, it lessens your inhibitions. If we really were all bisexual at the core then why don’t we all jump each others bones whenever we are pissed. In fact it does not happen. Hence we are not all bisexual at the core for lack of evidence.

    I still find it a valid point.

      

  4. 4Kun on Apr 7, 2009 at 12:10 am:

    The whole “everyone’s bisexual” thing isn’t new, Freud had the opinion over 100 years ago and Kinsey over 50. If true it wouldn’t really be shocking, considering some animals can exhibit bisexual behavior (as can humans, obviously). There’s debate between two groups though that can best be summed up as: “we’re all fully bisexual at birth” versus “we’re technically bisexual, but we are normally heterosexual and can adapt to homosexual situations.” (Would explain prison rape or how Roman soldiers would rape their male ex-soldier prisoners to humiliate them, as an example of sudden, temporary bisexuality)

      

  5. 5Elmo on Apr 7, 2009 at 12:15 am:

    As long as ye don’t post any ‘research’ photos from the field/street/back alley :-)

      

  6. 6Anonymous on Apr 7, 2009 at 5:30 am:

    I tell people that I am bisexual. When I want sex, I have to buy it.

      

  7. 7Jeffrey Altman,MD on Apr 7, 2009 at 8:15 am:

    I agree with the opinion that this new “definition” comes from a GLBT agenda with widespread support in the higher education academic community. By this definition we would all be bi sexual so it really has no meaning. I see that this is only a poster at an exhibit which has very little influence and very few people see it. I think it is best to keep this poster display to the minimal low level exposure it deserves. Sometimes publicity = credibility.

      

  8. 8Bakunin on Apr 7, 2009 at 10:21 am:

    Is it just me, or has zombie moved further right since the election? It wasn’t long ago s/he was reiterating that s/he wasn’t anti-gay, or anti-fetish, or anti-sex and that s/he didn’t particularly care one way or the other about what goes on at these fairs.

    Now? Theres a vast homosexual agenda ruled by a big gay cabal of university professors who want to make us all gay!

    Zombie, your attempts at political commentary pale in comparison as a documenter of left-wing madness. Go back to doing what your good at.

      

  9. 9Anonymous on Apr 7, 2009 at 10:40 am:

    Bakunin,

    You seem to be implying that being “further right” means to be “anti-gay, or anti-fetish, or anti-sex”. I do not believe that is the case. Just because right-wing thought is not pro-gay, doesn’t mean it is anti-gay. The right leaves that opinion up to the individual, but thinks favoring any one group (whether gay, straight, bi, asexual, trans, or any other identity people can apply to themselves) over another is destructive to freedom, equality of opportunity, and social cohesion.

    Furthermore, indifference towards sexual identity, or race, or height, weight, religion, etc, doesn’t make one necessarily right-wing either.

    And zombie, please don’t listen to anyone telling you to do one thing “your good at”. Do what you want.

      

  10. 10CattusMagnus on Apr 7, 2009 at 11:30 am:

    Yes Zombie! You hit the nail on the head! It is Orwellian how they are trying to change the definition of bisexual. Their angle is to apply the bisexual title to as many people as possible to make a pro gay/bisexual/lesbian/trans agenda more acceptable to mainstream America. Pushing your agenda is fine, but manipulating language for your own convenience is diabolical. As Kun says above, Freud made the argument that we can all be bisexual. But to my knowledge, Freud never had to resort to warping language to make his case. I would never trust a person who would violate language like those at the Berkeley Gender Equity Resource Center.

      

  11. 11Anonymous on Apr 7, 2009 at 11:44 am:

    If this does represent a GLBT agenda they are undercutting their own position. If we are all bi, that includes the GL&T crowd. Maybe this is an alternative lifestyle power play.

      

  12. 12Bakunin on Apr 7, 2009 at 12:31 pm:

    Anonymous,

    While that maybe true for more libertarian-minded, the old-style Goldwater right/conservatives, 8 years of GWB style, big-government conservatism has shown that the far right in the conservative movement are more or less anti-gay. If it where true that it is up to the individual, then the state should not favor strait people by giving them tax benefits for marriage while denying gay people the right to be married. The state should not favor judeo-Christian religious definitions and the president should not be calling for the banning of all gay marriage based on his own religious preference. (as Bush used to justify a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html)

    Throughout the bush era, Republicans have denied and defamed equal marriage rights. I hope that now, in this time of rethinking our priorities in the conservative movement, we drop the focus on cultural issues and get back to leaving things to the individual, and focus on smaller government and fiscal responsibility in goverment.

    But I’m not holding my breath.

      

  13. 13rjschwarz on Apr 7, 2009 at 1:40 pm:

    It would be nice to see a Drudge Headline, “University Redefines Bisexual to be more Inclusive.” If that’s what they did without agenda then nobody should have a problem with it.

      

  14. 14rjschwarz on Apr 7, 2009 at 1:43 pm:

    Bakunin, you make a good point but the tax preference for marriage affects unmarried straights as well. In fact married people are statistically proven to be on the average more responsible thus the government tries to increase the chances of marriage. Andrew Sullivan used this argument in defense of Gay Marriage and I think he had a valid point

      

  15. 15Sam on Apr 7, 2009 at 2:13 pm:

    They are trying to define down any same-sex friendship as bisexualism. This is part of a long term legal strategy.

      

  16. 16buzzsawmonkey on Apr 7, 2009 at 2:26 pm:

    Expansion of the term “bisexuality,” the addition of such classifications as “curious” or “questioning” to the LGBT alphabet soup, are attempts to define and create a larger demographic to increase political leverage.

    “Gay” used to include both males and females acting on same-sex attraction. “Lesbian” was added to “gay” in the early-mid Seventies as a “women’s movement” initiative to “acknowledge gender equality” between two groups which, while politically allied, often could not personally stand each other. “Bisexual” was added in the effort to define anyone who might have participated in a circle-jerk at a Boy Scout overnighter as being part of the mix–and a fundamentally dishonest effort, since the standard rejoinder to someone who might tremblingly admit to being “bisexual” on the grounds of a single incident was, “Oh, you sleep with girls too?” The implication, of course, being that the lesser same-sex experience trumped the larger opposite-sex experience, and the person was “really gay,” just not honest enough to admit it yet.

    “Transgender” is the biggest fraud of the bunch, since the practice of rearranging genitalia to conform to emotions is fundamentally opposed to the alleged objective of embracing one’s same-sex attractions for what they are. But the embrace of this relatively marginal aberrance swells the demographic, and provides the service of normalizing other homosexual behavior which would otherwise seem outlandish.

      

  17. 17zombie on Apr 7, 2009 at 3:33 pm:

    8 Bakunin
    Is it just me, or has zombie moved further right since the election? It wasn’t long ago s/he was reiterating that s/he wasn’t anti-gay, or anti-fetish, or anti-sex and that s/he didn’t particularly care one way or the other about what goes on at these fairs.

    Now? Theres a vast homosexual agenda ruled by a big gay cabal of university professors who want to make us all gay!

    Please point to a single word, phrase or sentence anywhere in my post in which I express an anti-gay sentiment.

    I’m waiting…

    ..and while you’re at it, please explain how bringing up the topic of “the gay agenda” qualifies as “right-wing”. Have you spent time around major universities recently? Have you visited “Queer Studies” departments? Have you attended three-day conferences about “queering the culture”? In all cases, I have.

    I’m not anti-gay or anti-sex, but that doesn’t mean I have to self-censor and not point out what I personally observe. And what I observe is a very strong “queerification” agenda across the university system. This exhibit is just the tip of a very large iceberg. I sat in on a sociology class in which the students were asked to fill out a “Kinsey Scale” questionnaire; and when one of the male students rated himself as a “0″ (exclusively heterosexual), he was called out on the carpet in front of the class by the professor and mocked, then browbeaten for being “intolerant,” then given the opportunity to change his self-rating. When he refused, he was marked down for “lying” in class.

    From what I’ve been hearing, stuff like this goes on all the time, and I’m not going to let fear of condemnation from anarchists like you to compel me to censor my opinions on this or any topic.

      

  18. 18Joe on Apr 7, 2009 at 3:51 pm:

    Zombie: What school? (Berkeley, I’d guess.) What teacher? FIRE or some other organization would likely be interested in hearing about it.

    As for the original post, this is just the left co-opting another term; equating friendship with bisexuality.

      

  19. 19Bakunin on Apr 7, 2009 at 5:37 pm:

    Zombie,

    That’s like saying, just because I point out that 9/11 was orcastrated by the jews, I’m not being anti-jew. The fact is, there is no international gay conspiracy, just like there is no international Jewish conspiracy. And it sucks that university arts departments are filled with 60′s left-overs (HA!), I wish universities could be better, but in general universities are not the place to be if one wants fair and equal intellectual discussion (you yourself have pointed this out many times.) What do you expect?

    In the end, the so-called “Gay agenda” is a social conservative/right-wing buzz term used to demonize any GBLT person seeking equal rights to marriage, divorce, adoption and military service that strait people enjoy. It is used as a wedge issue by the religious right, because there is no way for them to accept gay people as a normal part of society- remember, gays are “an abomination”.

    I’m not trying to censor you, it’s your site and you can do what you want. I’m just speaking my mind, sharing my perspective. I want the conservative moment to succeed as much as you do. But to do that, we have to drop the ultra-religious, ultra-right baggage of the Bush years and embrace real low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty, without useless cultural wedge issues.

    But I guess principles don’t win elections…

      

  20. 20Christina on Apr 7, 2009 at 6:23 pm:

    Well, all you need is same sex friend or a normal fondness for your same-sex parent or sibling, to be bi-sexual by this definition, since it includes EMOTIONAL attachment. I’m very *attached emotionally* to my mom, my sisters, my nieces, my daughter, my granddaughter, my female students, and many female friends. So they expanded the definition of “bisexual” to include anybody with any capacity for love whatsoever!

      

  21. 21DangerousNate on Apr 7, 2009 at 6:26 pm:

    “In the end, the so-called “Gay agenda” is a social conservative/right-wing buzz term used to demonize any GBLT person seeking equal rights to marriage, divorce, adoption and military service that strait people enjoy. It is used as a wedge issue by the religious right, because there is no way for them to accept gay people as a normal part of society- remember, gays are “an abomination”.”

    The problem I have is, it’s like the civil rights movements of the 60s, it started as a just cause but in the end all it’s going to do is basically give the gays greater rights than straight in order to make up for years of social injustice (or something to that effect), and that’s where I have a problem.

      

  22. 22Joe on Apr 7, 2009 at 6:55 pm:

    Please, like left-wingers don’t have their own demonizing terms. Such as “homophobe” which they apply to anybody who’s not 100% on the GLBT bandwagon.

    Christina: Don’t worry. Next on liberals’ agenda will be legalizing incestuous marriages. Don’t believe me? There’s already the beginnings of a movement in Europe.

      

  23. 23Fred on Apr 7, 2009 at 6:56 pm:

    “Pedophile: The capacity for emotional, romantic and/or physical attraction to children. That capacity for attraction may or may not manifest itself in terms of sexual attraction.”

    You’re right, it is a silly definition.

      

  24. 24Ed on Apr 7, 2009 at 7:02 pm:

    I think this is what they call “controlling the narrative.” How can you make an arguement against any sort of “gay” issue if you by definition are “bi”, which pretty much means that you are just as likely to be doing gay sex as straight sex. So your opposition isn’t principled, it is nothing but hypocrisy.

    And hypocrisy is the worst of sin, in our modern eyes.

      

  25. 25Taqiyyotomist on Apr 7, 2009 at 8:00 pm:

    zombie notices something that Christians have long known and acknowledged, therefore (to some with jerking knees) zombie has automatically become (in their eyes) “extreme rightwinger”. There is a lesson to be learned: just because a group of people which you dislike says something, doesn’t make it untrue. People, with their twisted nu-logic, have determined that if Christians say something, then it is automatically untrue. Have fun with that “logic”. Christians also believe that gravity is real. I am genuinely surprised that folks like Bakunin have not decided that they must no longer believe that gravity is real, since Christians are always wrong, in their eyes.

      

  26. 26average_guy on Apr 7, 2009 at 8:50 pm:

    Since approximately 01/20/2009, anyone who does not constantly chant “hope and change..yes we can!” and leave their reasoning capability shifted into neutral is looked upon as an enemy of the state.

    A university should be a place where the mind is developed, not shackled with a single “possibility” or persecuted for not adhering to a narrow line of thought.

    Zombie, I think your reports are as objective as any source and more objective than most.

      

  27. 27Ken on Apr 8, 2009 at 1:15 am:

    “what I observe is a very strong ‘queerification’ agenda across the university system”

    This begs the question, though: if there is some kind of “gay agenda” that exists in academia (or anywhere) then what are the goals of that movement? The anti-Semitic idiots who ramble on and on about the supposed “Jewish agenda” usually claim that Jews seek to dominate international finance or take over the world or something…but what would be the goal of the “queerification movement?” Re-defining the meaning of the word “bisexual?” That’s a pretty useless goal if you ask me.

    I’m someone who feels very passionate in his defense of same-sex marriage, someone who feels that homosexuals deserve, unequivocally, the same rights that everyone else has. This exhibit, like most, is just a non-issue, though. No need to make mountains out of mole hills, Zomb.

      

  28. 28Joe on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:42 am:

    It’s obvious why they want to redefine bisexual–to reduce the stigma associated with it.

    I wonder if Ken is as passionate about the “marriage rights” of polygamists, incesters, etc. What’s so special about queers?

      

  29. 29Kun on Apr 8, 2009 at 3:11 am:

    I’d imagine they’d make up much more of the population and don’t actually, inherently pose a threat to anything as opposed to incest (easy for it to be rape), polygamy (easy for it to be exploitative both financially and sociologically), etc. When socialist states condemned homosexuality, they did it from a class perspective. In their view (and it is a dated one), homosexuals were not found among workers but among the aristocracy and bourgeoisie who were able to flaunt it, ergo homosexuality was a byproduct of feudal and capitalist society, ergo it should be stamped out. In Albania under Enver Hoxha, anti-homosexuality was actually made progressive (sorta) because homosexuals were seen as male chauvinists and lesbians were seen as helping to enforce complete gender equality in the nation. (Albania certainly made huge progress in women’s rights, as the Enver Hoxha wiki article could tell you) While most socialists have gotten over these things, I’d rather condemnation of it actually be tied (or at least trying to tie) to something rather than homosexuality itself as a source of ridicule.

      

  30. 30Willy on Apr 8, 2009 at 4:10 am:

    “That capacity for attraction may or may not manifest itself in terms of sexual attraction”

    Umm, can they change the word “sexual” in “bisexual”, so that simpletons like me can remember the above?

      

  31. 31zombie on Apr 8, 2009 at 6:19 am:

    #27 Ken:

    “if there is some kind of “gay agenda” that exists in academia (or anywhere) then what are the goals of that movement?…but what would be the goal of the “queerification movement?” Re-defining the meaning of the word “bisexual?” That’s a pretty useless goal if you ask me.”

    The goal of the “gay agenda,” or whatever you want to call it, is (according to the queer theorists themselves) to recast all of culture, and I mean all of culture, from a queer perspective. It is to forever bring an end to “heteronormativity,” which means the presumptive interpretation of reality through a straight lens. This is to be replaced with the presumptive interpretation of reality through a gay lens. Hence all of history, all of contemporary society, all of literature, all of social sciences, all of politics, all social norms are to reinterpreted from a queer perspective — or at least what the activists have defined as a queer perspective.

    This goal has absolutely nothing to do with “equal rights” or “gay marriage” or anything like that. The goal is to forge yet another form of “identity politics,” to contrive a new significant minority group. And the reason for that is to create yet one more stress fracture through society, to accelerate its splintering into a million warring factions, so that there is a general breakdown of society, as a necessary prerequisite for revolution. Complete fundamental revolution — not just a political revolution.

    Any feeling of unity among people, of trans-divisional solidarity, of contentment, needs to be wiped away. Because a contented society will never consent to revolution. This is the whole purpose of identity politics, or race-baiters, of “queer studies,” of the whole seemingly incomprehensible obsession with “race, class and gender,” of any movement which intentionally causes rifts in the cohesion of American society: the ultimate goal is the eradication of all pre-existing social norms, so that we can “start afresh” with an entirely new moral code and social structure after a fundamental revolution.

    Some queer theorists are aware of this ultimate goal, but some are not. They go through the motions, not even cognizant of why they’re doing it, content to go with the flow. But if you read the foundational documents, the deep theorists, then the overarching goal is laid out plain to see.

    I’m all for equal rights for everyone, just as you are — but you are dreadfully naive if you think this has anything to do with equal rights or even with sexuality per se, bi- or otherwise. This is about the push for revolution.

    And I’m not calling it a “communist” revolution for a reason, because it goes way beyond mere “communism,” way beyond just economics. I think even Marx himself would be shocked and mortified at what he has unleashed, or at least what he has inspired. But actually it’s not his fault: there have been attempts at Total Revolution in the past, some successful, some not: the Christianization of the Roman Empire; the Islamic conquest of the Middle East; the French Revolution; the Great Leap Forward/Cultural Revolution in China; the Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia; etc. In most cases, successful or not, the end result was wholesale slaughter, and the subsequent new social order and moral code was no better than the one it replaced.

      

  32. 32buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 7:36 am:

    #31 zombie: Absolutely magnificently stated.

      

  33. 33Taqiyyotomist on Apr 8, 2009 at 7:52 am:

    #31 zombie: Where’s the upding button!? heh. great comment, once again.

      

  34. 34JDubya on Apr 8, 2009 at 10:34 am:

    The definition does not make sense…

    Bisexual: The capacity for emotional…to MORE THAN ONE SEX OR GENDER. WTF?!?!?!?

    Doesn’t the fraud failure who obviously never graduated high school or something mean BOTH?

    Am I missing something here? Are there more than two (2) genders? Ladyboys do not count.

      

  35. 35CattusMagnus on Apr 8, 2009 at 11:10 am:

    #31 Zombie: well said

      

  36. 36pch on Apr 8, 2009 at 11:47 am:

    From an overly-broad definition of “bisexuality” to Pol Pot in a mere 500 words or so. Magnificent indeed.

    I’m a gay man living in San Francisco, and I believe I speak for the vast majority of my gay brethren and sistren when I say that academic “queer theory” has very little relevance to my life — just as the ravings of Fred Phelps are outside the pale for almost all self-proclaimed Christians. If anyone is seeking to “intentionally cause rifts in the cohesion of American society,” it is the segment of the body politic that, in response to the increased adoption of the radical idea that gay people should not be discriminated against, is actively seeking to relegate us to permanent second-class citizenship.

    Not to mention those who, despite their alleged tolerant attitudes, breathlessly display photos of lurid same-sex shenanigans in order to foment outrage among the above-mentioned group.

      

  37. 37buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 12:47 pm:

    #36 pch: If you are an out gay man who came out any time in the last 40 years, “queer theory” has, in fact, shaped the entire direction of your life, and that of your brethern and sistren, whether or not any of you are personally aware of it. It is “queer theory”–not yet called that, and not yet ensconced as an academic discipline–that created and sustained and directed the gay rights movement from its inception.

    And it is that movement which demands the right to tell other people how to define their sexuality; which demands the “right” to both the lurid same-sex shenanigans to which you allude, and to the redefinition of marriage; which has been at the forefront of destroying the concept of freedom of speech by endorsing “hate speech” laws and codes; which arrogates unto itself the right to condemn differences of opinion as “hate speech,” and which has engaged in personal rather than political attack upon those who differ with its goals of the moment for over 30 years.

    You refer to the “radical idea that gay people should not be discriminated against.” Please. Tell me, pray, where gay people are in fact discriminated against? Gay people are not prevented from voting or holding property on the basis of their sexual preferences; sodomy laws, where still extant, are virtually never enforced; antidiscrimination statutes in most jurisdictions prevent gays from being fired on the grounds of sexual preference. Where is the discrimination? Where is the second-class citizenship?

      

  38. 38pch on Apr 8, 2009 at 1:40 pm:

    “antidiscrimination statutes in most jurisdictions prevent gays from being fired on the grounds of sexual preference.”

    By some definition of “most jurisdictions” meaning “in 20 U.S. states and in a handful of cities and college towns.” Elsewhere it’s perfectly legal to fire someone, or refuse to rent them an apartment, etc., on no other basis than sexual orientation. But I suppose that those antidiscrimination laws, as limited as their scope is, represent an attempt to “redefine civil rights” and are, according to your worldview, invalid.

    “Where is the second-class citizenship?”

    As of this writing, it’s in 46 states out of 50. Including, of course, my own.

    Of course, if you’re so enamored of the idea that civil rights is a zero-sum game, which you apparently are, then I don’t suppose any amount of level-headed reasoning will suffice to convince you otherwise. But maybe, as a thought exercise, you could share your vision of a world in which differences in sexual orientation are not recognized and *certainly* not discussed.

      

  39. 39buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 1:47 pm:

    Please define what you consider “second-class citizenship in 46 states out of 50.”

    In the meantime, you might consider that a world in which differences in sexual orientation are accepted routinely–which means that they require no discussion–has become much more distant since the love that dare not speak its name became the love that won’t shut up.

      

  40. 40Bakunin on Apr 8, 2009 at 1:49 pm:

    34 JDubya:

    Sex refers to the plumbing. Gender refers to the socialized gender role one has.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

      

  41. 41pch on Apr 8, 2009 at 1:51 pm:

    I mean that in 46 states out of 50, I cannot legally marry the unrelated consenting adult of my choice.

    As for your comment about “the love that won’t shut up,” I submit that it is precisely this refusal to shut up that has led to the *possibility* of a world in which differences in sexual orientation are accepted routinely.

    But if you have proof that things were better for us gay folks back in the 1950s and earlier, please share.

      

  42. 42buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:04 pm:

    #38 pch: As a little addition, it would be interesting to hear on what basis you define “sexual orientation.” Do you consider it something capable of changing or evolving, or something cast in stone at an early age, and incapable of alteration by any means?

    It would also be interesting to learn on what basis you believe sexual orientation to be enshrined in any way in civil rights law, other than on the basis of “I wanna.” Discrimination against people on the basis of religion is enshrined in the Constitution via the First Amendment; discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is also proscribed by the Fourteenth. There is no Constitutional basis for proscribing discrimination on the basis of whom you choose to f*ck.

    Civil rights refer to protection of the individual from government interference. The “gay rights movement” has spent 40 years re-defining, or attempting to re-define, civil rights as “human rights”–i.e., as special-pleading privileges granted to favored minorities. That movement has been all too successful in twisting the concept of civil rights beyond recognition, and destroying the foundation of American liberty in the process. To be fair, it has been helped by the hustlers who wrested the civil rights movement from Martin Luther King, and by the domestic Islamist movement which modeled itself entirely on the gay-rights movement–with, I may add, little to no protest from the gay-rights movement, despite the fact that the Islamists have no use for people of homosexual orientation in any form other than dead.

    If you are talking about “marriage rights,” there is no such right which gay-rights activists can Constitutionally claim. Same-sex marriage may be something which it is objectively nice to grant–certainly I know any number of lovely couples that I would in no way object to having the legal ability to take advantage of it–but the movement which is pushing for it is pernicious, dishonest, and bigoted, and for that reason I am forced, regardless of my personal feelings as regards my friends, to oppose granting power to a movement which has given ample evidence that it does not have the best interests of either the country or its alleged constituency at heart.

      

  43. 43buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:11 pm:

    #41 pch: Please define the basis on which there is any “right” to same-sex marriage other than “I wanna.”

      

  44. 44pch on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:13 pm:

    I believe sexual orientation is inborn and immutable. Mine certainly is. Isn’t yours?

    I infer from your second paragraph that you object to the anti-discrimination laws that you previously cited in support of your contention that anti-gay discrimination does exist.

    The Muslim angle is a red herring. There is no shortage of gay people, myself included, who have no qualms about including Islam in the list of religions who want us all dead.

    And finally, I ask you again to outline your vision of a world in which gay people had never developed the gumption to leave the closet. How would the lives of all those “lovely couples” be better?

      

  45. 45pch on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:14 pm:

    Re: same-sex marriage, here’s a link to the summary of the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision. Knock yourself out.

    http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/wfData/files/Varnum/40209Varnumsummary.pdf

      

  46. 46buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:24 pm:

    #44 pch: You believe sexual orientation is “inborn and immutable?” You err.

    Some people spend time with the opposite sex, then “come out.” Some people spend time in the homosexual subculture, then find someone of the opposite sex with whom they spend the remainder of their lives. Some switch back and forth. Some do not.

    You would probably subscribe to the “queer theory” belief that those who forsake their opposite-sex partner and come out are fulfilling their true selves, whereas those who forsake the dreary round of tricks to settle down with an opposite-sex partner are “denying their true nature.” In other words, queer trumps all.

    Sorry, don’t buy it. Human sexuality is nowhere near as drearily regimented as the advocates of queerdom would have people believe. Nor is anyone impelled to act on an itch, merely because they have it.

    Your reference to the “list of religions who want us all dead” is telling. There are few, if any, instances of Christians killing gays on the grounds of sexual orientation in the last several decades; there are few, if any, instances of Jews doing so. In fact, none to my knowledge–if we are talking about killing for which a religious rationale is offered. There are multiple instances of Muslims killing gays in horrible ways, precisely on religious grounds; accordingly, your attempt to blandly refer to “a list of religions” is a despicable lie.

    So, once again: on what basis, other than “I wanna,” do you find a civil rights rationale for same-sex marriage?

      

  47. 47buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm:

    Again, pch, you fail to answer the question. On what basis, other than “I wanna,” do you find a civil rights rational for same-sex marriage?

      

  48. 48pch on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:35 pm:

    Again, I refer you to the Iowa Supreme Court decision. Rather than try to excerpt the relevant bits, I’ll just suggest that you RTWT and then share your expert opinion as an expert on the Iowa constitution as to why they’re wrong.

    I could cite any number of current-day Christian groups and individuals who do indeed “want us all dead.” E.g. the current anti-gay crusade taking place in Uganda, with significant support from the U.S. “ex-gay” group Exodus. Not to mention the Christian Reconstructionists, the guy who shot up a UCC church in Knoxville, etc. As with anti-gay discrimination generally, just because you’re not aware of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    Your allegation that I buy into the queer theorists’ opinion that homosexuality is somehow “truer” than heterosexuality is absurd. However, because of the social stigma associated with homosexuality (as so amply displayed right here in this thread), there are many more homosexuals pretending to be heterosexual than vice versa. And of course I realize, as you do, that sexuality is a continuum. Kinsey 1 though 6 and all that.

    So let’s say we gay folks are all forced back into the closet. How would your “lovely” friends’ lives be improved thereby?

      

  49. 49buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:35 pm:

    I will add that the Iowa Supreme Court appears to be creating a “suspect class” out of whole cloth for the purpose of supporting its ruling–arguing, in other words, post hoc ergo propter hoc. I know of no other instance in which the “class” of those with a same-sex orientation has been decreed by a court to be co-equal with such “classes” as those of a particular religion or of a particular race or national origin.

      

  50. 50buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:40 pm:

    #48 pch: Among your many other fundamental dishonesties, you are creating a false dichotomy between being granted the legal right to marry (no civil rights foundation) and being “forced back into the closet” (something nobody except yourself has been suggesting).

    Nobody is suggesting that people who wish to couple with others of the same plumbing configuration not have the ability to do so without legal sanction. That does not mean that you have any basis on which to claim a “right” to marriage. And thus far, you have offered absolutely no rationale whatsoever for such a claim.

      

  51. 51pch on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:51 pm:

    When you snidely referred to “the love that won’t shut up,” I inferred that you would prefer it if gay people would just “shut up” about our sexual orientation — notwithstanding the fact that your sexual orientation probably comes up in conversation many times a day, anytime you mention your spouse, your children, your in-laws, etc. And this is what “being in the closet” means — it means being forced to deny, tacitly or otherwise, your sexual orientation.

    Or maybe we should only shut up *a little*. Please tell me, what is the right amount? I’m sure that even though you deplore those who “tell other people how to define their sexuality,” you have the correct answer at your fingertips. I’m all ears.

      

  52. 52buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 3:25 pm:

    #51 pch: Was a time–30+ years ago, which you are probably too young to remember–that “coming out” meant acknowledging to yourself what you believed your “sexual orientation” (ugly phrase!) was. It had nothing to do with what “society” granted you; it was all about your own belief, your own acknowledgement, your own actions–and dealing with whatever fallout might or might not occur, on your own.

    You are not man enough to do that, clearly. You want some kind of USDA stamp from “society”–which is something that can never be obtained, because “society” is composed of the individuals you meet and interact with on a daily basis. It is telling that you cannot live comfortably in your own skin, even in the most famously overtly gay-friendly city in the country, without the USDA stamp you desperately seek. The fault, dear brute, lies not in “society,” but in you.

      

  53. 53Skip Smith on Apr 8, 2009 at 3:55 pm:

    Oh please. Now you’re just going around looking for things to be offended by.

    Bakunin is right. This site went off the rails once it became clear that Obama would win the election.

      

  54. 54Skip Smith on Apr 8, 2009 at 3:57 pm:

    This is not the same zombie of a few years ago. I think the ownership of this site changed months ago without any kind of announcement, and we’re all now talking to a new “zombie.”

    Either that, or zombie has a brain tumor.

      

  55. 55pch on Apr 8, 2009 at 4:07 pm:

    Wow. Armchair psychoanalysis, and unlike Lucy van Pelt, you didn’t even charge me a nickel!

    Was a time – 45+ years ago and for time immemorial before that – when every public mention of homosexuality was negative. When avowed homosexuals were considered mentally defective and consequently persecuted, subjected to electroshock therapy, and even sent to death camps en masse — except, of course, for those who chose instead to live a lie by denying their true whatever-you-think-we-should-call-it.

    So how do you think we got from that state of affairs to the semi-tolerance that is enjoyed by gay people in some parts of the world today? It was through good old-fashioned community organizing to raise public awareness. To suggest that the same objective could have been achieved by countless individuals having private conversations with other individuals, in the face of an overwhelming public animus toward homosexuality, is naive at best.

    Based on your statement about the “lovely” same-sex couples you know, I gather that you don’t harbor any hostility toward gay people per se. But was it your acquaintance with these friends that led you to this level of tolerance, or a pre-existing awareness of homosexuality gained by some other means? And in either case, how do you suppose that your gay friends came to feel comfortable enough to reveal their whatever-you-think-we-should-call-it to you? What would the outcome of that conversation have been if it had taken place, say, 50 years ago?

      

  56. 56Anonymous on Apr 8, 2009 at 4:36 pm:

    Excellent post as usual, Zombie. While it may seem cliched to admit it, there is a “gay agenda” that is being organized on a nationwide level. If there isn’t then what do groups such as Human Rights Campaign do?

      

  57. 57pch on Apr 8, 2009 at 5:29 pm:

    what do groups such as Human Rights Campaign do?

    http://www.hrc.org/about_us/what_we_do.asp

    Nothing in there about eliminating “heteronormativity,” or accelerating the splintering of society into a million warring factions, or wiping away feelings of contentment among the people, or marching all heterosexuals into the countryside, or anything.

    But I suppose we all see what we want to see.

      

  58. 58Bakunin on Apr 8, 2009 at 8:18 pm:

    42buzzsawmonkey on Apr 8, 2009 at 2:04 pm:
    Discrimination against people on the basis of religion is enshrined in the Constitution via the First Amendment; discrimination on the basis of race or national origin is also proscribed by the Fourteenth.

    The Fourteenth amendment wasn’t past until July 28 1868. For 92 years before that, there was no constitutional protection agienst discrimination based on race and national origin. Even after that, Jim Crow laws and “separate but (un)equal” kept discrimination based on race going.

    Most Jim Crow laws where based in banning intermarriage. It wasn’t until Loving v. Virginia unitl these laws where stricken as unconstitutional. In the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man”.

    The point is, at one point, blacks had no rights under the constitution. I bet that the those agienst abolitionism and equal marriage between white and black spoke of the “Negro agenda”. It wasn’t until an enlighten republican stepped forth for equality. And it won’t be until republicans drop the ultra-right zealots of the bush years and stand for the principled idea that all Americans deserve to be treated equally—regardless of their sexual orientation.

      

  59. 59DangerousNate on Apr 8, 2009 at 9:34 pm:

    “This is not the same zombie of a few years ago. I think the ownership of this site changed months ago without any kind of announcement, and we’re all now talking to a new “zombie.”

    Either that, or zombie has a brain tumor.”

    Seems to be the same zombie to me…

      

  60. 60anonymouse on Apr 8, 2009 at 9:42 pm:

    I’m willing to take zombie at face value when he says he has nothing against gays. I personally consider myself to be rather liberal, especially on social issues. But Berkeley liberals… those are something else, and zombie provides a peek into their world of hardcore radicalism. I think, and I suspect zombie thinks, that most gay people just want to be treated like other people and left alone. But to the extent that there really is an agenda, it comes from a tiny and radical group with some… unusual… ideas. Oh and buzzsawmonkey, why is it that you want the government to take an interest in my balls, or lack thereof?

      

  61. 61pch on Apr 8, 2009 at 11:06 pm:

    I suppose Zombie is simply experiencing the same Weltschmerz as the rest of the right-wing blogosphere these days. That’s OK though… soon we’ll be having one of our local Bacchanalian festivals of lewdness and debauchery, and that should bring him/her forth with camera in tow to gleefully document the festivities for all you non-San Franciscans.

    But enough about Bay to Breakers.

      

  62. 62zombie on Apr 9, 2009 at 10:28 pm:

    #58 Bakunin:

    This conversation has gone off on a total sidetrack. Where in my post do I say anything about gay marriage? I’m not against gay marriage. If anything, the push for gay marriage is the opposite of the push to expand the definition of bisexuality to basically include everyone, because marriage is (in theory at least) all about monogamy, which means exclusively sticking to a single parter/gender.

    By changing the topic, you’re sidestepping the real issue. The “gay rights movement” long ago started to overreach; no longer content to simply achieve equality under the law (which, aside from the [to me] semi-irrelevant and intentionally distracting issue of gay marriage, has already been achieved, since there are no laws against homosexuality or homosexual behavior left in the US), they now have started to demand the right to dictate and control everyone’s thoughts and attitudes — as buzzsawmonkey pointed out.

    You know nothing about me personally, and for all you know I am gay myself. You might be interested to learn that I’ve marched in the gay pride parade more times than I can remember. I live in the most gay-positive milieu possibly anywhere in the world; it’s not simply that I “know some gay people,” but rather I’d have to really put some effort into remembering which among my associates isn’t gay or bisexual.

    You have a total misapprehension of me and my beliefs and political feelings. You’re lumping me into some vast gay-hating reactionary puritan crowd, when nothing could be further from the truth. I’m all about the “live and let live” approach. I simply am one of those very rare Bay Areans who is not afraid to step out of the fear-induced intellectual paralysis and I “calls it as I sees it.”

    Perhaps my use of the phrase “gay agenda” is what set off triggers — I didn’t realize it was so inflammatory. But whatever you want to call it, what I witness on a daily basis (including things like this Bisexuality display, which I used as a prototypical example) is a push to transform mainstream culture into queer culture, to balkanize all of society into a cacophony of strident and demanding “minority” identities, and to lash out with accusations of bigotry against anyone who points this out.

    I’m wayyyyyyyy past caring if someone falsely accuses me of bigotry. Don’t like my brutal honesty? Then no one is forcing you to perceive it. You can retreat to your cocoon of easily mockable stereotyped villains, where complicated political opinions don’t cause any discomfort.

      

  63. 63zombie on Apr 9, 2009 at 10:35 pm:

    #61 pch:

    Interesting that you bring up the Bay to Breakers. Good example. Because this year, the Bay to Breakers is going to be tame and non-scandalous, with police cracking down on public drunkenness, public pissing, and tit-flashing. And yet, as my much-loathed reports amply demonstrated, the Up Your Alley Fair and the Folsom Street Fair are astronomically more scandalous (there may be some nudists who race in the Bay to Breakers, but I’ve never ever heard of public sex of any kind), and yet those street fairs continue unchallenged and uncommented on.

    I don’t report on the Bay to Breakers for two reasons: One, there is absolutely no political controversy surrounding it, so there’s nothing really to report on; and two, it starts at 8am, and I hate getting up early.

      

  64. 64average_guy on Apr 10, 2009 at 7:15 am:

    Who doesn’t hate getting up early…..

      

  65. 65average_guy on Apr 10, 2009 at 7:26 am:

    It takes a person who is secure to make a truly objective assessment of opposing views and/or make that same truly objective assessment of the views that one holds for themselves. If this truly objective thought is not applied on a regular basis to all sides of any issue then the result is usually that freedom to think and not just follow the crowd erodes, sometimes to the point of disappearance.

    What I enjoy about reading Zombie’s reports and responses in the comments is that Zombie does appear to make this objective view of issues. This is not easy to do for any of us, and some of us are apparently so afraid of independent thought that we do not even consider that it is possible for anyone to do so.

      

  66. 66pch on Apr 10, 2009 at 10:31 am:

    “those street fairs continue unchallenged and uncommented on.”

    Except by you, of course, and those outside San Francisco who choose to view the entire Bay Area through this particular prism.

    I seem to remember that some commenters specifically cited your reports on Dore and Folsom as a reason to vote Yes on 8. Do you agree with that reasoning, or not?

      

  67. 67Ed on Apr 10, 2009 at 1:38 pm:

    So you support those street fairs pch?

      

  68. 68Ken on Apr 10, 2009 at 4:52 pm:

    “a push to transform mainstream culture into queer culture”

    Is that really what’s happening? Has that become accepted by the mainstream Gay community? To me, at least, this exhibit just seems like some project put up some nameless, inconsequential “such-and-such studies” department of a particular school. Is there any reason to think that this phenomenon, this re-defining of the word “bisexual,” isn’t just confined to the “Gender Equity Resource Center”? You’re starting to sound like an alarmist, Zomb. If there are examples beyond this “prototypical” one, I’d like to hear about them.

    “Don’t like my brutal honesty? Then no one is forcing you to perceive it”

    With all due respect, you DID ask for people’s opinions. It’s not fair to ask for someone’s thoughts on a particular matter and then savage them for obliging you like Bakunin did, though it wasn’t fair for him/her to make accusations about your personal views.

    People get worked up over the most ridiculous things.

      

  69. 69zombie on Apr 10, 2009 at 5:42 pm:

    66 pch
    I seem to remember that some commenters specifically cited your reports on Dore and Folsom as a reason to vote Yes on 8. Do you agree with that reasoning, or not?

    I have no memory of anyone making such a statement. My reports on Folsom and Dore came out long before the Nov. 2008 campaign in any case. I doubt they had any effect.

    As for whether or not I “agree with that reasoning” — first of all, I don’t think anyone had that reasoning to begin with; but, theoretically, if anyone did change their vote due to my reports, what am I supposed to do about that? I can’t control people’s behavior. I went to GREAT lengths to explain my rationale for publishing those reports, and my rationale stands to this day: I am obliged to report the truth, regardless of what the consequences may be. My only allegiance is to Lady Veracity. I couldn’t live with my own hypocrisy if I selectively censored the truth due to some political agenda. That’s exactly what the MSM does, which is why they no longer have any credibility.

    If you are upset by the possibility that the antics at Folsom and Dore negatively affected the No on 8 campaign, then take up the issue with the people who engaged in those antics — not the person who reported on reality.

      

  70. 70Mizz Gaygirl on Apr 10, 2009 at 5:53 pm:

    68 Ken on Apr 10, 2009 at 4:52 pm:

    People get worked up over the most ridiculous things.

    You sure do, baby.

      

  71. 71zombie on Apr 10, 2009 at 6:08 pm:

    #68 Ken:

    I don’t have the space or time to delineate the innumerable examples of “queering the culture” that happen every single day. If you don’t perceive it, or at least refuse to acknowledge it, then you are free to think I’m exaggerating. It’s all over academia, it’s all over Hollywood, it’s all over the publishing industry, it’s all over TV. Some of it is pretty subtle and clever, so the average person may not recognize it. As a typical example, take the TV show “Sex and the City”: most people would be shocked to learn what the show’s originators and writers have admitted in interviews — that the script is written as if the four lead characters are gay men, not women. But then they hired four females actresses to play the parts of the gay men. So, according to the show’s designers, the women are supposed to act and talk like and fool around and have the attitudes of gay men in New York City. They are not supposed to be or act like straight women characters. Why do such a strange thing? Well, as was slyly hinted at in the interviews, it is to introduce “queer sensibilities” into the average American’s living room without anyone even realizing it.

    Stuff like that happens every single minute of every single day. I’m not saying this is necessarily all nefarious, but the more I perceive it saturating American culture, the more I was unable to wish away the dawning realization that maybe there is some kind of “gay agenda” (or whatever phrase to describe it that you won’t find offensive).

      

  72. 72Ken on Apr 10, 2009 at 6:53 pm:

    “If you don’t perceive it, or at least refuse to acknowledge it…”

    I don’t have much exposure to American media these days, so maybe I’m just missing out on it all? Regardless, it doesn’t seem to me like there has been any significant movement to force anyone to accept a “queer-centric” view of the world. Gays are becoming more and more mainstream these days and, thus, the enertainment industry panders to that newly-emerging market. It probably all boils down to an economic aspect, as so many things do.

    “Why do such a strange thing?”

    I have no idea, I didn’t write any of the screenplays for that show and, actually, I’ve never even seen it before. We can only guess at their motivation: that they thought audicences wouldn’t accept a show about 4 gay men so they changed the characters to women, they thought the lead actresses could bring in more viewers than a lesser-known group of gay actors, that they’re trying to expose an unconscious double-standard wherein viewers will watch and enjoy a show about the hedonism of straight women but would reject one about gay men, who knows? It has always seemed like a pretty dull show to me, anyway.

    “it is to introduce ‘queer sensibilities’ into the average American’s living room without anyone even realizing it”

    Even if that is the case, that’s why every TV has an “off” switch…that’s also why this isn’t an issue: because for those who choose to reject the “queer sensibilities” supposedly in the media these days, they can choose to watch that show or not, just like we can choose to believe in the traditional definition of “bisexuality” or the one expressed in the exhibit in your report. In my humble opinion, we shouldn’t get worked up over any situation in which we can exercise a choice. I will continue to subscribe to the standard definition of “bisexual” until I see evidence otherwise and, likewise, I’m not going to jump to conclusions about the “gay agenda” I see evidence of its existence. What I’ve seen so far, though, isn’t much. Just my two cents.

    “or whatever phrase to describe it that you won’t find offensive”

    I certainly don’t find the phrase “gay agenda” particularly offensive, though it does sound a bit creepy and sinister..and I could understand why gays might be offended by it. I don’t think you’d ever use the phrase “Jewish agenda” on your blog, would you? Either way, I find some of your reports to be a little ridiculous, but never offensive. I still respect you.

      

  73. 73Dane on Apr 10, 2009 at 8:55 pm:

    “I certainly don’t find the phrase “gay agenda” particularly offensive, though it does sound a bit creepy and sinister..and I could understand why gays might be offended by it. I don’t think you’d ever use the phrase “Jewish agenda” on your blog, would you? Either way, I find some of your reports to be a little ridiculous, but never offensive. I still respect you.”

    Very much agreed. Too much of a ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of San Francisco’ cast to it.

    I roll my eyes whenever I see the phrase “Jewish lobby”; “gay agenda” is used in much the same way and it’s just as ridiculous.

    I can believe that some individuals or organizations have the goal you describe, Zombie, but I think using a term like “gay agenda” makes it sound like you think it’s some sort of sinister conspiracy on the part of the entire community, and that makes you sound like a tin-foil hat paranoid when you say it.

    In any event, appreciate the pictures.

      

  74. 74zombie on Apr 10, 2009 at 9:47 pm:

    73 Dane:
    “I can believe that some individuals or organizations have the goal you describe, Zombie, but I think using a term like “gay agenda” makes it sound like you think it’s some sort of sinister conspiracy on the part of the entire community, and that makes you sound like a tin-foil hat paranoid when you say it.”

    I didn’t realize that the phrase “gay agenda” would be the thing to set off so many alarm bells. I didn’t mean to sound paranoid or tin-foil-hatty by using it. I thought it was a pretty commonly used expression, and was not aware it had so many negative associations in people’s minds. Again, I wish I had a less loaded term to use, but there apparently is no neutral term. Perhaps I should have used the academic-approved term “queer activism” and my photo caption wouldn’t have been tainted by what some apparently see as a problematic term.

    As for a “sinister conspiracy on the part of the entire community” — obviously not. Only 5% of people in any community, at most, are even in a position to influence culture or make “strategic” plans. Most people of all sorts — including gay people — just live their lives and don’t have any interest or ability to impact culture one way or the other. I’m talking about some people in that 5% — the “creatives,” the academics, the media members, the writers, the producers, etc. — who use their platform to push for a certain…uh…well, “agenda” is the right word here. This is likely true of many groups, and as I mentioned before, it’s not necessarily sinister. For example, thinking of black filmmakers: some just make films of any ol’ sort, but others, such as Spike Lee as the most obvious example, almost always make films with a “black agenda” — films that revolve around black characters, black issues, black culture. And no one thinks badly of him for doing so — it’s perfectly within his rights. And if one of his films is entertaining, people will go see it, and he’ll get rich, and that’s the American way. It’s just that most of the films containing some kind of “queer” agenda do so “below the radar” in various clever or surreptitious ways where the audience may not even realize they’re being preached to, subtly.

    I don’t see why it’s is even controversial to point this out: I know many gay people who take great glee in noticing and pointing out all the crypto “gay messages” that pop up in all sorts of cultural artifacts. They think it’s delightful, and would laugh at anyone who can’t see all the “spot the hidden picture” messages in American culture.

      

  75. 75DangerousNate on Apr 10, 2009 at 11:52 pm:

    “I seem to remember that some commenters specifically cited your reports on Dore and Folsom as a reason to vote Yes on 8. Do you agree with that reasoning, or not?”

    He just reported what happened there, he never said that we should he against this, he just said, here’s the pictures and some context around them, do with it what you will.

    Commenters will say their opinion, zombie just presented the facts, and it’s up to commenters to make opinions.

      

  76. 76Xpltivdletd on Apr 11, 2009 at 12:00 am:

    Sorry to be a bit late to this little punch-up. It has been a busy week. Anyway, Zombie–IMO what you *DO* is remarkable and you are quite good at it. That includes your reporting of this item. Whenever some group is placed off-limits for discussion (without the discussion getting their ‘Nihil Obstat’ and ‘Imprimatur’ before being published), we have a problem, unless it’s an imaginary group. If Klingons demand that we refrain from discussing them without their supervision, that’s OK by me. But you reported on a group that exists. So I stand with you. Best regards.

      

  77. 77Ken on Apr 11, 2009 at 12:27 am:

    “but others, such as Spike Lee as the most obvious example, almost always make films with a ‘black agenda’ — films that revolve around black characters, black issues, black culture.”

    Aye, but Zombie, there’s the rub: are Spike Lee and certain members of the Gay community using their positions as spokesmen for their respective communities to advance a particular interest or are they merely making films they and other members of their community can personally relate to? The term “agenda,” I think, infers that a person is using their soapbox to advance their own views about something, to force that view on others, to realize a goal that only benefits themselves. There is a difference between that and making a movie with black characters and black issues (or gay issues, for that matter) simply because you’re black and, dammit, there aren’t many good movies with black casts and you’d like to see one. The line to be drawn and crossed is whether or not you’re forcing that view on people who don’t want it. In this case, I would say that is not going on.

      

  78. 78Maria on Apr 11, 2009 at 2:19 pm:

    #77 Ken. That’s a bit of a side argument. It’s true though. But the issue zombie highlights in their post is not that she/he finds fault that there are specific groups with specific cultural artifacts and products. What he/she highlighted and keeps stressing stems from the example of linguistic sleight of hand. A trick that is as subtle as it is naked; it is an attempt to evolve the meaning of a term in order to further a particular socio-political agenda. It attempts to reclassify and redraw the borders of a group of people, it doesn’t say that “We are all one People” but it says “We are all this Type of People.” And many people have issue with being typecast.
    Bisexual as a term is about sexuality and not about general feelings of emotion al connection. The politics of language and the language of politics are the one and the same.
    As a side note, in light of the discussion this post raised, the fact that i always find myself using the term he/she when referring to zombie amuses me.

      

  79. 79Maria on Apr 11, 2009 at 2:25 pm:

    Just to add this, what makes -me- bisexual isn’t that i have strong love for my female friends who have supported me and been supported by me through the ups and downs of life. What makes me -bisexual- is that I would -consider- a sexual relationship with either a man or a women if the criteria for a relationship was already there. Being bisexual doesn’t give you the ability to have emotional connections with either gender… being human does.

      

  80. 80Maria on Apr 11, 2009 at 3:14 pm:

    And i should correct myself by saying “emotional connections with either sex”. ;)

      

  81. 81buzzsawmonkey on Apr 11, 2009 at 6:05 pm:

    There is too much in the replies above to answer in a single message. For now, I will merely point out that pch is dead wrong in saying

    Was a time – 45+ years ago and for time immemorial before that – when every public mention of homosexuality was negative. When avowed homosexuals were considered mentally defective and consequently persecuted, subjected to electroshock therapy, and even sent to death camps en masse — except, of course, for those who chose instead to live a lie by denying their true whatever-you-think-we-should-call-it.

    There are numerous “public mentions of homosexuality” in early 20th-century films which are not “negative.” Prior to about 1880, there were few “public mentions of homosexuality” merely because “homosexuality” as a concept–as a “condition” separate from “heterosexuality” had not yet been foisted on society by persons of homosexual inclination themselves; prior to that, homosexual acts were forbidden, but there was little in the way of a separate homosexual subculture. Indeed, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “gay” was a term which referred to the demimonde in general, of which those acting on same-sex attraction were only a small part. As far as “public mention” is concerned, sex or sexuality generally was considered something that was not discussed among civilized people.

    Thus, to complain about the evils which psychiatry foisted on “homosexuals” (I prefer the use of the word as an adjective to its modern use as a noun) is to complain that the creation of a separate identity initially backfired on its proponents, who are now seeking to “correct” a problem for themselves which they themselves created.

      

  82. 82Maria on Apr 11, 2009 at 9:05 pm:

    buzzsawmonkey, I don’t intend to jump in but I am curious, are you’re saying that if homosexuals didn’t talk about being homosexual then homosexual relationships would be seen just as regular as heterosexual? In a sense, if no one talked about their sexual relationships then the issues would go away? I’m having a hard time picturing the reality of such a situation. Since merely telling another person that you went on a date with your girlfriend or boyfriend, husband or wife labels your sexual identity. And I agree with you, scanning through human history, while I’m in danger of making a broad brushstroke generalization, it appears that sexuality has never been as openly and politically discussed as it has been in the relatively recent decades.

      

  83. 83buzzsawmonkey on Apr 12, 2009 at 4:00 am:

    It seems that a number of would-be advocates for what they believe to be a “pro-homosexual” position are woefully ignorant of “homosexual” history. Therefore, it is time for a quiz:

    1) Name two famous homosexual relationships that appear in 19th century American literature.
    2) Quote a line indicating same-sex attraction from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
    3) Who was Julian Eltinge, what was he famous for and what did he build?
    4) Who was Karyl Norman, and what was his nickname?
    5) What were two late 19th-century non-slang terms used to describe people experiencing same-sex attraction?
    6) What fashion accessory worn by Oscar Wilde was celebrated in a song by Noel Coward?
    7) Name at least two books by two American writers of the 1920s which contained homosexual characters or episodes. For extra points, describe those characters or episodes.
    8) Name at least two homosexual characters in the works of Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited excluded.
    9) Name the actor who first used the term “gay” in its modern sense in a film, and name the film.
    10) Name the popular song which first used the term “gay” in its modern sense, the author of the song, and the person referred to in it.
    11) Name two homosexual characters in the works of Eric Ambler.
    12) Name the homosexual character, or describe the episode in which the character appears, in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man.
    13) For what was the Renaissance Ballroom known during the 1920s and 1930s?
    14) Name a famous lesbian of the Harlem Renaissance.
    15) Name a film from before 1934 containing a reference to same-sex attraction, and describe the reference.

      

  84. 84buzzsawmonkey on Apr 12, 2009 at 9:20 am:

    #60 anonymouse writes:

    Oh and buzzsawmonkey, why is it that you want the government to take an interest in my balls, or lack thereof?

    Since I have no idea who or what you are, I can hardly have suggested that “the government take an interest” in whether or not you have balls. I do not recall suggesting any such thing above; perhaps you would be so kind as to indicate where you imagine that I did so.

      

  85. 85buzzsawmonkey on Apr 12, 2009 at 9:35 am:

    #58 Bakunin: You spend your post largely in recapping–rather badly–my own point, that there is no basis under the Constitution under which “gays” can claim to be discriminated against, provided their right of free association under the First Amendment is not proscribed.

    As you doubtless know, neither slavery nor slave ownership in this country was race-specific; there were white slaves, at least initially; there were free blacks who owned slaves, and there were slaves of African descent who, via the miracle of genetics, appeared as “white” as their masters. That males and females were prohibited for many years, in some states, from legally marrying across the (legally defined, if not always visually discernable) color line is wholly immaterial to creating the de novo “right” of people of the same sex to marry, for which there is absolutely no legal precedent or foundation. In the meantime, there is absolutely nothing which prohibits people with homosexual desires from getting married; they cannot, however, marry people of the same sex and have that union given weight by the civil law. They can marry same-sex partners in a religious ceremony in the Church of the Divine Phallusy, but it will have no civil validity.

      

  86. 86Squanto on Apr 12, 2009 at 11:21 am:

    buzzsawmonkey 100 years ago …

    There is no basis under the Constitution under which interracial couples can claim to be discriminated against, provided their right of free association under the First Amendment is not proscribed. This is wholly immaterial to creating the de novo “right” of interracial couples to marry. There is absolutely nothing which prohibits interracial couples from getting married; they can not, however, marry people of a different race and have that union given weight by the civil law. They can marry different-race partners in a religious ceremony in the Church of Miscegenation, but it will have no civil validity.

    Ah, the good old days.

      

  87. 87zombie on Apr 12, 2009 at 11:42 am:

    To Ken, and anyone who has never seen any evidence of the “queering of culture” that goes on continuously in American academia:

    The following event, which I stumbled upon quite by accident, is absolutely typical of basically every department in American universities:

    Islands of Men: Shifting Gender Boundaries in World War I Internment Camps

    As you will see when you read the link, the thrust of this lecture at the University of California History Department is to place WWI POWs into a queer context — to point out all the effeminate things they did while imprisoned, such as housework and other activities associated with women or gays. They take great pleasure in retroactively putting a big “QUEER” label on all WWI POWs, and imply (as always in these sorts of things) that these men were gay without realizing it, and that they engaged in delicious gender-smashing behavior:

    During the First World War an estimated eight and a half million men became prisoners of war or civilian internees. Cut off from their prior civilian or military standings, these men strived during their years in captivity to create meaningful social and cultural practices and preserve a feeling of self worth. POW officers and civilian internees in particular developed elaborate practices which attempted to uphold their sense of privileged male authority. However, contrary to the hopes and expectations of prisoners some of these practices in fact challenged gender roles and sexual norms. By adopting a comparative, transnational perspective, this study focuses on mainstays of camp life such as theatrical productions, lodging adornment, sports and bodybuilding, nurturing of pets and the manufacture of artifacts. This project is based on extensive archival research and focuses on internment camps in Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia. This study will make a significant contribution to the cultural and social history of the Great War, and will illuminate larger theoretical issues debated by anthropologists, cultural critics, gender scholars, historians of the theater and queer theorists. The first part of this study focusing on drag performances among POWs in Russia has been published in the April 2006 issue of the American Historical Review.

    This attempt at queer-izing POWs may seem bizarre and irrelevant to you, but it is a single brick in a vast edifice which is being constructed in which all of history and culture (as I pointed out) is being re-cast through a queer filter. Today they’re pointing out gayness and gender dysphoria of WWI POWs, tomorrow it is Shakespeare, the day after it’s The Three Stooges and after that it’s Mormon baptismal rituals. And on and on and on, without end, until every single topic you can ever think of is encompassed as a subset of Queer Studies.

    (Needless to say, if you went back in time and told all those WWI POWs that, decades in the future, academicians would analyze the homosexual content of their behavior in internment camps and conclude that the camps were roiling swamps of effeminacy and repressed homosexuality, you’d better brace yourself for a punch in the nose.)

    The very fact that they identify certain behaviors as being inherently “queer’ — such as putting on shows to entertain the other POWs, or (gasp!) “nurturing” pets, or putting up decorations on the walls, etc., means that little by little they’re moving the goalposts and shifting every little thing into the gay-ness camp. Hence, if you have a pet and you are cruel to it, you are “trying to maintain your sense of privileged male authority”; but if you’re nice to it, you’re revealing your hand that you are in fact nurturing and thus “queer,” whether you realize it or not. Hence you lose either way: You’re either a macho insecure imperialistic sadist who’s in denial about your queerness; or you’re letting out and finally expressing your true gay self. “Which may or may not manifest itself in terms of sexual attraction,” to bring us back to the thrust of this post.

    Can’t you begin to see what I’m talking about? Imagine dozens of lectures like this one every day on every major university campus across the country. (And you don’t need to imagine it, because it’s already happening.) And imagine that influence spreading out to other areas. (For example, a while back someone produced a musical based on Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn in which Tom and Huck were adolescent gay lovers.)

    The “bisexuality” exhibit and the “Queer POW camps” lecture are merely two random examples out of literally thousands that are happening every week — every day, every minute.

    The way things are going, Queer Studies will within 50 years not be merely a “department” at universities, but will grow to become an overarching discipline, much like “Letters and Sciences,” “Business,” and “Medicine,” a thematic grouping of several departments under a larger queer umbrella.

      

  88. 88buzzsawmonkey on Apr 12, 2009 at 12:02 pm:

    #86 Squanto: Your cutesy attempt to plug in “race” for “sexual orientation” fails utterly.

    How were the miscegenation laws overturned? By the Court rejecting its earlier erroneous analysis of a Constitutional right that had been created–or, more properly, clarified–by Constitutional amendment. There is no such provision in the Constitution which applies to sexual orientation.

    Sexual orientation is not equivalent to race; people experiencing same-sex attraction are not, and have never been, a “suspect classifcation” under the vast majority of Constitutional-law court decisions relating to them.

    For all your verbal gymnastics, you still come down to “I wanna” as your sole justification for imposing same-sex marriage; neither you, nor anyone else, can point to any basis in the Constitution nor to any legal precedent that supports this, unless you bring in examples of judicial legislating.

      

  89. 89buzzsawmonkey on Apr 12, 2009 at 12:04 pm:

    In the meantime, I notice that no-one has yet attempted to take the quiz in #83.

    No surprise there; most “gays” are woefully ignorant of the history of “their people,” and instead parrot the platitudes of the “gay rights movement.”

      

  90. 90zombie on Apr 12, 2009 at 12:09 pm:

    #86 Squanto:

    I would just like to reiterate that my post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of gay marriage. (In fact I personally have no problems with gay marriage; although I do deplore the intimidation tactics used by Proposition 8 opponents, which crossed the line from aggressive to terrifying after the measure passed. Prop 8 supporters were threatened with violence and financial ruin, etc. So, although I do not oppose gay marriage, I felt [and continue to feel] the need to distance myself from the jackbootery of the anti-Prop 8 thugs.) You are free to continue your parrying with buzzsawmonkey, but please do not involve me or any of the other commenters in this particular scuffle. Thanks.

      

  91. 91buzzsawmonkey on Apr 12, 2009 at 12:33 pm:

    #90 zombie–true, I have allowed the discussion to stray afield, for which I apologize.

    It is, however, easy for this to happen. The modern “gay” does not like to be reminded that while same-sex attraction is as old as humanity, and acceptance of it as part of the human continuum of equal age, self-identification of those indulging in that attraction as a separate subculture is a phenomenon of very recent vintage.

    My attempts to point this out have, alas, been met with rather doctrinaire parrotings of “We want marriage! Want it now!” which are clearly intended to avoid having to deal with the recognition that it is the intentional creation of a separate subculture that has created many of the problems for which that separate subculture feels aggrieved. The marriage issue, while interesting, is really irrelevant to the thread topic.

    In a sense, the recognition and acceptance of same-sex attraction which existed prior to the creation of a separate, militant subculture confirms the militants’ notion that “bisexuality” is indeed pervasive. The difference, however, is that today’s militants wish to use this pervasiveness to create bright-line distinctions and definitions which are designed and intended to limit the personal freedom of those who are willing to subject themselves to them. Admit to having snuggled close with your bunkie on the Boy Scout overnighter and gabba gabba hey–you’re one of us, no matter what you yourself might think of the matter; think about taking a walk on the wild side and it’s your duty to “come out,” or risk being outed.

    As with so many–I am tempted to say “all”–revolutionary movements, the rhetoric of personal freedom is deployed in order to limit and strip away personal choice, and to make the most private of decisions fit material for judgment in the public square.

      

  92. 92Ken on Apr 13, 2009 at 2:53 am:

    “To Ken, and anyone who has never seen any evidence of the ‘queering of culture’ that goes on continuously in American academia”

    Cut me some slack, will you, Zomb? I have spent a decade in China (where the visibility of the Gay community, just now in 2009, is finally approaching the low level of visibility their American countparts had in the early 80′s), cocooned in my own “Chinese” life, with my Chinese wife and child, and haven’t been back to the US in something like 7 or 8 years. I think, given the circumstances, that my lack of knowledge about the so-called “queering of culture” could be understood. I did not, I think, infer that you were exagerrating, did I? Just that I hadn’t seen much evidence of what you claimed. Two examples and your exhortation that this is going on all over “American academia,” frankly, mean nothing to me. Maybe I’m not qualified to make that judgment, though, I admit.

    I can’t make much of a judgment based on a mere blurb about some lecture given by someone at sometime. Again, if this re-casting of World History from a “gay perspective” is merely happening at lectures given by “experts” I know nothing about, to audiences I know nothing about, I can’t take that as evidence that any large-scale “queerification of culture” is happening. How do I know this wasn’t a lecture given by a gay professor to a largely gay audience? If that were the case, I could understand their re-casting it from a gay perspective in order for them to make it personally relatable. Naturally, if I were gay I would be interested in learning about lesser-mentioned gay-related episodes in history that I find personally interesting, just like how I would be more interested in learning about Black History if I were Black, just like how I, as a foreigner living in China, am more interested in learning about Israel Epstein, Sidney Rittenberg, and Norman Bethune (Wiki them) than I am about learning about Liu Hulan or Lei Feng. I have a problem with people forcing their personal interpretations of history (or whatever) on me, but I have no problem whatsoever with people seeking out culture that they find personally interesting or relatable for whatever reason. In my own view, the “queer-centric” folks (if they even exist) haven’t crossed the line by forcing me to conform to a view of history or sociology that I don’t agree with. Until they do that, though, I’ll reserve judgment.

    I guess the important question I have is: why do you even care about this? If you don’t agree with the exhibit’s definition of bisexuality then why don’t you just ignore it? If you think that “Sex and the City” is trying to advance some kind of “gay agenda” then why don’t you just not watch it? If you think that lectures like the one you linked are trying to proliferate some kind of “queer-centric” revionist history then why don’t you just not go to those lectures? If you really do feel that Queer Studies will become a discipline in its own right, and you feel uncomfortable with it, I urge you not to study that. Correct me if I’m wrong, but no one is forcing you to accept any of that, are they? Why don’t you just live and let live instead of jumping to conclusions about it all? Because that’s all you’re doing.

      

  93. 93buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 5:38 am:

    #92 Squanto: I see that, like most non-thinkers, you revert to name-calling when you cannot provide any support for your doctrine-based positions.

      

  94. 94pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 8:46 am:

    I couldn’t live with my own hypocrisy if I selectively censored the truth due to some political agenda.

    Yet you seem to have no trouble selectively presenting the truth… what your agenda is, I have no idea. But I attended both the Folsom Street Fair and the Up Your Alley Fair last year, spending several hours at both, and did not witness any of the behavior that you so diligently photographed. You really had to seek it out.

    What about the demonstration that occurred in the Castro last week over the slaughter of gay men in Baghdad? That seems to have slipped under your radar. I can’t imagine why, because it would been a trifecta: you could have used your coverage of this event to (a) mock the appearance and signage of the protesters, (b) bash Islam and (c) bash the Obama administration. A trifecta!

    Imagine dozens of lectures like this one every day on every major university campus across the country.

    Are students being forced to take these courses against their will?

    the need to distance myself from the jackbootery of the anti-Prop 8 thugs

    No mention of the blatant lying that the Yes campaign deployed in its successful campaign, or of the priest in Fresno who was defrocked for denouncing Prop 8, or of the violence directed against No on 8 supporters.

      

  95. 95buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 9:22 am:

    #95 pch: The “gay rights” movement has many sins to answer for, the first of which being its complicity in the deaths of thousands of American gay men by AIDS, through its fighting to keep bathhouses and backroom bars open during the early days of the epidemic. The infliction of suffering and death upon the people who contracted infection through the movement’s laboring to keep these pesthouses functioning is a monumental crime for which the “movement” stalwarts will probably never be called to account.

    Horrific though that human toll is, however, it ends with the deaths of those the movement betrayed. Living on beyond that is the corruption of political discourse which the movement’s use of language has foisted, and continues to foist, upon the entire body politic. Your post #95 exhibits one of these corruptions when you use the term “bash”–a term originally applied to physical attacks upon gay men–to refer to a possible verbal attack or disagreement.

    When the “gay rights” movement hit its stride, it took the term “gay-baiting,” which had derived from the earlier “red-baiting”–both of which referred to verbal accusations–and substituted “-bashing,” which had been previously been used, even in the movement, specifically in reference to physical violence. Adoption of the pseudopsychological term “homophobia” worked in tandem with this linguistic corruption to assist the movement in attempting to style any disagreement as not only equivalent to violence, but the product of psychological disorder–and the blurring of the distinction between verbal disagreement and physical attack paved the way for the pernicious innovation of laws and campus codes directed at “hate speech,” i.e., at suppressing free speech with which favored groups did not want to deal by equating disagreement with violence.

      

  96. 96pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 9:33 am:

    “self-identification of those indulging in that attraction as a separate subculture is a phenomenon of very recent vintage”

    As is the non-existence of sodomy laws. You conveniently forget that until very recently, it was illegal for consenting adults behind closed doors to engage in oral or anal sex. In most cases the laws applied only to homosexuals, but in some states it was illegal for heterosexuals too.

    Of course homosexuality has always existed, but your quiz suggests that awareness and acceptance thereof was limited to élites in the worlds of art, literature, music, etc. Your average run-of-the-mill gay person had to hide his or her true identity or risk arrest, imprisonment, and worse. When you state that “sex and sexuality were not discussed among civilized people,” I can only infer that you would prefer that “the love that won’t shut up” would do precisely that, because I’m sure you wouldn’t also ban the words “wife” and “husband” from the lexicon.

    The “queer theorists” envision a world where everyone is presumed gay. You apparently envision a world where everyone is presumed straight. Both are wrong. Neither is preferable.

      

  97. 97buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 10:02 am:

    #97 pch: So many leaps, so many weird assumptions on your part. And they are not helped by your effort at “evenhandedness” with which you conclude your post.

    My quiz–which I note you have yet to dare to attempt answering–shows that the creators and purveyors of popular entertainments, who relied on far more than the “elite” for a market, were not shy about including homosexual themes and allusions in their works. Had the public been as censorious and hostile as you persist in believing, these works and their creators would have felt the wrath of the marketplace. In the meantime, the quiz shows both that awareness and even acceptance of same-sex desire was more prevalent in earlier times than the “movement” of today would have you believe, and that modern “gays” are grossly unaware of this, having had their knowledge spoon-fed to them by political operatives with a personal agenda.

    The division of the world into “gay” and “straight” is a lie, fostered by the “gay rights movement,” whose existence depends on this false dichotomy. That movement is attempting to expand its lie by expanding the definition of “gay” however it can concoct it.

      

  98. 98pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 10:20 am:

    “The division of the world into “gay” and “straight” is a lie”

    OK, so then why should there be different rules for “gay” and “straight” people vis-a-vis marriage, military service, etc.?

      

  99. 99buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 10:31 am:

    #99 pch: You are arguing an entirely different point. I am saying that the neat division of people into “gay” and “straight” is a false dichotomy–one which did not exist until modern times, by which I mean the last 150 years at the outside. It certainly does not exist in the Bible, and did not exist since Biblical times–since all proscriptions, from Biblical times up to the sodomy laws (which mostly date from mid-19th century), deal with acts and not with a status or condition.

    It is the homosexual activists who chose to confine themselves, 100+ years ago, into the box of status or condition, and who have been reaping grief from that decision ever since.

      

  100. 100pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 11:29 am:

    “I am saying that the neat division of people into “gay” and “straight” is a false dichotomy”

    And isn’t that exactly what the “queer theorists” are saying too?

      

  101. 101buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 11:58 am:

    #101 pch: No. The “queer theorists” are saying “we are all queer; therefore you are queer; therefore society must be re-cast in our image, and as we see fit.”

    The simple recognition that whom one beds down with is a personal decision says to “gay activists” and “queer theorists” alike, “Sorry, but your claim to exceptionality is false. You are a politically constructed minority that already has the civil rights common to the citizenry; what you seek beyond that is merely grievance-mongering, an attempt to seek special rights, and a political excuse for personal failure. You may seek your fortune as you choose, like the rest of us, in the course of which you will find that the vast majority of people do not care about your personal life unless you choose to make an issue of it. If you do, you will find that some people will be indifferent, some sympathetic, and some hostile. Welcome to the world.”

      

  102. 102pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 1:09 pm:

    So if I say “last night I went to the movies with my boyfriend,” does that constitute “making an issue of my sexual orientation”? Should I self-censor lest I incur the wrath of people like you who would rather not know about my personal life?

      

  103. 103buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 1:19 pm:

    #103 pch: You do what you want, like a grownup, and take the consequences–like a grown-up.

    If you want to say, “last night I went to the movies with my boyfriend,” by all means do so; if you don’t, don’t. If you do, one presumes you will already have a good idea whether or not the person you say it to will react, positively, negatively, or with indifference.

    In the meantime, you are way f*cking out of line, babbling about “wrath.” Granted your posts show a real need to cling to a feeling of victimization, but most people find where you stick it much more boring than you do. Someday you may come to realize that.

      

  104. 104pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 1:35 pm:

    And you may come to realize that one’s sexual identity is about far more than “where you stick it.” Besides, you make a statement about that anytime you mention your partner or spouse. And when’s the last time you heard of someone getting bashed (and I do mean bashed) because they mentioned having an opposite-sex partner? Have you ever had to think twice before mentioning your opposite-sex partner to a total stranger?

      

  105. 105buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 1:38 pm:

    And when’s the last time you heard of someone getting bashed (and I do mean bashed) because they mentioned having an opposite-sex partner? Have you ever had to think twice before mentioning your opposite-sex partner to a total stranger?

    Why on earth anyone would “mention their partner to a total stranger” for any reason is beyond me.

    Sadly, there are not enough phony “rights” in the world to substitute for good sense.

      

  106. 106pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 1:42 pm:

    Wow… I didn’t know that “heterosexuals” (gotta love those “scare” “quotes,” they “add” so “much” “weight” to an Internet “argument”) were so leery about casually mentioning their wives/husbands in public, or holding their hands and calling them pet names, etc.

    My condolences. Must be tough living like that.

      

  107. 107buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 1:49 pm:

    I put what you call scare quotes around “rights” because you are looking for “rights” that don’t exist; you are looking for a Magical Exemption from Human Cussedness.

    People do not casually discuss their partners with total strangers because they don’t want to come across like the pathetic sleazeball that Eric Idle portrays in the old Monty Python “Nudge Nudge Wink Wink” sketch. It’s sad that you seem to think aping Idle’s character is the apotheosis of having arrived.

      

  108. 108pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 2:07 pm:

    Huh. When I see couples holding hands, my mind doesn’t automatically go to “wink wink nudge nudge.” But then, whatever floats your boat…

      

  109. 109buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 2:18 pm:

    Nothing shows the innate contradiction of the fraudulent “gay rights movement” more than pch’s demand that, having made the decision to be a Public Queer, he be insulated with the full force of the law from any random consequence which might arise from that moronic decision.

    Children who dress in “gangsta” garb not infrequently complain that they are treated…like gangsta types when they go abroad in public. They are viewed with suspicion when they enter stores, get the hairy eyeball from police, and they complain, “Why am I being viewed with suspicion when I haven’t done anything? Why do people judge me by my clothes?” Get a cluebat, child and pch alike: the “gangsta” adolescent is viewed with suspicion because he has chosen to identify himself with an unsavory mode of behavior, and be judged by the appearance that he participates in it; the person engaging in gratuitous displays of public affection is viewed with distaste because s/he is behaving in a vulgar and inappropriate manner, regardless of the gender of his/her partner.

    If there are some people who will react with more than mere inward distaste when confronted with a vulgar display–and there are–that is a risk that someone who chooses to behave inappropriately has elected to run, just as the gangstaboy has chosen to run the risk that someone will gun him down randomly because he appears to be affiliated with the wrong group, whether or not that happens to be true.

    People hold hands when they feel comfortable doing so. Should they be assaulted when they are doing so, there are laws against assault which can be brought to bear against the assailant(s). But there is no power on Earth that can provide anyone a prior guarantee against such an assault; “rights” do not replace the necessity for good sense.

    The “gay rights movement,” however, seems to believe that such “rights” exist–and pch, sadly, seems to have bought it–but nothing will fill the void that exists in a soul which is perpetually seeking external validation, for that validation is in constant danger of being destroyed by a single intimation of hostility.

      

  110. 110Ed on Apr 13, 2009 at 3:56 pm:

    Ken, I guess the important question I have is: why do you even care about this? If you don’t agree with Zombie’s definition of Queer Agenda, then why don’t you just ignore it? If you think that he or she is trying to advance some kind of “hetero agenda” then why don’t you just not read it? If you think that lectures like the one Zombie linked aren’t trying to proliferate some kind of “queer-centric” revionist history then why don’t you just ignore those arguing otherwise? If you really do feel that Queer Studies won’t become a discipline in its own right, and you feel comfortable with it, I urge you not to study that. Correct me if I’m wrong, but no one is forcing you to accept any of that, are they? Why don’t you just live and let live instead of jumping to conclusions about it all? Because that’s all you’re doing.

      

  111. 111Ed on Apr 13, 2009 at 4:01 pm:

    “95pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 8:46 am:
    “I couldn’t live with my own hypocrisy if I selectively censored the truth due to some political agenda.”

    Yet you seem to have no trouble selectively presenting the truth… what your agenda is, I have no idea. But I attended both the Folsom Street Fair and the Up Your Alley Fair last year, spending several hours at both, and did not witness any of the behavior that you so diligently photographed. You really had to seek it out.”

    **********************************************************************************************************************************

    Exactly! I mean, who are you going to believe? PCH? Or your own lying eyes?

    Anyway, I went to those fairs too. And the reality was, Zombie’s report was pretty accurate. As opposed to your assertation that you “really had to seek it out.” Unless by “really had to seek it out”, you meant, “in your face, out in the open.”

    In which case, my bad.

      

  112. 112pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 4:30 pm:

    Holding hands with my partner = a moronic decision, and a vulgar, inappropriate, gratuitous display befitting a “Public Queer”?

    What a drama queen you are.

      

  113. 113buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm:

    #113 pch: What a pathetic excuse for a rejoinder.

    It is you who are demanding some sort of Magic Right to Hold Hands Wherever and Whenever You Want–no matter how inappropriate, unwise, gratuitous, or vulgar such a display might be at any given location or point in time–and to be Magically Assured that any and all onlookers will approve, nay, applaud your decision to do so. If that is not declaring your “right” to be a Public Queer, I don’t know what is.

    You remind me of the vulgarians who, back in the days that the Mineshaft was famously operating in New York, used to attend the ballet in full leather drag so as to ensure that not a moment would be lost between the final curtain and their rendezvous with saturnalia. The Mineshaft was a bar which, notoriously, would deny admission to anyone not “properly attired”–i.e., nothing as sissified as a Lacoste shirt or khakhis. If you weren’t sporting leather and/or jeans, you had to check your clothing at the door. Yet the Mineshaft boys–so demanding of proper decorum, if that be the word, where their fantasyland was concerned–thought nothing of violating the decorum of the larger society and Lincoln Center by showing up for the theater dressed as though they were rutting in a Tom of Finland drawing.

      

  114. 114pch on Apr 13, 2009 at 5:18 pm:

    I don’t care whether I’m approved or applauded. I do care whether I get the crap beaten out of me, which opposite-sex couples who hold hands in public do not have to worry about, except perhaps in Saudi Arabia.

    But since you insist on politicizing every aspect of homosexuality (excuse me, “homosexuality”)– even the most inconsequential display of affection — and insinuating that same-sex hand-holding portends the second coming of Caligula, I suppose there’s really no point in trying to convey just how tiresome it is to have to “edit” oneself every minute of every day.

    However, as your position all along has been that we gay (excuse me, “gay”) folk should cease giving a sh!t what anyone else thinks, I hereby so cease. So the last word is yours.

      

  115. 115buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 5:32 pm:

    #115 pch: You are delusional.

    So far from suggesting that inconsequential displays of affection should be discouraged, I encouraged you to engage in them as you will–reminding you, however, that in doing so you should be aware that your right to do so does not trump someone else’s right to disapprove–and that no imaginary “right” exists that will ensure such disapproval will not exist or be expressed.

    So far from engaging in the overheated rhetoric, such as “the second coming of Caligula,” which you lapse into in the attempt to conceal that you have not made one single coherent argument in this entire thread (nor shown any knowledge of the history of same-sex attraction), I have shown you how your angry yearnings for “rights” have been inculcated by a movement which effectively condemned thousands to a slow and painful death.

    I have not politicized any aspect of homosexuality; the “gay activists” have done that, starting with the invention of “homosexuality” as an allegedly separate status rather than the merely one aspect of the grand continuum of human desire which it was regarded as until modern times.

      

  116. 116buzzsawmonkey on Apr 13, 2009 at 9:15 pm:

    Funny thing, ain’t it? I point out how the “gay rights movement” has created the problems it claims to want to solve, by making “homosexuality” a separate status; how that movement is complicit in the death of thousands; that there is no basis in law for whatever “rights” that movement is now demanding; that modern-day “gays” know nothing about their own history, including the historical origins of the appellation “gay”–and to all these things, and many others, posters such as pch and Squanto have not one word they can offer which address the issues. Not one. Overheated rhetoric, yes; abuse, yes; irrelevancies, yes. But not a word which actually engages an issue.

      

  117. 117Adam The Californian on Apr 13, 2009 at 9:46 pm:

    PCH – Are you a native Californian? Native of the Bay Area?

    I am authentically curious. I am 5th generation and have seen same sex PDAs since I was a kid (now 43). I remember seeing all sorts of nude people on the beaches in and around Santa Cruz in the 70s and early 80s. I remember when Moscone and Milk were shot by Dan White and I remember the riots afterward and I remember DiFi taking charge of SF. Grew up knowing all sorts of gay and straight people. My first roomate at CalPoly was gay. BFD.

    Point is I have witnessed many who come here because it is a tolerant place and then take it upon themselves to lecture others on their intolerant ways. A sort of metro-parochialism espoused with the zeal of the converted.

    You seem to have a such a chip on your shoulder. Don’t you think you are twisting other’s words a bit to make them seem more polarizing so you can grab the victims’ seat? Doesn’t that make you a bit intolerant? Creating “the other” and then dehumanizing him? Zombie is pointing out something that I too have witnessed. Part of getting along here is to not impose your perspective on them, and that is what Zombie is writing about. Why should that threaten you and require you to recast others as intolerant?

      

  118. 118zombie on Apr 13, 2009 at 11:05 pm:

    Squanto:

    Nick-jacking is totally out of line and beyond unethical. I have, as a result of your antics, now deleted all your comments — both under your name and others — and will delete any in the future should they come to my attention.

      

  119. 119zombie on Apr 13, 2009 at 11:38 pm:

    #95 pch

    “I couldn’t live with my own hypocrisy if I selectively censored the truth due to some political agenda.”

    Yet you seem to have no trouble selectively presenting the truth… what your agenda is, I have no idea. But I attended both the Folsom Street Fair and the Up Your Alley Fair last year, spending several hours at both, and did not witness any of the behavior that you so diligently photographed. You really had to seek it out.

    What about the demonstration that occurred in the Castro last week over the slaughter of gay men in Baghdad? That seems to have slipped under your radar. I can’t imagine why, because it would been a trifecta: you could have used your coverage of this event to (a) mock the appearance and signage of the protesters, (b) bash Islam and (c) bash the Obama administration. A trifecta!

    There are at least 15 to 20 political events every single day in the Bay Area. I only have the free time to attend (or randomly stumble on) about 1% of them. Sorry I didn’t go to the one you pre-selected for me. (Actually, I never even heard about it.) Mostly, what I cover these days is just what I accidently notice by happenstance. No agenda.

    As for you not noticing this stuff at Folsom or Dore – -What can I say? Either it got toned down this year, or you just weren’t paying attention. My photos speak for themselves.

    “Imagine dozens of lectures like this one every day on every major university campus across the country.”

    Are students being forced to take these courses against their will?

    Yes. Most of these types of courses are now breadth requirements and core major classes.

    “the need to distance myself from the jackbootery of the anti-Prop 8 thugs”

    No mention of the blatant lying that the Yes campaign deployed in its successful campaign, or of the priest in Fresno who was defrocked for denouncing Prop 8, or of the violence directed against No on 8 supporters.

    In my scanning of the news, 99% of the violent and terroristic tactics were done by Prop. 8 opponents after the election was over. Running a deceptive campaign (“lying”) is standard operating procedure on both sides of the aisle in every election on every issue, and does not rise to the level of personal life-threatening attacks on individuals.

    Sorry about the inconvenient facts.

      

  120. 120Ken on Apr 14, 2009 at 12:49 am:

    “Ken, I guess the important question I have is: why do you even care about this?”

    Gee, maybe because Zombie DID ask for opinions and he/she and I have been having something of a back-and-forth about it over the past couple of days, so I continue to reply to his/her replies to my replies, specifically the last one which mentioned me by name? Did you ever think of that, Ed?

    “If you don’t agree with Zombie’s definition of Queer Agenda, then why don’t you just ignore it?”

    Because, unlike the exhibit this post is dedicated to, Zombie asked for his/her (screw it, I’m just gonna use the masculine form from now on) reader’s opinions, so I gave mine. Is that ok?

    “If you think that lectures like the one Zombie linked aren’t trying to proliferate some kind of ‘queer-centric’ revionist history then why don’t you just ignore those arguing otherwise?”

    That’s usually what I do, except in cases, like this one, where people specifically ask to hear my opinion. As Zombie said: “What’s your opinion?” You do understand how people converse, don’t you?

    “If you really do feel that Queer Studies won’t become a discipline in its own right, and you feel comfortable with it, I urge you not to study that”

    That doesn’t even make sense. You should change a quote accordingly when the context calls for it. It made sense when I wrote it, but not when you did.

    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but no one is forcing you to accept any of that, are they?”

    Of course not…but someone DID ask me what I thought, I told them, they replied, I replied, and so on. Do you not grasp that?

    “Why don’t you just live and let live instead of jumping to conclusions about it all? Because that’s all you’re doing”

    I bet you thought quoting my own post to me was so witty, didn’t you? Dumbass…

      

  121. 121Starless on Apr 14, 2009 at 4:43 am:

    #93

    “I guess the important question I have is: why do you even care about this?”

    Because it is a lie and, in the case of university policies (“hate speech” codes) and professors who present this as Truth in the classroom, an abuse of power and authority. There isn’t anything wrong with professors offering opinions in the classroom or universities regulating student behavior. There is something wrong with professors presenting opinions in the classroom without truth in advertising and, in particular, pressuring students to conform to those opinions by threatening their grades. And if you can’t see something fundamentally wrong with universities, the supposed bastions of the free exchange of ideas, suppressing ideas in order to appease particular interest groups, I don’t know what to tell you.

    As to “Sex and the City”, the problem is not that it is “gay” but that it is also a lie. We’re not talking about coded messages accompanied by a wink-and-a-nod which those in the know can appreciate, rather that the gay men/straight women switcheroo is an intentional deception. Again, a lie. Looking at WWI POWs through a “queer lens” is also a lie. It is not a “re-casting of World History from a ‘gay perspective’”, it is an attempt to change history–to lie about history. If they have uncovered never before seen proof that those men were gay (i.e. concrete evidence that they either self-identified as such or were actually having sex with each other) then fine, they will be contributing something new to historical research, but innuendo and after-the-fact psychoanalysis is not historical research.

    As Zombie has repeatedly pointed out, the bisexuality exhibit is not the end-all and be-all of proof of a gay agenda, it is a prototypical, and IMO, a very good example of what is, and has been for many decades, going on on college campuses all over the country. The whole “questioning” fad, attempting to co-opt historical figures (“Abe Lincoln was gay because he used the word ‘lavender’ in a poem.” WTF?), brow-beating students for failing to embrace gay culture fully enough, and creating a general atmosphere hostile to any student who doesn’t show the proper obeisance to the legitimacy and supremacy of identity politics. Can you go to college these days and just be an engineering student, get your degree, and get on with your life? No you can not. You have to be eco/race/gay friendly. You have to parrot social policy and be “enlightened” by the gender “equity” center. You are, in fact, not to learn how to think critically and come to conclusions based on your own analysis.

    New freshmen (“freshpersons”? “persons of freshness”?) are indeed forced to swallow the dogma of identity politics whole without complaint. If they complain or ask uncomfortable questions, they quickly become unpersons within the university community.

    The irony of the whole, “you are really gay/bisexual but you don’t realize it because you’ve been brainwashed by society and the white, male, heterosexual hierarchy” idea is that it’s the flip side of, “you are really straight but you don’t realize it because you have been corrupted by sin and the Devil”. If you want to be honest and rational, you can’t accept one and reject the other. But the aim behind both is not to make a rational, honest argument and get to the “truth”, the aim is to engage in culture war.

    Anyway…back the utterly pointless pch versus buzzsawmonkey crap-throwing festival.

      

  122. 122Phil on Apr 14, 2009 at 5:45 am:

    The “Gender Equity Resource Center,” — a bunch of GERCs.

      

  123. 123Dave Surls on Apr 14, 2009 at 9:06 am:

    The nic-jacker is quite the little scumbag, isn’t he?

    He batter hope and pray his real identity doesn’t get revealed, because he’s posted stuff under my name that is flatly libelous…and, I don’t use a nickname.

      

  124. 124Ed on Apr 14, 2009 at 11:22 am:

    #121 “I bet you thought quoting my own post to me was so witty, didn’t you? Dumbass…”

    No, I just thought that your post was so scintillating that I could do no better than to seek to emulate it.

    We are the pilgrams master, we shall go always a little farther.

      

  125. 125zombie on Apr 14, 2009 at 11:36 am:

    #122 Starless

    Excellent comment. You made some very good points there.

    Especially relevant to this thread is your last point: It is considered the most outrageous kind of “oppression” if a Christian group tries to imply that gay people are really straight and can convert back to straightness if they just try hard enough. But when the exact mirror image is done on a daily basis — telling people that they’re really and truly gay, and they should embrace their gayness and reject the heteronormative system — not one complains, because no one is allowed to complain. Promoting gayness is inherently praiseworthy; promoting straightness is a hate crime.

    How about the Zombie Solution: Everybody stop telling everybody else what their sexual orientation is! Gee, that’s a novel idea.

      

  126. 126Squanto on Apr 14, 2009 at 1:03 pm:

    WTF? I didn’t nic-jack anyone. Someone else nic-jacked me and got my posts deleted.

    This is getting out of hand.

      

  127. 127zombie on Apr 14, 2009 at 1:38 pm:

    #127 Squanto:

    Uh, hate to break the news to you, but I can see the IP address of each comment. So I know who made each one. The IP posting as “Squanto” also nick-jacked other names. No escaping that. Sorry.

      

  128. 128Ed on Apr 14, 2009 at 2:06 pm:

    Off topic Zombie, but maybe a pleasant change. What is that picture that you are using next to your name? It looks like a black and white photo of a black woman. Knowing of your commitment to anonymity, I feel pretty sure it isn’t a photo of you. So what is it? The black and white thing makes it seem to have a “historic” feel to it. But it is so small I can’t (with my eyes at least) make out anything else.

    Can you explain what is the meaning or symbolism or what not that drew you to this photo?

    Just mildly curious.

      

  129. 129Dave Surls on Apr 14, 2009 at 2:55 pm:

    “I don’t care whether I’m approved or applauded. I do care whether I get the crap beaten out of me, which opposite-sex couples who hold hands in public do not have to worry about, except perhaps in Saudi Arabia.”

    Now, that’s one thing about the so-called “Gay Agenda” I totally agree with. You should be able to hold hands anytime you want to…and people ought to leave you the hell alone. If two guys, or two gals, or a guy and a gal want to hold hands, that’s nobody’s damned business but their own.

      

  130. 130Ken on Apr 14, 2009 at 3:15 pm:

    “What is that picture that you are using next to your name?”

    Don’t ask me how I know this (anyway, I can’t even remember), but I believe that is a picture of Felicia Felix-Mentor, a woman from Haiti who was thought to be a real zombie.

      

  131. 131Ed on Apr 14, 2009 at 3:28 pm:

    Heh. Thanks Ken.

    Care to confirm, Zombie?

      

  132. 132CattusMagnus on Apr 14, 2009 at 3:54 pm:

    Zombie,
    This is off the subject but, are you going to be covering any tea parties tomorrow?

      

  133. 133average_guy on Apr 14, 2009 at 7:42 pm:

    On a positive note, this thread seems to have set a record for most comments since the inception of Zomblog.

      

  134. 134Anonymous on Apr 14, 2009 at 8:37 pm:

    It’s a fascinating thread.

    “Total revolution” works best if the existing social institutions are discredited. Marriage is an existing social institution. If it gets a bad name, and the high breakup rate so far among gay marriages is not much of an advertisement for marriage, then “the revolution” is by that much advanced.

      

  135. 135zombie on Apr 14, 2009 at 9:25 pm:

    #129 Ed
    Off topic Zombie, but maybe a pleasant change. What is that picture that you are using next to your name?

    #131 Ken
    “What is that picture that you are using next to your name?”

    Don’t ask me how I know this (anyway, I can’t even remember), but I believe that is a picture of Felicia Felix-Mentor, a woman from Haiti who was thought to be a real zombie.

    Ken is 100% correct, Ed: It is indeed a picture of Felicia Felix-Mentor, the only known “real” zombie in history — or so was claimed by Zora Neal Hurston, Haitian anthropologist. The photo was taken in 1937, and is the only photograph ever taken of a zombie.

    (Nowadays, of course, there is a great deal of doubt amongst skeptics that was she was in fact any kind of “zombie” at all.)

    A full-size version of the photo can be viewed here: http://www.zombietime.com/zombie01.jpg

    When I chose the online name “zombie” long long ago, it was this kind of “authentic” zombie I was thinking of — not a “movie zombie” (as in “Night of the Living Dead”) nor a “metaphorical zombie” (i.e. someone feeling spaced out, or a mindless follower). Felicia Felix-Mentor is sort of my alter-ego.

      

  136. 136zombie on Apr 14, 2009 at 9:30 pm:

    133CattusMagnus:

    Sorry, no — no Tea Parties for me. Firstly, I haven’t even finished my taxes yet, so I’m too busy. But even if I wasn’t busy, I actually haven’t been following the whole tea party thing and haven’t summoned any interest in it, frankly.

      

  137. 137zombie on Apr 14, 2009 at 9:38 pm:

    # 134 average_guy
    On a positive note, this thread seems to have set a record for most comments since the inception of Zomblog.

    Not even close. Most of my Obama and Ayers threads during the election went well over a hundred — such as this one, which had over 300 comments and over 100 “trackbacks” for a total of 411 “comments” according to the WordPress method of counting: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=64

    Several other threads have been into the multiple hundreds of comments as well.

      

  138. 138Throbert McGee on Apr 14, 2009 at 10:58 pm:

    Taking a stab at buzzsawmonkey’s quiz in #83:

    1) Name two famous homosexual relationships that appear in 19th century American literature.

    I’m gonna assume that one of the relationships you’re thinking of is Queequeg and Ishmael?

    5) What were two late 19th-century non-slang terms used to describe people experiencing same-sex attraction?

    “Invert” is obviously one of them — and I believe that “heterosexual” was sometimes used in the opposite of its modern sense, in reference to people with same-sex attraction. (They were “hetero” in the sense of being “different from the norm” — cf. “heterodox.”)

    6) What fashion accessory worn by Oscar Wilde was celebrated in a song by Noel Coward?

    Green carnation in the lapel.

    8) Name at least two homosexual characters in the works of Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited excluded.

    Er… Mr. Joyboy in The Loved One?

    9) Name the actor who first used the term “gay” in its modern sense in a film, and name the film.

    Cary Grant, Bringing Up Baby

    15) Name a film from before 1934 containing a reference to same-sex attraction, and describe the reference.

    Er… did it have something to do with Marlene Dietrich in a tuxedo making suggestive overtures to both a man and a woman? I can’t remember the name of that movie without cheating, though.

    Damn, that was tough! I don’t think I’ll be kicking myself when BSM reveals the answers.

      

  139. 139Starless on Apr 15, 2009 at 7:11 am:

    #126 Zombie

    On a different level, not only is it that promoting gayness is inherently praiseworthy but that being gay or bisexual is inherently cool and exciting. That’s fine, “pride” and all of that, but the inevitable corollary, either through inference or outright statement, is that straightness is lame and boring. Which to my mind goes hand-in-hand with the presumption by many gay people I’ve had experience with that the process of discovering their sexuality has somehow given them special insight and made them sexperts. It’s the same sort of thing with born again Christians. That their personal journey of spiritual discovery (from drug/drink/sex/whatever addicts to the Light of Christ) gives them a special insight which in turn gives them the right to lecture and try to convert other people. In both cases, their attitudes are very arrogant and cynical. Their theses assume that all people are corrupt and need to be shown the Light and they are the ones who are to show all us sinners the Way.

    As far as the “gay agenda” is concerned, it really exploits both the coolness factor and the presumption that it’s only natural for gay people to lecture straight people, but bigoted for straight people to lecture gay people. Go to the gender equity center or its equivalent on any campus and ask where you can find help for a straight male who’s experienced discrimination and they’ll either be confused, outraged, or they’ll just laugh at you. Supposedly, there are now more women in college than men. Do you hear the sound of gender equity centers throughout the nation running to rectify this inequity? Yeah, neither do I. They’ve gone past hypocrisy into the realm of out-and-out fraud.

    Women and gays, particularly on college campuses, have become significant political forces. The old rules of accommodating and bending over backwards for them can’t be justified anymore. Calling criticism “bigotry” just doesn’t hold water. Zombie, don’t go soft and back-pedal on the use of the term “gay agenda”.

    Finally, I’d add this to the Zombie Solution: I don’t presume to know what goes on in your mind and soul, don’t presume to know what goes on in mine.

      

  140. 140Ed on Apr 15, 2009 at 7:27 am:

    Thanks for the info Zombie. Speaking of taxes, I wonder if this blog could be a tax write off. You put a lot of time into it, and probably pay something for the bandwith. I don’t think you solicit donations, so it might be hard to call this a business expense. On the other hand, I believe you have an agent for licensing your work here at Zombietime, so maybe this could be a legitimit business expense.

    Or maybe this could be a non-profit (no pun intended) operation. Interesting…

    Anyway, it might be worth looking into.

    Just a thought for next tax year

      

  141. 141Marauder on Apr 15, 2009 at 3:10 pm:

    This is ridiculous. I actually am bisexual, and I don’t appreciate their statements. It just means I have to spend more time explaining to people that no, bisexual and gay people don’t all try to argue that anyone and everyone can be bisexual or gay.

    Besides, has it occured to them that this could give ammunition to people who believe that gay guys “just haven’t met the right woman,” or lesbians “just haven’t met the right man”?

    “How can you make an arguement against any sort of ‘gay’ issue if you by definition are ‘bi’, which pretty much means that you are just as likely to be doing gay sex as straight sex.”

    No, that’s not what it means. Some bisexual people, for one reason or another, never have a relationship with one of the sexes (like me – I met my fiance young and am happy with him). Being straight, gay, or bisexual is about attraction and not necessarily behavior. You can never have sex in your entire life and still have a sexual orientation.

      

  142. 142average_guy on Apr 15, 2009 at 3:56 pm:

    #138 Zombie

    I must have been asleep at the wheel at that time, because I must have missed those threads. Sorry about that.

      

  143. 143Starless on Apr 16, 2009 at 4:38 am:

    #142 Marauder

    “Being straight, gay, or bisexual is about attraction and not necessarily behavior. You can never have sex in your entire life and still have a sexual orientation.”

    I’ll buy the latter part of this statement, but the former part has me scratching my head. The gender of the person/people you’re having sex with would seem to be a pretty clear indicator of which way you swing. “Attraction” can be a slippery thing–you can be attracted to a lot of different kinds of people for a lot of different reasons. some sexual, some non-sexual. The display does, in fact, say that mere attraction counts as proof of orientation. So you seem to be supporting and denying their statements at the same time.

      

  144. 144zombie on Apr 16, 2009 at 6:49 am:

    142 Marauder:
    144 Starless:

    I think what Marauder is saying, Starless, is that some people “never have sex in your entire life” (i.e. remain virgins) but still feel sexual attraction to one gender or another, and thus have an underlying “orientation.” Which is a statement I agree with. If you are a celibate monk who sneaks looks at Playboy and “feels lust in your heart” while doing so, it’s pretty obvious that you’re “straight” — you’ve simply never acted on your urges. Simultaneously, Marauder is saying that she feels sexually attracted to both women and men, but remains monogamous with a single partner — the person she fell in love with, who happens to be a man. But just because she’s hasn’t necessarily ever had sex with a woman doesn’t mean she doesn’t occasionally have the urge or desire to have sex with women in general. And thus, she self-identifies as “bisexual.” Which seems to be a reasonable statement.

    I agree with Marauder that her status, as described in her comment, truly does count as bisexual. She already does feel sexual attraction to both genders — not, as the exhibit claims, that she merely has the capacity for feeling any sort of emotions, sexual or otherwise, for either gender, which is a ridiculously over-broad generalization. And that’s exactly what this post was originally about.

    That’s for bringing your interesting and valid personal experience to the thread, Marauder.

      

  145. 145Starless on Apr 16, 2009 at 3:23 pm:

    #145 Zombie

    Okay, yeah, I see what you’re saying. I think I glossed over the “not necessarily” part of her statement. (Even though I quoted it. Go ahead and put a big “Duh!” sticker on my forehead.)

    I think self identification is an interesting part of this whole “everyone’s gay/bisexual” meme. For those who support it, if you “self identify” as gay/bisexual, you’re to be taken at your word, but if you “self identify” as straight, you’re word is suspect. So can self identifying mean much of anything? If you’re a college freshman and you see a bunch of your new peers “questioning”, you have hip professors telling you that you don’t necessarily know your own sexuality and due to this peer pressure you decide to self identify as gay, are you actually gay? Or are you just going along with a fad?

      

  146. 146buzzsawmonkey on Apr 16, 2009 at 8:32 pm:

    1) Name two famous homosexual relationships that appear in 19th century American literature.
    2) Quote a line indicating same-sex attraction from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
    3) Who was Julian Eltinge, what was he famous for and what did he build?
    4) Who was Karyl Norman, and what was his nickname?
    5) What were two late 19th-century non-slang terms used to describe people experiencing same-sex attraction?
    6) What fashion accessory worn by Oscar Wilde was celebrated in a song by Noel Coward?
    7) Name at least two books by two American writers of the 1920s which contained homosexual characters or episodes. For extra points, describe those characters or episodes.
    8) Name at least two homosexual characters in the works of Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited excluded.
    9) Name the actor who first used the term “gay” in its modern sense in a film, and name the film.
    10) Name the popular song which first used the term “gay” in its modern sense, the author of the song, and the person referred to in it.
    11) Name two homosexual characters in the works of Eric Ambler.
    12) Name the homosexual character, or describe the episode in which the character appears, in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man.
    13) For what was the Renaissance Ballroom known during the 1920s and 1930s?
    14) Name a famous lesbian of the Harlem Renaissance.
    15) Name a film from before 1934 containing a reference to same-sex attraction, and describe the reference.

    #139 Throbert McGee gets huge points–first, for attempting the quiz, and second, for getting several obscure references correct.

    Throbert’s correct answers were:

    #1 Queequeg and Ishmael in Moby Dick were one famous relationship in 19th century literature generally accounted to be homosexual. The other is the relationship between Jim and Huckleberry Finn.

    #5 “Invert” was one of the terms used in the 19th century to refer to those with same-sex attraction. “Urning” was another, popular around the time of Oscar Wilde; so was “third sex.” People of homosexual bent were also described as both “over-” and “under-sexed”; “over-sexed,” because it was assumed that the sexual urge was so over-strong as to compel them to couple with their own sex in addition to the opposite, “under-sexed” because it was assumed that their sex urge had not yet reached the “escape velocity” necessary to enable them to be attracted to the other sex.

    #6 Congratulations for getting the reference to the green carnation, about which Noel Coward wrote a song.

    #8 Mr. Joyboy in the The Loved One was not gay. However, Captain Grimes in Decline and Fall; Miles Malpractice in that book and Vile Bodies;David Lennox; Ambrose Silk, a central character in Put Out More Flags; and Corporal Ludovic and Sir Ralph Brompton in the Sword of Honor trilogy all were.

    #9 Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby; absolutely correct.

    As to the rest of the answers:

    #2 A same-sex reference from Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court: When the Yankee and his 52 young students hole up to defeat the massed chivalry of England, he says, “Ah, they were a darling fifty-two! As pretty as girls, too.”

    #3 Julian Eltinge was a famous female impersonator of the early 20th century. A top-line attraction, he built the Eltinge Theater on 42nd Street, later renamed the Empire, which was moved some few years ago down the block from its original location.

    #4 Karyl Norman was another female impersonator headliner, of color, whose nickname was “The Creole Fashion Plate.” He may have been the female impersonator who introduced the song “St. Louis Blues”; that song was, in fact, introduced by a female impersonator.

    #5 Answered above.

    #6 Answered above.

    #7 There is overt bisexuality among the characters of Carl Van Vechten’s book Parties, and in his book The Blind Bowboy. A homosexual character is the central figure of the book Strange Brother, the author of which I confess to having forgotten. One of the jurors in Tiffany Thayer’s book Thirteen Men is the homosexual proprietor of a bathhouse. John Dos Passos describes an attempted pickup at length in one of the “Joe Williams” sequences of the book Nineteen Nineteen, part of the USA trilogy; the character Richard Ellsworth Savage is revealed to be homosexual towards the end of the third book of that series, The Big Money; Senator Planet, a figure who appears throughout the trilogy, is also homosexual.

    #8 Answered above.

    #9 Answered above.

    #10 The first popular song to use the word “gay” in its modern sense was Cole Porter’s “Farming,” a list-song which makes double-entendre jokes about celebrities of the day: “Don’t enquire of Georgie Raft/Why his cow has never calved/ Georgie’s bull is beautiful, but he’s gay…”

    #11 Eric Ambler, the father of the modern thriller, included two homosexual characters in his early novels: Maillot, the “muscle” in Background to Danger, and General Vagas, the German spy in Cause for Alarm. Identification of gay characters with Nazis and sadism was a feature of 1930s novels–see, for instance, the character of Lee Sarason in Sinclair Lewis’ It Can’t Happen Here–probably because of the notoriously homosexual Ernst Rohm, who was the leader of Hitler’s SA in the early days.

    #12 In Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man, the unnamed narrator applies for a job at Liberty Paints. He meets the son of the owner, who is clearly homosexual–he makes a reference to himself as “Huckleberry”, alluding to the supposed homosexual relationship between Huck and Jim–and who invites the narrator/protagonist to a place called the “Club Calamus,” which is a reference to “classical”–i.e., Greco-Roman–homosexuality.

    #13 The Renaissance Ballroom–the scene of Malcolm X’s assassination in the early 1960s–was known in the 1920s and 1930s for its drag balls.

    #14 Gladys Bentley, blues singer and restaurant/speakeasy proprietor, was a famous lesbian of the Harlem Renaissance. An acceptable alternate answer would be Ma Rainey, blues singer, who recorded the famous “Prove It On Me Blues”: “They say I do it, ain’t nobody caught me; sure got to prove it on me/I went out last night with a crowd of my friends; must have been women, ’cause I don’t like no men.”

    #15 This question is the “embarrassment of riches” question; there are almost too many to list, there being virtually no film made between 1930 and 1934 which did not have at least a passing homosexual reference. Marlene Dietrich’s bisexual moments–her tuxedo in Blonde Venus and her same-sex facial caress in Morocco–are almost too well known: consider also the moment in Wonder Bar where a man taps the woman on shoulder to “cut in” on the dance floor, the two men dance off together, and headliner Al Jolson comments, “Boys will be boys”; the shot of the Chinese lesbian during the floor show sequence in International House; the homosexual subtext of the friendship throughout the film Tiger Shark; the throwaway line, “You can’t sing a love song doubled up like that! What kind of a love song do you think this is?” in Golddiggers of 1933; any role played by Franklin Pangborn; the “pansy” cameo at the start of Palmy Days; etc., etc.

    Point being, allusions or references to homosexual behavior were not only not rare in the days prior to the modern gay-rights movement; they were frequent, even endemic. The notion that same-sex attraction was somehow invisible before its modern politicization is not merely false, but egregiously so. The sexual orientation of “crooners” was a standard joke of the pre-war time (not entirely without reason; Harry Richman, for one, was homosexual), helped in no small part by the practice of singing vocals to standards without regard to the sex of the singer: Bing Crosby sang “There Ain’t No Sweet Man Worth the Salt of My Tears,” Rudy Vallee sang “There is a Tavern in the Town” and “St. Louis Bues” male-to-male, and other vocalists sang such songs as “He’s My Secret Passion,” “Can’t Help Lovin’ That Man” and “Moanin’ Low” male-to-male also.

      

  147. 147zombie on Apr 16, 2009 at 10:33 pm:

    #147 buzzsawmonkey:

    7) Name at least two books by two American writers of the 1920s which contained homosexual characters or episodes. For extra points, describe those characters or episodes.
    11) Name two homosexual characters in the works of Eric Ambler.

    Don’t forget that in Dashiell Hammett’s The Maltese Falcon (written and originally published as a serial in 1929) that Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre’s character in the 1941 film version) and Wilmer Cook (played by Elisha Cook, Jr.) were both pretty much overtly homosexual characters. This detail, however, was downplayed in the 1941 film version, so most people who are only familiar with that rendition don’t know of the high “gayness quotient” of the story.

      

  148. 148buzzsawmonkey on Apr 16, 2009 at 11:04 pm:

    #148 zombie: The term “gunsel”, used in The Maltese Falcon with reference to Wilmer, is usually taken by people nowadays to mean “gunman.” It does not; it is in fact a Polish/Yiddish word for “goose,” and, like “chicken”–or the more well-known “punk,” which Hammett also uses in The Glass Key–is a term which indicated that one was a homosexually-subservient male, i.e., a “bottom.”

    That, by the way, is the reason “chicken” is such a blood insult in “Rebel Without a Cause”; being called a “chicken” is tantamount to being called a “(subservient) faggot”; it is not a reference to cowardice, as people usually assume. “Chickenhawk” is of course a term still in use to describe a man interested in younger male partners (not necessarily to the point of pedophilia), and such partners are still occasionally referred to as “chicken”; “goose” and “gunsel” seem to have fallen from use. There used to be a number of gay bars in New York in the 1940s and 1950s which were referred to as “the bird circuit”; Tennessee Williams has his character of the Baron Charlus refer to this circuit in Camino Real.

      

  149. 149Starless on Apr 17, 2009 at 4:34 am:

    buzzsawmonkey:

    You’ve also left out James Joyce and his references to “smugging” (homosexual petting) between schoolmates.

    The Twain references, IMO, are another attempt to retroactively co-opt an historical figure into the gay agenda. To say that “pretty as girls” is an intentional gay reference is an awkward stretch, seeing as there is no other indication in the novel that Hank Morgan’s apprentices were gay. “Pretty as girls” is another way of saying “young and fresh-faced”. And a gay relationship between Huck and Jim? You have to really, really want to find such a thing to claim that it is there. (I realize you, personally, don’t necessarily see these as actual homosexual references.)

      

  150. 150buzzsawmonkey on Apr 17, 2009 at 6:40 am:

    #150 Starless: I’m not as up on Joyce as I’d like to be, so the references you mention are new to me.

    I did not mean to imply that Twain himself had any particular homosexual feelings; to suggest that any writer who includes, or writes of, some homosexual aspect of behavior must therefore be homosexual himself is a ridiculous stretch–though not, I am sure, beyond some zealous theorist. Nor is there any indication in A Connecticut Yankee that the Yankee himself has such leanings; rather, I wished to point out that the Yankee’s reference to his “darling” fifty-two, “as pretty as girls,” is something which would, today, be very much taken as a reference to same-sex attraction, and that alone–but that in those days prior to the invention of a distinct homosexual sub-society, and its politicization, such a reference which today would seem completely sexualized was relatively unexceptional, and not necessarily dispositive–point being that the creation of bright-line distinctions has actually impoverished, and continues to impoverish, people on both sides of the bright line.

    I confess that I myself have never seen any reason to infer a “gay relationship” between Huck and Jim. The sole evidence I can imagine someone mustering for it is Huck’s references to the two of them being naked much of the time they are on the raft, and Jim’s referring to Huck with the endearment “honey.” It seems pretty thin to me, the more so insofar as “honey” appears to be a wholly non-sexual term of endearment in the idiom of the day.

    For that matter, the sole evidence for a homosexual relationship between Queequeg and Ishmael seems to me to be based on Ishmael awakening in the Spouter Inn in the bed he and Queequeg have shared (a common occurrence in an earlier era) with Queequeg’s arm lovingly draped around him. That, too, seems pretty thin and product of post hoc ergo propter hoc wishful thinking.

    Nonetheless, that both of these relationships are examples not merely of strong same-sex friendship, but of love with a probable sexual content, have been articles of faith in the worlds of literature and academia for well over half a century; had the Huck/Jim “relationship” not already been a byword recognizable by allusion, Ellison would not have thrown it in as a casual reference in Invisible Man to instantly communicate the white character’s sexual proclivity, and the narrator-protagonist’s cluelessness.

      

  151. 151Maria on Apr 17, 2009 at 5:31 pm:

    #149 Re: Gunsel. I think it’s actually a Germanic/Yiddish word (Gans in German versus Gęś in Polish). I don’t mean to be pedantic, historical linguistics is a bit of a hobby. And, that is the number one reason this whole topic has held my attention. By the way, I’m glad you came back to post the answers to your quiz. It was really rather enlightening; which, I assume, is the reason you posed it in the first place.

      

  152. 152Starless on Apr 18, 2009 at 4:23 am:

    #151 buzzsawmonkey

    I have read Moby Dick at least a half dozen times and I’ve been trying to recall any other episode in the novel that might be considered “gay” and I can’t think of a single one. Male bonding? Yes. Emotional attachment between two people on a harrowing, difficult adventure? Absolutely. But gay? No. Going for the “gay” explanation for why Melville has Queequeg and Ishmael share a bed is a good example of the dishonesty of retroactive queerification. There are much simpler and obvious explanations–like there weren’t enough beds for everyone to have their own.

    I realize you weren’t suggesting gayness in Twain (or Melville) yourself. I’ve sat through too many lit classes where a prof will point to a passage and, with an implied lascivious raised eyebrow, conclude that it’s code for a gay relationship and realize that it’s SOP in contemporary lit crit. Accompanying the prof’s conclusion is the understanding that the student isn’t to raise his or her hand to question it. (Thank you so much deconstructionism.) Funny thing is, in the cases of Queequeg and Jim, the prof never seems to catch on to the tinge of racism in that conclusion.

    In the case of Joyce, there’s no doubt that he’s talking about gayness. Sometimes it has to be decoded, but it’s clearly in the writing. That’s one of the reasons he was banned in the US.

      

  153. 153Leaveaposition on Apr 21, 2009 at 9:46 am:

    Im still confused here, what’s the argument behind calling same-sex hand-holding ‘vulgar and inappropriate’ while opposite-sex hands are, from at least my experience, not shunned in society? Are we basically saying, regardless of the law, that one is good, and the other is bad, people should approve or disapprove accordingly? Is that fair?

    Second, if homosexuals aren’t violating anyone else’s rights by either PSAs, or by getting married, than wouldn’t the principle of non-interference or ‘live and let live’ lean towards both disinterest to their affection and sanction of their marriages?

    It seems to me that the main response from conservatives regarding the two prior questions is not based on ‘live and let live,’ but on a wider notion of a societal ‘right,’ rather than individualistic ‘right.’ Two examples, in many interviews I’ve watched people claim that same-sex PSAs violate their rights because they are witnessing something ‘vulgar and wrong,’ similarly, BuzzsawMonkey mentioned the Mineshaft ‘violating the decorum of larger society.’ Does anyone here think that perhaps this fracture, between individualistic ‘right’ and a traditional societal ‘right’ constitutes a greater source of tension in the USA, than perhaps the definitions of sexuality that started this thread…?

    This is a very interesting discussion, Buzzsaw’s analysis of the ‘gay’ label and its development is quite fascinating, and I’d like to keep it going, though perhaps minus the ad-hominem qualities of earlier responses :)

    cheers,
    LAP

      

  154. 154Throbert McGee on Apr 21, 2009 at 7:12 pm:

    #8 Mr. Joyboy in the “The Loved One” was not gay.

    I’m quite relieved to know that’s the prevailing opinion, because way back in the day, I wrote my AP English test main essay on The Loved One — and I certainly took Mr. Joyboy’s infatuation with Ms. Thanatogenos at face value.

    But in answering BSM’s quiz, I was grasping at straws that maybe Mr. Joyboy was supposed to be a “coded homosexual” (and I’d overlooked this point back in high school) because that’s the only book by Evelyn Waugh I’ve ever read, and Mr. Joyboy was certainly a bit fruity!

      

  155. 155Starless on Apr 23, 2009 at 4:06 am:

    #154 Leaveaposition

    Advocates for the gay agenda would like everyone to think that the conflict is over “rights”, but it isn’t. That idea is a red herring. All of the fulminating over gay marriage is a subset of that larger red herring. And though they may be okay with legalizing gay marriage (something I don’t fully buy), it doesn’t matter because it is enough for the subject to create conflict and chaos. They need that conflict and chaos to bring down the existing social order.

    The same goes for the “we’re all bisexual” assertion. Whether everyone actually is bisexual or whether they fully buy into the idea is immaterial, it’s enough that it stirs up confusion and conflict.

      

  156. 156Leaveaposition on Apr 23, 2009 at 4:19 pm:

    # 156 Starless Thanks for the reply!

    Hmmm.. I took me awhile but I finally think I’ve gotten my head around the distinction that has been made between legal issues like same-sex marriage and the ideological paradigm put forth by the ‘gay movement.’ That’s actually really interesting how powerful such identity labels have become without really even noticing it.

    Though I have some trouble with another idea here: the step from these labels to ‘chaos and bringing down the existing social order’… Maybe zombie, monkey or starless could clarify for me how these labels that place the authenticity of homosexuality over other sexualities(ie. the Boy Scout example) lead to Kher-rouge like concequences…

    I can see how ideologically, you can find a similarity between queerification’s redrafting of history and communism doing the same with a class-based view of history. But on the other hand, there are class issues are that very real, and it seems unfair to dismiss the ‘baby with the bathwater;’ equating a revolutionary group with a worker’s union; and alternately, equating anti-discrimination protestors with subversive gay revolutionaries.

    Is it possible to put a wedge between the political activity that raises valid issues, and the kind that seeks the kind of chaos described? Or, from the other end, can we fairly say that both ‘class’ issues and ‘gay’ issues, no matter how small, are still totally invalid since they are based on subversive ideologies/identies? It seems to me that there’s a tricky middle group here, maybe one of you can clarify this.

    Thanks for the very interesting thread,

    LAP

      

  157. 157Chris on May 15, 2009 at 12:39 am:

    Sup?

    Skipped most of the comments, just in to add a little bit. Saw a push for a bill recently. To make it compulsory in all schools to tell kids in grades 1 and up that there is a high possibility they are gay. And to repeat it in all levels of school till they graduate.

    #8

    That kinda does look like a pro-gay agenda to me. Did you know.. Gay used to mean happy? The homosexual community didn’t like “queer” so they appropriated gay. Now rainbow means bi.

    All up, I’d say that’s known as “brain washing”. It’s an insidious form of advertising that sounds ok, but is something that you automatically buy into. Manipulation at its finest. I’d actually have to make an effort to beat it. =P

      

  158. 158Abu Lahab on May 24, 2009 at 12:20 pm:

    The Arabic writing on the T-shirt says “May God bless America”.
    But it’s written incorrectly and in the wrong order.
    Hope that helped.

    I Love your site.

      

  159. 159berzerkster on Jun 18, 2009 at 2:18 pm:

    i hope zombie ronald reagan poops on your house and forces you to go outdoors a little more often, maybe talk to some actual human beings once in a while

      

  160. 160Anonymous on Jun 26, 2009 at 4:01 am:

    I’m not attracted to men at all when I get drunk I get horny and try really hard to hook up with a chick so why haven’t I tried to hook up with my buddies who partied with me till the break of dawn. Not to say we didn’t do some gay things like depants someone and throw them out of the car to walk home

      

  161. 161HEHEHEHE on Jun 27, 2009 at 2:33 am:

    Dr. Linda Garnets of UCLA (“Our Erotic Personalities Are Unique as our Fingerprints,”) says that limiting ourselves to heterosexuality places an unnecessary constriction on human potential. When we overcome our fears of homosexual expression, we will discover rich, creative possibilities.

    U ARE RIGHT ZOMBIE

      

  162. 162HEHEHEHE on Jun 27, 2009 at 2:37 am:

    there is an agenda and if you don’t believe that READ THE BOOK AFTER THE BALL writen by two very intelligent gay psychiatrists.There are many tactics that show how to make straight America gay. Yea thats the real intention of all gay organisations

    http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm

      

  163. 163HEHEHEHE on Jun 27, 2009 at 11:30 am:

    I think everybody are silent now:P why should psychologist from APA as dr LInda is, claim such a thing…if she is right we should have same sex atractions…………..who knows, in the future, the heteresexuals might be seen as sick degraded persons……….and the morality as prejuce…..if you thing that it is nasty to have sex with your own gender, you are in denial of yourself, and after that there will come another religion that will restrict the pervesies, and again and again….and people will remain stupid, and another people will have another standards, and will spend their emotions on another theme, and as Einstein said, there are 2 unlimited things, the space and the human stupidity, but he said that he is not sure about the first thing:)

      

  164. 164HEHEHEHE on Jun 28, 2009 at 2:59 am:

    ohh yea, I have one more adtional comment to make….we are not all bisexuals……..when somebody says that we are all bisexuals he thinks of the capacity for sex with the both genres…..Yea thats true, we all have sexual “capacity” but the gender that we are going to spent our capacity don’t have to be our same sex gender……We all have capacity to “love” children (pedophilia), to “love” animals (zoophilia) to “love” dead bodies(corophilia or necrophilia) etc….Aren’t we all zoophiles, pedophiles etc….So some people like to mistake the capacity with the object of desire…..Yea, under some circumstances everybody can become bi–sexual, homosexual,zoophile, killer, drug adict, we all have the potential to be junkies, but that does not mean that we ARE ALL JUNKIES….that is the distinction between IS and OUGHT TO BE….that many people mistake…….Another argument is the phrase ” we should love everybody and see everybodys beauty”—-the confused bisexuals and homosexuals think that because they have their emotional romantic feelings everybody should have them…….But here is the contra argument……I love all my friends, my parents, my crue, etc….I would die for them…….I really love them…but that doesn’t mean that I should feel sexual atraction towards them….Love is the word that confuse many people, it represents something beautiful, gorgeus, so when it is mentioned by the LGBT community we should feel guilty beacause we are not BISEXUALS…funny….Mother Tereza wasn’t bisexual XD haha but she loved all the world…..you see……it is all game of words….and skillful propaganda…

      

  165. 165bi girl on Jul 2, 2009 at 8:25 am:

    I think bisexual girls should be able to love who ever they want no matter their sexuality because what i am going trough is hard because i like a girl but i am together with a man but i didnt knew i was bisexual until i saw her and fell in love with her now its like i dont know what to do i am in a know were i like the guy he is nice to me but i want to be with her o and both of us girls have a kid with diferent man someone tell me ur opinion

      

  166. 166HEHEHEHE on Jul 5, 2009 at 9:45 am:

    people always have idols……….they watch many heroes and stars…and unconciously they want to be like them….
    You are bounded emotionaly with that girl……but the question is why…..Maybe you see your ideal self inside of her…
    Maybe you just want to be friend with her….Maybe you are looking in her something that you miss in yourself….
    Maybe sex is not what you realy want from her…..Do you love her character or her physical beauty…..if you love the first……you can be very good friend with her….if you are atracked to the second…than…we don’t talk about real love, we are talking about physical atraction…….based on someones outlook…..And If you like female body…but you are female yourself…than we talk about generated physical pain or some unconcious complex about yourself….why would you looking for something that you allready have??? bi girl write me again :) I am psychologist myself and I could help you somehow to resolve the confusion…..

    But don’t leave the man………….you must feel secure to tell him what do you feel…and to try to resolve it…..you didn’t discover that you are bi, you might be influenced by many factors, media, TV, internet…..social acceptance of various sexual pervesions…..however when you feel love towards her…what would you do……have sex with her??? How??? With licking or dildo???? is that real love…is that what you realy want from her….??? write me soon

      

  167. 167Philip on Aug 4, 2009 at 11:14 am:

    I believe that we are all bisexual. The constraints of society repress all but the most prominent of feelings towards the same sex but if they are let loose they are still there. Whilst reproduction cannot take place *naturally* between a gay couple, there’s no reason that we can’t all be naturally bisexual.

    Sure, you can scream ‘natural law’ ‘we’re not made that way’ ‘the penis fits in the vagina!’ but that’s beside the point. True freedom and gender equality will only come if we first accept that love can occur between anybody and anyone.

      

  168. 168Thethirdeye on Oct 29, 2009 at 8:10 am:

    Philip, can you prove your argument?????Or is that just another ideology?????Read the oficial APA opinion about sexuality….IT doesn’t fit with your opinion…it is just your opinion

      

  169. 169KillerCro on Oct 29, 2009 at 8:12 am:

    Philip, are you heterophobe????

      

  170. 170The Sceptic on Oct 29, 2009 at 11:11 am:

    This is very funny!!!!Just to remind you… 40 years ago, gays and bisexuals were discriminated because of the oppressive straights…They were just looking for their rights of self determination and nothing more…They were 2% of all society and their wish was just to be left alone…They were harrased because of the oppressive worldview of the majority…
    They successed in their mission to convince APA to remove their status of the manual of the disorders…

    Today…we can see the opposite..Straights, are fighting for their right of self determination…They are atacked and
    biased that they are bisexuals, have bisexual potential, they are oppressive, they are in self denial, they are bigots, their morality is “wrong” etc..This kind of atacks are injury and serious personal harrasment…They can hurt and degrade the heterosexual identity…Heterosexuals find it very repulsing when they are atacked and forced to ask the validity of their own identity…Isn’t it the same discrimination that “bisexuals” are doing to straights…. Society cannot funciton if people are constatly atacking other people with their oppressive worldviews…Today, we can conclude that bisexuals and gays aren’t really the victims…Trought planned psychological tactics they are trying to destroy the morality of heterosexuality and impose their own worldview.Without reference and logic but with communal reinforsment they are succeding in their mission…Today the real victims are THE STRAIGHTS, not the GAYS and BISEXUALS that are hidding under the mask od the innosent victim….

    Obiviously the “WE ARE ALL BISEXUALS DOESN’T HOLD MUCH WATER…EVERY INTELIGENT, AND LOGICAL PERSON CAN SEE THE FLAWS OF THIS MOTO”. Dosen’t seem that if one wants to have sex with males and females he is supperrior towards others.

    1.First of all…It is stereotipical…It is trying to proove the “all is black and white philosophy” (YOU ARE BISEXUAL, OR BISEXUAL IN DENIAL) and it lack spectrum of possibilities that every person develops and holds in its own nature..It is abusive towards gays and straights

    2.There is not empirical evidence that can prove that everybody is Bisexual…THE oficial APA pamphlet of sexual orientation is this: http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html This doesn’t suppport the ideology that we are all bisexuals.
    Science has cocnlude quite opposite facts:
    a)MALES AND FEMALES DEFFER IN THE SIZE OF THEIR BRAINS AND MANY AREAS:
    http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html
    b)Sexuality is primaly because of reproduction, and pleasure is just result of the sex..Sex is not about pleasure.

    There are many logical flaws in “ALL BISEXUALS” ideology…

    3)IF we assume that everybody have the “bisexual capacity” even the straights….Than we can assume that everybody has “heterosexual capacity” even the gays… So if anybody can develop same sex atraction everybody can UNdevelop same sex atraction—-BUT BECAUSE this is not what bisexuals want they are using the CONFORMATION BIAS to prove their flaw ideology is truthful..

    4)The emotional appeal of all this “romantic atractions” is just another word for propaging someones ideology…
    It is emotional, it is communaly reinforced, and it is repeated many times by many people so it sounds logically and realistic… But it is just another ideology….

    There is a situation where someone asks….WHAT if you see a person of the same sex that have abilities that you like…

    BISEXUAL ANSWER: HE WILL BE MY PARTNER
    HETEROSEXUAL ANSWER: HE WILL BE MY FRIEND AND I WILL RESPECT HIM

    If someone fits with our caracter it does not seem that he must atract us sexually…IT is in the male ego not to feel romantic atraction towards same sex. Gays and bisexuals should respect that, just the same as they want to be respected as persons and characters….They are begging the question with this kind of worldview

    Bisexuals are in risk of many illnesess….Emotional and physical!!!! They are heterosexuals with sick mind!!!!!!!
    (DO YOU LIKE THIS KIND OF THINGS?????? I AM SURE YOU DON’T, SO AND WE DON’T LIKE TO BE CALLED BISEXUALS IN DENIAL!!!!)

    we should stand up for our right of HETEROSEXUAL SELF-DETERMINATION!!!!!

      

  171. 171Suarem on Oct 29, 2009 at 6:02 pm:


    “We should all love each other and everybody should fall in love with everybody” LOOOOOOOOOOL

    ARE YOU A POET, OR AN IDIOT, PHILIP? xD …Or u are just some kind of fuzzy visioner about the ideal society??? xD

    -What is love for you??? Sexual atraction????? If that’s love for you, you are retarded selfish bastard…….
    Where is the respect towards the non sexual friendship??? That’s love too, u know??? Where is the love towards humanity, animals etc…. Some people might love their friends without wanting to FUCK them…………
    You selfish bastards………You just want to have nasty sex, and it is in your perverted nature to atack the morality of the other people with your low tricks…………You don’t possess even “L” of love!!!! You are just a perverted retard that wanna big cock!!!!!

      

  172. 172Astroempire on Nov 9, 2009 at 8:33 am:

    ZOMBIE, what do you think about all this comments……….And philips comment ???

      

  173. 173Astroempire on Nov 10, 2009 at 5:28 pm:

    “I believe that we are all bisexual.”
    You BELIEVE IT

    The constraints of society repress all but the most prominent of feelings towards the same sex but if they are let loose they are still there.
    Who said that there are such a feelings in every human being

    Whilst reproduction cannot take place *naturally* between a gay couple, there’s no reason that we can’t all be naturally bisexual.
    And there is no reason that we can be naturally bisexual….

    Sure, you can scream ‘natural law’ ‘we’re not made that way’ ‘the penis fits in the vagina!’ but that’s beside the point.
    Why do you think so???

    True freedom and gender equality will only come if we first accept that love can occur between anybody and anyone.
    It might be your concept of freedom not mine….
    Why do you think that the only way to be free is to accept “THAT “LOVE” can occur between anybody and anyone

      

  174. 174شات كتابي on Sep 27, 2010 at 11:08 am:

    Philip, are you heterophobe????

      

  175. 175This coupon on May 1, 2013 at 12:07 am:

    According to my study, after a the foreclosure home is offered at a bidding, it is common for your borrower in order to still have some sort ofthat remaining unpaid debt on the personal loan. There are many loan companies who seek to have all costs and liens paid off by the following buyer. Nonetheless, depending on particular programs, laws, and state guidelines there may be several loans which are not easily resolved through the shift of lending products. Therefore, the responsibility still remains on the consumer that has got his or her property foreclosed on. Thank you sharing your thinking on this weblog.

      

  176. 176Keith Bishop on May 2, 2013 at 12:21 pm:

    This is the right blog for anyone who desires to seek out out about this topic. You realize a lot its almost onerous to argue with you (not that I really would want…HaHa). You positively put a new spin on a topic thats been written about for years. Great stuff, simply nice!

      

  177. 177imvu generator credit on Sep 3, 2014 at 5:11 pm:

    Hello friends, its fantastic post concerning tutoringand entirely defined, keep it up all the time.

      

Trackbacks / Pingbacks:

  1. On the Road to Serfdom

    Pingback on Jun 5, 2009 at 3:42 pm

Leave a Reply

Name Email Website URI