Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The LGBT Community

Posted Jul 21, '13 at 7:28am

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,915 posts

I'm not saying all LGBT are like that, just the ones I have met.

and because of this you are:

Honestly, I am against being LGBT

???

one positive thing. at least you are able to see that the fact you had bad experience doesnt mean all of them are like that. but wouldnt the exactly be the reason you shouldnt be against it?

 

Posted Jul 21, '13 at 4:59pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Calvin, I'm not sure if you know this or not, but LGBT isn't an organisation. It's an acronym encompassing alternate sexualities that society in general does not view in a good light.

 

Posted Jul 21, '13 at 5:13pm

hojoko

hojoko

556 posts

I think Wyrzen might have been making a distinction between sexual preference and sexual lifestyle. I mean, how you live your life (which is what I would consider to be your lifestyle) IS a choice. No, really, it is. As a straight male, I could still pretend to be gay. I can still live my life as if I actually were homosexual. Furthermore, I could be choose to be celibate, and thus forgo the heterosexual lifestyle in another manner.

There are plenty of homosexual people out there who live a heterosexual lifestyle, due to societal pressures and whatnot. They are still homosexual, I fully understand that orientation is not a choice.

This, I think, really captures why so many of us in the LGBT community find the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" offensive, or at least mildly annoying. First off, there's no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle. There just isn't. What would that even be? Liking fashion, knitting and make-up? Does that make liking baseball and math part of the opposite heterosexual lifestyle?

Second, homosexual lifestyle seems to reduce our personality to one single trait that deviates from the societal norm. Even though I doubt that's what you mean, the phrase implies that all my hobbies, interests and aspirations are defined by who I prefer to have sex with. Again, this is not the case.

Simply put, we live our lives based on choices that result from all aspects of our identity. I'm currently pursuing a degree in economics (not an interior designer). I like math, science and history, and I abhor fashion. Not because I'm changing my lifestyle based on societal pressures, but because I think fashion is boring while the others aren't.

To put it in perspective, I'll use another example:

Craig is black. He's currently enrolled in the engineering program at UCLA. He plays basketball, but he much prefers soccer. He also hates rap, and listens to alternative rock and classical instead. Why is he this way? Is it because he's rejecting the black lifestyle due to societal pressure, and choosing to embrace the white lifestyle instead? Or is it because he's a unique individual with his own interests and lifestyle choices not based solely on his race?

What do you think?

To clarify, I know it might sound like I'm attacking you. I'm not. Or if I am, I don't mean to and I apologize in advance. These issues just get to me because they propagate stereotypes that greatly color my life.

That being said, those of LGBT orientation are normal people and should be treated as such, which also means that they should not be immune to criticism just because they're oppressed. Too often I see minorities (racial, sexual, etc.) use the term "privilege" to describe the majority, as with the article I linked. It's baseless vitriol.

Could you elaborate here? Are you saying that the article is baseless vitriol (because it is), or that the concept of privilege is baseless vitriol (because it's very much not)?

 

Posted Jul 21, '13 at 6:36pm

aknerd

aknerd

1,275 posts

First off, there's no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle.

Well obviously. By living a "homosexual lifestyle" I meant what is more typically referred to as being "out" or "openly gay". I used the word lifestyle because that was the word Wyrzen used, and I assumed that was what he (she?) meant. Though I guess I shouldn't be putting words in other people's mouths...

Sorry about the confusion. In hindsight I realize I jumped immediately from how I defined lifestyle generally ("how you live your life") and the specific facet (public expression of sexual orientation) that I wanted to discus more thoroughly. But thank you for bringing your viewpoint to the term, because it is something I could see myself using incorrectly again, and now I know to be more careful with my wording. No one likes to be put into a labeled box filled with stereotypes.

What do you think?

(see above)

 

Posted Jul 21, '13 at 8:51pm

rayoflight3

rayoflight3

435 posts

Could you elaborate here? Are you saying that the article is baseless vitriol (because it is), or that the concept of privilege is baseless vitriol (because it's very much not)?

I'm not denying the idea of privilege. However, I am saying that when minorities throw around concepts like "white privilege," or "straight privilege," or "cisgendered privilege" as ad hominems, it's self-defeating. It only intensifies the lines of stratification that I thought they were working so tirelessly strike down.

Why do I bring this up? Well, besides the Macklemore article, I happen to go to a school that is perceived to be very white and male-oriented. As a result, we've developed very proud and tight-knit (but also radical) minority organizations who often have a say about campus issues. And yes, they have legitimate points about the culture here, and I support them for the most part, but sometimes, it's almost as if they themselves have this privilege where they can get away with their actions solely because of their race or orientation. Not true. Ignorance is not unilateral.

 

Posted Jul 31, '13 at 4:38pm

danielo

danielo

1,378 posts

You know why you think that they are so "show off" and claim a diffrunte trwatment then the "normal peoples"? Because they are not part of your norm. The rules of your comunity, writen or not, dont fit for other minorities. They feel oppresed, but you feel just fine. Because these rules dont hurt you. Its like a fish will be angry because a human cant stay for long under sea. For the fish its just fine. What is not ok? For him the conditions are fine.

Same here. You think, even if you dont know it, that its not so bad. But for them it is. The rules the comunity made dont fit them. So when they break them you dont like it. When they try to protest them thwy break rhem. When they exist they break them. And thats the problme.

 

Posted Aug 2, '13 at 12:23am

samy

samy

4,338 posts

I happen to go to a school that is perceived to be very white and male-oriented.

Dartmouth?

I know the feeling, although we seem to come to different conclusions on whether or not that stereotype is true. I go to, if I may, a very similar school. And while I am a white, strait, cisgendered male; I have been continually amazed by the ignorance exhibited by the, largely, white, strait, cisgendered male community. Moreover, the patience of the patience the minority groups on campus have with the larger culture is astounding.

Minority groups on my campus are not the most privileged, they're often a bit more vocal than the majority, but I don't think that I, as part of the majority, can, legitimately or justly, claim anything passed that.

 

Posted Dec 14, '13 at 6:30am

chrystalfox

chrystalfox

19 posts

Recently a Q and A has been added to LGBT, making it LGBTQA. The Q is for queer, basically anyone who doesn't fit the "normal" heterosexual cis-gendered roles, and A is for allies. Do you think the change was necessary? I understand the Q because there are people (agenders, asexuals) who don't fit in the previous categories. But is the A necessary? I mean, it's all right if there's a legitimate purpose, I'm just having trouble finding it.

 

Posted Dec 14, '13 at 10:38am

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,915 posts

Recently a Q and A has been added to LGBT, making it LGBTQA. The Q is for queer, basically anyone who doesn't fit the "normal" heterosexual cis-gendered roles, and A is for allies. Do you think the change was necessary? I understand the Q because there are people (agenders, asexuals) who don't fit in the previous categories. But is the A necessary? I mean, it's all right if there's a legitimate purpose, I'm just having trouble finding it.

i fail to understand why both are needed... if we lived in a world where being L/G/B/T (not gonna bother typing all of those in case i have to do it multiple times) was 100% ok and normal we wouldnt have this thing called LGBT. from what i know asexuals dont get any hate right? except maybe some not believing they exist.

and if allies is necesairy in this case why not just add an A to any kind of movement? it would work no? in fact i think its better to not add the A because having supporters that are outside of your group is much more effective.

 

Posted Dec 14, '13 at 1:12pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

from what i know asexuals dont get any hate right?

Among other religious groups, the Catholic Church requires the people it marries to be open to having children. And some governments give incentives for having kids or penalties for being childless.

 
Reply to The LGBT Community

You must be logged in to post a reply!