Forums → WEPR → The LGBT Community
| 81 | 37784 |
It seems it's no longer taboo for one to be part of this group, and in fact it is becoming popular media. Any thoughts?
- 81 Replies
I really am just saying things honestly, I'm not in my best form at the moment, lotta stress at school and with friends; it's taking away from things I could say and instead I say "blech".
Pang has it right. I doubt you were trying to intentionally be offensive, but gay people don't just arbitrarily decide to become gay as if it were a choice.
I wasn't saying they do.
Meh, I'm done. I'm tired and am being terrible at discussing.
I thought you guys were arguing about how he said "lifestyle". I wouldn't say lifestyle, but mere sexual orientation. Anyone can copy the life of the stereotypical gay person but not be gay themselves.
It was a semantic error. Normally, it'd be pretty pretentious to point out such a triviality, but I've seen LGBT people get riled up when people say things like, "It's not their fault that they chose to be gay." Although the connotation of such a statement is positive and supportive of LGBT people, it points to the heteronormative culture of our society. Many people don't instinctively realize that homosexuality is not a choice or that a specific lifestyle cannot be ascribed to one's orientation. Given the civil rights issues and stigmas attached to LGBT, there's no reason for a person to want to be gay.
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 "rivilege" to describe the majority, as with the article I linked. It's baseless vitriol.
Remember 3-5 years ago, with the dozens of pages long thread going on about whether homosexuality is right or wrong?
I genuinely love how different this thread is, even if there's still a case of awkward shuffling with calling it a choice and other poor phrasing.
Sure, it's largely different people (although hi oldies, I saw you > ), but it's nice to see.
there's no reason for a person to want to be gay.
Hipsters, mang. Being straight is waaaay too mainstream, yo.
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.
It's not a choice.
Correct me if I'm wrong..but what is being pointed out here is that a lifestyle isn't dependent on your sexual orientation
Could you please elaborate? If your lifestyle is not dependent on your orientation, it seems like that WOULD make it* a choice. If I am not defining lifestyle in a way that is generally accepted than obviously please disregard everything I have said.
*"it" being your lifestyle, not your orientation.
Could you please elaborate? If your lifestyle is not dependent on your orientation, it seems like that WOULD make it* a choice. If I am not defining lifestyle in a way that is generally accepted than obviously please disregard everything I have said.
My "It's not a choice" was about orientation. My line following is a simpler version of what you just said at the top of your post
Hipsters, mang. Being straight is waaaay too mainstream, yo.
That just made my day
Honestly, I am against being LGBT but only because all of the people like that who I have had experience with has not been good... Don't ask me to explain further, I won't.
I'm not saying all LGBT are like that, just the ones I have met.
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?
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.
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 "rivilege" 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)?
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)
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.
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.
You must be logged in to post a reply!