the "Gay" Identity / "Gay Culture"

[soothsayer]

Everyone should recognize that homosexuality as well as those who have identified themselves as such have always existed, and in every civilization.

It would be foolish to suspect that such human occurrences didn't exist in Biblical times, or among "cave men" for that matter.

The question is, what is the real root of this modern day cultural phenomenon?

I argue that today's "gay culture" and "gay lifestyle" is very distinct from that of what characterized ancient greek culture:
There, the shared condition of women brought out a unique relationship among them that exemplified their typically tender and emotional nature that was at times normally expressed with physical affection---and the contrasting hormonally-driven promiscuity and activity of the male found an acceptable outlet of military training, sports, and mentor relationships that included appreciation of the male form and indulgence in physical contact. Within this range, obviously, degrees of "romance" to pure physicality existed, but most of it was contained within culturally-accepted practices, with excesses in either direction viewed as unhealthy or self-indulgent or the mark of some character deficiency that derived one scorn, even within a culture that was built upon male dominance and freedom, with women revered as the "head of household" in domestic affairs only, with severely restricted roles outside the home and little expectation of fidelity, especially in man/boy dalliances which were viewed as inconsequential and not upsetting to the family or greater social order---in fact, were probably an evolved "escape valve" for male sexual aggression.

The "gay identity" and "gay culture" of today seem to me, to be a product of the majorly American philosophy of independence and individuality coupled with an unnatural affluence. Probably excesses of the above described Greek social order occurred commensurate with the degree of "leisure affluence", less so among those of lower social status who still needed to strive daily in some capacity, to all but nonexistent among the "more common" citizenry who hadn't the freedom to engage in their baser proclivities because they were too busy working to survive.
In that scenario, someone even with the strongest drives or orientation who sacrificed their energies for survival to indulge their passions would be ultimately self-destructive and viewed as manic, as would a drug addict or obsessive compulsive today.
Indulging this behavior, because it reduces one's ability to be self-sufficient or responsible, is what it is the root of harsh social mores against it. When everyone needs to struggle, nobody wants to tolerate having "pull another's weight" especially when their distraction for work is indulgence in their personal (and unnatural) ideas of pleasure. This is what probably forced even the ancient homosexual "into the closet"---scorn from even his own family who had enough problems sustaining themselves, which among the well-to-do was less of an issue.


Today, the welfare state, our current economic system in which great masses of people can recieve sustenance and money without needing to earn it, and a collusion between politicians, education and the mass media to promote the self-indulgence of the "gay lifestyle" enables it to grow to excess.

This serves the purpose of those who seek votes, consensus and power to degrade the culture at large into dependency, which serves to cement their dominance.

The "printing press" of those who control the treasury are those who permit the flourishing of the subculture. Were the welfare state abolished, or never been allowed to come into being, forcing those in need to seek interpersonal or independent institutional aid from those actually needing to personally sacrifice in order to offer such aid, greater personal responsibility would be culturally demanded.

Today's "gay culture" is a manifestation of a corrupt monetary system and a political culture that permits self-indulgence that, under more genuine economic circumstances would be self-regulated and contained lest it be self-destructive and viewed as mental illness.

Once could argue that the current drive toward "gay acceptance" may be an evolutionary stepping stone to return to something akin to the ancient Greek culture in which the naturally-occurring reasons for both male and female hmosexuality were accepted, but fit-into a cultural framework that benefited society--allowing an outlet for it without harming the family or creating animosity.

If the "gay culture" is to be viewed as "progress" then it must include some kind of self-regulation and a return to societal limits and restrictions, lest it become self-destructive to the culture at large. If the current political climate of unearned entitlements continue, eventually such a system will become unsustainable and a a harsh anti-gay backlash will result, their current path of degradation of the greater culture having served its political purpose of creating large segments of the population dependent upon their political masters.

As much as Roman society did reflect much of their Greek antecedents, it was not their seemingly libertine "gay" higher culture that caused their undoing, (as the religious might claim) but rather, it was the state-provided "bread and circuses" that spread the elite's self-indulgent culture to the masses who could no longer sustain productivity as a result.

Doesn't everyone think that those with the ability or inclination to indulge their gayness would be better off, as would society, if they did so quietly and without pointed political efforts?
Of course, barging into private clubs and public violence are a violation of individual rights, but isnt making one's personal life a public policy issue unnecessarily an offense to society that will ultimately harm everyone?

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: soothsayer Everyone should recognize that homosexuality as well as those who have identified themselves as such have always existed, and in every civilization.... etc.

Badly written - badly thought out - badly researched - badly argued - badly flawed in every conceivable way - and quite risible.

So much so that as a gay man myself - I can honestly say that I've seldom read such drivel on these forums - and that says a lot!

If you can get anybody with more patience than I have to deconstruct this rant point by point - good luck to you - but since every single premise you make is built on a complete fallacy, I think even our resident gay-baiters would be hard pressed to extract a single worthwhile point from this confused morass.

. . . Apart from that, it was OK.

[RickSp]

Perhaps the only value of the piece is that it demonstrates that even straw men can be gay. Who knew?

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: RickSp Perhaps the only value of the piece is that it demonstrates that even straw men can be gay. Who knew?

I think this particular straw man needs a damned good stuffing myself.

[soothsayer]

What fallacies are you referring to?

That homosexuality has always existed?

That all cultures discourage it or restrict it because it is a deviance from the function of society at large?

That many cultures are not hostile to it, but develop societal structures that "contain" and limit its expression (The Fijian culture comes to mind here)

That modern society revolves around a monetary system that is not reflective of actual individual effort, be it the great wealth attained by investment bankers or bureaucrats, and that specific groups, at various times, for various pruposes, are the beneficiaries of governmental largess, with observable sociological repurcussions? ...and that when individual personal responsibility is allieved or encouraged for political power it has historically observable negative cnsequences, and that "the gay culture" is but one of those avenues toward degrading the culture, aggrandizing political influence and increasing general societal dependency upon the false monetary system controlled by government?

I am homosexual, in practice, myself... but that does not prevent me from recognizing the greater societal effects of an artificial culture.

What one does in private, and with whom, and the nature of one's relationships should be jealously guarded as independent from policies or decrees.

If I am not assaulted or dicriminated against for who I am (and I am not) isn't making a pointed effort of making others know my business inviting unnecessary responses from those who ulitimately are directly put upon as a result of polices directed toward an artificially created special interest group seeking governmental address?

I am no different from anyone else for the way I live my life, but more importantly: nor are my needs or expectations from government or society any different as a result of who I am. I dont care to be identified or associated with any group. I am independent and make my way in the world the same as anyone else, and it diminishes me to seek any kind of acknowledgment from others, especially "officials".

I dont care to receive any special consideration from nor be obligated to the government.. I seek only to be left alone (which I am).

This is an anonymous forum. To publicly proclaim myself as different from anyone else ( I am not) would be to invite problems.

It is my argument that encourgement or cultivation of a "gay identity" is to invite negative responses from those who also wish to avoid imposition upon their own efforts to live their own lives, and such cultivation by a colluding educational system, mass media, and politicians is intended to channel resources, and false money toward politicians who can claim to be extinguishing a fire which they themselves have been fanning, with willing, misguided immature over-indulged recipients cheering them on who ultimately stand to suffer the most.

[Jack]

I and perhaps others read your post as a request for the gay community to effectively sit down and shut up. This is not an opinion that sits well with many LGBT people.

Public awareness and acceptance of gays has come a long way since Stonewall. No one in the LGBT community wants to return to pre-1969 conditions in the U.S.

I am confused by your mention of economic considerations. I don't see where granting equal social rights to gays is asking the government for "special" treatment or incurring additional expenditures.

[soothsayer]

I'd like to offer a more lengthy response, but it happens I'm just heading out at the moment... but I'll leave the thread with this:

I am confused by your mention of economic considerations.

a perfect example was the "aids crisis".
If the "gay community" weren't a disproportionately irresponsible and self-indulgent subculture, then why hasn't it all but eradicated it within its own population? It is a closely-knit culture despite its size... it certainly manages to very effectively disseminate all other manner of education and awareness.
Continuous new waves of uniquely "gay" fashion, slang , speech affects, mannerisms etc clearly demonstrate that!


The problem is that "gay" activist groups sought government funding for aids as gay groups instead of saying "this is what we have done positively in our community, and in our mutual self interest as part of the same greater culture and nation, we advocate for increased attention to the problem for the benefit of all.

By making it a "gay issue" it made gays a target for resentment, and by being confrontational, made it not only "other" (which would have put the onus of being accepting upon the greater society) but actively offensive.

Also, since the ability to curb the spread of aids inititially was very successful within the community, the whiny, entitled, begging and foot stamping demands as a group exemplifies the decline of cultural tone toward self-reliance--which can only come about through false money.

So-called "gay rights" are but another channel by which politicians can appropriate that money and power.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Jack I and perhaps others read your post as a request for the gay community to effectively sit down and shut up. This is not an opinion that sits well with many LGBT people. Public awareness and acceptance of gays has come a long way since Stonewall. No one in the LGBT community wants to return to pre-1969 conditions in the U.S. I am confused by your mention of economic considerations. I don't see where granting equal social rights to gays is asking the government for "special" treatment or incurring additional expenditures.

Jack - I despair! How can such self-loathing exist after all we have been through? I am truly shocked... shocked by the selfishness of disassociating oneself so completely from one's social allegiances, shocked by this crippling lack of self-esteem - not to mention the constant equating of one's sexual expression as "self indulgent" and decadent. - Horrified by the allusions to gay being "unnatural" and destructive to society - what a terribly sad and distorted attitude to have.

It's bad enough when openly homophobic straight people take this soul-destroying stance, but for a gay man to collude in all the worst misconceptions that are thrown at us is something of a different order entirely. It makes me realise just how prone we are to assuming that we speak for all gays when we seek to rectify discrimination - and now this! -- I literally feel as if I have been kicked in the stomach.

The worst part of it all is that I suspect that if this poster was put in a position where it became necessary to stand up and be counted, he might well cover his own gay identity by joining in the condemnation, just to deflect suspicion. Such things used to be common in the past when homosexuality was severely punished - but what is the excuse for such a betrayal in the present climate? You can understand, for instance, a Jew protecting his family in nazi Germany by pretending not to be Jewish - but the sort of cowardice we see displayed above is beyond my comprehension.

It is not often that a post literally takes my breath away by its outrageousness, and I don't quite know whether pity or extreme anger is the appropriate reaction.

[Lostinlife]

Jeez, its like the Golden Corral. How much crap can you eat?

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Lostinlife Jeez, its like the Golden Corral. How much crap can you eat?

Same old Libertarian sh!t - but twice as nasty coming from a gay man. Shame, shame, and more bloody shame. Why do we bother fighting for anything?

[Lostinlife]

Well sadly most of us cannot abandon our emotions. However it is the very fact that we experience anger and shame for the principles we fight for, that we should feel grateful that we feel and wish to try and make this world a better place.

However, the ignorant, and the small often prevent us from moving forward, as this is the majority...

[Jack]

I'm not totally in disagreement with your initial assessment. Perhaps I've explained it better here, Heathen Queer » Legal rights ≠ equality or acceptence or, bigots are pimples

[RickSp]

If I may make a tangential comment. A gay friend in Manhattan once commented to me that he judges how much progress toward acceptance the gay community has made by the way the annual Gay Pride parade is covered by the press, particularly the television stations.

In past years the cameras focused on the "Dykes on Bikes" or the more flamboyant trannies dancing down the street whereas in more recent times the cameras have caught the grandmothers parading with their sons and daughters as well as the clean cut and wholesome gay couples walking in hand in hand.

The point is the parade hasn't changed over the years. The dykes, leathermen and trannies are still there as are the clean cut and wholesome contingent who have always been part of the festivities. It is just that the media once saw fit to cover "gay pride" as a freak show and now they see it as mainstream. The media has changed more than the community.

I think it is fundamentally wrong to blame "gay culture" for the bigoted responses gay men and women may encounter. The gay community is what it is, as diverse and as complicated as any other community. How the rest of the world responds to it matters but to a large extent is also not something that the community can control.

[soothsayer]

I condemn noone for being "gay". I condemn those who advocate policies that deteriorate the buying power of money. That includes all socialists. Inflationary monetary policies or manipulation of the economy is an assault by the elite upon the life of each person, for money, for better or worse, is the measure by which we value every productive breath we take upon this earth and to appropriate it by force is to shorten one's life.
Charity exists in great measure within the human spirit (otherwise the misguided consensus for socialistic policies wouldn't be so strong ! ) and it degrades humanity and the social fabric to manipulate and skim that positive human spirit through official acts which always benefit the elite and impoverish the rest.

Furthermore, don't call me a "gay man". I don't even know what that means.
Sure, I appreciate interior design, gourmet cuisine, fine fabrics and wines as much as the next guy but that doesn't make me "gay".

I admitted to having participated in homosexual activities throughout my lifetime, beginning with "playing doctor" together with neighborhood boys and girls at sometime pre-kindergarten. That is homosexual behavior.

I've been in a circle jerk or two at summer camp. That is homosexual behavior.

I've also been pretty dominant in my lifetime, routinely playing out various scenarios with consenting (female) partners when I was a very young adult. I've come to see that, regardless of the degree of mutual desire for such benign kink, I've "evolved" beyond it, finding it distasteful to engage in, regardless of their willingless, or rather, desire for it.
I've simply outgrown it, and in fact, find it rather lame.

Just today, I was propositioned for sex by an admittedly very attractive man.
I suppose by virtue of our location he felt free to do so.
I'm open-minded and friendly, and single and available (to women) and don't pre-judge gays, so I was flattered rather than offended.

I wound up being in a long conversation with him and he himself confessed that his attraction to homosexual activity stems from an incident of sexual abuse by an older teen when he was a youth, and that he is attracted to femininity but has social difficulties with women (I dont see why he would--- I just think he "takes the easy way out" kind of like the way a dieter cheats himself sneaking a desert while desiring a fit physique ) and his "urges" cause him to indulge himself---he is "damaged goods" anyway in his mind, so why not---but he'd much rather be in a "normal" heterosexual relationship, married with children, despite the attendant difficulties in this day and age of confused societal demands and expectations of gender roles in marriage.

I thanked him and told him that I simply had "outgrown" such sophomoric dalliances, and he concurred that it was indeed those with "low self esteem" who permitted themselves to stray into such self-destructive nonesense.

We also discussed that human sexuality is indeed complex and entirely individualistic, and agreed that for some, a homosexual lifestyle is entirely appropriate for them but that it was not "societal norms" or anything else that made us both realize that we would indeed have higher self-esteem had we not succumbed to what would have probably less than a fleeting pleasure.

He thanked me for my sincerity and my friendship and was relieved to have shared what he found was a refreshingly honest and personal viewpoint.
By the way, we both also discussed the fact that our feelings about the silliness of being homosexual had nothing to do with "morality" or family pressure since we were both atheists and far removed (geographically and emotionally) from our entire families, and more to do with our own indivdual self-respect and maturity.

I don't understand why "gays" need to make their homosexuality their overt identity. Nobody cares if their boss or their teacher or the man down the street has whatever "kink" he indulges in private, in fact, it detracts from the positive, respectful image we should have of one another as individuals.

I feel i have been referred to in this thread as "ignorant" and "cowardly".

I stand alone and wish to be left alone. I have no need to jump on any bandwagon. The consensus 'gay political agenda' amounts to nothing more than seeking official policies to appropriate funds from those who earn it to those who have not, gaining political power for the "redistributors" in the process.

From what I've seen of the 'gay community' is that it is very self-sufficient, supports itself, patronizes itself in business, is very creative and entrepreneurial and very responsive to its own community's needs in terms of social issues like offering employment and employment benefits and is a model for offering compassion and flexibility even in (dreaded ! ) "capitalist" activities.

The fact that, if supposedly it is so shunned and despised by the greater culture (it isn't) then it should do well to turn its back on it entirely and continue being the "light unto the world" that in many ways it really is....

The fact that gays persist in their various "social" campaigns indicates that it has far more to do with a psychiatric, delusional desire to make itself "normal" when it lacks the candor and introspection that I and my newfound friend described above happily shared.

Politicians happily indulge them in their juggernaut because weakness sells.
The more "open-armed" the socialistic fold becomes, the more irrevocable it becomes.

History repeats itself, as I endeavored to describe in my original post.
The "gay community" will at one point have served its purpose and sadly, has sown the seeds of its own destruction---and the world will suffer for it.
..and I don't mean in any snide way, like iferring the loss of interior decorators, but rather, the fascist backlash the world will endure because of the current "gay cultures" insistence on attempting to "normalize" its excesses will leave the world tolerating a harsher climate than necessary.

[Jack]

I don't understand why "gays" need to make their homosexuality their overt identity.

For the same reason so many Christians feel obliged to make their religious belief their most prominent characteristic. For the same reason so many men around here have Chargers flags on their cars, Chargers shirts, Chargers baby clothes and Chargers tattoos. Everyone I know has one passion, one interest, one aspect of their personality that's dominant. For young gays (say 13 to 30), their sexuality is often the center of focus for their lives. By virtue of their gayness they are granted access to a community of fellows, just like Christians, Boy Scouts and the Elks.

The gay community is far more than sexual, but the mundane aspects of it aren't sensational enough to warrant anyone's notice. Many gays only go to gay doctors, only shop in stores owned or friendly to the community. There are fewer gay book stores than Christian ones, but the banter between the patrons of either would be practically interchangeable. People often forget that the number of believers in one religion or another are represented among gays in about the same percentage as in the larger straight community. The Log Cabin Republicans don't represent what I guess would be the primarily liberal political slant among gays . There's a lot more to the gay community than sex, and it affects more aspects of our lives than just the sexual.

That "in your face" aspect to some gay behavior? It's largely intentional. It's partly a matter of taking inordinate pride in a part of your character for which you were not responsible. Another part is a desire to offend delicate sensibilities. It's a slap in the face of those outside the community. Gays have endured more than slaps in the face from those who consider them an abomination, a disease that demands eradication. Gays are beat up and killed for being gay in far greater number than the religious, who delight in constantly proclaiming how oppressed and pitiful they are. And that's true in many countries. Believe me, we're all thankful that the average American male may talk all tough and brave and spout Bible verses way too often, but when it comes to violating the law and actually beating up, let alone killing, queers most of them sensibly back off. So some gays tease, they flaunt themselves. They know chances are good they won't be attacked. Still, there's safety in numbers, so Pride Parades are pretty safe places to let loose. Just remember, there are more "normal" looking gays on the sidelines watching than there are marching. They're those of us who laugh along and enjoy the spectacle. Maybe we're even a little embarrassed but we won't admit to it. It's gay Mardi Gras, a religious event every bit as licentious as any Pride Parade.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Same old Libertarian sh!t - but twice as nasty coming from a gay man. Shame, shame, and more bloody shame. Why do we bother fighting for anything?

Excuse me... you mischaracterize his argument.

Actual libertarians like myself don't give a s**t what gays do as long as they're not asking government to interfere with our private lives. I don't care if you want to get married. I don't care if you want to have a 500-man gay orgy every night. If it's not on my front lawn, it doesn't affect me, and therefore, the government shouldn't stop you from doing it.

[SoylentGreen]

soothsayer I condemn those who advocate policies that deteriorate the buying power of money. That includes all socialists. Inflationary monetary policies or manipulation of the economy is an assault by the elite upon the life of each person, for money, for better or worse, is the measure by which we value every productive breath we take upon this earth and to appropriate it by force is to shorten one's life. Charity exists in great measure within the human spirit (otherwise the misguided consensus for socialistic policies wouldn't be so strong ! ) and it degrades humanity and the social fabric to manipulate and skim that positive human spirit through official acts which always benefit the elite and impoverish the rest.

Your economic views are even sadder than your views on the gays. Another of those ones that are so greedy they want it all and refuse to pay their share .

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Your economic views are even sadder than your views on the gays. Another of those ones that are so greedy they want it all and refuse to pay their share .

Precisely - it all stinks to high heaven.

[Cruella]

We do not discuss personal messages on debate threads. Both of you will cease and desist this behaviour immediately.

Messages have been removed from this thread.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[L00zer]

Society is better off when we debate with each other, struggle with one another, and express our emotions and beliefs. For example, on this forum users debate, which advances our thoughts on important issues and ideas. Why should gay people hold back from expressing their emotions and beliefs? Homosexuality is a challenging and pressing issue at the moment, and to make progress on it, we must debate (see the Gay Marriage thread on this site). I can see no reason why gays should not use their right to speak out as much as possible.

Why gays and not neo-cons? I don't like neo-cons very much... Maybe they should not express their opinions?