5%

gentlemen,
approximately 5% of your family, friends and associates are homosexual.
so which of your relatives, pals and colleagues do you hate?
can you name them?
do you have a list?
and do you take full advantage of every opportunity to tell them how much they disgust you and how unworthy they are of the same rights and privileges that you enjoy?
no?
why not?
go ahead.
don't keep your hatred to yourselves.
don't hide it behind an avatar.
share it with those around you.
and let me know how that works for you.
eh?

Why are you so homophobic

Why are you so homophobic flattax?

Your comment shows how delusional some people are.

Acceptance doesn't equal encouragement

Can you point out some examples where being gay is being encouraged. Because, believe it or not, being gay isn't something you can catch, choose, or be pushed into.

Flattax's Xmas wish list

Polyandary
polygamy
incest
bestiality
necrophelia

Can you provide any examples of these activities being actively promoted by a 'left-wing' group, or are you just talking out of your ass? (so to speak :-)

...

Classic trolling by flatearth, best to ignore it.

..

er, opps, flattax

the trolls

I like to give them an opportunity to state their case. When they don't... the silence speaks volumes.

Morons To The End

To quote the jumper on the bridge in the film The Host, these desperate dinosaurs are truly morons to the end. The Pharisees whom Jesus condemned as more concerned with the letter of the law than with the spirit of justice, the slave owners who appropriated the Bible to justify slavery and the rape and murder of slaves, the segregationists who defended racial separation as Biblically mandated, and the religious-right of today who harbour hatred toward gay men and lesbians, are all the same sad, pathetic people. They don't get it, they don't want to get it, and they and their views will eventually be consigned to the scrapheap of history ... with the exception of a small fringe of fundamentalists, who will always continue to congratulate themselves on their own righteousness, much as the incurably insane hold interminable conversations with themselves, hypnotized by their own madness. Let the homophobes rant and rave like the lunatics they are, they and their worldview are withering away, and the world will be the better for it: less gas for global warming.

...

Stump, I'm not for censoring anyone, but what good it does to engage with someone who only wants to make inflammatory posts on the topic?

I'd love to be wrong, but from what I've read in the past I don't think any amount of reason is going to sway the poster..

...

Bah, sorry for the typos. Can't type this morning. Need more coffee.

jrb

Why do you use hate so casually? It is a very strong and irrational emotion. I suspect that most people who don't like either gays and lesbians or their lifestyle are not even remotely close to that level of emotionalism.

Have we sunk so low as a society that we are not permitted to have negative thoughts about anything? If you label someone as homophobic just because they disagree with gay and lesbian lifestyle choices is that not hateful?

If you can't learn to respect other peoples feelings how the hell do you expect them to respect yours?

Moral Progress at last

For thousands of people who work to see a better future for Canada, this article is very good news. It means that inspite of the neoconservative efforts at social control, moral progress IS possible. And it is clear evidence that we must all continue to speak out for tolerance and acceptance of human diversity. While this progress doesn't occur as fast as most people want, it does occur. That is the miracle and the reason to continue. One day let us hope that the angry intolerance of people like Byfield is but a footnote to history. Thank you Tyee and Bethany!!!

...

Hateful? I've been called worse by right wing trolls for having voted NDP.

Believe what you like, but don't expect a free pass when you post those beliefs on a message board, and that goes both ways.

I don't consider the word Homophobia to be hateful -- it's a state of being. Sure, it can be used in conjunction with hateful language but it only describes how someone is.

Hey Snert

Hey there Snert, care to get together for a latte after the thread? Mmmm, is that Old Spice you're wearing?

We are not all hateful

I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle and I do believe it to be wrong. That being said, I do not hate people who practice that lifestyle and I certainly am not afraid of them. Believing that something is wrong does not mean you hate the person. I think doing drugs is wrong but I don’t hate addicts. I think lying is wrong but I don’t hate someone as soon as they deceive me.

Sure there are some people who claim that God hates gays and so should we, but I think you’ll find they are a small minority. Most people I know who believe homosexuality is wrong are not afraid of homosexuals, nor do they think we should hate and shun them. If you truly believe in tolerance, you should tolerate people who disagree with you about homosexuality and make the distinction between hateful extremists and the vast majority.

the lifestyle

There's as many ways to be gay as there is to be straight. There's no such thing as a "homosexual lifestyle" anymore than there's a "heterosexual" one. Don't let blind acceptance of stereotypes turn you into a bigot.

Let me clarify

Point taken Stump. I wrote 'homosexual lifestyle' to try encompass all the different forms of practicing homosexuality. I did not mean to imply that all homosexual people are the same nor that they have vastly different lifestyles than heterosexual people.

I agree with clo3

what s/he said. The success that left wingers have had in silencing those who have moral or public health objections to homosexual practices has a totalitarian undercurrent. They talk "tolerance" but refuse to tolerate differing views. The dictionary definition of tolerance specifically references tolerance for religious points of view--rather ironic. There is a "lunatic fringe" of so-called Christians (e.g. Fred Phelps and his ilk) who claim that God "hates" fags. He is wrong and there isn't a single major evangelical or mainstream faith that agrees with him. Yet Phelps is often trotted out as the Christian exemplar on this issue--which is simply a contrived libel. The fact remains that virtually no major religion in the world condones homosexual practice and the demonstrable negative health effects are available for anyone with an internet search engine. Neither of these will change despite the success of gay propagandizing.

Gee this will be fun....

... I believe homosexuality is not natural and is not the way we were meant to be if we were all perfect. Since we are not perfect and are constantly evolving, homosexuality results. It is not a lifestyle choice, it is a genetic anomaly.

I know many homosexuals and have a few family members that are homesexual. They would not have chosen to withstand the negativity and outright displeasure from my strongly religious family if it was a choice they could undo.

They are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, as they are members of the human race. Period.

IMO, homophobia is no different than racism.

apathysux

Hey Bluenose, in the bible

Deleted for hateful language. Tyee editor

...

And yet, you and a number of other posters are here making your views known -- on a left-leaning site no-less!

Clo3

Appreciate the clarification. Having said that, I guess it begs the question... what part of homosexuality do you think is 'wrong'?

Homo-foaming at the mouth

Please elaborate. This should be awesome!

The "Lord" nailed a virgin bride and cuckolded an honourable man. When It can keep it in Its pants and not commit adultery then the two-faced, lying myth you worship can start telling others how to live. God is long dead and good riddance too.

One presumes climber that you observe all the strictures of the Bible? You know, shellfish, money-lending, shopping on Sunday. etc, etc. Or do you pick and choose which parts of Christianity you'll abide by?

Google "Flying Spaghetti Monster" to have your fables deconstructed post-haste.

Which parts? Just the ones you secretly desire?

LOL

Stump

I said '....wrong if you believe in the bible. I don't that much...." Read my post again, yes, the bible is full of crazy, ugly stuff, it has a few good things though, whatever.

Let the bigots come out ...

Unfortunately, it is a given that bigots will come out and give their "views" on homosexuality when a review like this hits a blog. I would ask the editors: Are homosexuals considered a "people"? If so, you should watch this discussion quite closely.

My favourite so far is by clo3: "If you truly believe in tolerance, you should tolerate people who disagree with you about homosexuality and make the distinction between hateful extremists and the vast majority."

Should I tolerate people who disagree with being Jewish, or black, or ... you get the point. Sorry, but tolerance only goes so far.

Quote:approximately 5% of

Deleted for hate speech (equating homosexuality with incest). Tyee editor.

Sorry climber

I didn't mean to lump you in with Christian bigots when you'd prefer to be known as an irreligious one.

Why does male homosexuality repulse you? Shall we assume lesbianism is OK by you? Why can women love each other, but not men? There's huge gaps in your logic that I'd like to see you reconcile.

How to be a discerning bigot

So, by your reckoning, a person's grooming habits are a good reason to hate someone? I think we have a winner in the stupidest reason to be a bigot contest, although flattax gave you some strong competition Flattax.

correction

should have been "some strong competition Taxcutter"

What a stupid Book

This book is clearly designed for the Liberal left in Ontario - who know nothing about Calgary, Edmonton or the rest of Alberta. Oh no, growing up gay in Alberta!?!?!?!

The Alberta Conservative - with exception for some of the country dwellers - same in any province - is not defined by being a social conservative, as the Liberals try to paint. The Alberta Conservative is defined by hard work and reward.

Growing up gay is never going to be easy. You are not average. Gay people, especially those who choose to define themselves by their sexuality, have different interests, which sometimes result in different mannerisms and behaviours. Trying to fit in is never easy.

People should concern themselves less with what other people do, and more with they do. People are free to choose who to love, when and where.

The gay community has made big strides over the past 10 years, let alone 20. It is up to them to define themselves. Do they want to be viewed as people first, homosexuals second. Or, vice versa.

I know both types. Some never stop talking about being gay. They dress flambouyantly and have feminin mannerisms. Others, are defined by the quality of the person. You think, man, this is a great guy. His sexuality doesn't matter.

It is up to the community to decide and live with the repercussions.

immaturity

Nope. I think it's a fair question. What I do find immature is folks who think other people's consensual sexual activities are their business and/or a fitting subject for them to pass judgement upon.

As a Catholic

If this is the case, let God make that decision in the after-life. It is not up to us to play the role of god.

In my opinion, some of the bible's writings is to fill in some of the unknowns, that existed thousands of years ago. The bible also says, don't work on Sunday, don't drink too much and don't have pre-marital sex.

"...they force gay marriage...",

so says the Flatearther.

"Allowing" gay marriage is not "FORCING" gay marriage.
Who is being forced into a gay marriage?

Public support for gay marriage keeps growing.
For instance, an Environics poll in June '06 found 59% of Canadians felt the same sex marriage issue was "settled, and it's time to move on". Only 33% supported reopening the debate, with 8% undecided. A few years previous, Canadian opinion was closer to a 50/50 split.If close to 2/3 of Canadians who have an opinion are content with the gay marriage law, it can't be said the law is being forced on a resistant public.

Rather, if a federal gov't repealed the law, THAT would be forcing a change against the will of a solid majority of Canadians. So, it sounds like it's folks like Flatearther who would like to FORCE their intolerant minority position on
the majority of tolerant Canadians.

... Flatearther evokes these irrelevant slippery slope bogies: "polyandary [sic], polygamy, incest, bestiality and necrophelia [sic]"
2/5 (40%) of his bogies, he can't even spell correctly. I wonder, is there a possible correspondence between degrees of illiteracy and degrees of bigotry?

Its a Red Neck thing

They really needed to do something in Alberta but I'm not sure rehab is the answer as rehab what? I know its a red neck thing in Alberta beating the crap out of some poor guy different from themselves and I've seen it first hand and it was on more than one common occasion as I thought it was somekind of national pastime as they bragged away. I remember there was alot of controversey over mla/pm having serious issues with gays. I guess its not fair to blame the red necks altogether as Alberta has its religious fanatics who believe anyone unlike themselves is evil. I believe its why gays are so easily persecuted by their fellow man/women. Hello its not like rape its just someone who wants to be with you even if they are the same sex you can just say no. Its that simple.

Stump and Chris H...

Stump, in answer to your question, I believe that sex is to be shared between a man and a women within the exclusive confines of marriage. I think that sex outside of that description is wrong. For me, this means that I view homosexuality the same way as I view cheating on a spouse (as far as the sexual act itself goes—homosexuality obviously doesn’t carry the deceit and breech of trust that cheating often does).

And as for Chris H, I do not put disagreement with homosexuality on the same plain as racism because there is no decision to act with regard to ethnicity. A person born in Israel is Jewish in the ethnic sense whether they like it or not. That same person, however, decides whether or not they will practice Judaism. To disagree with their race makes no sense because no one has any control over that anyway; but to disagree with their religious choice is different because that is a decision that each person has control over.

Now I am not saying that people choose who (or what gender) they are attracted to, but I people do choose who they have sex with. For me, it may be very natural for me to be attracted to someone other than my wife, but that does not make it right for me to cheat. Along the same line, there is some evidence that some people have a natural bend to addiction and become alcoholics/addicts far more easily. That does not make it right for them to be alcoholics or addicts though.

I am sure that will not satisfy you, but I hope it at least gives you some idea why I think those are very different things. I also do not expect you to share my view if you do not share my religion. What does concern me about this discussion is that anyone who does not approve of homosexuality is being called bigoted and is being lumped in with people who go gay bashing. At the point I start condoning violence or hatred toward homosexual people, by all means demonstrate intolerance. Until then, some respect would be nice.

Girly Men

So taxcut..its girly men that you have a problem with?

Why in creation or evolution

Why in creation or evolution would we have two separate creatures (male and female) with two separate genitalia. And when put together they create another male or female. This cannot be with homosexuality. Think of it another way, if we were all homosexual, there wouldn't be any of us left!

A phobia is a fear

verso

Once again a strong emotion. You can consider what you want just watch you don't tar yourself with your own brush.

clubofrome

Your turn to buy, Sweety.

Thoughts

Clearly this had to do with the show's fanbase. Grey's Anatomy caters to the Will & Grace audience. The majority of its fans are sensitive women. This became public - the one sympathetic character in the show (the gay male) complained about it publicly. This was simply an attempt to show the shows fans, that they cared.

I can assure you that Vince McMahon can call anybody he wants a "fag" without having to go to rehab.

Please identify your cult....

I mean your religeon, clo3. I'm curious as to which one teaches this practice as wrong. I have my suspicions and for the record I have to say that I'm intollerant of people with your beliefs. You were born without any biases, then somewhere along the way you learned to judge others. Sorry but I guess we're both bigots. Your extreme arm protests in front of abortion clinics and the worst of them shoot doctors. You claim a marriage union between two people is the exclusive right under your beliefs. Your biases cannot stop at just gay union, you must also have learned that other varieys of humans are also inferior. I'm all for free speech, lets here it!

Thank you, climber

"Yes, absolutely, 2 men is gross, 2 women is awesome."

Your honesty is refreshing, and this is the best laugh I've had all day.

You seem to be as thick as two short planks, and your opinions formed by nothing more than preconceived notions and "adult entertainment", but hey - keep 'em coming. I could use the entertainment.

Man, boy sex.

clubofrome

Do you support a persons right to engage in that?

Or are your biases just more valid than someone else's.

Hate

Homophobia implies hatred. Homophobia is the irrational fear, intolerance and sometimes hatred of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LBGT) people. It is the irrational fear of same-gender feelings, identification and/or social sexual expression. It is the fear that enforces sexism and heterosexism. The most extreme manifestation of homophobia is violence against gay men and lesbians. Heterosexism is the assumption that heterosexuality is the only morally and socially acceptable form of sexual expression.

Irrational beliefs are based on lack of evidence or demonstrability and are matters of faith, not reason. Many of the prejudices gay men and lesbians face are based on false stereotypes, fear of the unknown and lack of information. Gay men and lesbians are often portrayed as either sick, perverted and immoral, or their existence is denied altogether.

If it is hateful, it is deservedly so. There are no "gay and lesbian lifestyle choices." Anthropological studies have shown that gay men and lesbians have been part of every culture and that in many cultures, bisexuality is the norm. Lesbians and gay men are represented in every socioeconomic class, educational level, age and race. Just as heterosexuals find their attractions to individuals of the opposite gender natural, gay men and lesbians find their attractions to individuals of the same gender natural. It is now known that a person's sexual orientation cannot be changed because it is a natural and normal part of that person. There is a growing understanding that most individual's affectional/sexual orientation falls on a continuum from exclusively homosexual experiences, through differing levels of bisexual experiences to exclusively heterosexual experiences. This continuum perspective of human sexuality shows that being gay or lesbian is simply one of the many possible expressions of love that human beings have.

I do not expect anyone to respect a prejudicial worldview that is rooted in irrational fear and hatred. The main problem with the world today is not simply a lack of humanism, but a lack of rationality and rational discourse rooted in substantive theories and critical epistemologies.

Nice equivalence, snert.

"Man, boy sex.
clubofrome
Do you support a persons right to engage in that?
Or are your biases just more valid than someone else's."

You've just demonstrated why nothing you write should ever be taken seriously.

This topic is gay

Some random thoughts to stir the pot:

1. Why don't straight men realize that homosexuality is their ally? Were I single, I would be relieved that many of the handsome, gym-toned guys who dress well and are knowledgeable about shoes were not trying to compete with me!

2. Before Will & Grace, there was Dear Faggot. Dan Savage totally demystifies the "gay lifestyle" -- to the point where he is openly critical of "the gay ghetto" and the notion of a Rainbow Nation. He's so cool with it, he's almost against it.

3. Like most things that are accepted on faith as an axiom, the idea that homosexuality is a built-in, unchangable feature seems a bit dubious to me. I don't believe that most people are absolutely straight or gay. There is a Mexican joke about this concept, about how many beers it takes to determine your orientation for that night. The drive for love, affection and pleasure is, I think, enough to overcome social programming or "normal" impulses, whether in prison or not.

The point is not whether we are 100% this or that, but that it's not anyone else's business what we are doing to whom.

4. On the other hand, I think you can point to certain aspects of gay culture and criticize them. Gays are not a monolith, nor are the Amish, but just as you can say that there is an "Amish" stereotype that reflects reality, there's a "gay man" stereotype which is supported by reality. The party/drugs/sex stuff, while probably very fun, has killed hundreds of thousands of gay men including some of my family members. HIV aside (and I don't believe that HIV has been proven to cause AIDS), the simple fact of basically not sleeping and taking coke and uppers for years will finish your immune system. Gay groups have basically said, well, just use condoms and carry on. This is the wrong approach to the crisis.

hellokitty

There's double standards showing up all over this thread. What's your bias.

Lifestyle

Willful ignorance is no excuse for irrational beliefs and bad behaviour. You need to educate yourself: homophobia creates a society where people are kept closeted and targeted for discrimination and hate crimes. If you were educated on this topic, you would know that there is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle, just as there is no single heterosexual lifestyle.

I have never believed in tolerance. I am intolerant of intolerance. I believe in the supremacy of rationalism and rational discourse over irrationalism and archaic belief systems of domination and oppression.

Your ignorance is intentional rather than appalling. Nice try.

Fact is, if you were at all familiar with the field of modern biblical exegesis, you would know that the Bible is far from clear on "homo stuuf."

This is yet another tragic attempt to draw a moral equivalency between same-sex marriage and incest. Or between bestiality and homosexuality. Or whatever. Desperation breeds duplicity.

Bigotry is rooted in irrational fear and ignorance. There is a causal connection between homophobia and violence against gay men and lesbians, just as there is a causal connection between racism and violence against racial minorities.

This view is based on the irrational belief that any form of sexual expression between gay men or lesbians is intrinsically evil and inherently disordered. You are entitled to your religious beliefs, but you are not entitled to impose the tenets of your irrational belief system upon a secular society.

Snert

I have my force field on, and deflector screens at 90%. I'm aslo wearing 2 condoms and an anti static strap so your going to have to come at me with something a little more substantial. Also I play rough. Stay in school and respect your elders that's all I can really give you right now...

Stereotypes

In the first place, there are many "gay cultures," not just one. In the second place, it is fallacious to compare gay men to the Amish, who are characterized by group-specific norms and clearly defined social structures that facilitate communal solidarity (which gay men and lesbians are not). In the third place, stereotypes are never useful when they are false. Finally, not all gay men by any means engage in the kinds of behaviours you highlight above. Those that do are often motivated by a coherent ideology of libertinism, whether one agrees with it or not. As same-sex relationships continue to become a normative part of modern society, these kinds of choices may become less attractive as other "alternatives" present themselves.

What is your rationale?

Bluenose, you have several times said that it is irrational to believe that homosexuality is wrong. You then comment that tying a link between incest and homosexuality is a desperate attempt to rationalise an irrational thing.

I am not attempting to argue that homosexuality will lead to bestiality, polygamy, polyandry or incest. However, I am curious to know your thoughts on all those and how it is any more rational to believe that any of them are unacceptable. If three or four women wish to marry one man, what right do we have to say it’s illegal? What if someone wants to have sex with their horse, how is that our business? Perhaps people find bestiality repulsive because they are ignorant and irrational about it.

As for your point about their being no homogeneous ‘homosexual lifestyle,’ I know that and I clarified what I meant by that term as soon as it was pointed out to me. I’m in complete agreement that an opinion based in ignorance and stereotypes is not valid, hence my reading this discussion to learn from others and be challenged in my views.

Negative Health Effects

In response to a question on the impact of homosexual practice on health
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
Dr. Timothy J. Dailey
www.frc.org/get/is01b1.cfm
issue 232

Snert:

Well, I tend to have a very strong bias against willful ignorance, to name but one.

hellokitty

Well, I tend to have a very strong bias against willful ignorance, to name but one.

Good for you. So do I. Go figure.

clubofrome

I have it on good authority that that's your normal state anyhow so why bother.

All I did was ask a question which you chose not to answer. Maybe now we know the reason why. No bias against kinkiness on your part, huh?

alberta report and the outside world

Well, after a read of six posts in this forum there was not much point in continuing, and there's really little you can say about Alberta sitting up and finding out if it's the fastest-growing place in the country they don't have much choice in telling New Albertans they'd better learn to be like Stephen Harper (who looks gay to me, I don't care if he's married or not).

But just to comment on ol' Link Byfield; I remember one issue long ago, talking about the spread of "heathen" religions in Western Canada, how he summarized Buddhism as "a religion obsessed with death". Yeah, uh-huh, except Buddhism doesn't preach eternal hellfire and tell you how to live so you can go the right place when you die; it just tells you how to live. Funny he missed that, or maybe his narrow mind just couldn't allow him to see the value in anything else; the article contained similarly negative comments about most other religions; interestingly he avoided slagging Islam as I recall but the assumption I made at the time was because they were brothers-in-oil....

Kinky?

Is that your question snert? Are you asking if I think sex with a minor is kinky? Man boy sex, that's what you said right? Please elaborate as I don't understand your context or question.

clo3

You ask for respect on your viewpoint on homosexuality, but it is very difficult to do that when you compare homosexuals to drug addicts, liars, and cheaters. Probably the best you can do is to keep your bigoted viewpoint to yourself, and let people who are homosexual live their lives in peace. The fact they exist has nothing to do with you.

How do you feel that spreading your viewpoint validates hatred against gays and lesbians? Would you go up to a teen who identified as gay and tell him that his "urges" were wrong? Any idea how many gay teens commit suicide? Love thy neighbour? Yah, only if they think like you.

Aquired biases

clubofrome

I was just wondering if you had 'acquired' a bias against that and if so what makes your bias against it any more valid than that of somebody else who feels uncomfortable with gay marriage or gay lifestyles.

You draw the tolerance line at one place but others choose a different point. Where should it be? Or does it float and it only becomes hate when people start to obsess?

BTW Don't forget the tinfoil hat. Got to have that protection against stray microwaves.

Health

A completely discredited quack. But then ... you probably knew that anyway!

http://fundiewatch.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-gay-bashing-on-shaky-ground.html

I've been in a same-sex relationship for over twenty years and have never had so much as a single STD let alone any of the other horrors the fundamentalist pseudo-"scientists" like to "document." As I wrote above, desperation breeds duplicity, and the anti-gay crowd are wonderfully accomplished hypocrites and liars. If only they could market their venom more successfully ... not in Canada, you say?

Lord Tunderin' Jesus. Try common sense. Bestiality does not generally involve consenting adults in a relationship based on mutuality and reciprocity. Incest usually involves an unequal power dynamic between victim and abuser. God, that I should have to point this out.

As the law currently stands, we have the right to say that it's illegal because it is illegal. I have no moral or ethical objections whatsoever to polyamorous unions, provided they are entered into by consenting adults. Read and learn:

http://sexuality.about.com/od/alternativerelationships/a/psychologypoly.htm

Have to run ... short on time and, if I read any more of these posts, sanity.

It's all about consent

The only basis by which a sex act can be judged moral or immoral is on the basis of consent. An animal can't give their consent.

Also Clo3, if sex within marriage is your idea of moral sex, are you opposed to sex within a same-sex marriage?

:-)

"Live and Let Live"

With all the wars that are going on, I like to see love in what-ever form it happens to take. Only thing... no meanness.

Good conversation change though... :-)

Peace,

Bear

Bluenose

Good contributions here, Bluenose. Your posts are measured, reasoned and articulate.

Returning to my original point...

Well Chris H, if you have read all my posts and concluded that I am a bigoted and hateful person, then I have clearly failed to make my point. I originally posted to say that thinking something is wrong does not mean you hate the people who participate in it. Do I hate people who are homosexual? No. Do I think I am better than people who are homosexual? Absolutely not. I am not even close to being a perfect human and am therefore in no position to judge anyone.

I am well aware of the stigmatization that homosexuals feel in our society and I don’t think this is right, however considering how few Canadians are active in the evangelical Christian church, I don’t think Christians are the main reason this stigma exists in our society. I do not actively seek out gay teens (or anyone else who is homosexual) and tell them what I think, and I have no problem letting people live in peace. Everyone is free to make his or her own life decisions. I am not interested in forcing my opinion on anyone, but I will share what I think when asked, as I hope everyone feels free to do.

My point in all this is that to stigmatise people who don’t agree with homosexuality by painting them as hateful, ignorant and bigoted is merely a tactic to avoid discussion on the subject. It only serves to alienate those you disagree with and ensure that conflict continues.

Bluenose, after reading your last post I can see where you are coming from and respect you, even though I disagree with you. I don’t think you are irrational and I certainly don’t hate you. I hope one day the stigmatization on both sides will stop so that both groups of people can respectfully disagree without violence, hatred or name calling on either side.

Returning

I don't think that liberal Christians are the main reason this stigma exists in our society, but I do think that fundamentalist Christians (Biblical literalists who are scripturally selective) are. Evangelical Christianity is only one of many movements within the broader Christian faith tradition.

I try not to stigmatize people (although some people really are hateful and bigoted) but I do stigmatize ideas. I don't think that all beliefs or all ideas are equally worthy of respect. I don't think that archaic belief systems that uncritically accept patriarchal patterns and hierarchies of domination and oppression are at all deserving of respect. The conflict continues because an irrational belief in the sanctity of heteronormativity continues to be promulgated in certain communities, along with an intent to negatively influence public perceptions and attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.

Excuse me, but this is the reason we have affirmative action: not to practise reverse discrimination, but to redress historic wrongs. Gay men and lesbians have been the target of profound disrespect (to put it rather mildly) from imperialist Christian quarters for hundreds of years. The stigmatization, violence, torture, mutilation, etc., did not begin with gays and lesbians: it began elsewhere, and it needs to be owned as such before any kind of respectful dialogue with fundamentalists or evangelicals can even begin. In my opinion, belief systems that incur toxic guilt and require the blaming and shaming of others in order to control them have no place in an authentic human civilization.

I don't think you're irrational either, but I do think that your beliefs are irrational, and irrational beliefs have no business informing public policy in a modern secular society. I fully respect your right to believe whatever it is you wish to believe: what I don't respect is your right to have those beliefs inform such things as social policy and public education.

climber ? were you asking me a question

Please, I'm kinda dumb and dont take hints well, what are you trying to say or asking me to reveal?

Actually I had my experiences BEFORE moving to Vancouver. It was quite a simple experience actually, a perv hearing of my trials in life coerced me into a massage to relax me, then tried to make his move. That broke the barrier to my subtle introduction/acceptance to the scene I suppose. Not really knowing much in those days, all I knew was I was young and getting into clubs.
I was a hurt and lonely boy, drowning his days in psychedelics, smoke, acceptance and companionship which was freely available and given out by the seemingly well to do and connected gays of the day. Looking back on it, these men were vultures and carnivores, feeding on and medicating the weaknesses and vulnerability of misguided and misspent youth.
Not that I ever related another individuals gay personal choices to my personal experience of molestation or being in thier company as likening me to them, I had my own motives, namely survival.

Hear these truths

F*ck your God. He's a prick. Otherwise, keep up the good fight for better transportation alternatives Gordon.

I think you're a homophobe and a bigot Climber. With every post on this subject you just reinforce how prejudiced you are against things you refuse to accept simply because it's not the way you live.

...

Please. That's exactly what you are doing, or are you trying to tell us the "law of sin" has no consequences with your God?

They just gotta drag 'God' into it...

...knew it was gonna get interesting.

Organized religion teaches intolerance and requires intolerance from it's followers. As Bluenose says, that is irrational.

What two consenting adults do with each other is no one's business but their own. True freedom allows one to be the true person they are without others passing their biased judgements upon them.

Homophobia is the same as racism because one cannot change their sexual orientation anymore than one can change the color of their skin.

This bears repeating: Homosexuality is NOT the same as incest, pedophilia, beastiality, etc. because it involves CONSENTING ADULTS.

BTW sexually transmitted diseases are not hetereophobic.

apathysux

clo3 ... final word

"I originally posted to say that thinking something is wrong does not mean you hate the people who participate in it."

I agree, but thinking someone is wrong does imply that you hate them. When classifying people as homosexuals, that is who they are! I can't seperate who I am from my sexuality, can you? Your comparisons to acts that are considered harmful to either the person doing them or others has nothing to do with homosexuality. Comparing homosexuals to drug addicts? That isn't hateful? What does one have to do with the other. Drug addiction is an affliction, by comparing it with homosexuality you are basically saying that homosexuals have some sort of disease. That isn't hateful? Take a good long look into your beliefs and see how those whose lives you judge perceive you; for judging you are. I, for one, am not personally homosexual, but why would I need to put a moral compass on their actions? What possible difference does it make to me?

Crossing the line

Folks, you are going to notice a fair number of posts edited or deleted in this thread. Allow me to make clear the reasoning. The view of The Tyee editors is that tolerance for gays and lesbians is a matter of human rights, and maligning gays and lesbians is speech we will not allow on The Tyee. Therefore calling people 'fags' or 'raging faggots' or expressing or disgust with them or declaring them to be sinners headed for hell etc. crosses the line on Tyee forums. If you consider this an infringement of your free speech, take your views to a different site where such views are allowed. They aren't here and those who persist in posting them will be blocked from further commenting.

There you have it

But of course "redneck" is just fine on this site, cause after all those poor, uneducated white folks don't deserve the same respect. And insulting someones religiuos belief in a "God" is cool as well, as in what Stump just said "Fuck your God. He's a prick"

Oh No, I've offended the Lord!

He's all-knowing, if He feels slighted He can take it up with me anytime. Perhaps he can get Zues and Apollo and a few other fictional characters to join in on the Stump-slaughter.

There's a big difference between saying "fuck your beliefs" (a position chosen rather than inherited genetically) and "Fuck your sexual preference" (pretty much a hardwired human attribute). Your logic continues to suck Climber.

you hit that nail on the

you hit that nail on the head climber. no problem here with dissing christianity. blatant double standards at work. wonder what would have happened if another 'god's' name had been used?

No argument there Bluenose!

Bluenose, I have to agree with you on your last point about public policy and education. Everyone in Canada is not Christian and there is even a lot of disagreement about morality amongst Christians. I would not want the state to legislate that I have to follow Islamic law or that I can’t practise my religion, and so there is no way that I can ask the state to force others to follow my moral beliefs.

Actually, a huge part of my religious beliefs is that a person has to make their own personal choice to follow God for it to matter, so forcing people to follow Christian morals is really not going to accomplish much. If I expect public policy to allow me to make my own moral decisions about private matters, then I certainly must extend that same right to everyone else! That is how it works in a democratic secular society, no argument there.

Thank you to the editors

Thank you to the editors here who editted the crap that I read here since yesterday.

Elliot

I agree. This site is completely anti-christian. The editorials and commentors frequently attack people of faith.

It is one of the reasons why people like Mr. Glavin became tired of the left. "Tolerance" is fine and dandy as long as it suits them. They do not tolerate religion.

The religious right is equally hypocritical in its own right. However, the left should give their head a shake.

Both sides need to learn what tolerance means. Neither do.

Tolerance

Tolerance and evangelicism are incompatible. If Christianity were tolerant of other beliefs there would be no missionaries. Pretty much the same thing with Islam.

Buddhism, a religion which doesn't proselytize and demands that one question its tenets is the only religion IMO that has elevated itself above superstition.

it's not a lifestyle. it's life.

... are the equivalent to moral or public health objections to having blue eyes, or being near-sighted, or having curly hair, or being over 6ft tall. in other words, purely arbitrary, unfounded and just plain wrong.

Thank you

Thank you Mr. Beers.

This sums it up: "If you consider this an infringement of your free speech, take your views to a different site where such views are allowed."

You can have your opinion, but The Tyee doesn't have to give you a platform to say it. And, for those that complain or think it's unfair, see how successful you are getting those type of remarks printed in The Vancouver Sun or Province. You are nowhere near the mainstream or good taste.

No Argument

Agreed. There is even a lot of disagreement about what constitutes Christian morality.

Agreed ... with the proviso that an inclusive Christian ethic of love includes the acknowledgement of same-sex affectional relationships. It is again a matter of who decides which morals are Christian.

Only if you adhere to a monolithic definition of what the word Christian means. Or was your statement just designed to provoke?

People of faith frequently attack other people of faith. Boo. Hoo.

I despise tolerance. I think humanism and rationalism are the only reasonable basis for a truly human civilization, and I'd like to see them indoctrinated into the minds of the young through the educational curricula. In this sense, I'm an impositionist liberal who assents to the idea that secularism and liberal values ought to be imposed on societies which are resistant to them.

I wouldn't agree with that. Buddhism comes in as many shapes and sizes as any other religion. There are Buddhist fundamentalists. There are Buddhist misogynists. There are Buddhist racists. There are Buddhist homophobes. There are even forms of Buddhism which make salvation dependent on proselytization. It's just that in the West, we're culturally removed from much of it. Buddhism in Buddhist countries isn't as saccharine as it's often presented here in the West.

Well, the Christian universalist Simone Weil never restricted herself to only one interpretation of God. She wrote:

For it seemed to me certain, and I still think so today, that one can never wrestle enough with God if one does so out of pure regard for the truth. Christ likes us to prefer truth to him because, before being Christ, he is truth. If one turns aside from him to go toward the truth, one will not go far before falling into his arms.

After this I came to feel that Plato was a mystic, that all the Iliad is bathed in Christian light, and that Dionysus and Osiris are in a certain sense Christ himself; and my love was thereby redoubled.

Buddhist salvation

Saved from what? There's no heaven or hell in the Buddhist philosophy AFAIK (esp. not in the Christian/Islamic sense). I wouldn't equate nirvana and enlightenment with heaven, but I will admit to being a beginner in terms of my understanding of Buddhism.

Which form of Buddhism are you referring to that incorporates personal salvation and proselytization as part of its tenets?

Well, it's amazing how

Well, it's amazing how quickly things have changed, even since my own adolescence not so long ago. Part of me is envious of gay youth today, who can come of age in an environment that doesn't place quite the same burden of repression on their psyches. Even those now caught in repressive family environments can still access the common popular culture in a wide variety of way to discover role models, life possibilities, fulfilling and emotionally healthy ways of discovering intimacy...in short another way of being.

Whether the rapidity of change means that the genie is out of the bottle for good, or simply that the pendulum is on a swing, remains to be seen. The latter possibility seems to be the one that Byfield is rooting for. It's not inconceivable, but I suspect any such reversal would be contingent on a much more encompassing upheaval of the social order, one that would uproot many modern freedoms right across the board. That's the only way I see it happening.

Sexuality is a powerful force. Think of all the ways this unrequited or repressed energy has influenced culture and society, from arts and literature, to religion, politics and power structures. The Sexual Revolution has heaped up a mountain of unacknowledged casualties, but it has also created a new inner freedom for each human being who has been touched by it. It has totally altered society, and i don't think there's any way to fully turn back the clock.

Word Games

The right-whiners who continually bellow about our "lack of tolerance" toward bigots, haters, pathological liars, sociopaths etc. are just playing word games.One can only have limited tolerance for the intolerant. The right-whiner aplogists for bigotry are like a mugger accusing his intended victim of being coercive for fighting back. The brute puts the peaceful person in a bind, the bigot puts the tolerant person in a dilemma, the totalitarian puts the democrat in a contradictory situation.

I would also like to point out that people who howl loudest about gays are usually hiding the fear of that gay part of themselves

Heaven and Hell

To quote Karen Armstrong:

In Pure Land Buddhism, Sukhavati is the heaven where everything will be “sweet” (sukha) as opposed to the “sourness” (dukha) of unmindful living. The monk Honen Shonin felt that Amida Buddha's vow opens the possibility of salvation through such a simple act as calling him to mind: Amida as the bodhisattva Dharmakara vowed that if those who thus called him in mind were not born in his Pure Land, he would forego supreme enlightenment. Since Dharmakara is considered to have attained supreme enlightenment as Amida Buddha, by implication, the salvation of those who put faith in him is assured. This is the essence of Pure Land Buddhism.

In Tibetan Buddhism, there are four different states or realms of hells: hot, cold, neighboring and occasional hells. To further subdivide these, there are eight different hot hells. The first of these is known as the Reviving Hell. This is the one of least suffering, relatively speaking. To understand the extent of the misery experienced here, the pain of a person caught in a great fire would be very slight in comparison with that of beings in the first hot hell. Each hell below the Reviving Hell has an increasingly intense degree of misery.

There’s a great parable in Tibetan Buddhism about heaven and hell. In hell, people sit around a big bowl full of soup, and they have spoons attached to their arms, but they go hungry because the spoons are too long and they can’t bring the bowl of the spoon up to their mouths.

Heaven is exactly the same way, except that in heaven people feed each other.

Pure Land Buddhism. Various forms of Korean Buddhism. Various forms of Japanese Buddhism. Soka Gakkai. From one website:

Buddhism is no more a monolithic religion than any other. In its many forms, it too has its evangelists, its fundamentalists, its hellfire-and-damnation preachers, etc.

Excellent post, Bluenose.

Excellent post, Bluenose. I've often encountered a peculiar idealization of Buddhism among some Westerners looking for alternatives to Christianity. You reinforce the point that all religions are susceptible to human nature, both the good and the bad. Buddhism in some areas of the world has been just as married to closed power hierarchies as Christianity has been in Europe. If I'm not mistaken, the Buddhist clerical caste ruled Tibet prior to Chinese occupation, and Tibet's brand of Buddhism is replete with the very formalism, ritual, hierarchy and ridged arcane dogma which secularized Westerners often decry in traditional Christianity.

...that's rigid dogma, not

...that's rigid dogma, not ridged dogma...!

Thanks Bluenose

for the addt'l info. But, may I recommend that you also provide urls for the websites you reference... to allow folks to assess the reliability of the information you're providing.

Nightbloom:

I'm not idealizing anything. Simply put, my understanding of Buddhism (mostly the Zen variety I guess) is that there's simply reincarnation until enlightenment and then one becomes one with the universe. No soul to pray to keep (before, or after, I lay me down to sleep :-) or save. If the soul is an illusion, then clearly salvation must be too.

Further, I'm not sure I'd consider all practitioners of a faith as necessarily practicing it in good faith, or faithfully to its beliefs. If we do that, you Christians get stuck with that Phelps nutter, Falwell et al!

"Ridged dogma"

A belief in the erotic power of textured condoms?

LOL

Stump

If you know how to Google ... you ought to be able to do your own research.

If you're really interested in Buddhism ... don't be lazy about it. There's no excuse for laziness. Don't just swallow whatever dogma you happen to be fed by whichever group happens to be feeding you at the moment.

My information is reliable: do a little research on your own into Pure Land Buddhism. Visit a Pure Land temple and talk to the monks and laypeople who practise Pure Land Buddhism.

Here are some urls anyway:

http://www.shindharmanet.com/shinbasics/introduction.htm

Quote: Salvation in Jodo Shinshu is through the grace of Amida Buddha; thus it is known as "salvation through absolute Other Power."

http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/SokaGakkai-02.html

Quote: The Ogasawara scandal, the aggressive proselytization tactics, military style organization, political ambitions, and the Soka Gakkai's intolerance towards all other religions tarnished its reputation in the eyes of the Japanese media and many in the general public. Nevertheless, Toda's dream of the conversion of 750,000 families was reported to have been met in 1957. One reason for the Soka Gakkai's success may have been the promise of material benefits through the simple practice of chanting daimoku to the gohonzon. Toda described the Daigohonzon as a kind of "happiness machine."

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/buddhism/34319

Quote: Is there a hell? Yes. In Tibetan Buddhism it is described as a hell realm. It is indeed a realm of ceaseless suffering. "My meditation is so profound, I don't have to worry about karma." But the repercussions of delusion are infallible, and it doesn't take a lot of delusion to find oneself born in hell.

These are just a few websites chosen at random. There's more to Buddhism than Zen. Identifying Buddhism with Zen is like identifying Christianity with Unitarianism.

In matters of religion and spirituality, most people prefer to believe what is pleasant rather than what is true. Critical thinking isn't allowed, because the mind is the source of all evil. Idiots.

Nightbloom

Ah, human nature. Lovely human nature.

This is my last post here, but I thought I'd post the following for you: you might appreciate it more than some others ...

The following is from a book by Walter Truett Anderson. The book is titled The Next Enlightenment: Integrating East and West in a New Vision of Human Evolution. As he says below [p. 180], and in the previous pages, he's largely a fan of the New Age. However ...

On the negative side, it has been a vast fountain of trivialization, commercialization, sloppy thinking, and general smarminess.

I am inclined to think its contributions are more positive than negative, but in this chapter I plan to deal chiefly with the shortcomings because each is a problem to be understood by the person who undertakes a serious exploration of consciousness. Among the main ones:

A tendency toward narcissism, logically resulting from the popularity of the romantic notion of an idealized inner "true self"

A bias against rationality, especially unfortunate when coupled with an affection for Big Ideas

A kitsch constructivism that fails to respect the limits of our ability to create reality and degenerates into little more than a belief that wishing will make it so

A lack of ability -- or even desire -- to evaluate critically the various beliefs, practices, and ideas imported wholesale from other cultures and other ages

A chronic susceptibility to cults and cult leaders

The last shortcoming -- the tendency of so many people to swoon in the presence of anybody who claims to be the keeper of spiritual insight -- has led to some of the darkest moments of the New Age. There is a grim record of economic, sexual, and psychological exploitations of the followers of celebrities such as the California promoter Werner Erhard, who built his est teachings into an international business empire that was prodigiously successful until it collapsed under the weight of its founder's ego. The est sage offers an excellent example not only of how such movements go wrong but also the really remarkable willingness of otherwise intelligent people to turn off their shit detectors.

No shit!

bluenose

If you're so inclined, send me an email

garthwest@hotmail.com

Going in circles

"Stump, in answer to your question, I believe that sex is to be shared between a man and a women within the exclusive confines of marriage. I think that sex outside of that description is wrong." writes Clo. Great. And I think having sex ONLY within the confines of marriage is wrong, and quite ridiculous. I'm not condoning adultery, of course. So we think one another's lifestyles are "wrong" and we'll never know who is right (leave HIM out of it; he's a fabrication) because neither of us can ever make that claim. This topic could go in circles forever because people will always have different lifestyles.

New Age

Witness the success of "The Secret" by Rhonda Byrne. If there ever was a less deserving piece of new age garbage, I don't know where to find it. It is the epitome of "wishing will make it so".

A few examples from good ol' Rhonda in rough paraphrase. Don't look at fat people, so as to avoid fat thoughts... which of course are what make you fat. Keep sick people out of your life, because you are inviting illness listening to people talking about illness. Of course to bring it round to the theme of the thread: homosexuality. I bet we can guess what her prescription would be given thinking makes it so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_%282006_film%29

The really sad part is that is garbage has been at the top of the bestseller charts for ages.

Play nice bluenose

As I noted earlier:

so there's no real need to come back with:

The simple fact that I'm asking you the questions should be proof that I'm not swallowing anybody's dogma at face value.

Hey Fii

I like the way you think! And we live in the same part of YVR. Wanna break some commandments together?

(Kidding, I gots me a gal I love to pieces)

Nice

Oh dear. One final post in this forum.

It was meant as encouragement. You're in a zendo and I'm carrying a kyosaku to beat you with. Since you don't exist in any real sense, there's nothing for you to react to.

I? What is this I you refer to?

Pourquoi? I'd rather post my ramblings in public than have them haunt me in private. Besides which, I'm less interested in conversation than I am in information. I don't post to engage in dialogue but to counter mis-information or dis-information. I have dialogue and conversation aplenty when I'm off-line. It helps keep me sane. Or at least somewhat articulate. But thanks for the invitation anyway!

bluenose

You'll have to answer the email to find out.

No obligation. I'm not really into conversation either.

typo or ?

Ahh, I (or the illusion that sometimes is Stump) get it now. When you italicized the "I" it comes out looking like a forward slash.

Forgive me. I haven't yet shaken the illusion I exist. :-)

Bluenose, re stereotypes

I agree with your observation that the gay libertines don't represent all or even most LGBT people. But I would quibble with the way you distinguish the party-culture gay men, which was the group that I was talking about, from the Amish. There's an argument that both cultures have reinforcement, group-specific norms.

I'm not trying to offend ya, by the way... I was trying to distinguish acceptance of a reality (i.e. that being gay is a natural and inevitable part of normal society) from a blanket immunity to criticism; in other words, questioning the degree to which past (and current) persecution confers the moral high ground.

About Buddhist fundamentalism: consider the Nichiren sect as an example of religion converging with political aspirations of a particularly ultra-nationalistic, arguably racist perspective. I grew up in both the Christian and Buddhist traditions and frankly found little difference in the degree to which they stifle reason.

For a modern example of a Buddhist fascism, consider the SLORC government of Myanmar.

Good points, Yammer,

Good points, Yammer, regarding (1) the tendency of groups to establish their own self-contained set of norms, which in turn produce self-perpetuating patterns and behavioral expectations, as well as (2) your point regarding the assumption by some people that oppression (past or present ) grants blanket immunity to criticism for some groups.

The first point actually cuts both ways. Gordon (above) related his personal experience with the seldom-acknowledged “dark side” of the gay male sub-culture. It certainly exists, and has constituted an unfortunate rite of passage for many of us. This fact has generated a lot of negative patterns among a certain segment of the community. But by enfranchising gay people in society (through growing acceptance on all levels, including the institutional level), we have the chance to generate a whole new paradigm, a whole new set of life-expectations. Gay teens, rather than undergoing the hard apprenticeship that has always awaited us as we blindly run the gauntlet of drugs, disease and sexual exploitation, can now grow up dreaming of dating, falling in love, marrying, family acceptance, parenthood. All this will change the paradigm in time, though I think the damage is already done for many of us caught in the transition who cannot make the paradigm-shift.

"seldom-acknowledged"- that's funny.

I think you're in the midst of a one-person campaign to make up for that all on your own n/b.

Maybe folks don't need a new paradigm. I think it really amounts, at bottom, to not much more than being kind and reciprocal in all our relationships. It's not surprising to me that you haven't managed to understand that yet.

If that happens all the rest of the bad stuff tends to burn itself out and fall by the wayside.

You might want to look to the late June Callwood for an example of that. She’ll be missed.

Whatever Gwest. Thanx for

Whatever Gwest. Thanx for the negativity, the judgment, the dismissal... and above all thanx for 'setting me straight' once again.

But just for a moment - one moment only - stop and consider the possibility that you might not have a clue what you're talking about.

Right back at you my friend but less dismissively

It's not me who deals from the bottom of the self-contained normative deck all the time. And, talking about "negativity, (the) judgment, and (the) dismissal," ...well my friend, I think you ought to take a look at what you write and then look back at the way I address issues.

I think you're the one with a serious problem understanding this:

"I think it really amounts, at bottom, to not much more than being kind and reciprocal in all our relationships."
Which is actually what I wrote.

Doesn't seem very negative, judgmental and dismissive to me; I’m not sure where you’re coming from but I am certain you’re pulling a real train of heavy baggage behind you.

To get back on track:

To get back on track:

Calgary actually has a very unique urban gay community, and its been that way for quite some time - very distinct from downtown gay communities elsewhere.

But I don't know what to make of the dispersal of the "traditional" urban gay enclaves or "Gay Villages". It's a disappearing phenomenon as queer goes mainstream. I personally think that it's a triad of causes: increasing acceptance, the growth of the afterhours and Circuit phenomenon, and the proliferation of web-based hook-up networks. Gay men are simply voting with their feet and their wallets. Toronto's Gay Village just isn't what it used to be. It's now little more than two or three blocks of retail stores and less than a handful of bars. Ditto for Vancouver's Gay Village, which is hardly very gay anymore. All these changes have taken hold so rapidly since the late '90s. Actually, I think Montreal is the only Canadian city that still retains a vestige of that old "underground enclave" feel to its gay village on St. Catherine's Street, but gay businesses there have also been hard hit by the gay diaspora (if I can call it that).

the gay diaspora

You're joking, right?

Not really - I think gay

Not really - I think gay people know what I just described, even if that word isn't a good fit. I won't quibble with your superior vocabulary - the point is that the "traditional" downtown Gay Villages and social centres have really thinned out over the past decade, as 'Gay' has gone mainstream. There isn't that need to seek safety in urban enclaves, and there are far more social alternatives to the bar scene (an indispensable draw for these Villages). I hear about it from everyone everywhere, and it's been written about copiously - the changes have been very dramatic in a short time. For example, the T.O. Village has had a continuous series of closures of long-established venues since 2000. The target market group just isn't showing up the way it used to. Also, you can't get as much of a cross-section of the community living in urban centres anymore because it's too damn expensive.

Diaspora connotes something quite different

Diaspora tends to refer to a process of fleeing from danger and a search for safety. Closeted homosexuals used the gay scene you're talking about as a safe refuge in times of societal intolerance.

As mainstream attitudes have changed, the need for the 'scene' you're talking about is disappearing and gay people are becoming normalized within a broader cultural milieu.

In jurisdictions where attitudes have not matured, I'd expect there would still be plenty of gay refuges.

Consequently, I think the idea of a Diaspora in that context is just funny. In my view.

I'm not sure the atomization of the gay community is a bad thing anyway - it seems rather a tenuous basis upon which to build a culture.

So to unpack what you just

So to unpack what you just said: you briefly rephrased my own argument, inserted a redundant caveat, and then continued to quibble over vocabulary. Fine. I'll leave to your shadow boxing.

Incidentally, you're wrong about the word - it's been used in many contexts. You've described just one connotation. It's a dispersion of people and populations from a traditional preserve associated with their group identity, plain and simple, irrespective of cause. The Chinese Diaspora and the Jewish Diaspora, for example, occurred for totally different reasons, but the word applies to both. The urbanization of male gay communities is as old as mass urbanization itself, so the word applies to the current phenomenon of dispersal from the "traditional" inner city preserves and socio-cultural centres. Moreover, it is a cultural diaspora out of the ghetto into the mainstream, as much as a physical one. I don't know why you feel it's funny or unworthy of recognition. It's a new paradigm for gay people like me, Gwest, no matter how silly you may find the idea. It's a paradigm shift that we funny queer folks are living through right now.

Not at all

You’re the one who used what I took to be an inappropriate metaphor. I pointed it out. I've contributed virtually nothing to this thread because bluenose already said it all, period.

Everything YOU post n/bloom is REDUNDANT because you've already written and spun it over and over again a hundred times before.

You're on the same hobbyhorse every time you ride into the picture. And anyone who questions you is, how’d you put it, ‘funny’, ‘quibbling,’ ‘shadow-boxing,’ ‘negative,’ ‘judgmental,’ ‘dismissive’ – I could go on. None of which things have I said about you.
I question your ideas ant the way you express them but I don’t think I’ve ever criticized you in the personal way you always effect. Is this a consequence of your military training or does it have something to do with your current role as a, what did you call yourself, “Policy Wonk”?
My point is just to get on and live life; treat people with honesty and kindness and don't look upon the ordinary as just another opportunity to deliver the same undergrad lecture we've all heard too often. Moreover, be aware of what others write, say, believe, and not be so blinded by your own rather narrow take on life.

Diaspora, whether it is seen its original Hebrew milieu, or in an updated version in another ethnic context, is the wrong word to describe the normalization of the role of gay persons within the wider culture of the West.

If you'd said that there was a gay Diaspora of homosexuals fleeing to Canada and a few other western nations as a result of the intolerable conditions in their natal countries it would have been appropriate.

The way you used the word wasn't, and isn't apt. Moreover, you still haven't got the point that civility and respect enhances free speech, have you?

But go ahead, paradigm yourself to death. The gay folks I know just want to live normal boring everyday lives and they're entitled, in my opinion, to do so. As David Beers said above here a day or two ago - it's an issues of basic human rights. It's just too bad that in many parts of the USA that the penny hasn't dropped yet.

I simply laughed at your use of that terminology and given the spin you've just applied, I think I'll chuckle a little more now.

That's all.

Thanks for setting us all

Thanks for setting us all straight again, Gwest.

Diaspora isn't the most apt word, but not for the reasons you mention. It has always been applied to ethnic minorities, not sexual minorities, so the historical analogies clearly don't fit. You seem to be implying that one is worthy of the word and the other isn't. This could indicate some unexamined assumptions and prejudices on your part. But in terms of a dispersion of people away from enclaves or formative roots associated with their group identity, diaspora is as good a word as any.

Prior to the present generation of queer youth, sexual minorities had two principal avenues of escape and safety: the cloister or the city. This has been the case for generations. But this is the case no longer. The paradigm is changing, and the self-identity and related behavioural patterns are changing with it.

If you want to continue to argue the point, be my guest. I feel I've made my point adequately, which people can take at face value as my sincere 'take' on the matter, whether they happen to agree or not.

sincere - not really

I think you're mostly just repetitious and vituperative.

That's the actual problem - far more than quibbles about usage - but, as Stephen Colbert would say - thanks for the apology, I appreciate it.

The reintegration of gay folks into the wider Canadian culture as a 'normal' and accepted part of the human family is a great thing, in my view. That it may mean some of the more nominally 'outrageous' manifestations of an extended period of gay 'acting out' will die a quiet and unlamented death shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

It isn't a Diaspora of any kind in my view but I'm actually as tired of this as I am of your usual tropes so go ahead and use the language badly. You appear to be a slow learner.

No problem.

You say you're sincere - I think you're blind to nuance and anyone's feelings and opinions but your own.

Furthermore, reading what numerous other people observe relative to your contributions, I don't think I'm alone in this assessment.

lind to nuance and anyone's feelings and opinions

Dat funny is.

The religious lifestyle

I hate the religious lifestyle. Just the thought of it offends me. Look at its proponents: Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Jones, Ayatolla Khomeini, the Spanish Inquisitors, G. W. Bush, Ian Paisley, and "Tammy" Faye LaValley Bakker Messner, to name just a few. Though I must admit that the religios have create some nice music and architecture over the years.

Quote:Furthermore, reading

Don't speak for other people, Gwest.

I'm not aware of these "numerous other people" you speak of. I'm aware of 'Gwest' and 'Alcibiades' (both the same person) and two or three others with nearly identical writing style, argumentation and ideological bias who police my posts more or less regularly. Whether that constitutes "numerous other people", I guess we can't really know for sure, now can we.

Incidentally, your argument against the "diaspora" metaphor would hold more water if you displayed an understanding of what I was actually describing. You've managed to dismiss the whole experience as "acting out" or some such nonsense. That wasn't what I was talking about when I referred to the paradigm shift and the dispersal of urban gay enclaves (or for that matter the desertion of the cloister by sexual minorities as well). But no matter.

Nightbloom

The person who posts as G West has only ever posted as G West and Alcibiades and any return to that refrain will impel me to mention once again your failure to apologize and be accountable for your own slanderous statements toward me. I’d rather leave this matter where it is since I've given an undertaking to a third party that I'd drop this issue. I know the same party contacted you and I’d suggest you drop it as well.

Any other individuals who've pointed out your fixations have done it entirely on their own. Your inability to acknowledge what is an obvious symptom of your efforts is a further illustration of your inability to acknowledge or respond to anything but your own narrow agenda.

You are without doubt the most dishonest interlocutor I've ever encountered. Incapable of sustaining an argument on its merits you habitually return to the kind of thing you've done just above here. Proving once again the accuracy of my own earlier observations.

Thank you.

The problem is not my understanding my friend, it's your incapacity to understand anything but your point of view and to indulge in anything other that your own petty crusade…all combined with an apparent inability to discuss or debate ideas without getting personal. C'est la vie.

Here we go again

I'm outta here guys. I've heard this all before (re. Gwest, above).

Great thread though. I hope The Tyee continues producing the occasional piece on GLBT subject matter.

Bluenose, I'm going to look up that Walter Truett Anderson book you recommended. Thanks!

Wait a sec

I've gotta clear something up, before it takes on a life of it's own. Gwest just pulled a fast one.

Gwest said:

The communication I received did not treat this issue in any way, shape or form. It is you who are being dishonest, Gwest.

You shouldn't even have brought that up, because it was Beers' attempt to resolve an impasse that was continually disrupting these threads. The context pertained to the banning issue and you-know-who, not your long-standing deceptive use of multiple pseudonyms on these threads, as you attempted to insinuate in your post above. Nice try.

I'm not going to let you brandish that each time you want to get in a few low-blows and then walk away smelling like a rose after contributing nothing meaningful or substantive to the threads.

Posters here should be warned not to contact you or give you any personal information. People like you are the reason people like me need to be careful when participating on these kinds of discussion forums.

That's all. I'm outta here.

Not at all nightbloom

Beers, in his letter, asked both of us to stop the 'feuding' - the feuding was about two things:
1) your continual attempt to conflate something I'd done on my own (and for which I was open and accountable) with a lot of other innocent people, and;
2) my attempt to point out the fact that you'd slandered me, and other posters here at Tyee with the label of being soft on anti-Semitism and had refused to apologize AND be accountable, further;
3) this was something initiated by you, not me.

Since the day Beers sent that email I have not mentioned those issues.

You brought it up again with this:

Remember?

As to other individuals who have pointed out your monomania about a particular point of view that has nothing whatever to do with our disagreement - I can recall at least 4 individuals who have made similar remarks about your obsessions.

Grow up.

You're misrepresenting

You're misrepresenting Beers' short and balanced communication to such a grossly self-serving degree that there's actually something pathological about it, Gwest.

But Beers should never have handed you that 'stick' in the first place (i.e. a joint e-mail), which you've used in a similar manner on a prior thread once before (as I knew you would), but that was his call.

In any case, thanks for ruining yet another thread with your stalking behaviour. Unfortunately, you've managed to sink the only gay-themed thread the Tyee has produced in a long while without making a single substantive contribution to it. All you ever seem to do now is cast stones and spit venom.

Your entire contribution along the length of this thread has consisted of little more than a reprisal of your previous diatribes & personalized insults, along with an attempt to lure Bluenose into personal e-mail contact with you (as you've repeatedly - nay, compulsively - attempted to do with many other participants on this website for quite some time now).

I know your behaviour here is not just a "Gwest versus Nightbloom" thing, because you've been doing the exact same thing to a number of other contributors on these threads for a while now.

The sad fact is that despite your start on these threads a couple years ago as a fairly high quality contributor, your behaviour has become increasingly eccentric, your output increasingly vitriolic, and your interactions with other contributors increasingly creepy. I also find it strange how every once in while you feel the need to reiterate the same set of personal details about me that you've accumulated over time. My fault, I suppose. Lesson learned.

But the fact reamins you've become a troll on this website. You're always projecting your own internal Black List onto these threads, always trying to settle your imagined old scores. What you've done (and are continuing to do) wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else.

Good-bye.

Sorry bud

That's exactly the problem with you my friend.

Your interpretation is always personal - whether it's about yourself or anyone else. If you'd had any moral courage you'd have replied to my email the way literally dozens of other posters have.

I'm sorry nightbloom, but I’m beginning to wonder exactly how dishonest you are.

Anyone who thinks it's moral to lie about someone else belonging to an imaginary 'clique' that practices anti-Semitic hate and, when given an chance to recuse himself for the remark declines after numerous opportunities while promulgating another series of lies and insinuations about others who have never been involved in any of this is the one who needs to look to his own behavior. In my view you no longer have a leg to stand on.

Even your current cheap shot at David Beers is so utterly childish as to beggar the imagination.

If you had learned anything from this exercise in futility, I thought it would be to cut your losses. A simple apology would have done the trick. Furthermore, I have never once personalized my remarks – that’s your tactic. Can I remind you:
“Stalking; pathological; venom; stones; vitriolic; compulsive; creepy”

That’s your style nightbloom – not mine. You seem incapable of self-criticism.

You'll notice I've managed to make my points with none of the personal remarks that are your stock in trade.

I'm sorely tempted to post once again your "carefully considered" opinion about the people who post at Tyee. Nevertheless, out of respect for the undertaking I gave David Beers I won't. However, if you imply again that I have ever posted under any device other than G West and Alcibiades or that I have ever represented anything that wasn't true about anything I've written here (at any time) I will bring your lies to an editor's attention immediately. I’ve had it with you nightbloom. There is no other way to handle someone like you.

Link

This link was posted on

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/

which is a blog by Terry Glavin:

http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=69

G West and Nightbloom: Kiss and make up, or bin it off completely.

Link

This link was posted on

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/

which is a blog by Terry Glavin:

http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=69

G West and Nightbloom: Kiss and make up, or bin it off completely.

Already saw them both bluenose

However, thanks anyway.

Since Glavin's earlier behavior relative to his journalism here and subsequent comments posted both here and at Transmontanus by his acolytes and by Glavin himself I will not comment on anything the man says.

EDITED TO REMOVE LIBEL. YOU ARE WELCOME TO DISAGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS OR POINTS MADE BY TYEE AUTHORS. ATTACKING THEIR CHARACTER IS NOT ALLOWED. TYEE EDITOR

Interesting.

Interesting.