Must Breeders Dominate Everything?

[revtj]

Hi gang, it's me again. I've been taking a break from blogging & posting while some very happy changes have been happening in my life. Have missed you all!

But I'm back with a serious query. As a happily single, out gay man I am weary of hearing about gay 'families,' and seeing and hearing about couples with children as if they are 'proof' that gay people are just the same as anybody else. Like, duh?

It seems to me that we have let the right wing define our strategy and our rhetoric for too long. Just because 'family' (meaning parents with children) is a sacred cow to them, why does that require us to compete with them and establish that we can have children too, and why are we lifting up our families in a way that mirrors the oppressive way the right lifts up families?

I love Soulforce and will continue to make sacrifices to keep Soulforce Georgia alive and active. However, this upcoming action (http://www.soulforce.org/article/1323)with Soulforce National concerns me because it is playing to the right: taking couples with children to homophobic churches to prove we are families too. It just doesn't impress me at all.

Soulforce Atlanta had a conversation about a year ago suggesting an action in which we all showed up for church at a notoriously homophobic church and worshipped with them. None of us saw the need to size it to fit "families" only. We would include whosoever, singles and straight allies as well. But the action evolved into something complimentary to gay parents only...

There is no doubt in my mind that gays make great parents, that we deserve reproductive rights, & that some gays will want and need children as a part of their life fulfillment. But should they ascend to a place above the rest of us as straght cultures do it?

What is that about? What are we thinking? Who is this action for? Does it not say in effect we want to be what you are so you will give us your blessing -- quite a different statement from "God blessed us by making us gay!" What does this action say to single gays and couples who are happy with a dog & cat?

I think this is a conversation we really need to get started on right away!!

[Zerbie]

Understood, agreed.
I think this falls under the category of pragmatism. If it works, why not do it.

For instance, when I led the AZ 7SN event last year, I connected with the leaders who were behind the defeat of the "marriage amendment" here to talk about strategy, persuasive public speaking, and what words and phrases "poll well." The word "families" polled best. What this means is that by saying "families" right up front, you keep the attention of the guy/gal you are trying to persuade, rather than having them tune out immediately. It probably gives us a few more seconds of usable time to attract sustained interest and generate questions about what we stand for.

I'll also take a guess that gay/lesbian-led families have felt pretty invisibilized, which such an approach may counter.

[BenL]

When I was a young, gay single, I found it pretty difficult to fit into normal parish life because everything revolved around families. Church school, parish picnics, pot-luck suppers were all family-oriented in the suburban parish I happened to be a member of at the time. Churches consider family life as the normative social paradigm. Singles of any age, regardless of orientaion, are treated as waifs and orphans who need to be adopted by families for their spiritual completion.

When I joined an urban parish about 10 years ago, I finally felt that social diversity was more acceptable. Sure, the married couples with kids looked at single folks with pity for not having what they did, but there were enough single people that someone who was unpartnered didn't need to feel like a freak.

This is about social diversity, not necessarily about glbt acceptance. In the gay community, there are many people who don't want to ape heterosexual normative institutions like marriage. But the freedom to marry, contains within it the freedom not to marry. Right now, most gay folks have no choice.

I'm with you, rev. People are people. We don't all have to aspire to the same things. We're all children of the same loving God.

Disclaimer: I am married and I do have children, for which I am thankful. But I don't think that makes me any better than people who aren't married or who don't have children.

[antonyh]

Nice to have you back.

First, I don't like the word "breeder". There are many straight alleys that find it offensive. It just seems pejorative.

Second, as far as Soulforce and the direct action, they are simply targeting it for the most effect. I think you would agree that "traditional family values" is one of the most cherished views held by the Right. Our two mommie, two daddy families are not included in the circle of traditional family values. It is very subversive to bring families to Megachurches because it will completely queer their understanding of the family...and that is healthy.

Third, I don't view wanting the richness of family life like our straight neighbors enjoy to be caving into their "strategy". There are a lot of wonderful things that come with this model just like there are many wonderful things with being single. I don't see this as an either/or thing at all.

I was single for 35 years and now I'm partnered. I miss things from my single life but I'm also in love with my partnered life. Will my boyfriend and I include children in our lives...probably not. Maybe a cat.

[Zerbie]

Thanks Ant'ny. I thought about commenting on the term 'breeder,' b/c it is a term that left me ill at ease.

Ben hits the nail on the head. :smashy: This conversation really is one of social diversity - a diversity of choices. Gee wow, a conversation where 'lifestyle choice' is valid terminology! :p Loving inclusion of all families is a critical part of what SF aims for. It seems to me also a critical step towards loving inclusion of all *individuals.*

A progressive politician donated some time advising me on our 7SN project last year, and after our meeting, I walked out with a heaviness in my heart, recalling our discussion of the language that does and does not resonate with people in our community: "It's about "families." People care about families. No one cares about one gay person."
That phrase still echos. :'( That is the problem. And y'know what, it is not our responsibility to *make* people care. We can only show them who we are, who our families are, and it is up to them to decide to care.

[Steven E. Webster]

A progressive politician donated some time advising me on our 7SN project last year, and after our meeting, I walked out with a heaviness in my heart, recalling our discussion of the language that does and does not resonate with people in our community: "It's about "families." People care about families. No one cares about one gay person."
That phrase still echos. :'( That is the problem. And y'know what, it is not our responsibility to *make* people care. We can only show them who we are, who our families are, and it is up to them to decide to care.

I see nothing wrong with using family as a positive term. What is wrong is the modern, narrow understanding of it. Traditionally, "family" was a broad, inclusive term. If we truly believe in "society" and "community," then every individual is a part of our family. "No person is an island. . . "

The word "family" was among the old code words in the gay community like "friend of Dorothy." One might say, "Is Bruce family?" when one wanted to know if Bruce was gay.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

The word "family" was among the old code words in the gay community like "friend of Dorothy." One might say, "Is Bruce family?" when one wanted to know if Bruce was gay.


'Gay Speak' also made use of the language of religion: it was normative for one to ask "Does Bruce belong to our church?"

Humor aside, I can understand revtj's point (welcome back!), frustration and concern.

Actions which are intended to change minds and policy are one thing. The actual lives of those represented is something else entirely. I think I hear what you are trying to say here Revtj: the message you hear in this action is one of "The boat is sinking and familes with children must get to the boats first." And you fear an underlying subtext which says: "If you are a single man or lesbian, you will have to fend for yourself. Families first!"

Ok....now I'm going to go on a tangent here, but please bear with me....

For Soulforce to sell 'families' may be politically expedient to a certain degree, but from a social worker perspective (I've been thinking about this kind of thing since hubby has been working with the elder gay population as part of his Master's of Social Work program at Hunter College here in NYC), there is real cause for concern.

Gay folks can, and do, by-and-large, fall through the cracks as they age and then approach their elder years.. Without children or partners, they can become isolated, especially if they do not have the financial resources to maintain what our American society considers a normative standard of living- which is no small thing in itself. Do single straight folks face this same challenge? Certainly. But they aren't discriminated against because of their sexuality. They don't fear for their lives in nursing homes in quite the same way that gay folks do- the homophobia one can face there can even shove a gay person back into a closet that they haven't lived in for decades.

Gay folks have always, because of their outsider status cultivated their own sense of 'family', which may consist of former lovers, boyfriends, girflriends and friends. And we've seen something of that dynamic at work even here. We gravitate to those folks who accept us for who we are, which sadly, does not always include our biolgocial family, especially so when conservative/funamentalist religious values are involved.

If I understand it correctly, these are the folks the current action by Soulforce is aiming to influence.

Is there value in Soulforce 'selling' the idea of 'gay families', that is, those folks, whether single or coupled, who have children? Certainly. As Zerbie has mentioned, we have to use the tools that work, that resonate with the poeple who are listening.

That said, I agree strongly that we must always look beyond poltical necessity into what is right and just.

Jesus spoke about tending to the 'least of these'. And in real terms, the single gay person faces challenges that the coupled gay person does not, even though, as has been mentioned, there are advantages to being single. As I see it, either way, single or not, there is a price to pay: being gay in American- as we experience it - is not yet a matter which is considered normative- we're still fighting for our rights after all! And has been pointed out by Ben, the single gay person in a suburban church is treated somewhat differently in an urban environment. It's a matter of numbers. The more gay folks around, the better the experience.

We are still the Outsiders- even in our own places of worship- even though the Rector, Rabbi or Priest may be gay and is treated (if he's closeted) the Innest of the In. What irony!

Back to my tangent:

My question is this: is having a boyfriend that one loses at 85 any less painful than losing that boyfriend at 35? And is having one's freedom- parlance for being single- at 35 - as to 85 - a different experience? To the latter, I would say yes. Can we honestly say that evangelical churches are in the habit of reaching out to the gay senior, whether coupled or not?

This is my point. Certain opportunities, coupledom being one of them, while not incumbent upon age, can certainly diminish with age. If anything, one must keep their wits about them.

My feeling is this, no matter the action, time or place, we must embrace the totality of who we are, whatever our age, wherever our affectional status, whatever our various faiths.

I would err on the side of planning an action which was representative of all GLBTQ persons than simply taking a slice of the pie (married with children), which gives an incomplete picture of who we really are.

That kind of approach may win the battle of hearts and minds for some. But who does it leave out? When and Why? That's what concerns me.

[Vanessa White]

Hey Rev: Long time, no see. I read your thread yesterday, but was not sure what I wanted to say about it so I thunk over it, and now I am back. I believe that if it is true that being part of a gay family, meaning raising children, is being used as a lens to view the community through, and become a way to normalize or expect us to behave, than that view is wrong, from outside of the gay community, or for us to turn on ourselves. However, I don't know that our conscious decisions to raise children is a way to just be like heterosexual parents. Yet, in some ways, it does create some similarities, not because we are actively mimicking a way of life, but simply because we are living it.

I think that at times, as a community, we want to "want" different things as LGBT persons than heterosexual persons might want for themselves. Otherwise, aren't we trying to just be a gay version of what they have? I don't believe that is true, and just like with other alliances or friendships, similarities have the opportunity to bring connection between people.

My partner and I are together 12 years, and are raising our daughter, who we made a conscious choice to bring into the world. Two points I want to make with that: First, we are in the minority of our local LGBT community; none of our friends that we regularly have children, and most of those don't want to have them. And, no expectation seems to exist that they should, to value their own existence. I do think that is a challenge for gay and straight couples, or singles alike, that actively choose not to have kids.

The other point that has been fabulous for us is how connected we have become to straight parents raising children. Sure, we thought that exposing our daughter to other gay families would help her feel less isolated, but she ended up educating all of her friends with straight parents, so interesting. She is a mini activist in a way, and the similarities between us as parents helps connect us as humans, without us, or often them, dismissing the challenges that we will face in certain areas. It actually seems to be a delicate balance, but one which we have been pretty successful at.

We may not have a choice about our orientation, but we sure do about parenting, and it is not for everyone.

This also fails to acknowledge the countless number of gay families who are gay families, because one or both parents were once in heterosexual relationships or marriages. That applies to many of our friends here. They came out to be true to themselves, but would assume that they became parents in their marriages out of a desire to do so, and now their children are blessings to them. :love::pray:

[Gennee]

I agree :agree: with you revtj because nowhere in the bible does it say that we have to be married with families to be content and happy. I have met many wonderful and contented people who are single, widowed, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, aged and so forth. I'm transgender and very content with it. I meet with some LGBT Christians and I saw how comfortable they are with who they are. It's the same way I feel as a transgender individual. That's more important than fitting into a paradigm that somebody else says that we should.

Gennee

:love:

[keltic63]

This also fails to acknowledge the countless number of gay families who are gay families, because one or both parents were once in heterosexual relationships or marriages. That applies to many of our friends here. They came out to be true to themselves, but would assume that they became parents in their marriages out of a desire to do so, and now their children are blessings to them. :love::pray:


:wave:

My partner and I have 7 children between us, all from our straight marriages. Why did we have kids? because we wanted kids! That's pretty simple. Do I mind being held up as a response to what the religious right throws our way? No, I don't. That doesn't mean that a reply to their rhetoric implies that all lgbt people should behave a certain way, ie have kids, etc. It does mean that the very thing the religious right is fretting about (gay couples with kids) is already happening. To show up and say "we exist" is not the same as telling the rest of the community that they need to be like us. I don't see using this strategy in the conversation is meant to imply that the rest of the community doesn't matter, or is somehow less honorable. IF there are those making that claim, they need to be confronted.


and now, for the controversial part of my post: Let's talk about "Breeders". It may seem a bit crass, and I happen to fall under that category as all 3 of my kids are definitely mine; I left my mark! :lol: But after all that has been said about lgbt people, and all the names we have been called, "breeder" is not only mild, it's funny. I'm not going to get my under twisted in knots because some poor straight person might be offended by the name.







:shield: let the private messages begin :p

[Zerbie]

:wave:


and now, for the controversial part of my post: Let's talk about "Breeders". It may seem a bit crass, and I happen to fall under that category as all 3 of my kids are definitely mine; I left my mark! :lol: But after all that has been said about lgbt people, and all the names we have been called, "breeder" is not only mild, it's funny. I'm not going to get my under twisted in knots because some poor straight person might be offended by the name.


:shield: let the private messages begin :p

You sure picked the wrong day to post this. :p I've just hit the vicious point of my PMS cycle. Ah, Steve. :p:love: :lol:

'Breeder' bothers me. What bothers me is the thought of potentially having this name lobbed at me because I'm married to a man. I most certainly will never breed. If I were to actually be called this face to face by someone who was saying it in a hostile way I'd probably rip verbal holes through 'em.

Just seems to me the word creates hostility. But that could be hormones talking.

[antonyh]

Let's talk about "Breeders". It may seem a bit crass, and I happen to fall under that category as all 3 of my kids are definitely mine; I left my mark! :lol: But after all that has been said about lgbt people, and all the names we have been called, "breeder" is not only mild, it's funny. I'm not going to get my under twisted in knots because some poor straight person might be offended by the name.

Not to mention that all of us queer people were bred by someone to whom we are eternally grateful...

I was at a retreat with several straight allies recently. One of the guys on the retreat said, "All the breeders are moving into our gay neighborhood..." I watched as the expression of the straight ally changed. She was clearly offended or disturbed or hurt.

If you think about the term "breeder", it is really reductionistic. Not all straight people have children or get married. There is much love and holiness in having a child that goes beyond the "act of breeding".

That is my only point :)

I'm glad you've left your mark :pray:

[Zerbie]

I was at a retreat with several straight allies recently. One of the guys on the retreat said, "All the breeders are moving into our gay neighborhood..." I watched as the expression of the straight ally changed. She was clearly offended or disturbed or hurt.

y:

Ugh! :eek:

If I overheard that, I would feel rejected and very hurt. Even if I don't feel that I'm completely straight, I would feel that statement includes me b/c of who my partner is.

[pnggrad79]

Straight sympathizers aside, I have seen enough of straight people bailing on their kids in pursuit of more selfish things like drinking, drugs, and sex, that it makes my blood boil when I hear the Religious Right say that only straight people should have the right to bear and raise children, because that is simply not the truth. Plenty of gay people are very capable of raising decent kids who (gasp) not gay.

I have a kid in my class right now, whose mom is getting out of jail tomorrow, for selling and using drugs. This 11 year old child has been in the custody of her grandmother since she was 2. For 9 years this child's mother has been involved with drugs in some fashion, and pawned her kids off on her mother. Dad is not much better, being an alcoholic, and in and out of their lives for 9 years as well. I could go on about what I see everyday at school, and I think, I am a lesbian and my girls are very well balanced, smart and NOT GAY. Hmmm, who'da thunk!!!!

[andrewlittle]

I was at a retreat with several straight allies recently. One of the guys on the retreat said, "All the breeders are moving into our gay neighborhood..." I watched as the expression of the straight ally changed. She was clearly offended or disturbed or hurt.

Funny, that definitely would describe my face at the moment.

[Zerbie]

Funny, that definitely would describe my face at the moment.

I'm sorry. :(
:'(
:love::love:

[NathanATX]

I have friends who are gay and breeders... their dogs are amazing champions...

Their answer to "Must Breeders Dominate Everything?" would be a very boisterous "YES!"

:lol::lol::lol::lol::love:

Haven't you seen, "Best in Show?" :)

[Zerbie]

Folks, I'm fairly certain Andy's comment a few posts above was serious, not made in any kind of jest, yet so far no one has acknowledged him.

What straight friend do we have who has posted on this forum longer, more often, and with more passion than Andy? If the remarks made on this thread make him feel discounted, then we have a problem. Andy and Jenna have been through some serious **** that they were put through on behalf of the LGBT community. What better friends have we got?
:(

[Daniel]

I was at a retreat with several straight allies recently. One of the guys on the retreat said, "All the breeders are moving into our gay neighborhood..." I watched as the expression of the straight ally changed. She was clearly offended or disturbed or hurt.


Funny, that definitely would describe my face at the moment.

Folks, I'm fairly certain Andy's comment a few posts above was serious, not made in any kind of jest, yet so far no one has acknowledged him.
:(

How about we put the matter in stark terms?

Is it offensive for a straight person to hear himself/herself referred to as a breeder as much as it is for a gay man to hear himself referred to as a C********R?

Ah.....yeah...

Both terms can be- and often are used- in a reductionistic way. That said, there is the matter of 'gay-speak' which only those who are in the club are allowed to speak. The same sort of thing happens when blacks refer to themselves as N*****S. But in this latter case, the word is used to refer to someone of one's own race, not another race.

To feel alone, separate and apart- to be pushed out of one's family, church or home.....may give rise to the frustration which brings about such language. And while I cannot speak for Revtj, I DO understand why he may have titled this thread with the word in question. It calls to mind distinct, and different, world's of experience.

Is the use of the word nonviolent? Is it funny- as Nate has endeavored to point out? The answer as I see it is no and yes. My sense is that the matter revolves around who is saying what to whom and under what circumstances - as well as the person or persons involved. Two close friends, one gay, the other straight, are able to utter the most offensive things to one other with clear understanding that the words themselves do not- in any way- detract from their relationship. In essense: they insult each other with style and affection because they have a visceral understanding of the bond between them.

Awareness may be the key here. And of course, self-awareness is the hardest thing of all. Sometimes we do not mean to offend, but do so anyway.

Does that make us bad or wrong? I say no. It just makes us human.

And if anything, I heard in Revtj's words a cry of pain. What do we do about that?

I guess we keep talking.

[andrewlittle]

Folks, I'm fairly certain Andy's comment a few posts above was serious, not made in any kind of jest, yet so far no one has acknowledged him.

What straight friend do we have who has posted on this forum longer, more often, and with more passion than Andy? If the remarks made on this thread make him feel discounted, then we have a problem. Andy and Jenna have been through some serious **** that they were put through on behalf of the LGBT community. What better friends have we got?
:(

Okay, Zerbie, I'll repeat what I said in PM - you are just about the sweetest person I can imagine.

The epithet, "breeder", did hurt - but just a little. I'm just too insensitive and thick-skinned for more than that. But, thanks for the compliments - I'm blushing. No, really, I am.

Let's face it, "breeder" is a negative name based on sexuality but, as has been pointed out, it's relatively tame compared to the myriad crappy titles that many of our friends hear day in and day out. It would take much stronger names than that to really get my dander up. (PM me and I'll tell you what some of those might be.)

So, again, thank you dear heart for being so kind. But, worry not, I'm not that fragile - just busy as the dickens at the moment.

Andy

[Zerbie]

How about we put the matter in stark terms?

It's certainly offensive for a straight person to hear themselves referred to as a breeder as much as it is for a gay man to be called a C********R.

Both terms can be- and often are used- in a reductionistic way. That said, there is the matter of 'gay-speak' which only those who are in the club are allowed to speak. The same sort of thing happens when blacks refer to themselves as N*****S. But in this latter case, the word is used to refer to someone of one's own race, not the another race.

To feel alone, separate and apart- to be pushed out of one's family, church or home.....may give rise to the frustration which brings about such language. And while I cannot speak for Revtj, I DO understand why he might have titled this thread with the word in question. It calles to mind distinct, and different, world's of experience.

Is the use of the word nonviolent? Is it funny- as some have endeavored to point out? The answer's are no and yes. My sense is that the matter revolves around who is saying what to whom and under what circumstances.

Awareness may be the key here. And of course, self-awareness may be the hardest thing of all. Sometimes we do not mean to offend, but do so anyway.

Does that make us bad or wrong? I say no. It just makes us human.

Good analysis, Daniel.

I bolded part of your text that leads to a point that has not yet been made on the forum, which I discussed earlier in PM with another forumite. Despite the fact that the term in question (the B word) is reductionist and is offensive and can hurt, it nevertheless does not possess the historical millenia of systematic and even violent socio-political oppression and cruelty that anti-gay terms carry. I think this fact is the crux of Keltic's point. Its use can express anything from exclusivity, to anger, to hurt, to (helpless) rage (distinct from oppressor rage), to weariness at heternormative status quo, and probably more I haven't thought of. It does not and cannot contain all the layers of psycho-socio-emotional-political daggers that certain anti-gay epithets bring with them.

Now, you can think of it as therefore mild (which it is by relative contrast to anti-gay terms) and funny as you have a right to do. But others of us have a right to our feelings of hurt and rejection if it is used in a way that we feel hurtful. It comes down to all of us having a right to own our feelings about what is said to us or around us. I know that for me, hearing the term in certain contexts, especially the scenario Antony described, could make me feel like maybe I'm not all that welcome, which is not a feeling I want to have in the community that I most love and want to be part of. :love:

[Zerbie]

H

And if anything, I heard in his words a cry of pain.

In whose words?? (TJ? Nate?? Andy???)

[Zerbie]

The epithet, "breeder", did hurt - but just a little. I'm just too insensitive and thick-skinned for more than that. But, thanks for the compliments - I'm blushing. No, really, I am.

It's just a description of your behavior. You have been staunchly loving and your life embodies justice.
:love:



It would take much stronger names than that to really get my dander up. (PM me and I'll tell you what some of those might be.)

Andy

:eek: I certainly do not want to know!
:p

[Daniel]

In whose words?? (TJ? Nate?? Andy???)

I have the habit of editing myself....

And did so by inserting Revtj.

[tdogg]

When I first heard the 'b' word, I tossed it around in my brain a little bit, used it a couple times in conversation with another gay person to label straights in general (no one I personally knew). Fun, right? Well, no. The fact that I'm blessed with so very many straight friends and family who are compassionate, supportive and loving to me, coupled with being a pretty nice person generally (most of the time), just didn't make using that word feel very good. Actually, it felt stupid and hollow.

So, used it twice, gave it up. It doesn't do much to me emotionally when I hear it and I kinda get why people might use terms like that. But it isn't worth trying to be cool using a term like that when it just might not sit too right with those who we love and love us back. On the other hand, it certainly doesn't hurt to grow a little tough skin in this world.

A term I hate??? "Friend" As in my stepmom saying "your friend is not welcome in my house." Besides being my 'best friend' she's also my 'lover' but of course, as usual, I opt to be considerate of my stepmom and let her know 'she' isn't going to come to her house unless she's invited. Used that way, the term friend really pisses me off!

[Alecto]

Good analysis, Daniel.

I bolded part of your text that leads to a point that has not yet been made on the forum, which I discussed earlier in PM with another forumite. Despite the fact that the term in question (the B word) is reductionist and is offensive and can hurt, it nevertheless does not possess the historical millenia of systematic and even violent socio-political oppression and cruelty that anti-gay terms carry. I think this fact is the crux of Keltic's point. Its use can express anything from exclusivity, to anger, to hurt, to (helpless) rage (distinct from oppressor rage), to weariness at heternormative status quo, and probably more I haven't thought of. It does not and cannot contain all the layers of psycho-socio-emotional-political daggers that certain anti-gay epithets bring with them.

Now, you can think of it as therefore mild (which it is by relative contrast to anti-gay terms) and funny as you have a right to do. But others of us have a right to our feelings of hurt and rejection if it is used in a way that we feel hurtful. It comes down to all of us having a right to own our feelings about what is said to us or around us. I know that for me, hearing the term in certain contexts, especially the scenario Antony described, could make me feel like maybe I'm not all that welcome, which is not a feeling I want to have in the community that I most love and want to be part of. :love:

Do I think that the word is entirely in the spirit of this website? Nope. Have I used it? Yes. I don't like it as a slur for straight people, even, though; even as an offensive word I find it lacking. That said, you touched on the history of the word, and I think that the history of the anti-gay slurs that most bothers me is the history of physical violence. If a word from a friend is offensive, you should say something, because friends don't want to offend you (not REALLY). From a stranger, though, "breeder" does not carry with it the same threat of impending physical violence as "dyke" or "fag".
I'm not a proponent of the word, especially here of all places, but I do have limits on my sympathy for those offended by it (which isn't to say my sympathy is nonexistent).

:-/
::flies off on broom::

[andrewlittle]

I'm not a proponent of the word, especially here of all places, but I do have limits on my sympathy for those offended by it (which isn't to say my sympathy is nonexistent).

And this, I think, puts the issue of the use of "breeder" in perfect perspective.

I, as a straight person, felt some hurt - but not much. That might warrant some sympathy, but not much.

In the whole scope of things, the use of this word isn't of too much significance - especially when taking into account the depth of the frustration being communicated in the good Rev's initial post.

Might I respectfully suggest that we "zoom out" a little, and focus on Rev's post overall, and the exasperation with conforming to dominant cultural norms that precipitated it in the first place?

[Daniel]

Might I respectfully suggest that we "zoom out" a little, and focus on Rev's post overall, and the exasperation with conforming to dominant cultural norms that precipitated it in the first place?

Revtj was addressing an action by Soulforce and his frustration with its message and organization. One thing to do is to disucss the merits of the case.

I already posted that I think inclusion (that is not only familes) should be represented in such an action. While 'familes with children' can and should be part of the message, single gay folk should not be excluded or sidelined. I believe this sends the wrong message in the long run (ie win the battle lose the war).

And there is something else: I hear in Revtj's post that his concerns to Soulforce were/are being ignored (at least on the local level if not the natiional office). If that is the case, I'd like to hear some clarification from someone in the office about it. Considering the 'heat' generated in this thread, I expect that clarification to be (unfortunately) defensive in tone. But hey- we're all adults- let's deal with it.

This sounds like a matter of communication. And as we all know, problems arise when communication is inadequate or interruppted.

So- what's the deal? What really going on?

[Vanessa White]

I first of all, agree with Daniel that I think TJ feels frustrated, that he views a certain expectation to be gay raising children to feel valued. I don't feel that way about those in the community raising children, and even though I acknowledge that is his feelings, that has not been my general experience among my friends who are actively choosing not to raise/have children. However, as a lesbian in a partnership raising children, I felt really good about the Soulforce action directed at churches, and having families with children as the spokespeople for that said action. I never really thought about the fact that some here, and in the general community, would feel excluded by that focus. And, I agree, that Soulforce on an administrative level should acknowledge that in some way, I would think.

However, it brings a question to my mind: does our message always have to be all inclusive? I mean, our focus was/is pretty specific when we conduct the Equality Rides, the riders are by and large in their teens and twenties, the focus is college campuses; couldn't that be perceived as excluding some "older" members of the LGBT community to participate? I don't necessarily know that to be true, but it is a question that I considered. I mean, I feel envious of the riders and wish I were 20 years younger to participate. But isn't it possible for our message to be effective, however varied it is, without it being divisive at the same time? On a real basic level, we cannot afford to let any action create divisiveness within our own community. :love:

[Zerbie]

Do I think that the word is entirely in the spirit of this website? Nope. Have I used it? Yes. I don't like it as a slur for straight people, even, though; even as an offensive word I find it lacking. That said, you touched on the history of the word, and I think that the history of the anti-gay slurs that most bothers me is the history of physical violence. If a word from a friend is offensive, you should say something, because friends don't want to offend you (not REALLY). From a stranger, though, "breeder" does not carry with it the same threat of impending physical violence as "dyke" or "fag".

:

I nearly said exactly this in the post above that you quoted. That is precisely what bothers me most about those epithets. Energetically, connotatively, they call upon a history of gruesome violence. The words keep the spirit of that violence alive.

[Zerbie]

When I first saw this project referenced in the general emails from SF, I did not see any indication that only parents were permitted to be involved. I remember looking over it to consider if it was something DH and I might be interested in doing as a couple, but discarded it because of the bad timing, since we were supposed to be in Europe then. Did it change to become a parents-only event?

I think that SF actions are best made to be as inclusive as they can. This reminds me of discussions we had regarding 7 Straight Nights and whether or not LGBT folks would be involved in it and in what capacity (I think we all wound up leaving it entirely up to individuals what capacity of involvement they chose, rather than set "rules," and I think that's as it should be.) I did not get the impression from the newsletter I saw that couples would be excluded from the action.

[Vanessa White]

Zerb: What I understood about the action is that they are taking families with children to meet with the churches, families that have been chosen ahead of time. If the action goes beyond that in scope, I don't understand that to be the case, but I could be reading it wrong.

[tdogg]

I don't feel that every action has to be all inclusive of everyone. It seems as though SF initiates actions to target a specific group, and so uses people fitting into that specific group to reach out to their peers. It could be that SF feels the objective of that particular action is best met in that way. I can understand that. I also see that there are ways for others who might not fit into that particular 'group' to be involved, behind the scenes. Example, for the 7SN where straight couples and college-aged adults were encouraged to be actively involved, there were opportunities for those of us not fitting into those two groups to also be involved, albeit behind the scenes.

At first I did feel excluded in the 7SN action. I wanted to be actively involved and was a little disappointed that I was unable to do that. But then I thought about all the other actions I could get myself involved in, and for various reasons mainly choose not to, so I can't really hold the organization initiating the action responsible for my disappointment when there are other opportunities I do not choose to take. And, it appears that 7SN for the most part met its objectives so the action plan obviously worked. I'm not experienced at organizing large-scale actions, so choose to leave how the action is organized and planned with those who have the knowledge and experience.

That said, I totally understand the frustration of being a 'childless' and at times 'single childless' individual in this world of 'families'. I get tired of those with children getting the consideration at work (and everywhere else). Why does my life count less than someone who opted to get someone pregnant or give birth? Why is my life considered less busy, less of a priority and less worthy? Believe me, I'm just as busy as someone with a child and mate. And, I'm just as important as someone who has opted to procreate. I get the frustration.

My opinion - we are all family. Whether or not we have a partner, have children, have parents. Most of us are family with someone. Even when I was single, I had family issues to deal with. A house, a yard, personal responsibilities, pets. Having no child didn't make me an less significant than the next person.

[NathanATX]

You know what... I'm sometimes guilty of using negative stereotypical words about groups of people I don't like. It's especially easy to do that when you know you're in like-minded company. It's venting.

But that little voice goes off in my head... how would you feel if you were the "fundamentalist" or the "breeder" or the "homophobe" being talked about this way.

Would you feel comfortable "venting" this way in front of the person you're complaining about?

Sometimes the answer is no.

And sometimes I still "vent."


:pray:

"I'm not saying that I have this all together, that I have it made. But I am well on my way, reaching out for Christ, who has so wondrously reached out for me. Friends, don't get me wrong: By no means do I count myself an expert in all of this, but I've got my eye on the goal, where God is beckoning us onward—to Jesus. I'm off and running, and I'm not turning back." -Philippians 3:12-14 - The Message

[Jamie McDaniel]

For seven years I worked as a single gay man in an engineering firm of about 25. I was out to my co-workers the last 3-4 of those years. Except for one or two, my co-workers were all conservative types. There was no racial diversity and there was only one female engineer during the entire span, and she once complained of sexual harassment to the parent company. I had entered the position during my Southern Baptist years, and really it was because my friend from Sunday School (the president's brother-in-law) worked as an intern there and I had the super-closeted-hots for him. At the time, I think I would have taken less pay to work there and be around him.

Anyhow, after I came out, my work as an activist was known. But one time when sitting around the conference table with my boss and the company president, the discussion centered on employee vacation time. My boss pointed to the calendar and said something like, "Smith definitely needs to be off this week because he's taking his family on vacation and we need to make sure we have someone covering for him. We all know how vacation is important to families." Anyhow, as a single person, it felt like the balance had just tipped a bit, so I chimed in with, "Vacation is equally important to single people and I think we need to be mindful of that." That apparently triggered something because my boss responded with, "You know you're going to have to stop with this discrimination thing." We kind of awkwardly chuckled it off, but my tolerance for their good-ol-boy ways was growing thin (and cutie-pie had since left, so there wasn't that anymore to keep me around).

Anyways, now that I am not single, I hope I never lose touch with that feeling I felt back then sitting around that conference table.

I'm not directly on the American Family Outing planning team, but as the web person for Soulforce, I'll be assisting them. I am sure they would appreciate you initiating this conversation, rev tj. If you are raising this point now, I know people outside of Soulforce will once it really gets rolling.

The AFO action is not limited to gay and lesbian couples with children, it also includes single LGBT's along with one or more of their parents. Granted, the spotlight is on same-gender couples with children. But I think there is a need for that. In trying to think of LGBT's on network television, I don't think there is good visualization of families with children.

At the same time, though, I don't want Soulforce to ever make the same mistake that the conservative churches made in viewing the singles department as the "kindergarten" to the "first-grade" newly-wed class to "second-grade" married with children.

I will close this rambling post of mine with this. In 2003 when Soulforce was conducting the blessings of same-gender couples (http://www.soulforce.org/article/231) outside Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church, Rev. Jimmy Creech may have felt the balance shift, so he reminded everyone assembled that, "Singleness is a holy state."

[revtj]

To feel alone, separate and apart- to be pushed out of one's family, church or home.....may give rise to the frustration which brings about such language. And while I cannot speak for Revtj, I DO understand why he might have titled this thread with the word in question. It calles to mind distinct, and different, world's of experience.


Precisely. Gay people using the word 'family' to exclude me is as offensive as me using the term "breeder' to dis parents.

I received a note from Jeff Lutes letting me know that an expanded definition of the signifier "family" will be in all future press releases. See, our ranting on this forum is worthwhile. And may I say again, God, how I love Soulforce! Thanks, Jeff for the work and attention.

Another issue has emerged however. I sent out a request for families to Soulforce Georgia folks and I received a note of concern from the Megafamily Project (http://www.megafamilyproject.org/about/index.html) Leader here. She asks if young children might not be harmed by exposure to a potentially hostile UN-welcome at one of these churches?

On the whole I just want Soulforce to do some deeper thought and conversation before settling on national actions. I feel about this one the way I did, as a pacifist, the military action against don't ask don't tell. I respect that it is an action packed with meaning for many LGBT people and their allies and I support it, but I just can't participate because it goes against my conscience.

Until me and my 2 cats are as valuable to gay marketing and spin, I will continue to be offended by the term 'family' being lifted up by the machine as some kind of benchmark for worthiness.

Here I stand for I can do no other...:rolleyes:

[antonyh]

Precisely. Gay people using the word 'family' to exclude me is as offensive as me using the term "breeder' to dis parents.

I received a note from Jeff Lutes letting me know that an expanded definition of the signifier "family" will be in all future press releases. See, our ranting on this forum is worthwhile. And may I say again, God, how I love Soulforce! Thanks, Jeff for the work and attention.

Another issue has emerged however. I sent out a request for families to Soulforce Georgia folks and I received a note of concern from the Megafamily Project (http://www.megafamilyproject.org/about/index.html) Leader here. She asks if young children might not be harmed by exposure to a potentially hostile UN-welcome at one of these churches?

On the whole I just want Soulforce to do some deeper thought and conversation before settling on national actions. I feel about this one the way I did, as a pacifist, the military action against don't ask don't tell. I respect that it is an action packed with meaning for many LGBT people and their allies and I support it, but I just can't participate because it goes against my conscience.

Until me and my 2 cats are as valuable to gay marketing and spin, I will continue to be offended by the term 'family' being lifted up by the machine as some kind of benchmark for worthiness.

Here I stand for I can do no other...:rolleyes:

I still find myself unsatisfied with this response.

First, I'm sure that Soulforce puts lots of deep thought and conversation into National Actions...not to mention the years of experience they have.

Second, I still don't see how a particular focus for an action means that they are excluding a particular way of being not part of the action.

I'll give you an example. I'm running a site hatecrimesbill.org. I am reporting on LGBT Hate Crimes. I am doing it because this is the focus of the Right and the sticking point for the Bill. Should I be reporting on hate crimes based on disability, race, religion, gender, etc.? I'm vulnerable to criticism for sure.

Thirdly, why do you need external validation in the first place. You are valuable and nothing outside of that is needed.

[Daniel]

Until me and my 2 cats are as valuable to gay marketing and spin, I will continue to be offended by the term 'family' being lifted up by the machine as some kind of benchmark for worthiness.


My dear Revtj- you've asked Soulforce to do it's part in looking deeper into its motives and actions and- to its credit- it has responded. Now. If light of the above, I ask you to do the same.

Forgive me my friend, but your words above strike this reader as though you are content to sit at home with the lights out while complaining that it is dark. What gives my friend?

You don't have to answer to me, but I encourage you to ask yourself why you seem so despondent and unforgiving- isn't that what happens when one says "I will continue to be offended..."? That's like saying I'm going to keep throwing myself down that flight of stairs. Getting to the bottom is going to hurt- every time.

Yes. Life can be absolutely shitty at times. I know how that is- PM me and I'll tell you.

I encourage you to think about this being offended business. It can only lead to more and more unhappiness. And you deserve better.

My brother in Christ: was is going on in your life right now? Is it simply this issue that's got you going, or are your frustrations leaking out into it? Only you can say. But I wrap my virutal arms around you and send you much much love.

[revtj]

I meant no harm. I'm prone to strong wording and commited to comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. Sure, there is a lot going on in my life right now. But this is my offering.

I do not find that Soulforce carefully analyzes all of its actions and I do not share any blind faith that they will always get it right. Dissent and listening to other voices is essential, and that is exactly what Jeff demonstrated in re-thinking the press release and the definition of family. I am proud to have contributed that to this action from my dark house of complaining!

FAMILY is not my golden calf, and it is not really a biblical ideal in the way the far right uses it. Yet I see the gay community always responding to THEIR charges and their values as if we are begging to be accepted by them. If it is neither biblical nor advancing of our equality why are we doing it?

In theory it's called assimilation and at its worst it's tap dancing and eating watermelon, letting the master make a nigger out of you for his entertainment. The era of Karl Rove has almost completely pushed progressives into this mindset and behavior. It has demanded strong language and sensible actions of which we have seen very, very little. Love me or not, I see the logic and structure of this particular Soulforce action as imitation, a pathetic attempt to flatter, not a demonstration of our right to be free and equal.

Nonetheless, I just sent a check for $100. The lights are on and I am home! I challenge you all to do the same.

What I would like to see us do is simply act in favor of [gay] life, LGBT people standing up for equality without pasting one of their buzz words on it, like "family." That's what I'm advocating for...liberation not imitation.

Please receive this message in the love of justice it is born of...

[antonyh]

[SIZE="2"]
FAMILY is not my golden calf, and it is not really a biblical ideal in the way the far right uses it. Yet I see the gay community always responding to THEIR charges and their values as if we are begging to be accepted by them. If it is neither biblical nor advancing of our equality why are we doing it?


Our lives as LGBT people take on the same shapes and forms as the straight culture around us. Some of us find partners. Some of us include children. Some of us choose to be single.

The church and civil systems that support straight relationships are not extended to LGBT people.

We're simply asking for equality. I want to be able to go to church and get married. I want to be ordained. I want to go downtown Chicago and get a marriage license. I want all the protections that these systems provide like being able to visit my beloved in the hospital without questions, provide health insurance to him without being taxed for it, provide an inheritance without half of it being taxed away.


In theory it's called assimilation and at its worst it's tap dancing and eating watermelon...I see the logic and structure of this particular Soulforce action as imitation, a pathetic attempt to flatter, not a demonstration of our right to be free and equal.


Obviously I could not disagree with you more. LGBT life takes on many of the shapes and forms of our straight neighbors. We simply want equality where our life mirrors the straight culture around us.

And with all my disagreement, I do embrace your statement:


Simply act in favor of [gay] life

[tymejumper]

Just seems to me the word creates hostility. But that could be hormones talking.

No, it definately is NOT your hormones talking. The term 'breeder' is offensive and nasty, just as going up to a single gay male and calling him a 'faggot' is(OMG, the F word!).

My children are cherished and very much wanted. I gave up alot of myself to have these children, to be a 'breeder'.

There are many types of families, and I think to put any of them out because they don't fit someones idea of what or who they should be is unforgivable, especially in the gay community. If we want to make any type of progress in the GLBT fight, we must first stop putting lables on each other and making comments such as "they are tring to be hetero, no dyke wants a kid unless she is trying to be straight acting" and "that guy is so flaming, no wonder the heteros think we are sick, he makes us all look bad" I know all of us have head these types of bigoted statements.

That goes for judging people who choose to NOT have children. They should let all who wish to go to these churches and then let others see we all are a family and we come in different shapes and sizes also, just like them. There are plenty of straight and childless single and coupled people out there.

Zerbie, you are right, there are gay people in hetero marriages that are trapped and have only their children to comfort them becuase they don't know how or can't get out of them.....Lord knows I was one of them.

[revtj]

It seems to me that the underlying question NOT being asked or explored for answers is this:

Are we the same as straight people and is our quest for equality under the law an effort to make us the same as them or is it something different?

I contend we are not the same as them and our quest for equality under the law need not involve actions that put us in the position of begging to be like them but rather demanding that the constitution be interpreted to include our rights as non-heterosexuals, intersex, trans, bi and queer peoples, some with kids and some without.

Here's the thing. I wouldn't want to go to these damn mega-moneyworshipping church-corporations if I was straight with 15 kids or gay with a testube baby. So when Soulforce engages this action I respect that it has a lot of meaning to some within our community who have kids and want the megachurch to show them some respect. That's OK with me, but it's so far from where I am that I question the understanding of equality and liberation that is behind it.

I see a trend that has little to do with who goes to what church in the gay community nowadays...

I went to Sunday Brunch with a friend at a great Midtown restaurant which used to be 90% gay as was all of Midtown Atlanta. Not anymore. Like Chicago, NYC and other cities, young straight couples with kids are buying up the neighborhood which gay people restored in the 80s. Shouldn't be a problem, we've gotten along well for years, haven't we? But now it's a pushback with highrise condos, tripled rents, taxes levied and leases being revoked or run up on gay establishments.

I was shocked that there were almost NO gay people at the place. Everywhere straights and metrosexual men with wives & kids. HUH?

Then a M/F couple sat down in front of us with the baby in tow. They bumped our table, spilling our water. They fussed for several minutes to get the baby situated, all the while leaning into our space. Then of course, the baby began to scream.

"Why is this MY problem?" I asked in a loud voice to my friend. They just gave me a dirty look. I miss the fetching looks from handsome men that used to be all over the place. No more. Our bars and restaurants are closing, moving to the suburbs, or going metrosexual.

I liked it better when they were afraid to bring their kids in our bars and restaurants and they went to Shoneys so we could have Mary's to ourselves. But that's just me.

But there is a bigger picture here...Atlanta Pride has been moved from Piedmont Park to the Civic Center. It will be on July 4th this year based on an agreement reached with the city. After that, rumor is, they want to move it to Freedom Park and get us out of Piedmont (where it all began) for good. All this forced on us by the economic forces of straight breeder culture, corporate and real estate giants, causing our once gay-friendly mayor to suddenly go completely silent on gay issues and ignore complaints related to discrimination.

Same story in other cities also. We need those rainbow streetlamps like North Halstead (Chicago) demanded after renovating South Halsted only to be pushed out under similar circumstances.

Back to Atlanta...While this was happening, Pride went from being a human rights protest to becoming a parade with huge marketing forces driving it. Gay youth (not to be mistaken for the children of gay parents) think Crystal Meth and Disco are where it's at and that's even better if you have a BMW and go to the cool gym.

So, now Soulforce is saying, 'please let me & my kids come to your church with you...' and this is supposed to make things better for us?

Please tell me, exactly how is this action relentless nonviolent resistance?

[keltic63]

It seems to me that the underlying question NOT being asked or explored for answers is this:

Are we the same as straight people and is our quest for equality under the law an effort to make us the same as them or is it something different?

I contend we are not the same as them and our quest for equality under the law need not involve actions that put us in the position of begging to be like them but rather demanding that the constitution be interpreted to include our rights as non-heterosexuals, intersex, trans, bi and queer peoples, some with kids and some without.

Here's the thing. I wouldn't want to go to these damn mega-moneyworshipping church-corporations if I was straight with 15 kids or gay with a testube baby. So when Soulforce engages this action I respect that it has a lot of meaning to some within our community who have kids and want the megachurch to show them some respect. That's OK with me, but it's so far from where I am that I question the understanding of equality and liberation that is behind it.

I see a trend that has little to do with who goes to what church in the gay community nowadays...

I went to Sunday Brunch with a friend at a great Midtown restaurant which used to be 90% gay as was all of Midtown Atlanta. Not anymore. Like Chicago, NYC and other cities, young straight couples with kids are buying up the neighborhood which gay people restored in the 80s. Shouldn't be a problem, we've gotten along well for years, haven't we? But now it's a pushback with highrise condos, tripled rents, taxes levied and leases being revoked or run up on gay establishments.

I was shocked that there were almost NO gay people at the place. Everywhere straights and metrosexual men with wives & kids. HUH?

Then a M/F couple sat down in front of us with the baby in tow. They bumped our table, spilling our water. They fussed for several minutes to get the baby situated, all the while leaning into our space. Then of course, the baby began to scream. "Why is this MY problem?" I asked in a loud voice to my friend. They just gave me a dirty look. I miss the fetching looks from handsome men that used to be all over the place. No more. Our bars and restaurants are closing, moving to the suburbs, or going metrosexual.

I liked it better when they were afraid to bring their kids in our bars and restaurants and they went to Shoneys so we could have Mary's to ourselves. But that's just me.

But there is a bigger picture here...Atlanta Pride has been moved from Piedmont Park to the Civic Center. It will be on July 4th this year based on an agreement reached with the city. After that, rumor is, they want to move it to Freedom Park and get us out of Piedmont (where it all began) for good. All this forced on us by the economic forces of straight breeder culture, corporate and real estate giants, causing our once gay-friendly mayor to suddenly go completely silent on gay issues and ignore complaints related to discrimination.

Same story in other cities also. We need those rainbow streetlamps like North Halstead (Chicago) demanded after renovating South Halsted only to be pushed out under similar circumstances.

Back to Atlanta...While this was happening, Pride went from being a human rights protest to becoming a parade with huge marketing forces driving it. Gay youth (not to be mistaken for the children of gay parents) think Crystal Meth and Disco are where it's at and that's even better if you have a BMW and go to the cool gym.

So, now Soulforce is saying is, 'please let me & my kids come to your church with you...' and this is supposed to make things better for us?

Please tell me, exactly how is this action relentless nonviolent resistance?

it sounds like you want to be as exclusive of straight people as they can be toward us. You want your own little gay ghetto, and your own little gay restaurants, and you don't want to see children anywhere. how is that any better than the fundies who wish to send all the gay people to some island somewhere? although many lgbt seem to migrate to large cities, many of us do not, and most likely will not. we live in communities that may or may not be welcoming of couples, families, and individuals like us. your arrogance to think that this work doesn't benefit you and therefor isn't relevant, is astounding.

and here's another thing: I'm offended by your resentment of a couple with children. I am a gay dad, with 3 kids. My partner has 4 sons. Would you send us to some separate place as well? Why is it that you think people with kids don't belong?

I'm sorry people with children are irritating to you. I'm sorry you think gay families are merely trying to assimilate. But I'm glad that breeders, like your parents, continue to bring children into the world. Perhaps those kids can make this a better place for all of us to live.

[Daniel]

I would like to inteject a slice of life here.

Personally, I don't envy straight persons- though- of course- I am the son of two straight persons. Fancy that. Isn't that how most of us get here?

Yesterday, a student and friend/colleague of mine -who has a first class voice- called me up to tell me that his wife is pregnant. And he didn't sound very happy about it. As far as he is concerned, his future looks very different than the one he previously envisioned. And of course, he was telling me months ago that he had concerns about continuing his relationship with his wife: he was seriously contemplating divorce.

Boy. Is he in a pickle! And he's asking his gay friend for answers? What can I say but 'get thee to a therapist!', which is the same thing I've been saying for months.

Straight or gay, life is no picnic, is it?

Revtj- on one level I can see your point: life as you knew it is changing and that disturbs you- I get that. What I'm not getting from you is what you would do about the situation.

Is anger and rage all you have to offer? SF changes its policy and it sounds like that isn't good enough for you.

This reminds me of a life spend on the stage: a really good director tells the actor/singer where to go and what to do- it's affirmative. The lousy one just says 'don't do this' and 'don't do that', leaving the artist with precious little room to manueuver. Eventually, the artist usually gets pretty frustrated and pissed off- he/she feels negated and either soldiers on 'in spite of' or gives up.

Frankly, you are coming off as the latter type.

How about we turn this around: what do you think SF can and should be doing instead? Let's hear your grand plan.

PS- I'm certain that you will be the second person I've pissed off this week here on the forum. Hello? Where's U-dog? Perhaps I should get a different avatar...maybe a devil......

[Zerbie]

Okay, I get it. TJ's a separatist.

I can understand appreciating the gay community environment - surely there are still community centers? Gay social groups?

Anyway, I'm glad TJ is not in charge of this forum, or I feel I would not be allowed here.

[antonyh]

There is definitely a place for gay space. I remember moving to Chicago from Indiana weighed down by oppression. I needed a nest for a while, a place to completely be myself without fear. For me it was the dance floor at Big Chicks. And I was there faithfully every Friday and Saturday night! It was the one place that I felt completely free. I hear your desire to hold on to the nest.

But it is a nest.

What I really want is to be fully authentic in the whole of life. I get close to that when I attend my little Methodist church. I get to sit with my honey and we're just a couple among couples. We get to enjoy the kids sermon along with our straight friends (although I can't be the pastor and if I get married there the pastor will be defrocked...but that is the big bad Methodist denomination's fault, not our little church).

We're a family TJ. We need to get our arms around the full diversity of God's splendid creation, not just part of it. Our gay experience needs to teach us the importance of radical inclusiveness since we have been on the receiving end of exclusion.

[Daniel]

Our gay experience needs to teach us the importance of radical inclusiveness since we have been on the receiving end of exclusion.

I guess that means no one gets left out, picked last for the dodgeball team, or sent home because they wore the wrong outfit.

Sign me up. I wanna be part of that.

[Vanessa White]

TJ: One of your thoughts in your last post struck me the most, about SF taking an action to the big mega-churches so that we can have them embrace us, like us. I don't know if I understand it to be that goal. Sure, we are going there to show an aspect of our selves, an slice of LGBT community, and to educate on who we really are, which in this case, some of us are families with children. I have never felt the need to assimilate or be compared to straight families with children. There is no doubt, that the majority of our daughter's friends and their families are heterosexual, husband-wife families (at least that we know of), so that is the reality. However, we do our best to let these families know our similarities, as well as our differences. It would be very easy to just settle into those ways in which we are the same, and take comfort in that, but to me, that is yet another way to hide ourselves in shame and being closeted. We can no more afford to be closeted as a family than we could as adult women.

We have so many friends who are single, some whom are coupled, and none of which have children, at least in my 3D life. It creates balance for our child's life, as well as our own, to know and spend time with all different faces in our LGBT community. Sometimes, I want the gay neighborhood for the familiarity, comfort, fun, and history of it. But, sometimes, I want the adventure of just being who I am, with my family, no matter what environment we are in. Our church has been very embracing, but there is no way that we are clumped in with other families in their eyes, I am certain of it. They know that we are not, and I am grateful for that difference. Believe me, we have no desire, most of the time anyway, to blend in.

I cannot identify with your community face changing there in Atlanta, but feel that it is painful and angering for you. I hope that you can embrace the gay families with children within the community, even if that is not your path, with love and appreciation that we are one more grouping in our complex LGBT larger family that we all love so much.

Sorry if this sounds rambling.......:love:

[revtj]

I appreciate that some of you perceive me as simply criticizing from a distance, not offering anything better as you are reading me.

Honestly my intent is in the conversation itself, not deriding or derailing SF. Quite the opposite!!!

Zerbie, I am not a separtist. I love you and want/need your presence here as we all do. We rely on you!

Keltic, what annoys me is that the majority of str8s with kids DO think they are better than both gays with families and single gays. They demand and get an awful lot of privilege just because they are str8 and have kids (ex. IRS deductions not available to gays with kids). It's not the kids that annoy me so much as the assumption that the world should favor their life choices and move over or out of the neighborhood to make them comfortable. They seem blind to this because they are the default status quo reinforced by religion and law in our culture.

I watched "Eyes on the Prize" on PBS again the other night. One of the things that impressed me is that King and his cohorts argued all the time about actions and how to do them, what they meant, and what they were really going after. Andy Young even says King came to rely on him to be the one to criticize sharply just about every plan they made. When he didn't, he says King would ask, "Andy, what's wrong with you?"

Maybe I'm a Youngian. :lol:

[keltic63]

it sounds like you want to be as exclusive of straight people as they can be toward us. You want your own little gay ghetto, and your own little gay restaurants, and you don't want to see children anywhere. how is that any better than the fundies who wish to send all the gay people to some island somewhere? although many lgbt seem to migrate to large cities, many of us do not, and most likely will not. we live in communities that may or may not be welcoming of couples, families, and individuals like us. your arrogance to think that this work doesn't benefit you and therefor isn't relevant, is astounding.

and here's another thing: I'm offended by your resentment of a couple with children. I am a gay dad, with 3 kids. My partner has 4 sons. Would you send us to some separate place as well? Why is it that you think people with kids don't belong?

I'm sorry people with children are irritating to you. I'm sorry you think gay families are merely trying to assimilate. But I'm glad that breeders, like your parents, continue to bring children into the world. Perhaps those kids can make this a better place for all of us to live.

I appreciate that some of you perceive me as simply criticizing from a distance, not offering anything better as you are reading me.

Honestly my intent is in the conversation itself, not deriding or derailing SF. Quite the opposite!!!

Zerbie, I am not a separtist. I love you and want/need your presence here as we all do. We rely on you!

Keltic, what annoys me is that the majority of str8s with kids DO think they are better than both gays with families and single gays. They demand and get an awful lot of privilege just because they are str8 and have kids (ex. IRS deductions not available to gays with kids). It's not the kids that annoy me so much as the assumption that the world should favor their life choices and move over or out of the neighborhood to make them comfortable. They seem blind to this because they are the default status quo reinforced by religion and law in our culture.

I watched "Eyes on the Prize" on PBS again the other night. One of the things that impressed me is that King and his cohorts argued all the time about actions and how to do them, what they meant, and what they were really going after. Andy Young even says King came to rely on him to be the one to criticize sharply just about every plan they made. When he didn't, he says King would ask, "Andy, what's wrong with you?"

Maybe I'm a Youngian. :lol:



You know, you really didn't answer my questions and concerns.

[tymejumper]

it sounds like you want to be as exclusive of straight people as they can be toward us. You want your own little gay ghetto, and your own little gay restaurants, and you don't want to see children anywhere.


I agree with you 100%. I hear this from STRAIGHT people who have no children also. I respect the right of others to NOT have children, but they need to respect the right for us to have them also.

I think its wonderful that straight families bring their children into gay places so the children can see that we are human just like them. Its really hard for people to hate you once they see you as human.

Those children will grow up maybe gay or maybe straight, but with a better understanding of gays as humans because they were raised along side of us and saw NO difference. That is what Sould force is trying to achieve, people seeing us as not different, but the same, just loving the same sex.

And just for the record....my straight "future breeder' teen, participates in the Day of Silence, does not allow others to bash gays and demanded to go to Pride this year and got quite vocal with the protestors. She stands up for gay rights.

We wouldn't exist if not for 'breeders' that had us, now would we?(we can't procreate 2 of the same sex, someone has to pass on the gay gene!)Well, unless we really believes that crap about recruiting!

[tymejumper]

Okay, I get it. TJ's a separatist.

I can understand appreciating the gay community environment - surely there are still community centers? Gay social groups?

Anyway, I'm glad TJ is not in charge of this forum, or I feel I would not be allowed here.


It's ok Zerbie, I would not be allowed either! It puts us in the same boat anyow!:lol::lol::lol: We still love ya at this end!:D

[Zerbie]

I went to Sunday Brunch with a friend at a great Midtown restaurant which used to be 90% gay

I was shocked that there were almost NO gay people at the place. Everywhere straights





Zerbie, I am not a separtist. I love you and want/need your presence here as we all do. We rely on you!



TJ. Do you see the inconsistency? That's what's bugging us.

Next time you're at that restaurant and a woman walks in holding hands with her husband, tell yourself that it could be me.

[revtj]

Good. I've done something worthy of my Lord today. Thanks. And you're right, it is somewhat inconsistent...

Just remember, the next time a gay guy walks into a notoriously homophobic church with his child there is no way in hell it could be me. :rolleyes:

This weekend the Austin action begins at a megachurch there. I will be with them in prayer. I look forward to hearing what happens. They will be there for the me that never was or is and substitutionary atonement always includes the 'other.'

[tdogg]

what annoys me is that the majority of str8s with kids DO think they are better than both gays with families and single gays. They demand and get an awful lot of privilege just because they are str8 and have kids (ex. IRS deductions not available to gays with kids). It's not the kids that annoy me so much as the assumption that the world should favor their life choices and move over or out of the neighborhood to make them comfortable. They seem blind to this because they are the default status quo reinforced by religion and law in our culture.


That's exactly why we are struggling for equality. Straights aren't better than gays. Gays aren't better than straights. Individuals may be better than other individuals, but as a whole, society is equal. Now, we are involved in a battle to prove this. We want the SAME rights, protections and privileges as straights. We aren't asking for more or special rights, just the same. Unfortunately, that will mean some mingling as far as where we live, where we hang out, where we got to church. It's inevitable and should not deter us from continuing to strive for equality.

I'm not saying I want to be just like the straight couple next door. I'm just saying that I want the same choices and opportunities as they get. I want to be the one making that choice, not state or federal government or right-winged fundamentalists. Do I want equality at the risk of losing some churches, bars and neighborhoods to straights? Uh, yeah. I want equality. When I get it, it will be up to me what to do with it.

As things do get more equal and people are more accepting and embracing, yes, neighborhoods and the like will be more inclusive of all. Will we lose some of our strictly gay areas? Probably, but being able to walk anywhere in this country hand-in-hand with the person I love more than makes up for that, IMO.

[Daniel]

Good. I've done something worthy of my Lord today. Thanks. And you're right, it is somewhat inconsistent...

Just remember, the next time a gay guy walks into a notoriously homophobic church with his child there is no way in hell it could be me. :rolleyes:'

I believe your statements have gone beyond being inconsistent. In point of fact, you are dead wrong: you could be walking into a church with a child if you wanted to- and many gay people- in fact do- the church being homophobic or no.

So what the hell is your problem? Do you think SF is 'using' children, harming them is some way. the same way the 'right' is always blaming gay people for recruiting? Or do you simply think that everyone must conform to your reality ie- bow down to your ego? (Oh...and btw....like Steve has mentioned you didn't answer his concerns....and you didn't answer mine either: do you have a better plan? I assume- because of the lack of answer- the answer is: no).

Revtj- you sound like you are well on your way to becoming a bitchy old queen with the occasional smiley face thrown in. ( You'll be there for them in prayer. How gracious of you- and how sacrastic of me. Well hell....you could be there in 3D. Let's get something clear: did anyone say you couldn't be there? I bet not. The only person who has taken you out of the 'picture' is you.)

Is that how you want to live the rest of your life? Huh?

:smashy:

I've tried really hard to see your perspective on this....but you're starting to piss me off. Oh....please don't give yourself points for that too....however...you do seem to consider that the Lord's Work.

Rant over and end of this discussion as far as I'm concerned.

[Zerbie]

Good. I've done something worthy of my Lord today. Thanks. And you're right, it is somewhat inconsistent...

Just remember, the next time a gay guy walks into a notoriously homophobic church with his child there is no way in hell it could be me. :rolleyes:
'

:confused::confused:

So you are being deliberately provocative. ? This, to you, is a good thing? "Worthy of (your) Lord"??

What it appears from this perspective is that you are rejecting overtures of friendship and reconciliation. Okay. If you want. But how is this an action worthy of "your lord?"

It sure looks like you're deliberately throwing my words, meant as a gesture of reaching out in openness, back in my face in utter sarcasm. You realize your response is meaningless to me?

Just putting these questions out there rhetorically. I have lost interest in attempting to further this "conversation."

[revtj]

I've tried to be nice to you. You keep 'provoking' me.

Are you sure you aren't a government plant in this forum? We know they planted agents in the Civil Rights Movement, maybe that's what you are. Bush & Cheney and Homeland Security almost certainly have folks watching SF.

Are you one? Prove that you're not (kinda the same way I'm supposed to prove I'm not a separatist).

If not, then will you peaceably allow me to express my opinion and stop labeling, overanalyzing and insulting me?

They are just words on a screen, Zerbie. Our movement doesn't hang on what I type. It's just another opportunity to think outside your field of experience.

If you don't reply, I'll know you aren't a spy.

[keltic63]

I've tried to be nice to you. You keep 'provoking' me.

Are you sure you aren't a government plant in this forum? We know they planted agents in the Civil Rights Movement, maybe that's what you are. Bush & Cheney and Homeland Security almost certainly have folks watching SF.

Are you one? Prove that you're not (kinda the same way I'm supposed to prove I'm not a separatist).

If not, then will you peaceably allow me to express my opinion and stop labeling, overanalyzing and insulting me?

They are just words on a screen, Zerbie. Our movement doesn't hang on what I type. It's just another opportunity to think outside your field of experience.

If you don't reply, I'll know you aren't a spy.

Zerbie and Daniel aren't the only ones who have had enough of this. You have conveniently ignored my posts. If you want to preserve any credibility you once had here, you'll need to change the way you are engaging these forum members.

[antonyh]

[SIZE="3"]
Keltic, what annoys me is that the majority of str8s with kids DO think they are better than both gays with families and single gays. They demand and get an awful lot of privilege just because they are str8 and have kids (ex. IRS deductions not available to gays with kids). It's not the kids that annoy me so much as the assumption that the world should favor their life choices and move over or out of the neighborhood to make them comfortable. They seem blind to this because they are the default status quo reinforced by religion and law in our culture.

Yes, this is heterosexism.

Is the answer homosexism?

No.

The answer is radical inclusiveness and non-violent direct action.

[Daniel]

Yes, this is heterosexism.

Is the answer homosexism?

No.

The answer is radical inclusiveness and non-violent direct action.

Your words are pearls without price.

[scott snedeker]

Yes, this is heterosexism.

Is the answer homosexism?

No.

The answer is radical inclusiveness and non-violent direct action.

I love the term also!!!!

I have read thru the posts on this thread. My own emotional/spirirtual development has gone through phases of outrage and anger at inequality and sometimes desire for a monochromatic gay male sex oriented environment. And such environments exist. I know because sometimes I slither into them when my inner beast needs to prowl:D There is a sacredness to these environments especially for satyrs!:D

There are also Sanctuaries where Radical Inclusiveness grows (maintained by Radical Faeries). And these are for the present requiring prtotection and separation from mainstream society. There, radically inclusve love of self and all is abounding and permeating. It uplifts and grounds.

Rev TJ,

Consider coming to the Beltaine Faerie Gathering On Short Mountain May 1 This spring. I'm betting you will feel the entitlements of an affirming society that will breathe life into a suffocated gay spirit. A break from the visqueen wrapping of homophobia in today's society.
:love::love::love:

[paul]

:eek: Whoa, I had a chance to read through this thread yesterday, and this morning I see it took a further turn south, rats.

My impression yesterday was that I had nothing to add, I feel like so many here have already offered so much insight that my own two cents would just be redundant. Still, I'll write asking forgiveness from those who have already made similar points. So, to the original question:

Must Breeders Dominate Everything?

"breeders" (I think Daniel did a good job pointing this out all the way at the beginning of this thread). What's a "breeder?" I think in this case it's a stereotype and consequently derogatory in it's use. I think it also set an emotional tone that has not been easy to escape.

In it's strictest sense, I guess I'm a breeder since I have two kids...but not in the strict sense apparently meant here because, like Steve and U-dog and Vanessa and T-dogg and others (sorry, going by memory) I also fit the TBLG 'label.' Most of the heterosexuals I know wouldn't really qualify as strict breeders, cause I know most of the time they have sex, just like BLGT people, their not doing so because they are wanting to make babies.

I tried substituting the word "heterosexual" for breeder...it does tone it down a little, but mostly, I think TJ is raging against the machine, ranting against the oppressor.

"must dominate everything" Nah. Heterosexuals may be the majoritiy, but they don't "dominate everything" at all. For instance, who profited from all those houses in the 'gay ghetto' sold to heterosexuals? Imagine the gay restaurant with the sign in the window "NO BREEDERS ALLOWED."

If I try to gleen a point to walk away with from TJ's original thread, leaving the inflamatory stuff out, it would be:

"I worked damned hard to accept who I am in a society that gave me little or no help, and in many cases, hindered me. I accept my identity, I don't want it swallowed up or lost...it cost to much."

[andrewlittle]

"I worked damned hard to accept who I am in a society that gave me little or no help, and in many cases, hindered me. I accept my identity, I don't want it swallowed up or lost...it cost to much."

Damn right!

I searched through my pockets and found two cents to offer, even though of late I had decided that this wasn't my conversation.

Although I gave a couple of cents worth earlier on this thread about the "breeder" name, I haven't commented on the sense that the good Rev is a separatist.

In reality, who doesn't want to periodically return to a place of familiarity and comfort among people who embody our identity?

Life in general is a pilgrimage - a journey out, with a corresponding return home at which time we commune with and communicate to our family and community. Where can we voice our discontents, if not within our own community? On a pilgrimage, when someone is relegated towards the edge of society because of identity, the return home has to include the familiar and comfortable - otherwise there is no respite from the ordeal of the "going out".

RevTJ is lamenting the loss of the familiar and comfortable - good for him. It's part of finding respite. Do I take umbrage at not being included in the "community" by one who is in dire need of respite - good grief, no.

There is a terrible truth when you are NOT in cultural dominance. You have a hell of a time finding respite.

As a white, heterosexual, middle-class, middle-income, Christian, educated, married male, I have no trouble whatsoever finding my place of respite (even though, most of the time, the last thing I want is to be around people just like me). If I am not in that place at any given point in time, I sure as hell don't have to go far to find it. I can walk out just about any door and find my "people", so to speak.

If you missing one of the markers of social dominance, finding that place gets somewhat tougher. If you're missing two or more, it gets significantly more difficult and frustrating. RevTG is neither straight nor married (I don't know other things about him) and is lamenting the fact that he has difficulty finding the place of respite from a heterosexual, married majority that dominates our culture and that he sees and interacts with daily - many times, if not most times, involuntarily. Dominant culture is inescapable at times - and even here, in his family of choice, discussion and action right now is centered on marriage.

Further, RevTJ came "home" - came to his community to voice his frustration. Why is that a bad thing? Isn't it likely that this community is a place of respite where the good Rev can speak - expel his burgeoning frustrations - and find commonality and familiarity with family?

I may not agree with RevTJ's views on the Soulforce action in question - so be it - but I can surely hear the frustration in his voice, the depths of the alienation he must be feeling, and understand his need to be able to look around and find a place where straight, married people with kids don't dominate the cultural skyline. I can surely hear his plaintive screams and NOT take them personally.

Good grief - if RevTJ can't spew his frustration at "home" - well, where can he? Do we really want him to be "homeless" because we don't want to hear what he has to say?

[paul]

Wow Andy,

You can eat at my table any day. You are living your faith, which is rare.
I am so honored that you are a part of this community.

Paul

[keltic63]

Good grief - if RevTJ can't spew his frustration at "home" - well, where can he? Do we really want him to be "homeless" because we don't want to hear what he has to say?

this group is most willing to commiserate and uplift. I believe you've seen that many times here. but when revtj comes home to tell other members of the family that they don't belong, and he doesn't want to see them, home is no longer a welcoming place for all of the family. In revtj's words of frustration, I heard a desire for people like me to be gone from his sight. if this is "our" home, then I will fight for my place at this table despite his wishes to exclude me and others like me.

[revtj]

This place just isn't what it used to be. I am accustomed to academic discourse. I believe the truth emerges from controversy and that ideas should be thrashed out and people cherished.

I do not fit in here. Please excuse me. I knew it 6 months ago but I didn't want to believe it.

I also feel compelled to say that I DO believe there are a number of people in the SF forum nowadays who are playing a game and do not truly understand, support and believe in the mission statement of Soulforce. I hope they learn new sympathies here but I am looking for a different kind of conversation.

Later.
T J

[Daniel]

This place just isn't what it used to be. I am accustomed to academic discourse. I believe the truth emerges from controversy and that ideas should be thrashed out and people cherished.

Glad to know that. I've doing my a great deal of academic writing these days.

Now. Please tell me how accusing another member of this forum- even if it was in jest- of being a spy was 'academic"? That I don't get.

I do not fit in here. Please excuse me. I knew it 6 months ago but I didn't want to believe it.

I said this in an earlier post- and I say again: you are one taking yourself out of the picture. No one else. What gives? Hey....I declared that I was done with this thread...what....two posts ago? You say you believe that the truth emerges from 'thrashing it out'. Ok. I'm happy to do that....here I am....ready when you are. So why are you running for the hills? And why- in God's name- are you pushing aside the kind and gentle words of Andy- who- more than anyone is endeavoring to understand your point of view? Is it because he's straight? And why, I wonder, did you go after Zerbie....hmmmmmm....she's married to a man. Does that disqualify her from the discussion?

Got a problem with straight people? (BTW...Zerbie is Bi.....perhaps you forgot that?)

I also feel compelled to say that I DO believe there are a number of people in the SF forum nowadays who are playing a game and do not truly understand, support and believe in the mission statement of Soulforce. I hope they learn new sympathies here but I am looking for a different kind of conversation.


Oh....so you are the one who knows the true mission and have the answers and we're just not measuring up. Gee. Thanks. (I think I recall asking you what you would do in place of SF's action.....still haven't heard your answer....and guess what....that would fit nicely into an academic framework).

And here's a nice shot across the bow: your insinuation of 'playing games' is pure- and I mean this- pure paranioa. Got any facts to support your assertion? If you do: offer them now. You lead me to think that you have been the one playing games. (Now would be the time for a quick review of some academic concepts counselor: remember the terms Transference and Counter-Transference? Or didn't you get them in your training?)

I think this needs saying: as I read you, you sound and write like someone who doesn't want to be accountable for his words and actions.

Academia can be an Ivory Tower in which to hide. Yes....you can go off sulking another 6 months if you want, dreaming your fearful dreams of spy and 'breeders'.

Lastly: I don't think you have much sense on how you are coming across here (and just so you know- I am fully aware how I am coming across with my bad cop demeanor). There is a disconnect. Your words, original thread title, expression of feelings and subequent assertions have not been academic at all. And the reaction you've received? Neither academic either, but passionate, heartfelt - and from more than a few- downright generous and all-the-stops-out-loving.

Wanna be academic? Then defend in high style why the use of the word 'breeder' is not only correct but justified.

If I were you, I would think twice before taking your toys and going home, for, in fact, the actual truth may be that, while you believe it is your role to teach SF a lesson, you may be, in fact, the student who has not yet inculcated the principles of nonviolence sufficiently enough to give those on this forum and the organization itself the failing grade you think it deserves.

Has the SF forum changed for the worse as you imply? Good question. How about this one? Has your life changed for the better in the last 6 months? And if not, why not? I would- if I were you- take a good hard took in the mirror before I started the great cop-out.

That said....and I mean this...

I sincerely wish you the peace and joy which you seem to deny yourself- and feel yourself denied by others.

[andrewlittle]

May you find the place your looking for.

As for me - I tried - but now I remember you didn't ask me to try to extinguish your bridge fires. I just thought I'd try to be sensitive to your frustrations. I should have probably stayed off the thread like I thought in the first place.

I am having a little difficulty reconciling "thrashing out" ideas with people you "cherish", however. Oh well.

This place just isn't what it used to be. I am accustomed to academic discourse. I believe the truth emerges from controversy and that ideas should be thrashed out and people cherished.

I do not fit in here. Please excuse me. I knew it 6 months ago but I didn't want to believe it.

I also feel compelled to say that I DO believe there are a number of people in the SF forum nowadays who are playing a game and do not truly understand, support and believe in the mission statement of Soulforce. I hope they learn new sympathies here but I am looking for a different kind of conversation.

Later.
T J

[Zerbie]

As for me - I tried - but now I remember you didn't ask me to try to extinguish your bridge fires. I just thought I'd try to be sensitive to your frustrations. I should have probably stayed off the thread like I thought in the first place.


Me too, Andy, me too.
We both tried to make friends with TJ past the point when we probably should have clued in that it was going to be a waste of our time.

I've been telling myself the same thing all day today, that I shouldn't have made that last (before this one) post on this thread.

It seems clear that only one participant in this conversation was 'playing a game,' and that he will not be back.

Glad that's over.

On to far worthier conversations. :) :rainbow:

[Vanessa White]

I know that may sound a bit naive, but I really try to see all sides of an issue when I can. Usually, that means reading, re-reading, and re-reading again a thread so that I can make an informed response. For now, this is what I do know:

That I feel sadness that Tj seems not able to get what he wants and needs here at SF and its forums; that its mission does not seem to be consistent with some of the persons that visit here. I know that I also feel sadness at his not being here, because I have been positively impacted in the past by his words in a meaningful way.

I also feel frustrated that this thread never seemed to bring much resolution, for him or for the rest of us, so insistent in our need to understand, and to be understood. I know that with hundreds of members here, there are hundreds of various perspectives on any given issue or topic, but it seems that many of us strive to understand, offer support, and at the same time, challenge one another to look beyond the service and do the really hard work of self-realization, self-responsibility, and ultimately, I hope, self-love. Sometimes, oftentimes, the journey to that is difficult, infuriating, and downright sucks. But I know us to be there at those times also. I actually look forward to those moments of being able to rely on my SF friends here to redirect me, to assist me in my process. I am disappointed that this feels unresolved to me, but TJ if you do come back to read at any time, know that I wish you nothing but goodness, and do hope that you can come back again and find what you need.

Peace and prayers, Vanessa :love::pray:

[revtj]

I regret starting this thread and I take responsibility for things careening totally out of control.

I believe if we'd all had the same conversation face-to-face or by phone it would've turned out a lot more satisfying to everyone. At the very least, I would think everyone would have been able to hear that I meant "breeder" like David Sedaris not Rush Limbaugh. I have an often too-sarcastic sense of humor.

The reason I want to duck out is I don't know of any way to back up and clarify meanings, and I think I may have provoked a few of you past the point of hearing me. I think this issue was too prickly (sensitive, charged and volatile) to handle the way I approached it. For that I apologize.

I am still devoted to SF & its mission but I think I will use the forums for the dissemination of information only in the future. If any of you -- ANY of you!-- are ever in Atlanta, I would truly love to meet you and get to know you better.

[Jamie McDaniel]

I was going to send this as a private message, but decided to post it to the thread instead.

------

Dear revtj,

I just wanted to send you a note after talking with Kara. I hadn't checked on your thread in a few days and so I missed that the conversation had, as Paul wrote, "taken a turn south."

I think Kara, having resigned over the Right to Serve action (and reinstated several months later, praise Jesus), particularly feels a connection with others in Soulforce whenever they occupy the dissenting position. Plus she truly "gets" how singles are often ignored or given just an afterthought. It sounds like you two had a good phone conversation.

Though I knew the issues you raised in the thread would be, as you said "prickly," I never was offended by your posts in the way that some were. I'm trying to understand why that is. I've wondered is it because I think we need to be more tender towards our own who we know have their hearts in the right place (as Andy expressed in his excellent post (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=51883#post51883))? Or is it because I don't have children and am just not seeing it from the angle that Keltic63, tymejumper, and a few others did who have children?

Your thread brought up many issues that are worthy of discussion, like the danger of "playing to the right." I certainly agree that is something progressives need to be mindful of.

Regarding the Right to Serve campaign, I remember Daniel questioning the logic behind Soulforce, with all its nonviolence values, knocking on the door (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=13847&highlight=knocking#post13847) of the United States military. I felt he expressed my frustrations well with that statement.

Though I am very excited about Soulforce's American Family Outing and the historic meetings of gay families with some of the most widely known pastors, I'm trying to better understand your frustration with it. And I think I grasped your view a bit more when you wrote:

Here's the thing. I wouldn't want to go to these damn mega-moneyworshipping church-corporations if I was straight with 15 kids or gay with a testube baby.

That sentence struck me in the same way that Daniel's "knocking on the door of the military" statement did.

I have a gay friend who has been attending a mega-church here in Lexington. When an ex-gay shared his testimony from the stage (surprise, surprise, eh?) my friend was hurt and started talking with some of the associate pastors about his concern. He asked me to go with him to one meeting he had set up and I did. After the service, we talked for probably an hour with the associate pastor and I told her plainly that I would never go to her church because I'm simply past the point of giving the time and energy God has granted me to a church that doesn't affirm my marriage. Truth told, though, I wouldn't go to her church if they did treat Chris and I like everyone else. They have all the problems of an evangelical mega-church (well, all the problems except for growth, it seems) and it was quite apparent in the service when they were all sharing their experience from having just returned from Jerusalem and India (the poor spiritually blind and bankrupt people that those foreigners are of course. :rolleyes:)

Something later got me thinking, however, about the way I've negatively used the word "mega-church" (perhaps similar to the way the word "conservative" comes out of my mouth... with just a bit of contempt.) I thought about Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey's church in Chicago, Trinity United Church of Christ. It is a mega-church with 10,000 members according to the UCC website. Since I soooo appreciate Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it has got me questioning whether my negative view of the word "mega-church" is really founded on solid ground.

Anyway, I guess I'm just wondering if this thread has to be like a movie with a disappointing ending, where everyone loved the colorful and passionate characters and the premise, but damn those writers who screwed the script up and couldn't deliver a satisfying last hour!! :smashy:

If there is to be a quality sequel, I would suggest the title of this little film be reworked slightly. It would help with the ratings. I know Kara has said she can't participate because every time a new post is added it bumps the thread title to the top again.

Jamie

[tymejumper]

Though I knew the issues you raised in the thread would be, as you said "prickly," I never was offended by your posts in the way that some were. I'm trying to understand why that is. I've wondered is it because I think we need to be more tender towards our own who we know have their hearts in the right place (as Andy expressed in his excellent post (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=51883#post51883))? Or is it because I don't have children and am just not seeing it from the angle that Keltic63, tymejumper, and a few others did who have children?Jamie


I think I can explain why others were somewhat offened by TJ statements. I certainly can explain why I was offended.

I feel that the term 'breeder' is just as aweful a word as the 'N' word. I felt and still feel that some people in the gay community treat others as they have been treated, by heterosexuals and non-supportive people. They have a tendancy to judge on looks alone, such as seeing someone who has children and calling them a 'breeder' and assuming they are straight. If they are thought to be gay, they have 'somehow' betrayed the gay community by having children as this is what heterosexuals do, pro-create.

I think the majority of people felt that we were again being labled and not only by the heterosexual community but now by people in the gay community as well, and I personally felt that the 'traitor' lable was being pinned smack onto me for having children.

I realize there are many gay and lesbians that do not have children, but those of us that DO have them don't expect any extras for it, we just want respect and understanding. How easy do people think it is to be gay and have kids? You are accused all the time of being child molestors, an abuser, a druggie and/or a danger to children. We raise our children to standup for all humans, see love as between two individuals, and fight for equality into the next generation.

It is true, if we are shown to heteros as raising well adjusted and polite young people, don't you think that they will have to realize that we are not the monsters they try to make us out as? If our kids turn out straight, then obviously it is genetics not environment that makes us gay? That we don't recruit because if we did, all of our kids turn would turn out gay?

Perhaps TJ did not phrase himself well when he wrote his post, lord help me I am not always the most lucid or well written, but I got the distinct feeling that he wished to put up a sign in whatever he called 'gay venues' that stated "no breeders or children allowed" Kinda reminded me of the "no negros allowed" signs.

I also get the feeling that TJ may be feeling less important because he does not have kids or does not wish to have them and perhaps thinks he is getting pushed aside by those of us that do? We need all types of gay people to show we come in all kinds of ways, just like the straights do. We DO need you TJ to be who you are, you are important all by yourself you know.

There is a place for us all in the community, but I feel we won't make any real strides in equality until we all learn we ALL count and that the lables HAVE to stop. Are we not really all just human in the end?:)