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 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. This conversation really is one of social diversity - a diversity of choices. Gee wow, a conversation where 'lifestyle choice' is valid terminology! 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]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

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.

[Gennee]

I 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

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Vanessa White

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.

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! 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.







let the private messages begin

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by keltic63

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! 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.


let the private messages begin

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

'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]

Originally Posted by keltic63

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! 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

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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!

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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

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

I'm sorry.

[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!"



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]

Originally Posted by antonyh

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.

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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