American Family Outing

[Daniel]

How's that for a title?

This thread is meant to address the concerns brought here by Revtj on another thread which contains a word of some controversy. Whether he chooses to participate in the discussion is up to him. I hope he does.

To start things off, I think it necessary to give an overview of the manner in which the thread in question progressed.

In response to Revtj's initial post, Anthony was the first to raise questions about the title of the thread and as the thread progressed, this concern grew, with Anthony stating that the term (breeders) was reductionistic.

The flames started to grow at this point with no response from Revtj.

Then I threw wood on the pile by comparing the word in question with those used by straights towards us. However, I tried to imagine why and how Revtj would use such a term. Andy chimed in, noting that the word itself was not as important as the frustration that was being faced by Revtj.

In essence- Andy tried to cool down a situation that was heating up quickly.

Then a distinction was made by Alecto that the term in question did not- historically speaking- contain the same threat of physical violence that some anti-gay terms have done in the past.

Jamie then made a comprehensive post about the Action being planned by SF.

It was only then that Revtj made a post (quoting my own which focused on his frustration and alienation), while zeroing in on the word 'family' as its use by Soulforce. He thanked Jeff Lutes for changed SF's policy statement, but, curiously, ended his post with words that showed that, somehow, SF's response was inadequate.

Originally Posted by Revtj

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.

This- as I see it- was when the thread, as Paul later noted, 'went south'. Anthony and I both took issue with Revtj's response. The latter replied that....

Originally Posted by Revtj

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.

Revtj then went on to recount a scene which illustrated his frustration at being crowded out by 'families' in places which were formerly gay exclusive.

Originally Posted by Revtj

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.

This didn't go down very well with Steve and Zerbie and myself- who questioned the whole matter of exclusivity. And in a hair's breath, Anthony posted about the need for 'gay space', while simultaneously, introducing the idea of Radical Inclusiveness.

Steve and Zerbie pointed out what they believed to be inconsistencies in Revtj prior statements. His response was received as being provocative.

There was another appeal made by Anthony towards Radical Inclusiveness.

Paul reiterated the problem with the title of the thread. Then Andy wrote perhaps the most eloquent post of all on the issues faced by Revtj, which, surprisingly, went ignored by originator of the thread. His response? A statement which took matters even further south.

Originally Posted by 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.

I have to say that this really ticked me off and I made a hammer of a post.

How do I see what transpired?

I believe the title of the thread (not unlike those made by a certain Gordon student) doomed any rational exploration of the subject. And not to be too much of a 'personality detective', my sense is that Revtj's personal experience and frustration- in the end- trumped whatever might have been discussed. This is not to lay blame, but rather, to note the serious nature of the situation.

In terms of the title, I think one conclusion can be drawn: you can't throw a snake into a bed and be oblivious to the fact that someone is going to get bitten. This was somewhat acknowleded by Revtj.

My thoughts about a future for this discussion?

We need to discuss what is meant by Family and Racial Inclusiveness. I believe this is one of the sticking points. As well- attention needs to be given to the GLBT (single or not) person's experience of exclusion - both materially and spiritually- from family.

Another matter which may need discussion is the role of children in a Soulforce action. Revtj mentioned this in passing, but the concern was never addressed. I think it deserves closer attention.

Now. Practically speaking, I started this thread so Kara could put in her thoughts. I hope she- and others- do.

I don't know about you, but I don't like unfinished business. I'd like to think we can all rise to the occasion and find some common ground to stand on. And if not, why not.

[Alecto]

I think I understand Rev's frustrations about a campaign focusing on "family": all too often in the GLBT movement, there's a push made to insist that "we" are all just like "them". And, yeah, some of us are and it's important to note that. But some of us aren't just like them, and that should be one of our freedoms too. One answer to this, with regards to the family outing campaign (which, I'll admit, I haven't looked too closely at) is to be very clear about just what we mean by "family". There was an awesome touring photo exhibit called "Love Makes a Family" (I'm pretty sure there's a book and such too) that explored several possible permutations of gay and lesbian families. Going even one step further than the book, the girls I lived with in college I would definitely consider my family. We've talked about it, and they feel the same way. For a group of folks who are all too often cast out by their families of origin, I think it's important to recognize that maybe the group of guys I hang out with every weekend is more of a family to me than anyone I have biological connections to (I use the first person to make the point; I've personally been very fortunate about my parents and my brothers). Given the nature of Soulforce, I get the impression that these types of families would in fact be welcome (correct me by all means if I'm wrong) to the campaign, but perhaps making that overtly stated might make more people feel welcome instead of alienated?

[Steven E. Webster]

Daniel,

Thanks for the blow by blow interpretation of the train wreck.

Frankly, my observation is that there is a divide in the gay community on the question of marriage. Yes, it is true---some of us do in fact want to assimilate to this important and enduring social institution. I legally married my husband in Canada only about 18 months ago, and thus I committed myself in a very personal way to that institution.

Others consider such assimilation treason to the gay movement.

It's tough to bring those two extremes together.

As one who is not going to apologize for wanting to assimilate to the enduring institutions of society, I still want to be as open as possible to what those who are far more "radical" than I have to say by way of criticism of those institutions. Although I don't share their goal of abolishing such institutions, they may point to ways in which these institutions (marriage, church, family etc.) need to be reformed.

There is an argument to be made that rather than seeking same-gender marriage, we should be working towards the abolition of all marriage. I'm not convinced by that argument. But I still want to hear and learn from the argument.

It seems to me that Soulforce has embraced the struggle for marriage equality--that inevitably leaves out in the cold those who's goal is to destroy marriage.

Unless, of course, equality is the way to "destroy" marriage. (This assumes a definition of marriage as inherently unequal.)

The same kind of divide can occur over our attempts to gain inclusion in the institutional churches. Soulforce has committed itself to the work of inclusion---but there are those who would argue that religious institutions are inherently oppressive and should themselves be abolished.

I don't want to address Rev. T.J.'s personality or personal issues--it's not that I don't care about him personally, it's that I don't really know him well. It's easier to address the issues T.J. raises as issues divorced from personality.

I do appreciate the fact that T.J. expressed a desire to reach out to us personally---to somehow see us and meet us face to face--I hope that is possible some day! When we can make real personal connections, then these issues and disagreements over them don't really matter anymore, do they?

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Alecto

I think I understand Rev's frustrations about a campaign focusing on "family": all too often in the GLBT movement, there's a push made to insist that "we" are all just like "them". And, yeah, some of us are and it's important to note that. But some of us aren't just like them, and that should be one of our freedoms too.

If I hear what you are saying correctly, there is a 'them' and 'us' dynamic at work. Which dovetails- one might say- into Steven's post.

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Frankly, my observation is that there is a divide in the gay community on the question of marriage. Yes, it is true---some of us do in fact want to assimilate to this important and enduring social institution. I legally married my husband in Canada only about 18 months ago, and thus I committed myself in a very personal way to that institution.

You bring up a matter which is so obvious, I overlooked it. How's that for the benefits of 'privilege'? I, like you, married my spouse in Canada several years ago.

Originally Posted by Steven

Others consider such assimilation treason to the gay movement.

Yes....that is certain. But I think there may be another dynamic at work too: envy.

Originally Posted by Steven

It's tough to bring those two extremes together.

As one who is not going to apologize for wanting to assimilate to the enduring institutions of society, I still want to be as open as possible to what those who are far more "radical" than I have to say by way of criticism of those institutions. Although I don't share their goal of abolishing such institutions, they may point to ways in which these institutions (marriage, church, family etc.) need to be reformed.

There is an argument to be made that rather than seeking same-gender marriage, we should be working towards the abolition of all marriage. I'm not convinced by that argument. But I still want to hear and learn from the argument.

I agree with you on this, and am not convinced that the huge boat called marriage can be turned in another direction when the engine that drives it - cultural conditioning- - and the hands of the State that direct it- are keen to go in its current direction. And in terms of metaphor, is the effort then to dismantle the boat? If so, what should replace it? Which points to the question: where are we going- and why?

My answer to that is that formalizing relationships matters, both spiritually and legally. But while I say this from personal experience, I do not demand that others must share it.

It seems to me that Soulforce has embraced the struggle for marriage equality--that inevitably leaves out in the cold those who's goal is to destroy marriage.

Unless, of course, equality is the way to "destroy" marriage. (This assumes a definition of marriage as inherently unequal.)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you clarify? Inherently unequal to whom? GLBT persons?

Originally Posted by Steven

The same kind of divide can occur over our attempts to gain inclusion in the institutional churches. Soulforce has committed itself to the work of inclusion---but there are those who would argue that religious institutions are inherently oppressive and should themselves be abolished.

I hear what you are saying here in my own way: I only first felt comfortable joining this forum after learning that Herrin Haven was a Buddhist. That told me that my fear- that Soulforce was only for Gay Christians, was unfounded. I needed an example, not a policy statement. And not to toot SF's horn too much, while the forum is not - strictly speaking- a church (though it has been likened to a sanctuary), I think anyone would be hard pressed to say that the 'institution' - as such- is in anyway oppressive. Quite the opposite in fact. Should this 'space' be abolished too? That might be the outcome if 'those who argue' have their way.

Originally Posted by Steven

I don't want to address Rev. T.J.'s personality or personal issues--it's not that I don't care about him personally, it's that I don't really know him well. It's easier to address the issues T.J. raises as issues divorced from personality.

I do appreciate the fact that T.J. expressed a desire to reach out to us personally---to somehow see us and meet us face to face--I hope that is possible some day! When we can make real personal connections, then these issues and disagreements over them don't really matter anymore, do they?

Agreed.

Issues are more important than personality. That said, I believe self-awareness is key in navigating the straits (oh....the makings of a humdinger of a pun) that lie ahead in terms of our freedom from oppression.

[Alecto]

I'm trying not to get too caught up in the "us" "them" thing, but at the same time, that's a part of what's at stake here. It's like the difference between being LGBT, and being capitol Q Queer: there's a queer culture and a queer experience that is DEFINITELY different and seperate from that of the "straight" (as opposed to hetersexual / cisgender) experience. Some people have major issues with marriage as inherently misogynistic etc. So that's there on one level. On a whole different level though, there's the concept that in buying into what has been so far kept a heterosexual institution, we are in some ways weakening the unity of our community. I'm not saying this the best way possible, but it's kind of like...because we've for SO very long been kept unequal, some of us have found the "upsides" to that. It doesn't mean these folks are going "yay oppression", but they have a different idea of what defines them in their GLBT experience.

If my view of myself as a gay identified man stops with who I date, then yeah: assimilation would be the logical step. In every other way, I AM exactly the same as anyone else.
If I view my sexuality differently though...if I let it impact all the other parts of my life (I guess that would be, very literally, a "gay lifestyle), then it starts to feel like all the rights organizations are pushing this perfect image that doesn't represent me. After awhile, it starts to feel as though they are ceding the fact that we don't ALL deserve rights, only those of us that are "just like you". Leather-daddies in an open relationship deserve the same access to not only marriage rights, but all the other rights straight folks have JUST as much as the white lesbians with two kids who live in the suburbs.


So, I guess what I was trying to get at is what holds us together as GLBT folks (if anything?). And, failing that, does anything hold some of us together as Queer folks? And how does that impact the goals of Soulforce (and other groups)?
(Hope that all wasn't too rambly)

[Steven E. Webster]

Daniel asked what I meant when I said that some would argue that the institution of marriage is inherently unequal, and thus should be abolished.

Some argue that marriage is so irredeemably rooted in patriarchy, in male and female roles, that the idea of equality in marriage is impossible. Therefore marriage should be abolished to end patriarchy and to further human equality.

I don't agree with this view. I believe that same-gender marriage is now viewed as possible because heterosexual people already live in same-gender marriages! In other words, there is less and less gender role distinctions between husbands & wives, men and women in marriage---so why not a marriage of two husbands or two wives?

I appreciate Alecto's contributions to this discussion. However I would like to challenge her to explain who is priveleged to call themselves "queer" as opposed to merely "LGBT"? Is it necessary to set "queers" against "LGBT" persons (and vice versa)? Are queers better than LGBT persons? Are LGBT persons sell-outs in a way that queers are not? Or can we avoid "us vs. them" distinctions here too?

I agree with your point, Alecto, about rights and equality. Marriage should not be held out as a way to access health benefits, for instance. If we had universal health care (as we should, in my opinion), everyone would have equal access to health insurance on the same terms without reference to one's marital status.

[kara speltz]

Daniel: Thanks so much for posting this discussion under another title. I could not respond to the "breeders," postings because I wanted to get that word off the home page of our forums.

I have a number of feelings regarding this whole thing, some of which really haven't been addressed, but I did address them with TJ in a phone call. I hear and share his frustration. As singles, we are so often overlooked and forgotten. And it is very hurtful.

But as a woman who was married and adopted a child (I wish I could have conceived, but was unable, but adopting to me makes so much sense, and so many of us have done that), my family means everything to me. It seems to me that some within the TLGB community, want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Commitment is a biggie in my book. I would have loved to have had a partner to share my life with, but that wasn't to be. My exhusband is one of my best friends and we've stayed connected because we had a child to consider.

Family, however we define it, I believe is very important. I am actually closer to some of my chosen family, than I am to much of my biological family. But I really celebrate and appreciate family. I look at our director, Jeff Lutes and the absolutely gorgeous family he has, and I'm so glad to see this.

Children always change your life. There is no way to keep that from happening. They are the greatest joy and the greatest source of pain. I couldn't ever imagine living my life without my son and his family as part of it.

I really like the idea of Radical Inclusiveness. It's important to remember that each of our journeys is very different, and to ever demand that someone else live their lives by another's expectations to me is what real blasphamy is. It's denying the divine in each person and making cookie cutters out of them.

So, all of this is to say, that I really heard what TJ had to say and while I don't agree with all of his ideas, I pray that we may keep ourselves open to the differences that are in each of us and to celebrate them.

One last thing. I do hate the word breeder, though in my frustration at times, I've used it. To suggest that having children is somehow bad, or wrong reminds me of Falwell's judgements on us. I don't care to look at others that way. What bothered me about it being in the title thread was that it was so negative and such a putdown on people who, can't help the fact that they are hetero. Does it ever make sense, given how we are not accepted for who we are to condemn someone for creating life?

This weekend is the first training session for the American Family OUting. Please keep them all in your hearts and prayers. kara

[Daniel]

I just realized something. In creating THIS thread title, I used the word 'reconsidered'. I think that was a mistake. Why? Because it came after three other words: Amercian Family Outing.

What do I think needs 'reconsidered'? The other thread that imploded/exploded in everyone's face. However, I not not wish to call into question SF's current Action. In the first place, I do not know enough about it (want to know more actually), and in the second place, because I am rather ignorant about the Action- do not want to give the impression that I am criticizing it.

My point was to address the concerns brought to this forum by Revtj. And in doing so, I believe the Action itself can stand alone as a 'title' without comment. This way, those who support the Action and can provide details about it, maybe more inclined to do so- after all- it was the focus of Revtj's concerns. Those voices of support need a 'safe space' too.

Make sense?

What do they say about the you-know-you being in the details?

So- I've asked Jamie if something can be done about the matter. Then this post can then- hopefully- disappear along with the word in question.

To that end, I have retitled my intitial post.

[paul]

We need to discuss what is meant by Family and Radical Inclusiveness. I believe this is one of the sticking points. As well- attention needs to be given to the GLBT (single or not) person's experience of exclusion - both materially and spiritually- from family.

I am really enjoying wrapping my brain around this term "Radical Inclusiveness." What a great term.

Since Soul Force is largely founded on Christian principles, I find myself thinking in that context when it comes to radical inclusiveness. I have two thoughts about the concept.

1. What's "radical" for one is mundane for another. For the person in the desert to share her thimble of water with another is radical, while a glass of ice water from a restaurant owner is taken for granted. I think part of our problem is there is no universal definition that all TBLG people could rally around. Or to give a sample from the bible, how about the story of the "widows mites?" She gave two pennies and the rich person gave a huge sum. Jesus pointed out that the widow gave more because she gave all that she had, and the rich person gave from their 'excess.'

2. In keeping with the above, Jesus is purported to have taught this standard: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." To me, implied in this directive is a consideration of both self and the "other" person. Is it radical to give someone equal validation as you give yourself? It is if you disagree with them!

Personally, I'd like to take Radical Inclusiveness a step further to include going outside my comfort zone. For me, that would be radical. I have a friend who I love dearly (okay, he's a former fundamentalist gone atheist) and he modified the golden rule to the following:

"Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Daniel asked what I meant when I said that some would argue that the institution of marriage is inherently unequal, and thus should be abolished.

Some argue that marriage is so irredeemably rooted in patriarchy, in male and female roles, that the idea of equality in marriage is impossible. Therefore marriage should be abolished to end patriarchy and to further human equality.

I don't agree with this view. I believe that same-gender marriage is now viewed as possible because heterosexual people already live in same-gender marriages! In other words, there is less and less gender role distinctions between husbands & wives, men and women in marriage---so why not a marriage of two husbands or two wives?

Thank you for the clarification. Though this thought comes to mind: it may be only in the Western world that the thought you've expressed could arise. There are many places on the planet where the roles within marriage remain as they did in centuries past.

And yet another thought comes to mind here, one that was explored in John Boswell's radical tome (Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality), which noted that the first 'unions' made by the Church were for those of the same gender- a precursor to marriage as we know it.

This may indeed prove the two points that 1) there is nothing new under the sun and 2) What comes around goes around?

Originally Posted by kara speltz

I have a number of feelings regarding this whole thing, some of which really haven't been addressed, but I did address them with TJ in a phone call. I hear and share his frustration. As singles, we are so often overlooked and forgotten. And it is very hurtful.

I would be interested in hearing about those feelings that haven't been addressed, that is, of course, if you can do so without betraying confidence. As you state, they are, after all, your feelings.

Originally Posted by Kara

I really like the idea of Radical Inclusiveness. It's important to remember that each of our journeys is very different, and to ever demand that someone else live their lives by another's expectations to me is what real blasphamy is. It's denying the divine in each person and making cookie cutters out of them.

Originally Posted by paul

I am really enjoying wrapping my brain around this term "Radical Inclusiveness." What a great term.

Personally, I'd like to take Radical Inclusiveness a step further to include going outside my comfort zone. For me, that would be radical.

I really like it too! And think Anthony has a damn good book title up his sleeve!

And, perhaps, to lead the discussion back to one of the words that brought about conflict on the other thread, this idea of Radical Inclusiveness can inform how we think about 'Family', as has already been intimated on this thread.

While my spouse and I both have our biological familes, we are not unaware that the definition of family- as far a GLBT persons are concerned, has an added meaning: our nearest and dearest can, in fact, be family (be they adopted children, friends or ex's etc): those whom we have no biological attachment to at all. And if that isn't Radical Inclusion, I don't know what is.

Anthony....have your started your book yet?

[tymejumper]

I posted on the other forum about why exactly I was offended about the the 'breeder' thing. I don't really know how to include a link so you can read it, so anyone who is interested may wish to read it there.

I really had thought that I had said all I wanted to say on the subject, until I saw Daniel post this to open up another discussion on the 'Family Outting'. I think it is important to fully address all the issues raised in the previous post. Else how can we make sence of all that was said and felt? So, I decided to post somemore!

Here is the way I see things. I don't let my sexuality define who I am or what I want in life. I want the same things as every other human wants, plus maybe some different things also. I honestly believe that all people, straight or gay want pretty much the same things in life, understanding, compassion, love and a family.

Some of us define understanding/compassion as acceptance of who we are, be it straight, metrosexual, gay, TG or lesbian...we all want to be understood and be accepted for who we are. We don't want to feel that there is a label put on us we have to fufill or else we are not accepted. It unfortunately has been part of the gay community that we have to fill certain lables, live in closets or be really radical to be accepted. I think it is getting better and getting rid of stupid and silly identifiers such as 'breeder' 'flamer' 'twink' or 'dyke' is a good start. We need to stop dividing ourselves and just see us as all human.

Most of us define love and family the same. We may go about it differently as some of us get married, commited or make other arraingements that befit us to get our needs met. Some have kids, others do not. Some count their animals as children or mentor youths and consider that family. Some also may count friends, lovers, ex-lovers, neighbors or co-workers as their family. Blood is not all that binds us.

Why does it matter HOW we define family or weather we set up our families the same as some straight people do? Are we now compairing us and them? Are we judgeing each other as 'fitting in with the man'? Arn't we actually PAST that? How is choosing to have children making me trying to fit in with heteros and making me a traitor to the cause? How is not having children, like some hetero couples making us loyal to the cause? Any darn way you look at it we mirror the mores of society, and as heteros are more common, we will be compaired to them in everything we do. We DO want the same things they want; family, love and understanding. We are not turning over and playing dead becuase we chose to have children or get married.

The bigger problem here is the dissention within the LGBT community. We have fallen on each other as rabid dogs intent on punishing anyone who does not conform to some 'pre-ordained' gay model. Why do we have a model? If we truly want to be accepted as 'gay but normal' we had best start realizing that we are diverse as anyone else and work on accepting that.

[Alecto]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

I appreciate Alecto's contributions to this discussion. However I would like to challenge her to explain who is priveleged to call themselves "queer" as opposed to merely "LGBT"? Is it necessary to set "queers" against "LGBT" persons (and vice versa)? Are queers better than LGBT persons? Are LGBT persons sell-outs in a way that queers are not? Or can we avoid "us vs. them" distinctions here too?

(Just throwin' it out there, to start, I'm male. Yes, the handle's a female Fury, but.. )
I'm a little weird with the way I use some words. I like the word "queer". I like to use it with a lower-case-q to be more inclusive of all people who don't fit into the heteronormative conception of society. Heterosexual transfolk, or even heterosexual polyamourous people might fit into this definition. The definition I used above, though, is capitol Q Queer which I use to connote more of an activist, punk-rock, righteously angry kind of a lifestyle. And I very much do NOT want to put that as "above" other queer people. What I was trying to get at is that there ARE these two sides, and I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive and I don't think they HAVE to be at odds with each other, but I'm observing that right now, they do tend to be very wary of each other. The straight-laced lower-case-queer people sometimes want to distance themselves from the more radical and potentially unsavory big-q-Queer folks because the fact is, general society is a lot less likely to accept those folks. The big-Q-Queer people, aside from generally not particularly wanting to assimilate and lose a part of their big-Q-Queer identity, are also a little mistrustful of the other queer folks because they don't tend to be included in a lot of rights campaigning (which fans out into other social events etc). So, when a group comes along that might very well welcome EVERYONE, they might be just a little bit too used to NOT being included to realize that they may very well be welcome.

To clarify and try to directly answer your questions: for starters, "Queer people" as I mean it is more of a subgroup (usually) of LGBT people. I didn't really have a name for the other subgroup at the time. I don't think it's necessary to set the two groups against each other, but when I observe the way things are going, I think it's already happening and my point all along was to try to point that out (not to further that gap).

I think there's WAY too much of everyone in the GLBT community thinking that they're better than those OTHER people in the GLBT community. There's the gay folks who want nothing to do with trans-rights, there's the gay men and lesbians who isolate themselves from each other, there's the gay men and lesbians who refuse to date or socialize with bisexuals, there's the bisexuals who think that monosexuals are somehow morally inferior because they limit the gender that they'll date. Just within the gay male community (with which I'm a little more familiar) there's the butch guys who think the femme guys and drag queens damage gay men's reputations, there's the drag queens and some seperatists who DO think they're "more queer" than the butch guys...I've seen this since I was like...18, when I first was old enough to step into a queer space (a drag club in town), and it's been a MAJOR pet peeve ever since. It's not something I know how to fix, but I DO recognize it, and I try to get other people to recognize and see it. Especially somewhere like here, where honest and heartfelt discussion and dialogue is the norm, that has to be an important first step.

The "better than" and "selling out" bits...my point is that it depends on who you ask. I'm not trying to take a side, but I DO see where both sides are coming from. And not all people on one "side" think ill of the other, but a fair number do. I would love to avoid "us" vs. "them", but I literally don't know how.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

Here is the way I see things. I don't let my sexuality define who I am or what I want in life. I want the same things as every other human wants, plus maybe some different things also. I honestly believe that all people, straight or gay want pretty much the same things in life, understanding, compassion, love and a family.

I like the point you make it, and it is, if I may say so, one of the operating tenets- as I understand it- of nonviolence (which has it's roots in Buddhist/Hundu/Christian thought): we all want happiness- we all want love- we all want to live without pain and unhappiness. That pretty much includes everyone on the planet.

Originally Posted by tymejumper

Most of us define love and family the same. We may go about it differently as some of us get married, commited or make other arrangements that benefit us to get our needs met. Some have kids, others do not. Some count their animals as children or mentor youths and consider that family. Some also may count friends, lovers, ex-lovers, neighbors or co-workers as their family. Blood is not all that binds us.

Why does it matter HOW we define family or weather we set up our families the same as some straight people do? Are we now compairing us and them? Are we judgeing each other as 'fitting in with the man'? Arn't we actually PAST that?

I certainly hope so! That said, I would to take the other side of the argument for a moment, and try to see it as Revtj might, even though the discussion on the other thread created more heat than light. As he noted in his first post...

Originally Posted by Revtj

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?

The idea, as I see it, is that he has qualms about using the word as well as the moniker of 'family' to bring change that equates into anything resembling equal rights for GLBT persons. And while he did not mention this, I wonder if his perspective is one that was very prevelent during the 60's and 70's- that is- that sexual liberation was synonymous with gay liberation. And the word family? That means commitment, monogamy and...ummm.....seemingly less sexual liberation...or to put it bluntly: opportunity.

Personally, I see this as a strawman's argument. It's not as if straight married people (children or not) are any more monogamous than gay people are- married or not with children.

I also see Revtj's argument as saying one thing: "The insistence on 'family' is limiting my ability to be gay." This points- I believe- to the whole matter of autonomy and sexual liberty. Is there a philosophical divide between two camps regarding as to what it means to be gay- that is- between those who do not want or are interested in the benefits and responsibilities of legal gay marriage and those who do not? The answer is yes. There are those who view' marriage' and 'family' as buzzwords for the oppressor.

Originally Posted by tymejumper

The bigger problem here is the dissention within the LGBT community. We have fallen on each other as rabid dogs intent on punishing anyone who does not conform to some 'pre-ordained' gay model. Why do we have a model? If we truly want to be accepted as 'gay but normal' we had best start realizing that we are diverse as anyone else and work on accepting that.

I could not agree more. No one is forcing anyone to get married (as if we can in but one state ) , neither is there - to my ears anyway- the assertion being made that if one doesn't get coupled up and married that one is somehow 'less than'.

And here's another thing to think about: those who are worried about the lessening of sexual liberties (if indeed that is one of Revtj's concerns) may be looking to place blame for that loss on gay marriage, when if anything, the issue that has cast the longest shadow on sexual liberation is not gay marriage, but AIDS- notwithstanding the fact that there are more straight people infected with HIV than gay people.

And if there is an erosion of 'gay space', my sense is that technology has a hand to play. The same internet that allows us to 'meet' here makes it possible for gays and straights to 'hook up'. "Gay Space' is now- for all intent and purposes (with the possible exception of the gay bar and the gay Community Center) a matter of cyberspace.

Originally Posted by Alecto

To clarify and try to directly answer your questions: for starters, "Queer people" as I mean it is more of a subgroup (usually) of LGBT people. I didn't really have a name for the other subgroup at the time. I don't think it's necessary to set the two groups against each other, but when I observe the way things are going, I think it's already happening and my point all along was to try to point that out (not to further that gap).

I think there's WAY too much of everyone in the GLBT community thinking that they're better than those OTHER people in the GLBT community. There's the gay folks who want nothing to do with trans-rights, there's the gay men and lesbians who isolate themselves from each other, there's the gay men and lesbians who refuse to date or socialize with bisexuals, there's the bisexuals who think that monosexuals are somehow morally inferior because they limit the gender that they'll date. Just within the gay male community (with which I'm a little more familiar) there's the butch guys who think the femme guys and drag queens damage gay men's reputations, there's the drag queens and some seperatists who DO think they're "more queer" than the butch guys...I've seen this since I was like...18, when I first was old enough to step into a queer space (a drag club in town), and it's been a MAJOR pet peeve ever since. It's not something I know how to fix, but I DO recognize it, and I try to get other people to recognize and see it. Especially somewhere like here, where honest and heartfelt discussion and dialogue is the norm, that has to be an important first step.

Know what? As a nearly 50 year old gay man, I believe the whole idea of gay community is somewhat overrated. The two words themselves suggestion something unitive, as if there is a body of people who are thinking and acting with a single purpose. As you note, nothing could be further from the truth. It is more accurate to note that an indidivual's pursuit of happiness is....well....individual. And to circle back here, I think this goes back to the issue of marriage. As it stands, the best means possible - as I see it- to make advances for the individual is in the context of gay marriage. And while I am sympathetic to the concerns of those who are single, who feel themselves on the back end of having any tangible benefits from gay marriage, the effort to dismantle marriage would be- as I see it- be more difficult to achieve than the aquisition of the same.

Some might call this a 'if you can't beat'em- join-in' philopophy, but I find it entirely appropriate for Soulforce to address the matter of family and gay marriage especially as these words interface with how conservatives misunderstand and use the bible against GLBT's. I like to think that SF's efforts are made on behalf of the very same persons. If not, I would like to hear a cogent argument on why the current Action- American Family Outing- is illconcieved.

Originally Posted by Alecto

The "better than" and "selling out" bits...my point is that it depends on who you ask. I'm not trying to take a side, but I DO see where both sides are coming from. And not all people on one "side" think ill of the other, but a fair number do. I would love to avoid "us" vs. "them", but I literally don't know how.

I think the answer to this in the words brought to this forum by Anthony- Radical Inclusivenss. With this perspective, which I believe to be- again- in keeping with the tenets of nonviolence, there is no 'us' and 'them', no 'better than' or 'selling out'.

We really aren't merely fighting for the rights of GLBT people, but for all people.

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Daniel

I could not agree more. No one is forcing anyone to get married (as if we can in but one state ) , neither is there - to my ears anyway- the assertion being made that if one doesn't get coupled up and married that one is somehow 'less than'.

And here's another thing to think about: those who are worried about the lessening of sexual liberties (if indeed that is one of Revtj's concerns) may be looking to place blame for that loss on gay marriage, when if anything, the issue that has cast the longest shadow on sexual liberation is not gay marriage, but AIDS- notwithstanding the fact that there are more straight people infected with HIV than gay people.

Know what? As a nearly 50 year old gay man, I believe the whole idea of gay community is somewhat overrated. The two words themselves suggestion something unitive, as if there is a body of people who are thinking and acting with a single purpose. As you note, nothing could be further from the truth. Some might call this a 'if you can't beat'em- join-in' philopophy, but I find it entirely appropriate for Soulforce to address the matter of family and gay marriage especially as these words interface with how conservatives misunderstand and use the bible against GLBT's. I like to think that SF's efforts are made on behalf of the very same persons. If not, I would like to hear a cogent argument on why the current Action- American Family Outing- is illconcieved.



I think the answer to this in the words brought to this forum by Anthony- Radical Inclusivenss. With this perspective, which I believe to be- again- in keeping with the tenets of nonviolence, there is no 'us' and 'them', no 'better than' or 'selling out'.

We really aren't merely fighting for the rights of GLBT people, but for all people.

I'm so glad to see this discussion continuing under another banner. Daniel, there are places I wholeheartedly agree and others where I strongly disagree. First in terms of the single life. As someone who has been single for a very, long, long time, I have to say that there is definately an attitude, in both gay and straight culture, that makes single people feel as an "afterthought." That really needs to be acknowledged. I suspect it is just that experience that may have set TJ off.

I remember the whole approach to free sex somehow overcoming the oppression of monogamy and I found it lacking some 30 years ago and still feel the same today. And you're absolutely right, it was AIDS that made the impact on that issue.

What I firmly believe is that no two spiritual journeys are exactly the same, and I resent ANYONE, be it Jerry Falwell, or whoever is espousing the latest dogma, to tell me that I must live my life according to their rules. The idea of Radical Inclusiveness is exactly what Jesus taught, but remember it also got him killed.

Kara

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by kara speltz

I'm so glad to see this discussion continuing under another banner. Daniel, there are places I wholeheartedly agree and others where I strongly disagree. First in terms of the single life. As someone who has been single for a very, long, long time, I have to say that there is definately an attitude, in both gay and straight culture, that makes single people feel as an "afterthought." That really needs to be acknowledged. I suspect it is just that experience that may have set TJ off.

While I cannot speculate on what 'may have set off TJ', I do remember keenly, however, what it means to be single. (Actually- the State still considers me single....as the thread about the IRS points out.) I also know, as any married person will express - if honest- what it feels like to be totally alone even when in relationship with another person. I view this as part of being human, not gay or straight, single or married. And as a point of fact, most of the gay men I know in my immediate environment (work & life) are single. And while I'm not sure how this fact applies to this conversation, I do know that the majority of them are looking to be in a relationship. And while I can't speak to the experience of lesbians or the transgendered, I am aware that for gay men at least, life can be very hard on the single person: forwhatever reason, we live in an age when youth and beauty are prized about all else, and the single gay man can have a very hard time if he only interacts with other men based on appearances. The fact is, we all fade, age and die. No one gets out alive. So my question is: how are we going to treat each other? With dignity or distain? As I see it, no one, straight or gay, young or old, is disposable.

Of course, the flow of culture and commerce gives allegiance to coupledom. You walk into a restaurant and the maitre'd asks the single person if they are 'alone'. I guess the person hearing this question can be offended or not. But is it a 'comment' on the character of the single person? And should it be assumed that the maitre'd views the single person with scorn? Perhaps. Perhaps not. From the restaurant's perspective, they make more money if two people are dining at a table (and drink a lot!) rather than at the 'bar'. So, if there is attitude, it's a result of economics, not morality. And while this may not seem fair, the goal of economics is not about fairness: it's about making money!

Now- I hear what you are saying about the experience of being the 'afterthought'. I understand this on two levels- though not in the way you may intend- both as a formerly single gay man and as a married gay man. My family has still- to this day- never really addressed their response to our getting married and the invitation we sent them (my parents sent a card- at least they exhibited some manners- one sister sent a note of reprimand and I heard zip from the rest of my 3 siblings) Afterthought? There was no thought at all.

Counter this with the fact that my neice got married a week ago and I went and had a great time being myself: got my mother and my sisters and sister-in-law and my neices up on that dance floor. And I even kidded my nephew that I would have asked him to dance but it would have embarrassed him.....and of course he thought that was a hoot. So time marches on...and I did take the opportuntity (when the invitation came) to let my sister know that I hoped her feelings about me and my guy (she attends a Pentecostal church) had changed, seeing that mine had- I wasn't angry and bitter about it anymore. And I sent her daughter, the bride, a great gift. As Mel says: we have to outlove them. And to her credit....something of a reconciliation took place....all nonverbal of course......but that's my family for ya....not big talkers.

And as a single man in my late 20's and into my mid 30's? My sense is that I am very glad I had that experience in a major city rather than in a rural area. The latter, I am sure, would have been utter hell. I grew up in suburbia and found the experience suffocating. That said, if one doesn't keep one's wits about one, life in the big city can eat one alive. Wanna find a life-partner? Best not to try the bar.....you are more likely to find an alcoholic there. That said....there is an exception to every rule. And the single gay man trains himself to be the afterthought when he stays out all night trolling for the perfect man.....and wakes up the next morning (if he doesn't leave after the sex) to someone he hardly recognizes. In time- he hardly recognizes himself. How do I know this? Because I did that kind of thing, or had it done to me until I wised up (confession over!)

As I see it, it all comes down to what one wants and what one is willing to do- or be. That's why I've said on this forum: If you want a Prince, you have to be a Prince.

That said, I am aware that there are those who do not want to be married or in a traditional relationship. Do they need affirmation and acknowledgment? Certainly! Who the hell doesn't? Whatever road we take in life is our own...and no one else's. Life is hard enough without others making it harder for us. And if single people feel like they are imposed on by society in some way, I would simply like to remind them that being in relationship, while seen from outside as a paradise (or a prison to others), can be very challenging. Of course, comparisons won't help matters here: I don't believe the status of one's being or not being in relationship is any reflection on a person's character or worth. And thoughts of 'greener grass' only arise- as I see it- when fences are erected.

Originally Posted by Kara

I remember the whole approach to free sex somehow overcoming the oppression of monogamy and I found it lacking some 30 years ago and still feel the same today. And you're absolutely right, it was AIDS that made the impact on that issue.

I'm not sure what you found 'lacking' in your statement above. Was it 'free sex' or 'monogamy'?

That said, while I see no reason to make judgements about another person's choices- sexually speaking: the early years of AIDS made it clear to me that whether one is monogamous or not, there is nothing free about sex, either medically or emotionally. Each involvment carries with it many levels and layers of experience. Equally, I think there is nothing free about celibacy either: everything we do or don't do has meaning and a price- one way or another. I guess you could say I'm not one of those people who thinks that if one doesn't mind it won't matter. However, I do know that there are those who seem to lack any sense of conscience about such things. Ah....but what price are they paying, I wonder?

What I firmly believe is that no two spiritual journeys are exactly the same, and I resent ANYONE, be it Jerry Falwell, or whoever is espousing the latest dogma, to tell me that I must live my life according to their rules. The idea of Radical Inclusiveness is exactly what Jesus taught, but remember it also got him killed.

I whole-heartedly agree with your first sentence. We each have our own shoes to fill- as it were. And you are right: Radical Inclusivness can exact a high price. But I also remember the Carpenter saying something about us doing even greater things....and I don't think he meant dying.

That's worth living for, right?

[BenL]

... are two words I would like to introduce to this very erudite conversation. The concepts are lurking beneath the surface, I think.

The point of any action on the part of Soulforce should be to liberate and empower those in society who are otherwise excluded. Hence radical inclusion.

TBLG people need to be liberated and empowered. Straight people who find themselves excluded need the same thing. In our own community, single people who live alone, seniors who no longer turn heads at the bars, single parents who are doing their best to raise their kids, coupled people who are excluded by institutions because they are of the same gender ... we all need to be liberated and empowered. This is about us, not them vs. us.

We need to be freed from the chains that prevent us from seeking and attaining fullness of life. We need to be empowered to help ourselves, our families chosen or biological, our communities gay or straight. That to me was what was under the surface of the previous thread that went south and what we all mean when we seek to define what we should be working for.

Where others heard testiness, I heard pain, but I didn't know how to address it. I'm relieved that these things are getting an airing on the forums. Thanks, Daniel, for reintroducing the topic.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by BenL

... are two words I would like to introduce to this very erudite conversation. The concepts are lurking beneath the surface, I think.

Liberation and Empowerment. Good words. And right off the top of my head they make me ruminate that, practically speaking, they are two things that come from within, that is, the person or persons seeking them. Hence, the motto of nonviolence: be the change you seek.

The point of any action on the part of Soulforce should be to liberate and empower those in society who are otherwise excluded. Hence radical inclusion.

I agree with you. That said, in light of the motto above, my sense is that we have to change ourselves first before any change can take place in others- call it the ripple effect if you want. That said, the old saying applies: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The E-Ride or the upcoming American Family Outing are only effective when those who participate are trained and transformed from within- authentically. That's how I feel about such things anyway. It's not enough to simply have a slogan and a message: there must be a medium- a real live human being- to embody the message in full living color.

TBLG people need to be liberated and empowered. Straight people who find themselves excluded need the same thing. In our own community, single people who live alone, seniors who no longer turn heads at the bars, single parents who are doing their best to raise their kids, coupled people who are excluded by institutions because they are of the same gender ... we all need to be liberated and empowered. This is about us, not them vs. us.

We need to be freed from the chains that prevent us from seeking and attaining fullness of life. We need to be empowered to help ourselves, our families chosen or biological, our communities gay or straight. That to me was what was under the surface of the previous thread that went south and what we all mean when we seek to define what we should be working for.

Where others heard testiness, I heard pain, but I didn't know how to address it. I'm relieved that these things are getting an airing on the forums. Thanks, Daniel, for reintroducing the topic.

I heard the pain too, as did others- and I don't want to digress too much- but I think I made it pretty clear that I heard a whine of complaint too. Duly noted. Those who feel themselves oppressed have every reason to speak out. That said, there is a point, I believe, when the person who is doing the complaining is shouting so loud that nothing is accomplished- and what is so nonviolent about that? (and as I alluded to at the beginning of this thread, my 'hammering' was just that- how very nonviolent of me! ). And that's what I thought happened on the earlier thread. This is, of course, only my opinion and it counts but little.

What I am getting to is this: as much as Actions are needed to effect change, no organization can make changes for us, no one can do the heavy lifting that brings peace to our lives. An organisation or Action can be the catalyst. But the real change? That is up to us.

Yes. We need help. We have to reach out. And those who are downtrodden with the worst of life can have a great deal of trouble reaching out. They can even bite the hand that is trying to feed/reach them in their anger and confusion- as any social worker finds out pretty quick. Those who need the most help often make it very hard for those who want to help: all one has to do is reflect on the plight of the mentally ill in our country to see the truth of this.

What do I think is the appropriate response to all this- proto Buddhist that I am? Compassion. And I'm not talking about some upperclass sense of pity, but eyeball to eyeball awareness and acknowledgment.

Compassion (call it love if you will), as I see it, is not some kind of magic, but a means whereby heart and head are joined together and answers are found when two join as one.

And if one of the two (persons that is) doesn't want to join in common cause, well, I guess that's where the word relentless comes into play.