It's a long read, but worthwhile.
The comments on the site are very interesting. I particularly liked this one from "Del" on the most recommended list of comments:
"You don't need to cling to Queer Theory to be gay, you don't need to cling to Fundamentalist Christian Theology to be straight. You don't need to live in San Francisco to be gay, you don't need to live in Wyoming to be straight. You don't need to be a professional gay, you don't need to be a professional straight. You don't need to be gay to be sexually attracted to be men, you don't need to be straight to be sexually attracted to women. You don't need to be sexually attracted to men to be gay, you don't need to be sexually attracted to women to be straight. You don't need to reject gays to be Christian, you don't need to reject Christians to be gay. You don't need to be straight to be Christian, you don't need be Christian to be straight.
Before you lived a "gay" life, you were telling others how to live theirs. Before you knew what it meant to be "gay", you were defining it for everyone else. Before you live a "straight" life, you are telling others how to live theirs. Before you know what it means to be "straight", you are defining it for everyone else. Before you experience "Christianity", you are telling everyone else what that experience is.
Life is not a theory. Live life.
You say,
- I dunno if I agree with it
- You don't need to be sexually attracted to men to be gay
I think Del might be suggesting a post-gender life (as I've poked at on hubski here and there). Words and categories and theories are far too limiting to accommodate all of us. Del seems to prefer individual definitions for gay/straight/Christian/.
However many people prefer stricter definitions for words - that's why "gay marriage" seems so obvious to some people and seems like a complete impossibility to others. I'm kind of hesitant to be too certain about anything.
While I admire the sentiment - living life according to one's own principles - "individual definitions" of collective terms seem, well, utterly useless. If I have my own idea of what my being gay means, that's fine, but if I try to talk with someone else it just won't work, as Raxyn suggests.
It's like if I decided that "cheese" referred to pigeons. No-one would understand me.
Except that most people agree that there is a continuum running from 100% gay to 100% straight with most people somewhere in between - so how can you define gay as a collective term when there are 50 shades of gay and you can live your life redefining it from time to time.
- If I have my own idea of what my being gay means, that's fine, but if I try to talk with someone else it just won't work
It won't work if they insist that gay means only one kind of gay.
Oh, I'll agree with you there. I'd never insist on essential definitions of sexuality (indeed, I'm aware that the notion of categorisation based on sexual identity is a historically recent construction).
I'm just caught on your mention of "individual definitions". If I define "gay" as attraction to the same sex - let's just say a woman attracted to a woman (avoiding for now the debate re: gender and sex) - and you don't think it is necessarily defined by attraction to the same sex, then you and I will not understand each other. You will say that you are gay in conditions in which I will deny your gayness.
My point is just that there is an inherent problem in asserting that you are gay if there is no criterion at all for gayness.
Yes, as I say above, that was one point in Del's comment that I had specific problems with. If, as he says, "You don't need to be sexually attracted to men to be gay" -- then I'm not sure what his gayness is based on - possibly other factors, as there is a whole associated lifestyle. Let me add that you don't need to be believe in God to be Jewish. (Hitler certainly didn't care what your belief was.) I suspect you also don't need to accept Jesus as your personal savious to consider yourself Christian. You may not need to support Obama to be a Democrat..... and so on. Labels are convenient ways of categorizing people and I think Del was showing how REDUCTIONIST all these labels were --- but for myself, I think I would have to be attracted to my gender to call myself gay or bi. On the whole I liked his comment but I agree that minimally one should have some attraction to the same sex to consider yourself gayish.
This was a truly fantastic read. I appreciate the lengths the writer goes to figure out what happened to his friend.
I can see why he would change his life after the scare that happened with his heart, but I am unable to discern why he chose to take such a hard right turn and become the thing that he hated the most.
It's possible that, like how his old boss said, that he never really was gay in the first place. Just a young man who was entranced by an idea and once he was satisfied he was overcome with another idea and is right now perusing it.
- It's possible that, like how his old boss said, that he never really was gay in the first place.
I think this is what was referred to when the article mentioned 'restrictive labels' or something along those lines. What does "really gay" mean? Can you even ever accurately define a thing like sexual desire? It brings to mind a certain Subnormality comic, I'll try and hunt it down and link it.
No need, I have read the comic you are referring to. I probably worded it incorrectly in the first place to be honest. The point that I was trying to get across was that he might have had a desire in a particular person (Which is most likely because of the long time relationship with his boyfriend) and by doing that he became a part of a culture that he didn't believe in.
It's even evidenced in his outspoken-ness for the cause. The enthusiasm is directly related to the belief in the cause. Since he was trying to convince himself that he was a part of it, he tried harder than those who were actually a part of it.
This also is shown by his change in beliefs. His tenaciousness is unchanged, it's just the idea that he is trying to convince him self of is what's changed. He's still as outspoken as ever, but for a different idea.
Much like the writer of the article, I am not phased by his life style change, I am disturbed by his anger towards the group that he once defended.
I don't think he came across as angry so much as he came across as having a ton of baggage. Which makes a lot of sense, all things considered. He changed his stance on a HUGE amount of his life, and was dealing with how his old life saw the change. It's never fun to feel like you aren't supported by those you once called friends, and that's probably how this bloke feels. Figuring out where your faith fits in with the rest of your life (or vica-versa, I guess) is an extremely difficult task that every Christian, heck, every religious individual, has to come to terms with. This guy is new in his faith, and he's already dealing with all of the baggage that comes with it. It's understandable if he's a bit standoffish, he'll grow.
I'm pretty sure I know the one you're talking about, the one with all the monsters? (That narrows it down, go me -_-)
And to be honest, I think it's pretty easy for an individual to define something they do as gay. To an outsider it may not be so simple, but the individual in question has a perspective the outsider doesn't, as well as direct, accurate knowledge as to his or her own motivation and thoughts. I think sometimes we as people complicate things needlessly in our efforts to find out how everything works.
- I think it's just as likely that he's being sincere. I don't know what's in his head though, so I guess I can't really tell.