Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Interesting.

 

Texas judge rules that LGBT workers protected from discrimination.

 

Judicial activism.

 

Or... The government actually working the way it's supposed to, with checks and balances.

 

Oh, yeah...sarcasm mode, in case it wasn't clear. I'm not J-Rod.

 

No I figured it was sarcastic, I was just adding to your argument that such a view is dumb. As if judges don't have a right to be judges.

 

SMDH

 

so the Chinese have a problem with the homosexual content of Eurovision ?

I mean - wtf ? Have they never seen Eurovision ??

 

Isn't this the same state whose legislation is proposing a law that school staff must out students to their parents if a they discover they're queer? So I'm not particularly surprised

 

So where are the people complaining that a female teacher showing pictures of her husband is pushing a heterosexual agenda...?

Honestly, I think it's ridiculous that the school district considers a married gay couple to be a "political issue". It's not. It's settled law nationwide. There ought to be no arguing with it. She's not advocating for a right to the children because she already has that right.

 

We never passed ENDA. Discrimination is still legal against LGBT people in many states.

All of these gray/invisible ones, and the rest have varying degrees of antidiscrimination measures:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_...t_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States.svg

 

Pope Francis tells gay man: 'God made you like this"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/20/pope-juan-carlos-cruz

 

As this is something that I see hotly debated on social media every Pride month for the past 2-3 years, I thought I'd ask this thread for your thoughts:

Do asexuals and aromantics belong in the LGBT+ community?

 

^I'm also interested in the viewpoints of our LGBT+ posters on this question. I wasn't really aware of the existence of an "asexual community" until recently, but from some reading I've done on the topic, there definitely seems to be some disagreement (or even "tensions") around that issue...

 

I feel like the LGBT+ is already too large and unfocused, with outsiders just deciding to lump together all those who aren't "normal," and then reinforced by LGBT+ people and allies by making the alphabet soup of acronyms even longer, and that it get those less-informed confused.. Gender identity and sexual attraction are different things, the only thing in common is that those who deviate from the norm in either have been oppressed and lumped together by their bullies and oppressors. You can be supportive of both and allies of each other while understanding they deal with completely different things, and understanding that they tend to be different communities facing different issues. This has been the bigger controversy I've seen than the asexual/aromantic one. And yes, there's also been bigoted transgender people who view being gay/lesbian/transgender as abhorrent, that if you like the sex you were born as then the natural thing to do is to change yours to the opposite. And there's also been bigoted gay/lesbian/bisexual people who see acceptance of transgenderism as the opposite of what they're been fighting for, of loving yourself as you were made, not trying to change yourself to fit social expectations. And all other weird sorts of views.
As for asexual/aromantic, while it's outside the norm, I'm not sure of there ever being any discrimination or oppression, which is probably the source of any "tension," but I view there being tension on it just silly. Acknowledge they are another minority on the sexual attraction spectrum, but aren't actively suppressed beyond modern societal pressures of viewing wanting a relationship as normal.

 

I'm rather torn on this issue, especially since it's a personal one for me. Honestly, I see both sides.

As a cisgendered heteroromantic asexual myself, I basically consider myself just straight, minus any sexual attraction. I can't help but think of aces/aros/demis as a distinct population bloc from the larger LGBT community. But on the other hand, there is some small overlap. Those on the ace spectrum use the language of being "out" and can likewise face ostracization from family or peers. It's nowhere near as intense as it is for gays, trans, etc., but it can still happen to certain individuals. It's also a deviant sexuality that veers away from the heteronormative standard, just like the rest of LGBT+.

Historically, asexuals have not been part of the LGBT movement, and this is why many exclude aces from the community. But I think what that analysis potentially misses is the fact that aces have also historically not been anywhere near as well known or visible until approximately 10-15 years ago--and thus not even aware of themselves. What I mean is, there were in all likelihood people in the 20th century who were ace, aro, or demi, but didn't have the language to identify themselves as such and didn't know they could be part of the emerging (and more visible) LGBT counterculture. Hell, I never knew I was asexual until I actually had a word for it just a few years ago. I thought I was the only man on the planet who had no desire for sex and no sexual attraction to women (or anyone else). When I found there was a word for that and thus an entire community of people like me, that changed my outlook and how I viewed myself considerably. Regarding LGBT, I'd always seen myself as an ally and nothing more (well, once I left my evangelical worldview behind, that is). Many aces and aros have a similar story.

But does that mean we're actually part of the community? At this point, it depends on how wide you want to make the LGBT+ umbrella. And since there is no official central organization, it can really vary from community to community and even individual to individual. My fellow aces often want to decry exclusion attempts because LGBT "should be inclusive." But the point of LGBT is not necessarily to be inclusive but to be a specific community for sexual deviants and outcasts to have a safe place to be themselves and an appropriate support structure. The acronym itself is inherently exclusionary. It's primarily for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans folks, also including those sexualities that fall under the "plus sign," which commonly extends to LGBTQIA.

That "A" at the end is a sticking point. What does the A stand for? Many of my people claim it stands for asexuals and aromantics, but that wasn't generally the case before AVEN (an asexual awareness organization) sought for inclusion via the A in the acronym circa 2008. Historically the A has stood for ally, in the specific sense of closeted queers who wished to participate in LGBT events and seek resources under the guise of an ally. On the one hand, it can seem ****ty for aces/aros to butt in and push aside closeted queers in that way, but the letters in the acronym can stand for multiple things at once (e.g. Q for queer and questioning). And those on both sides--i.e. the "ally" side and the "ace/aro" side--agree the A can and should also stand for agender. As such, there's nothing really preventing the A from standing for all those things: asexual, aromantic, agender, and "ally".

Again, how broad do we want to make the label? I feel like that's a question to be settled by those who were here first (i.e. the lesbians, gay men, and transgendered). More and more, mainstream LGBT programming, promotion, etc. is including and affirming aces/aros as one of their own as time goes on, with the exclusionists increasingly becoming a vocal minority. Even though history is on the side of the exclusionists, yet that doesn't mean the wider LGBT+ community can't move forward in a more beneficial direction--history by itself is not a deciding factor and it does no one any good to remain stuck in the past!

So on the one hand, I don't see what the larger LGBT community has to lose by letting us in. On the flip side, I'm part of enough, vibrant and supportive (though of course much smaller) ace groups that I don't know why we aren't enough, and why we must seek inclusion from a larger group that is categorically distinct from us, especially when many of them have already rejected us. We simply (as a whole, by and large, though there are individual exceptions) have not faced the same struggles. As a cishet ace, I'm not oppressed. Friends who are homophobic and family members who are transphobic don't bat an eyelash when I tell them I'm asexual. Heck, here in the Deep South I don't look much different from someone who is simply pure and chaste. But then again, the problem with using that rubric is that bi people having relations with the opposite sex is straight passing, but no one would dare exclude them from LGBT (except for some fringe purists, as there is unfortunately still some biphobia in gay circles). Likewise, gay men and women who live in very liberal progressive parts of the world almost never face discrimination or oppression--shall they be left out too, by virtue of not being oppressed enough? We really have to think more carefully about our categories and rationale.

My current stance is that aces, aros, and demis ought to be considered part of LGBT+, but on the outer fringe of that umbrella, if that makes any sense. I almost feel like changing the acronym altogether to something like MOGAI (i.e. Marginalized Orientations, Gender Identities, And Intersex)--which some people already use--could be inherently more all-encompassing and avoid a lot of the problems we have with what is becoming an increasingly archaic acronym.

Ghost made an excellent point about transphobia in gay/lesbian circles and homophobia among certain trans and non-binary folk. There are also strains of racism that run throughout LGBT+. And for my part, I've seen homophobia in ace circles because so many aces are all "Ew sex, icky" that they want to protest both straight and gay couples. Sadly, the founder of AVEN, who otherwise did so much good to promote ace visibility, was horrendously and indefensibly homophobic--something which has led to a lot of ace exclusion to this day, because many see him as the "face" of asexuality. All of it is wrong and needs to be called out for the bigotry it is. But that doesn't mean we judge the sexualities themselves.

TL;DNR version: I as a cis heteroromantic asexual would never presume to count myself part of the LGBT+ community. But likewise, nor could I dare to presume that my fellow aces/aros be left out of LGBT+ either. We need better terminology, better categories... and more understanding.

 

I never heard of that one before... but I like the idea behind it a lot.

 

So after that really heavy post, time for a bit of levity (in spoiler tags due to a dirty word):

Spoiler

 

@Rew -- I rather like the MOGAI acronym. I also like the idea of the LGBT+ world having a "fringe," which acknowledges that all these orientations and identities are spectrums. You can be 100% gay, 75% bisexual-leaning-gay, 50/50% bisexual, and so on. There is something gatekeepery about the LGBT acronym. If your letter is included, you're "in," and if it's excluded, you're "out," which is why people who want to be inclusive keep tacking on letters.

When I looked up MOGAI online, though, the controversy around using such an all-inclusive term is that child molesters and people who practice bestiality could also claim that their "orientations" are "marginalized." People who experience discrimination due to their (adult, human, consenting) sexual orientations and gender identities have enough PR problems without that.

I'm not sure I have a solution when it comes to terminology, but as for the original question, I see no particular problem with including asexual/demisexual/aromantic people under the LGBT umbrella. It's true that no major political parties are scheming to keep them from enjoying basic human rights, but then, as someone pointed out above, no one's out to get bisexual people currently in a heterosexual partnership, either. I'm not sure that there ought to be a "hated by Republicans" litmus test for LGBT inclusion.

 

Here's another big debate on whether it should be included: is polyamory a sexual orientation or not? I've noticed that there's an increasing number of people who identify one of their orientations as "poly."

 

I think it probably is, although I don't know a ton about polyamory. Poly people, even if heterosexual, can experience some significant discrimination, both social and legal. My sister once helped deliver the (triplet) babies of a poly family, which included the father, the mother (not legally married to the father), and the father's legal wife. If, God forbid, this family splits up, what happens next? The wife has no legal standing to visitation with the children she's helped raise, and the mother of the triplets has no legal claim in divorce court to assets she's helped gather together. Recognizing the poly partnership of the adults in this family would solve the problem.

Practically, however, I don't know that there's currently a lot of will to fight for poly people's rights at the moment. Half the country is still having seizures over same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court is increasingly conservative. Making too much noise about discrimination of poly people could trigger a backlash that would end in suffering for everyone who isn't part of a 1950's TV show style family.

Oh--and completely unrelated--a rainbow over the 2018 Pride celebration in Ypsilanti, MI.

 

I have no idea if it applies in the case you're talking about, but I think it's very important to distinguish between "polyamory" and polygamy, the latter of which has a loooonnng history of being heavily skewed in favor of men and oppressing women. I don't think much of marriage in general, and I think it would be better to abolish the institution (parental rights already being its own separate thing) rather than expanding it to what would be cults and other subcultures where one man marrying multiple women is not taboo.

 

Reposted from the U.S. Politics thread because...well, just because I enjoyed it so darn much (thanks again, Vaderize!):

"Maryland gubernatorial candidate Rich Madaleno aired a campaign ad Thursday on “Fox and Friends” that ended with him kissing his husband in an attempt to 'piss off' President Donald Trump"

story link (including vid of the ad itself):

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rich-madaleno-kiss-ad-trump-gay-fox