and yet, there seems something else at work here

Post #350,678 by rcareaga 11/15/11 10:13:35 AM Reply	and yet, there seems something else at work here So had it been an interracial heterosexual pair in the news account speaking of public kissing in terms of "We were simply being affectionate like any normal couple," you would have boggled equally and launched this thread, am I right? Incidentally, you titled that first post "Like any other normal couple," whereas the actual quote was "like any normal couple." Your amended formulation (unconsciously, I trust) bolsters the point you wish to make. To my inner ear, "like any normal couple" lends itself to an implied distinction between the speaker and "normal," as in "We were simply being affectionate like any normal couple." But we're all entitled to a hobby, mmoffitt, and if this kind of usage crusade makes your extremities tingle, then by all means go for it. I can't help thinking as I read your posts, though, that there's a bit of rhetorical cross-dressing going on here, and that notwithstanding your proclamations of tolerance* I hear the rustle—the swish?—of some serious gender unease beneath the fabric of your arguments. cordially, *"I don't object to the gay couple (hell, they could mate - er, sorry - they could do whatever they want on the airplane for all I care)" —Now where have I heard that sort of thing before? Oh yes: "I don't care whether he's black, white, purple or green!" as a rule spoken by persons to whom the "deviations" from white matter a great deal indeed, although they are uneasy about saying so.
Post #350,686 by mmoffitt 11/15/11 11:25:46 AM Reply	There may be something else, I'll grant. When I first typed the line you cite, I almost edited it because I had unconsciously written "mate". I decided to leave it only because, in my mind, I hadn't distinguished between sexual practices of homo and heterosexuals as I wrote it. While I do not care about anyone's sexual proclivities, and I am old enough, Southern enough, to believe that's it's no one's business and should not be openly discussed, let alone displayed, there is something about what has been called "the GLB movement" that disturbs me. When I was a very young man (18 and 19) living in Long Beach and working in San Pedro, my dearest friend was a bisexual man about the size of a house. He was originally from the same region of the South where I was born. This was a very different time - even in Southern California and AB (his initials) was sometimes openly persecuted for his orientation. I could not abide that. All that said, I'm uncomfortable with comparisons between what the GLB community has suffered in the way of persecution with what Blacks and other minorities have suffered - and continue to suffer today. Moreover, I'm not at all comfortable with the establishment of "protected class" status for anyone based upon their sexual orientation. There may be a hint of that underlying my posts here. But my original point stands. At least for now, it is not normal to be gay. Saying otherwise is just silly. Your all too typical, "Well you don't like it because you are confused about your own sexuality" is beyond ridiculous. Am I supposed to be offended by that? If so, you failed. And if that was your intention, who is the real homophobe?
Post #350,713 by rcareaga 11/15/11 3:37:57 PM Reply	Nah. Wasn't really suggesting that "you are confused about your own sexuality," although I was aware that it could be taken that way. I'm sure your hetero credentials are impeccable, but I also carry away the impression that you are seriously queasy—or, if you prefer, old enough and Southern enough—on the subject of same-sex couples and coupling. With your formative influences I might feel the same way; after working in San Francisco for a third of a century your attitudes seem merely droll. When you say that you "do not care about anyone's sexual proclivities, and...believe that's it's no one's business and should not be openly discussed, let alone displayed," am I to understand that you find all public romantic displays—kissing, hand-holding, embracing— or discussions of such attachments offensive? You must not get asked to many weddings. But stay! Perhaps you are not scandalized at boys and girls together and would prefer merely that boy-boy or girl-girl couples keep their goddamn hands off one another so that decent people don't have to look at them? In which case, there certainly appears to be a "protected class" here, and it ain't the fags. cordially,
Post #350,714 by mmoffitt 11/15/11 3:53:03 PM Reply	In general, I do find public displays inappropriate. Not all of them, certainly not holding hands, hugging, etc. but slobbering all over each other tongue-down-the-throat whilst engaged in heavy petting or more, yes, that is inappropriate in public. Even when I was younger ("Get a room" I often muttered). And that attitude was and is definitely NOT restricted to homosexuals, whom I might add, in my limited experience, are far LESS likely to grope one another in public than are heteros. In simpler words, "Why is one's sexuality such a big goddamned deal?" I seriously don't get it. But I will admit that I am of the strong opinion that anyone claiming the need for "special consideration" on account of it is a loon.

Welcome to IWETHEY!