Turing is really one of the most shameful cases- never mind his brilliant work in mathematics- never mind his seminal work in the now-important fields of computing and artificial intelligence- Churchill (who himself admitted to having slept with a man) called him the single man most deserving of credit for the ending of the war (enigma machine, anyone?). Yet he was entrapped by the intelligence services after being arrested for admitting to homosexual activity, and since he demonstrated (by agreeing to work with them again) that he could be blackmailed, they tormented him with a bizarre 'curative' regime which culminated in forced administration of female hormones, resulting in his growing female breasts. He later committed suicide.

THAT needs to be taught.

Yes, the Turing case needs to be taught. That is an egregious example of what can and has gone wrong with a system and the destructive nature of predjudice.

But to go back to Neil Patrick Harris? Who the heck cares if this tv actor is gay, straight, or whatever? His sexual orientation has absoltuely nothing to do with his medicore talent. (I know I am using him as only one example.)

I am a straight white man, so maybe I don't see things from the same perspective. BUt when I was on the equestrian circuit, I never once considered an opponent's sexuality but rather my chances of beating him or her (well, one guy was very flamboyantly gay, and it was rather hard not to to think about that given what he used to wear in the ring.)

To me, and I am writing as an outsider to the situation, I would think it is sort of the dancing bear syndrome. It is not how well the bear dances, but rather that is is dancing at all. "Look, he is not a bad actor...for a GAY man." "Look, he is not a bad swimmer...for a BLACK man." "Look, she is not bad in math...for a WOMAN."

But I admit, I might be totally missing the point.

.

Sadly, many of our worst detractors are those who may themselves have had- well, experiences, if not tendencies of the same sort- and they especially feel the need to attack gay people whenever possible to 'prove' their straight status to themselves and others.

Carrie Nation Syndrome

The words of Pierre Seel (who died in 1985). Both he and Jo were 18 when they were arrested and taken to a concentration camp. This happened 68 years ago so it's modern LGBT history I suppose:

"Days, weeks, months wore by. I spent six months, from May to November 1941, in that place where horror and savagery were the law. But I've put off describing the worst ordeal I suffered. It happened during my earliest weeks in the camp and contributed more than anything else to making me a silent, obedient shadow among the others.

"One day the loudspeakers order us to report immediately to the roll-call. Shouts and yells urged us to get there without delay. Surrounded by SS men, we had to form a square and stand at attention, as we did for the morning roll call. The commandant appeared with his entire general staff. I assumed he was going to bludgeon us once again with his blind faith in the Reich, together with a list of orders, insults and threats - emulating the infamous outpourings of his master, Adolf Hitler. But the actual ordeal was worse: an execution. Two SS men brought a young man to the center of our square. Horrified, I recognized Jo, my loving friend, who was only eighteen years old. I hadn't previously spotted him in the camp. Had he arrived before or after me? We hadn't seen each other during the days before I was summoned by the Gestapo.

"Now I froze in terror. I had prayed that he would escape their lists, their roundups, their humiliations. And there he was before my powerless eyes, which filled with tears. Unlike me, he had not carried dangerous letters, torn down posters, or signed any statements. And yet he had been caught and was about to die. What had happened? What had the monsters accused him of? Because of my anguish I have completely forgotten the wording of the death sentence.

"The the loudspeakers broadcast some noisy classical music while the SS stripped him naked and shoved tin pail over his head. Next they sicced their ferocious German Shepherds on him: the guard dogs first bit into his groin and thighs, then devoured him right in front of us. His shrieks of pain were distorted and amplified by the pail in which his head was trapped. My rigid body reeled, my eyes gaped at so much horror, tears poured down my cheeks, I fervently prayed that he would black out quickly.

"Since then I sometimes wake up howling in the middle of the night. For fifty years now that scene has kept ceaselessly passing and re-passing though my mind. I will never forget the barbaric murder of my love - before my very eyes, before our eyes, for there were hundreds of witnesses. Why are they still silent today? Have they all died? It's true that we were among the youngest in the camp and that a lot of time has gone by. But I suspect that some people prefer to remain silent forever, afraid to stir up memories, like that one among so many others.

"As for myself, after decades of silence I have made up my mind to speak, to accuse, to bear witness."

That's why LGBT History is important. To remind us of what can happen if we let it.

And once again, it is this type of history which needs to be taught, lest we experience this kind of horror again.

I don't want to belabor a point, and I am certainly not trying to cause any offense. But what I have seen in my casual perusing of websites or magazine articles or even in conversations with gay men is that "Gay Pride," if I can use that phrase here, consists mostly of "Lincoln might have slept with a man, so he is gay." "Churchill slept with a man, so he is gay." "da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Cole Porter--all gay." This despite a complete lack of proof or if a person was actually bisexual. And I just don't get it.

To me, let's take an actor like Nathan Lane. I like the guy and enjoy watching him. I find him believable and funny, and I "buy" it when he is in a straight leading man role. I understand he is gay just as I understand he is white, and I would understand if he goes to LGBT functions. But I don't think of him as a "gay" actor, and I am not sure why people want to point to him as an example of gay pride.

There was one "Famous Gays" site I saw which trumpeted Richard Hatch, the first winner of Survivor, the very same guy who went to prison for tax evasion.

But people who infuse their life with the fact of being gay, for good or bad, that is different. When being gay has its own consequences, then that should be taught. Harvey Milk. Alan Turing. The Holocaust. Matthew Shepard. I wrote earlier about Rufus Wainwright. I don't think about his sexual orientation when I listen to his hauntingly mesmerizing voice, but I guess his work on gay education and rights would actually put him in this category as well.

Please don't take any of what I have written as being anti-gay by any stretch of the imagination.

I think that you are confusing consciousness-raising and historical revision, which are elements in building gay pride, with gay pride itself.

It is important that the historical elements which have so often been removed, ignored, downplayed, scorned, mocked, denied, misinterpreted, or remained untaught or unmentioned be restored to public confidence. That is so that gay people can have a sense of belonging to mainstream history and culture, something which the conspiracy of silence, homophobia, and repression have denied them. This reduces the feelings of alienation, isolation, and lack of community history that would otherwise tend to make gays feel as though they were somehow abnormal, or unique to this time, place, or culture. In this respect, it is important to show that powerful and famous figures of the past and present participated in the behaviours and/or feelings that characterise us as different. One easy way to accomplish this is to report on plausible accounts of gay sexuality/identity as well as we can given limited information and documents. (The many pornographic homoerotic Greek art pieces kept hidden by scholars sometimes literally for centuries are a good example, as well as the widespread homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom- not least among your namesake and avatar, the Bonobo, our genetically closest living relative).

Not all gays are scholars or academics- for better or for worse. Such types are not going to be interested or impressed in Greek vases or animal sex- they find it much more relevant and affirming that familiar icons from current and/or past pop culture can be identified with the gay world. I am guessing that the actor you mention (with whose work I am unfamiliar) falls into this category. Different strokes for different folks, and since there are as many different types of gay folks as there are straight, there will be many different types of needs to address.

Gay pride itself is the unapologetic and affirming YES to one's own gay identity which comes when one can be proud and happy TO BE GAY- with indifference to the homophobia or misunderstanding of others, or one's own former self-directed homophobia- without wishing to be other than one actually is. Self-acceptance and self-love as a gay person is the essence of individual gay pride. Or at least that's my best one-paragraph summary of it at the moment.

Reaching the point of this pride is not that easy, considering the forces working against it both externally and internally. Many of the external ones are probably obvious to you- but have you also counted the prevalence of straight imagery and the straight presumption that gay imagery needs to be scare-flagged somehow as "mature" or "unusual"- if a gay movie were not explicitly marketed as gay, and straights saw it "by mistake," would they be upset? What about the "natural" presumption everyone has that you will marry or be involved with an individual of the opposite sex, so that we are the ones who must (if we choose to risk it), explain ourselves constantly socially? What about the temptation of the closet, or even for fake relationships and marriages, for those who feel they can "pass?" There are so many "straight" men who wind up sleeping with men- and not allowing their feelings to become involved to the natural conclusion- because they are not ready to *identify* as gay, even though they have already recognised the needs of their libido.

Then, on the other hand, you have the reverse effect- homophobia and self-hatred of the knowing gay. It is not always easy for everyone to overcome the self-repression and programming society forces upon us all to take that step and do "disgusting" things- which are really beautiful things, also done by members of the opposite sex with each other- with those intriguing same-sex individuals.

Well, anyway, I hope this helps make some of the material you may have seen (and I don't know what that actually was) easier to understand.

The words of Pierre Seel (who died in 1985). Both he and Jo were 18 when they were arrested and taken to a concentration camp. This happened 68 years ago so it's modern LGBT history I suppose:

"Days, weeks, months wore by. I spent six months, from May to November 1941, in that place where horror and savagery were the law. But I've put off describing the worst ordeal I suffered. It happened during my earliest weeks in the camp and contributed more than anything else to making me a silent, obedient shadow among the others.

"One day the loudspeakers order us to report immediately to the roll-call. Shouts and yells urged us to get there without delay. Surrounded by SS men, we had to form a square and stand at attention, as we did for the morning roll call. The commandant appeared with his entire general staff. I assumed he was going to bludgeon us once again with his blind faith in the Reich, together with a list of orders, insults and threats - emulating the infamous outpourings of his master, Adolf Hitler. But the actual ordeal was worse: an execution. Two SS men brought a young man to the center of our square. Horrified, I recognized Jo, my loving friend, who was only eighteen years old. I hadn't previously spotted him in the camp. Had he arrived before or after me? We hadn't seen each other during the days before I was summoned by the Gestapo.

"Now I froze in terror. I had prayed that he would escape their lists, their roundups, their humiliations. And there he was before my powerless eyes, which filled with tears. Unlike me, he had not carried dangerous letters, torn down posters, or signed any statements. And yet he had been caught and was about to die. What had happened? What had the monsters accused him of? Because of my anguish I have completely forgotten the wording of the death sentence.

"The the loudspeakers broadcast some noisy classical music while the SS stripped him naked and shoved tin pail over his head. Next they sicced their ferocious German Shepherds on him: the guard dogs first bit into his groin and thighs, then devoured him right in front of us. His shrieks of pain were distorted and amplified by the pail in which his head was trapped. My rigid body reeled, my eyes gaped at so much horror, tears poured down my cheeks, I fervently prayed that he would black out quickly.

"Since then I sometimes wake up howling in the middle of the night. For fifty years now that scene has kept ceaselessly passing and re-passing though my mind. I will never forget the barbaric murder of my love - before my very eyes, before our eyes, for there were hundreds of witnesses. Why are they still silent today? Have they all died? It's true that we were among the youngest in the camp and that a lot of time has gone by. But I suspect that some people prefer to remain silent forever, afraid to stir up memories, like that one among so many others.

"As for myself, after decades of silence I have made up my mind to speak, to accuse, to bear witness."

That's why LGBT History is important. To remind us of what can happen if we let it.

And once again, it is this type of history which needs to be taught, lest we experience this kind of horror again.

I don't want to belabor a point, and I am certainly not trying to cause any offense. But what I have seen in my casual perusing of websites or magazine articles or even in conversations with gay men is that "Gay Pride," if I can use that phrase here, consists mostly of "Lincoln might have slept with a man, so he is gay." "Churchill slept with a man, so he is gay." "da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Cole Porter--all gay." This despite a complete lack of proof or if a person was actually bisexual. And I just don't get it.

We all need heroes. role models and symbols of validation. You, as a straight man, are surrounded by them. They're more difficult to find if they, and you, are member of a legally proscribed group. Now that homosexuality is no longer illegal in most of the west perhaps we're just playing catch-up?

Harking back to the post that started this thread I can think of two good reasons why the 'gay rights' banner should be flown outside South Wales police headquarters. The first is to emphasise that the police consider gay folks to be an ordinary part of the greater population. One of the problems with crimes committed against homosexuals is that it's still very difficult to get the rest of the gay 'community' to provide information to the police. Some of us have long memories. The second is to persuade anyone who's gay and thinking of becoming a policeman that they're welcome to make a career of it.

BTW please stop apologising for your opinions. There's nothing offensive or anti-gay about them. It would be nice if everyone was as rational as you.

It's commonly touted in the Southern States of the USA that any amount of African blood, regardless of how far back the ancestor, makes one irrefutably black.

I was wondering what the guidelines were for deciding a persons "gayness"? Would one homosexual contact be sufficient?

A friend once held hands with a ladyboy in a bar after too much to drink, would this... errr...

Ijustwannateach and Endure:

Both of your posts bring up valid points.  Perhaps as a straight white man, I have never had the need to feel validated.  And perhaps because of my past experiences, I am well aware of the travails of being gay in the US and many of the people who some gays trumpet as also being gay.  I have had several long evenings with gay friends discussing being gay, when did they know, how did they tell their parents, have they ever had sex with a woman, etc?  I only know one gay woman well, but I do have some very close male gay friends.

I am a rather complex person, as all of us are.  As I am what I hope to be a rational man, my life philosophy boils down to not hurting others.  Pretty much all else is OK.  And while intellectually, I think bi-sexuality is a rational outlook on life (certain sexual acts are, after all, the same whether performed by a male or female), and as a "rational" man, I see nothing wrong with that; however, I am just not wired that way.  Perhaps that is actually hard-wired in my brain or perhaps it has something to do with having been a victim of a sexual assault as a young boy, I really don't know. Whatever the reason, while I have gay friends and can talk about all aspects of a gay lifestyle, I don't want to see explicit male-to-male sexual images on the screen (I have not problem with the Greek images).  I love the US HBO show, The Wire.  And one of my favorite characters is Omar, a hoodlum who robs drug dealers.  He is gay, but when he kissed his lover, I have to admit to a small feeling of being uncomfortable.  And I still have not seen Brokeback Mountain. So as a "rational" man, why does this make me uncomfortable?

I have no problem with anyone flying the gay rights banner.  And I can see the point about making a statement that it is OK for a gay person to join the police.  I am just not convinced that the methods used to bring about gay rights, at least as how they are done in the US, are the most effective methods which can be used.

For example, I watched a gay pride parade in San Francisco.  While many of the participants were perhaps flamboyant, they were still suitable for family viewing.  But some men were bordering on the x-rated, and I think the public in-your-face sex tends to solidify feelings in some people that gays are sexual deviants rather than people like anyone else who by-the-way, enjoy the company of their own gender. Maybe I understand why someone who has felt repressed would go to an extreme in a parade like that, but I think it might do more harm than good.  Gary pride parades, by their very definition, are there to build pride within the gay community, but they are also a reflection of the gay community to the rest of society.

 I am rambling, I know.  And I have deviated from where I thought I was initially going in both this particular post and my participation in this thread as a whole. So Iam going to sit back, gather my thoughts, and post again if I have anything pertinent.

(And yes, I am well aware of the bonobo's proclivity of all things sexual, to include homosexual activity. They cerainly are happy little guys!)

^Excellent and very honest post.

Re. ethics, clearly there is very little (nothing, that I can think of) that a gay man can do that doesn't have its straight parallel- and laws pretty much cover all of those cases now.

Re. a bit of internalised homophobia, it's pretty much the same for most men raised in the U.S.- even gay ones. However, this is an area where cross-cultural comparison is useful- while gay images might be surprising in some contexts in other countries, they simply would not ignite the visceral horror run-screaming-away-ewwww-yuck reactions that are common in the U.S., where people would be happier to see people torturing and murdering each other rather than see two men kiss. Therefore, it is a learned and not a natural reaction, pretty much a cultural taboo that is only now beginning to fade.

Another telling point is that gay men in the U.S. (or other countries) typically do not have a problem with watching straight sexuality- many of us have had girlfriends for periods of time, and in any case we can't get away from it. I do know of a few misogynist gay types, but they are not what you would call the 'norm.'

Re. flamboyance and public display, the issues you raise are contentious even within the gay community. On the one hand, there is a deep anger at the repression of the past and the continuing cultural repression of the present- the attitude might be, 'why shouldn't we be able to hold hands anywhere we want without abuse? And if you won't allow us that, then in the spaces we have we're simply going to do *everything* we want to.' There is also a countercultural argument against our Anglo-Saxon issues with sexuality in general. On the other hand, extremism is offensive to many (including many gay men) and we don't identify with it. I imagine as a gay presence becomes more widely accepted in mainstream culture, the occasions for such flamboyance will fade (to the regret and relief of many).

Many people are also uncertain about the *political* 'liberation' model which has been adopted in the U.S. and the UK, and it is certainly not representative of everyone's values. I find it to be rather too commercial and replicative of the broken models and institutions of the straight world- I would certainly never want a traditional marriage, whether with a man *or* a woman, for example. But without some single model to unite behind politically, we'd never get ahead- politics American style do not reward pluralism, not really. So if it came to it, I would vote for 'pro-gay' political legislation as the 'rights movement' has framed it, possibly while hiding a moue of distaste.

With the cop example, I can see both sides- on one hand, cops are agents of the state and it is a conflict of interest for them to be flying (for example) religious banners, political party banners, etc. On the other, given the long and adversarial nature of the relationship between cops and gays in many places, it is a strong and worthwhile statement to make that cops can be proud and gay, too.

^Excellent and very honest post.

Re. ethics, clearly there is very little (nothing, that I can think of) that a gay man can do that doesn't have its straight parallel- and laws pretty much cover all of those cases now.

Re. a bit of internalised homophobia, it's pretty much the same for most men raised in the U.S.- even gay ones. However, this is an area where cross-cultural comparison is useful- while gay images might be surprising in some contexts in other countries, they simply would not ignite the visceral horror run-screaming-away-ewwww-yuck reactions that are common in the U.S., where people would be happier to see people torturing and murdering each other rather than see two men kiss. Therefore, it is a learned and not a natural reaction, pretty much a cultural taboo that is only now beginning to fade.

Another telling point is that gay men in the U.S. (or other countries) typically do not have a problem with watching straight sexuality- many of us have had girlfriends for periods of time, and in any case we can't get away from it. I do know of a few misogynist gay types, but they are not what you would call the 'norm.'

Re. flamboyance and public display, the issues you raise are contentious even within the gay community. On the one hand, there is a deep anger at the repression of the past and the continuing cultural repression of the present- the attitude might be, 'why shouldn't we be able to hold hands anywhere we want without abuse? And if you won't allow us that, then in the spaces we have we're simply going to do *everything* we want to.' There is also a countercultural argument against our Anglo-Saxon issues with sexuality in general. On the other hand, extremism is offensive to many (including many gay men) and we don't identify with it. I imagine as a gay presence becomes more widely accepted in mainstream culture, the occasions for such flamboyance will fade (to the regret and relief of many).

Many people are also uncertain about the *political* 'liberation' model which has been adopted in the U.S. and the UK, and it is certainly not representative of everyone's values. I find it to be rather too commercial and replicative of the broken models and institutions of the straight world- I would certainly never want a traditional marriage, whether with a man *or* a woman, for example. But without some single model to unite behind politically, we'd never get ahead- politics American style do not reward pluralism, not really. So if it came to it, I would vote for 'pro-gay' political legislation as the 'rights movement' has framed it, possibly while hiding a moue of distaste.

With the cop example, I can see both sides- on one hand, cops are agents of the state and it is a conflict of interest for them to be flying (for example) religious banners, political party banners, etc. On the other, given the long and adversarial nature of the relationship between cops and gays in many places, it is a strong and worthwhile statement to make that cops can be proud and gay, too.

Thanks for your input.  All of us can learn more aobut life if we have discussion such as these vice some of the insult-hurling threads found eslewhere in TV.

I understand that my queasiness at seeing sexual contact between men is not logical.  I am not queasy about simulated violence on television, as you pointed out, as I know it is fake (I was, however, extremely queasy when seeing some of the Saddam tapes as that was real).  So why does it bother me?  And only the visuals of it bother me.  I have no problem in any discussions about it.  

On the other hand, I am not as queasy about it as I was before.  I have had occassions to observe if not acute homosexual acts, then borderline acts, and I am more at ease now about it that I have been in the past.

On a hypocritical note, I have no problem with observing gay female activities.  I rather like a bi-sexual woman, in fact. BUt that may also have to do with an indoctrinated fantasy.

Comparing hetrosexual queasines at seeing homosexual acts is not the same as the reverse, though.  Probably every gay man I know has had at least some degree of sexual contact with a woman if not actual intercourse. And the mere fact that a man can perform intercourse takes some degree of acceptance if only for an erection to form.  A gay woman can be the "recipient" of straight sex, but a gay man has to be a participant.   Also, there is the factor of "normalacy."  Young men are taught in the US that having sex with a woman is "normal," all else is not.  So even is a man decides he is gay, and even if he understands that being gay is normal, too, he can accept hetrosexual sex as being normal as well.  However, a straight man is taught from an early age that homosexuality is "abnormal," so for him to view images of that, that flies in the face of this indoctrination.

Which, I guess, is just another reason to justify gay pride and gay rights events.  Education is the heart of the matter.

It's commonly touted in the Southern States of the USA that any amount of African blood, regardless of how far back the ancestor, makes one irrefutably black.

I was wondering what the guidelines were for deciding a persons "gayness"? Would one homosexual contact be sufficient?

A friend once held hands with a ladyboy in a bar after too much to drink, would this... errr...

Being homosexual is a state of mind, not a quick fumble

When are they going to have a special month for all those of us that don't have an excuse?

We white, heterosexual men don't have the "I didn't make the team/pass the exam/get the job because I am a woman/gay/black" get out. If we don't make the grade we just weren't good enough. We have to go away, analyse where we went wrong, improve our performance where necessary and just plain deal with it. No support groups, no special needs counselling just a quick blubb in our beer then get on with it.

I appreciate that we are not subject to such predujices as the groups mentioned but it is coming round that way with positive discrimination.

When they have these gay pride weeks they get all sorts of financial support from all manner of governmental and non governmental organisations. What if we organised a straight pride week, what support would we get? Bu66er all is the answer not even 10% off Viagra.

Anyway next time I'm back in the UK I'm having a London Pride week, anyone whatever their ethnicity, gender or sexual preference can join in but you have to buy your own beer.

^So, Phil, you can give us the names of gay individuals who have gotten ahead in the straight world through affirmative action? I'd be glad to hear some, because I don't know any- and I know a lot of gay people. Otherwise, if your beef is with affirmative action in general, that's not really what we're talking about on this thread.

It's commonly touted in the Southern States of the USA that any amount of African blood, regardless of how far back the ancestor, makes one irrefutably black.

I was wondering what the guidelines were for deciding a persons "gayness"? Would one homosexual contact be sufficient?

A friend once held hands with a ladyboy in a bar after too much to drink, would this... errr...

Being homosexual is a state of mind, not a quick fumble

Good joke but also a good point- straight men can and do have sex with other men, on occasion- just as gays have been known to have relationships with women. It's only from the white Anglo-Saxon point of view that it somehow steals your straight purity, or whatever it is that you guys think happens when a straight man enjoys good sex with another man. Had a good friend in college who admitted once he and his best friend tried it out just to see if it was anything they were really interested in- and turns out it wasn't, and no big deal.

Real sexuality- and perhaps intimacy of any kind- is shades of grey, exceptions, moods, 'you had to be there' immediacy- it's not the black and white binary boxes that the straight world wants to believe in.

Thanks for your input.  All of us can learn more aobut life if we have discussion such as these vice some of the insult-hurling threads found eslewhere in TV.

It's incredibly refreshing to have a real, honest, and unthreatening and unthreatened dialogue with a genuinely curious straight person about comparative sexuality.

I understand that my queasiness at seeing sexual contact between men is not logical.  I am not queasy about simulated violence on television, as you pointed out, as I know it is fake (I was, however, extremely queasy when seeing some of the Saddam tapes as that was real).  So why does it bother me?  And only the visuals of it bother me.  I have no problem in any discussions about it.  

But do you realise that most of the sexuality depicted in movies is also simulated? Many actors who play gay characters are not actually gay (and many actors who play straight characters ARE gay), and I doubt very much that filmed, on-screen movie sex is all that arousing for its participants most of the time even if they are attracted to each other. Leonardo DiCaprio has been filmed kissing both men and women, and I still don't think I've ever seen a convincing lovemaking sequence in one of his movies, with either gender.

Would it surprise you to learn that long after I realised I was attracted to men, even after I had become physically involved with them, it took a long time for my own queasiness over viewing men kissing on film disappeared? The conditioning for the taboo runs that deep.

On the other hand, I am not as queasy about it as I was before.  I have had occassions to observe if not acute homosexual acts, then borderline acts, and I am more at ease now about it that I have been in the past.

On a hypocritical note, I have no problem with observing gay female activities.  I rather like a bi-sexual woman, in fact. BUt that may also have to do with an indoctrinated fantasy.

I hope you'll allow me a small giggle over the phrase "acute homosexual acts..." ... but I think speaking in those terms rather than just describing what you saw does show a continuing level of discomfort with the issue which you have already admitted and are bravely discussing here.

It's partly the product of a society which has hidden, demonised, and shamed any reference to homosexuality through most of the last century. Something which should seem natural and normal to us causes alarm as something 'unusual' because people simply have not been exposed to it (and have conspired in the coverup).

Comparing hetrosexual queasines at seeing homosexual acts is not the same as the reverse, though.  Probably every gay man I know has had at least some degree of sexual contact with a woman if not actual intercourse. And the mere fact that a man can perform intercourse takes some degree of acceptance if only for an erection to form.  A gay woman can be the "recipient" of straight sex, but a gay man has to be a participant.   Also, there is the factor of "normalacy."  Young men are taught in the US that having sex with a woman is "normal," all else is not.  So even is a man decides he is gay, and even if he understands that being gay is normal, too, he can accept hetrosexual sex as being normal as well.  However, a straight man is taught from an early age that homosexuality is "abnormal," so for him to view images of that, that flies in the face of this indoctrination.

Whether or not I choose to participate, I don't find watching heterosexual flirting, social groups, kissing, petting, intercourse, etc., to be repellent or unpleasant at all- there's no desire to close my eyes, run away, express revulsion, loudly and defiantly declare my homosexuality, etc. If there were some 'natural' repulsion to those who are not one's primary choice of sexual partner, we should find it across-the-board, in various cultures as well as in the different gender types within a culture- but that is not what seems to actually happen, except mainly from straight men (and not women) in certain nations and cultures.

Also, sex does not equal intercourse. Various forms of oral and manual stimulation are available to all combinations of two people of any gender, and not all types of people like to participate in all (or even any) types of penetrative intercourse.

Your analysis of the cultural indoctrination is part of the repressive cultural coverup we've been talking about!

Which, I guess, is just another reason to justify gay pride and gay rights events.  Education is the heart of the matter.

You got it!

It's really nice to hear a straight guy talking about his feelings on these things openly, honestly, and so clearly without being threatened by the issues under discussion!

With the cop example, I can see both sides- on one hand, cops are agents of the state and it is a conflict of interest for them to be flying (for example) religious banners, political party banners, etc. On the other, given the long and adversarial nature of the relationship between cops and gays in many places, it is a strong and worthwhile statement to make that cops can be proud and gay, too.

In the UK the Army, the Air Force and the Royal Navy all have uniformed representation at Gay Pride marches. They also have recruitment drives. I don't think that's possible in the USA?

No way, never heard of that! Great that they can do that in the UK, though!

When are they going to have a special month for all those of us that don't have an excuse?

We white, heterosexual men don't have the "I didn't make the team/pass the exam/get the job because I am a woman/gay/black" get out. If we don't make the grade we just weren't good enough. We have to go away, analyse where we went wrong, improve our performance where necessary and just plain deal with it. No support groups, no special needs counselling just a quick blubb in our beer then get on with it.

I appreciate that we are not subject to such predujices as the groups mentioned but it is coming round that way with positive discrimination.

When they have these gay pride weeks they get all sorts of financial support from all manner of governmental and non governmental organisations. What if we organised a straight pride week, what support would we get? Bu66er all is the answer not even 10% off Viagra.

When straight folks have children they get all sorts of financial support from the (DWP calculated from the last census) approximately 6% of the UK population that's gay. We help to pay for the schools & universities they go to. We pay our share of tax towards child support for other people's children. I've yet to see gays complain about paying our share towards something that is of no benefit at all to us. I also suspect that our share of subsidising other people's children is considerably larger than any subsidy that goes to gay pride marches. We pay tax like you. We expect some of it to be spent on us.

On the other hand isn't our children in time paying for the future hospital treatment you receive, the roads you drive on, grow up to be paramedics, policeman, the Doctors that will treat you and your family.

A few quid a week is a poor price to pay, I'd say.

Nothing personal endure, you are one of the good guys, that is just a poor argument.

Good Luck

Moss

What's a poor argument? That we expect a very small proportion of the tax we pay to be spent on us? That partial subsidy of two or three days out each year which anyone, gay or straight is welcome to join is too much to ask? That all sorts of other organisations predominantly for straight people can be subsidised but we can't simply because we're gay? That's a pretty shabby state of affairs, if so.

Edit: BTW I'm not even sure whether the pride marches are subsidised or not, I'm just taking Phil's word for it. I've never been to one.

I've yet to see gays complain about paying our share towards something that is of no benefit at all to us.

What's a poor argument?

The above quote is a poor argument, you get no benefit from paying into support services of parents.

However, if Pride marches are subsidised, then is of course right, I am sure you contribute to the rugby matches I go and see too.

I think that using one argument support another, when both are wrong is a poor reflection of the debate, a case of two negatives not equalling a positive, I'd say.

I think we all benefit from support of services which help keep society functional and together, whether it is for straights or gays, adults or children- it's just a shame there isn't enough of it. A typical way to divide us folks in the middle class amongst ourselves is to pretend there's not enough money around to take care of us.

Anyway, there's clearly not enough public money devoted to gay causes (except perhaps spent by grandstanding conservative politicians spending money to publicise legislation against us) to make it a real issue of it dividing gays and straights, or somehow 'discriminating' against straights.

I've yet to see gays complain about paying our share towards something that is of no benefit at all to us.

What's a poor argument?

The above quote is a poor argument, you get no benefit from paying into support services of parents.

However, if Pride marches are subsidised, then is of course right, I am sure you contribute to the rugby matches I go and see too.

I think that using one argument support another, when both are wrong is a poor reflection of the debate, a case of two negatives not equalling a positive, I'd say.

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I do think it's a bit rich to have straight folks moaning about subsidies to gay organisations when I've spent the last 43 years subsidising their children.

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I do think it's a bit rich to have straight folks moaning about subsidies to gay organisations when I've spent the last 43 years subsidising their children.

If we have to agree to disagree then OK, but I think I am agreeing with you in certain areas, I agree with subsidies toward gay organisations and I have never moaned about it.

I disagreed with certain areas of your argument.

Good Luck

Moss

If we are talking social policy, how about steering the subsidies to those who need them. Gay or straight when in employment contribute with their taxes to societies pot.

The pink pound, mark or yen is an extremely well documented, worldwide ecomomic force. As a group ( and I can only speak from personal experience ), the gay friends I have ( yes boys before you start the feeding frenzy, I do have some, great lads to a man ) are relatively to the society they live in affluent. The majority of one child single teenage parents are not.

If you advocate true integration, in these times of economic hardship, how would you justify giving subsidies to a group who as a whole ( granted by their own efforts) are doing well, whilst keeping these much needed funds, from perhaps the socially more needy ?

I think that government bodies at local and state level support gay marches with traffic closures and police supervision to the same level as they do returned soldiers, St Patrick's Day marchers etc, or for that matter, political protesters. This all costs money, the police and the council workers could be elsewhere but public demonstrations, political or otherwise, are a part of our democracy.

I suspect that what they would like public money for, as does any other minority group, is to fund positive publicity campaigns in the media.

The argument over who and what group is more deserving of a slice of the tax payers money is ongoing. There would many who contribute to this board who would say that subsidising the socially needy promotes idleness and giving money to any self interest group is totally outrageous, while the billions, (trillions?) which have gone into recent ongoing wars, of course, is money well spent.

While the median salary of gay men in the US is slightly higher than that of straight men, if you factor in the fact that many if not most gay men do not have children, then their disposable income is much higher (and hence, a lucrative target for businesses.) But that does not mean all gay men are rich or comfortable or even live safe lifestyles.

There has been a little back-sliding in the safe sex aspect among young gay men in the US, so there has been tax dollars spent to try and stop this backsliding with outreach and education programs. But that is hopefully money well spent, not just for humanitarian reasons, but also for pure dollars and sense when you figure that these lower-income men might most likely become a tax burden should they become HIV-positive or suffer other health problems. And this is no different for other outreach programs aimed at other sectors of the population ranging from teens to the homeless to women's programs to immigrants.

I would tend to think Sceadugenga is right about the gay pride expeditures. I think the civic expenditures have to do with police and emergency personnel, just as for any other parade or football game, for that matter.

We all pay taxes for things we don't personally use. I don't smoke, but I pay taxes for programs which try and get people to quit smoking. I don't have children, but I pay taxes for schools (although I was student, as were we all, so I did benefit then.) I am not homeless, but I pay for opening shelters. Heck, I live in Thailand, so my federal and state taxes don't reflect in direct benefit to me very much. Yet we all pay taxes as part of a community. And we all might benefit in the future, if not from one progam, then from another.

I've yet to see gays complain about paying our share towards something that is of no benefit at all to us.

What's a poor argument?

The above quote is a poor argument, you get no benefit from paying into support services of parents.

However, if Pride marches are subsidised, then is of course right, I am sure you contribute to the rugby matches I go and see too.

I think that using one argument support another, when both are wrong is a poor reflection of the debate, a case of two negatives not equalling a positive, I'd say.

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I do think it's a bit rich to have straight folks moaning about subsidies to gay organisations when I've spent the last 43 years subsidising their children.

Sorry Endure but i got to agree with Moss on this one. Straight people who are childless still pay into the system. And Gay couples who adopt children or who had children from previous relationships are entitled to subsidies. I have only just had a kid but paid into the system all my life and never moaned about it. And now i do have a kid, because i live in Saudi Arabia, i'm not entitled to subsidies, such as family allowance etc.

I think it's unfair that a Polish immigrant who hasn't paid into the system gets family allowance as soon as they arive in the UK but me, who has paid into the system all my life, doesn't get a penny. But that's tough, i made the choice to come and work in Saudi.

There are many valid points that have made in this thread that give the straight "guy" food for thought, i just don't think that this one is at all relevant

Talking about these subsidies to gay organisations- does anyone have any actual examples? The only organisation which I know anything about is London Friend, a help/advice switchboard which has been going for 40+ years. They rely completely on private donations and have never taken a public subsidy.

^So, Phil, you can give us the names of gay individuals who have gotten ahead in the straight world through affirmative action? I'd be glad to hear some, because I don't know any- and I know a lot of gay people. Otherwise, if your beef is with affirmative action in general, that's not really what we're talking about on this thread.

I apologise if my reply caused offence. That certainly wasn't intended but I was just making the point that all this equality movement, good as it is, is having a negative byproduct in that non-minority peoples are starting to feel marginalised, abandoned and forgotten. I go back to the UK fairly regularly, well at least twice a year, and when I'm there I socialise with working class people. I say "working class" because there isn't an easy way to define them unless I use the ABCD 1234 terms which I find abhorrent to use as a reference to people. Anyway this is the feeling I am getting and I have expressed it elsewhere. All this positive discrimination, as well as the excesses of PC, are turning the ordinary people towards the version of extremism that voices their concerns. These policies, whilst probably achieving their aims, are in danger of polarising society similar to the red/yellow shirt movements. A lot of people blame G.W. Bush for starting it with his "you are either with us or against us" statement but that is not true, it has been around for a long time.

Anyway I disagree with your assertion that affirmative action is nothing to do with this thread. It has everything to do with this topic. Why should police stations display any sign of affiliation to any group within society? Would it be okay if next month they flew the flag of the KKK? But no, that would be racist but they could fly the flag of some black support group. This is what is creating unnecessary tensions in modern society and, to be fair, most minority groups want to distance themselves from it.

Edit: BTW I'm not even sure whether the pride marches are subsidised or not, I'm just taking Phil's word for it. I've never been to one.

Hand on heart I can't say for sure where all the money come from but certainly some public funds are allocated. On top of that there is the issues of policing, road closures, after event clean-up etc. Of course these costs are incurred for all events from football matches to children's carnivals but for most of those there is an attendance fee some of which goes to peripheral costs.

I am just concerned with the compartmentalisation of society where we all have to fit in the correct shaped holes in the board and have to stand out as being different. I am also concerned where society has to be seen bending over backwards to accommodate one sector or another.

As for paying for services we don't use you could say that pacifists have to pay for the military, drug users for the DEA (or Brit equal), criminals for the police (?) [joking ], the healthy for the sick etc etc. Although gay couples pay for the education system they don't have the children to put through other members of their society, and I am talking society as a whole not just the gay community, benefit from. These benefits manifest themselves as benefits to all society from a better educated populace who are better equipped to interact with society in general.

<Edit : Bu66er, just realised this is my 4,000th post Well better here than out in General arguing over the financial merits of opening a beer bar in Thailand >