?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Recent Entries Friends Archive Profile Tags Emma Love's Stories
 
 
 
 
 
 
Okay, upfront there are three things you should know: One, as far as gay marriage is concerned I don't honestly care all that much one way or another - I am much more invested/interested in getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell." I know some may disagree but I feel the whole "don't ask, don't tell" thing is a far more pressing at the moment issue. Two, the crap I'm sprouting in this entry is not remotely scientific, though it may refer (once or twice) to something that is scientific (and even a couple things that only pretend to be). Three, my epiphany is not your epiphany - meaning just because it took me awhile to figure this out, doesn't mean that some one else didn't figure it out sooner.
(I was afraid I'd wuss out and f-lock this, and I almost did - I is cowardly sometimes - until I realized that my LJ isn't widely read so it doesn't matter that much anyway.)


Also, almost related interlude: Look, I know you (the gay community in the US) feel as though you've waited long enough, and believe it or not I do understand, but I suspect you ARE going to have to continue your wait. Think about this. Obama wanted (wants?) to give Health Care Coverage for all, but that isn't going very well, is it. (No, that wasn't a question.) If he's having this much trouble trying to give everyone health care, I really don't see how he'd manage to successfully champion for the homosexuals. *shrug* Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but for anything that would have to go through congress... Well, it probably won't happen. Now back to the regularly scheduled entry.

This started coming to me on Monday, during the morning read of my morning paper. Now one thing that should probably be made known is that because of where I live my paper generally has a conserva-slant rather than the liberal bias people say is everywhere, but it isn't near as bad as Fox News. Anyway, I am personally more liberal than conservative, though sometimes I find myself on the conservative side, not often, but it does happen from time to time. This, however, is NOT one of those times.

And while I was reading that article that was sorta when everything slammed together in my mind and I suddenly understood some things that come from the Anti-gay side. I, like others, had always assumed they were basically pulling stuff from their you-know-where, because people weren't accepting the "God said no" point anymore. But that really isn't it, from their point of view the links they make and the conclusions they draw make perfect sense to them, and even if people accepted the "God said no" point they would still be making these connections to the gay.

The article in question wasn't even talking about gays pro or con, though there was a hint or two of Anti-gay slapped in. The article was actually about the whole Roman Polanski deal. There are people (myself included) that are disgusted that more than a few people think it is perfectly acceptable to defend the grown man who raped that little girl. Now I AM NOT saying that being gay is like being a rapist, because, unlike others, I know the difference, but...

This is exactly the kind of connections the Anti-gay crowd make all the time. Now gays aren't defending this guy, at least not as a whole, but the Anti-gay crowd won't really care about that, unless they did come out supporting him. So, if the gays aren't supporting the rapist, why would the Anti-gay make a connection here? Because (sadly) in their mind this is exactly what they mean when they talk about that so-called slippy slope.

Now I know, as well as others, that the gays are no more inclined to rape than any other human (they are human, after all), but because there are people who think it's actually okay to defend the man who raped a thirteen year old girl... Well, they believe that because the door has started to be pushed open for one sex group outside the norm that it is literally opening the door for ALL. They honestly believe that if we (general we) let the gays marry then it won't be long until people start accepting the truly unacceptable when it comes to sex. They are honestly terrified that will be the outcome if we start allowing gays to marry, which is baffling. But this is what I finally figured out - in their minds, it's all sexual deviancy (and apparently there's no such thing as consenting adults... *deep breath* Another rant, another time), and therefore in their minds it is all connected. This (the fact that some people, not gays, feel it is okay to defend a rapist) is where they honestly believe the debate on gay marriage has brought us - just the debate. The mind tends to boggle, but I've come to believe that's why the Anti-gay links being gay with things like sex with animals and child rape...
It doesn't help when some zoophiles want to equate their struggle with the gay/lesbian struggle.
Surprisingly the link she's work safe, but I should note that it is a different site from the one I first saw trying to link the zoos and the gays, which was much more insistent about the sameness, but I can't find that page again even using my internet history cache.



On a somewhat semi-related note: You (general you) are NEVER going to convince certain people that a grown man who rapes a boy child is straight. They will accept that Polanski was straight - grown man raping little girl is sick and twisted, but still straight sex, but a grown man raping little boy is also sick and twisted, but cannot be called straight sex, and you aren't going to change the minds of the Anti-gay crowd by continuing to insist that a grown man who rapes a boy child is not gay.

The mostly defunk gay gene (Another Link) hasn't helped either.

And I'll even admit that I'm totally not surprised that a gay gene, or group of genes has not been found despite over a decade of looking. Want the truth? I personally feel that at birth humans are most likely born bisexual, (but I'm not claiming to have proof of that), and that other factors play a part in which side they end up on.

Strange when you consider that bisexuals get no love.

That's right, I'm looking at breeders AND queers here. More often than not when someone says "bisexual" everyone gets the Colbert look on their face. You know the one just before he yells "We're at war - pick a side!" *crosses arms and glares back* Maybe we don't want to!

But speaking of breeders for a moment, it is that reason why I've never believed there was/is a gay gene. Sure gays could breed, but until modern times they would have needed to do so the old fashioned way, and if there really was a gay gene that would be unlikely. Ergo, if there really was a gay gene there probably wouldn't be any gay people in modern times.
(Or it would come by way of bisexuals, so really when you think about it bisexuals should totally get all the love.)

And, whether you believe there is a gay gene or not, the Anti-gay crowd is even more firmly set against the idea of a gay gene than I am, though for sometimes drastically differing reasons. And those folks are reading sites like the following: The True Origin (which is the first link that came up when I typed "gay gene" into the google machine), OneNewsNow, and Open Salon.
Yes, I read all of them, and they are all among some of the first links that came up with I typed "gay gene" into google.

Sadly, I don't think some will ever be convinced that there is a difference between BDSM, sadists (of the actual criminal variety), gays/lesbians, zoophilia, rape, child-rape, beastiality. It should be noted that some of those are "practiced" by at least as many straights as gays, and just like some straights don't play not all gays play, but to the Anti-gay crowd it's all the same - sexual deviancy. And those same Anti-gay folks don't approve of those other things anymore than they approve of the gay, because in their minds it is totally all the same thing, and one links to another, and so on...

*sigh* Now I've depressed myself... I'd go look at a good leather fetish site, but alas I still haven't found one - we that love leather don't care about the boobies or the cock (or at least I don't), damn it, we WANT the leather! The human body completely enclosed in leather (head to foot), hell yeah! The human body half covered in leather with boobies/wangs out, also acceptable, but there has to be as much leather displayed as there is flesh for us true leather lovers. Just saying. *sigh* Alas, we leather lovers don't get much love either, but that is also another rant for another time.

ETA: This is almost just like my epiphany a few years ago about why lesbians are somewhat more accepted in/by mainstream than gay men. It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize it.
The epiphany there was that people (even women, for some weird reason) find it easier to accept lesbians, because in their minds lesbians can't actually have sex (unlike gay men who are so totally poking each other - all the time. *cough* They are in my head, but I don't think that counts.), because lesbians don't have the right equipment... Which leads to a certain amount of teeth grinding on my part sometimes, because the implication is that every lesbian is only a lesbian until the "right" man comes along. Just like the idea some men have that if a gal isn't interested in him that she absolutely must be gay. *sigh*
Weird considering that I postively adore the movie Chasing Amy. It's actually on the list of all time favorite movies for me.

 
 
 
 
 
 
[start rant] I'm sick and tired about the whole bloody pooha about sexuality, I don't care if you're straight, bi or gay, I have friends in all catagories and they're all wonderful people thats why they're my friends, as for genes, 63% of the human DNA is the SAME AS THAT OF A BLOODY CABBAGE!! so gene this or that, it doesn't matter, as for the rest, humans can be really really REALLY perverted, end of discussion, some of them will hurt people, some don't, as for why? no idea, mental problems, point of view, whatever, thing is that all of the above named groups have their share of them.
Lesbians can have sex, you know that a poker isn't needed to get off big time, as for why they are accepted, I think I mentioned it before but to men it might be that there could be a very small opportunity to have two girls in bed instead of just one... ;) (and yeah of course: It ain't happening) ;)
As for the "right man thing" I guess some men just have a ego problem then..
[end rant]

As for leather and the like, you can always go buy a bike suit, and adjust it to your wishes, or just keep it in one piece and visit me and we'll go drive around on my GS 500 ;)



*grins* Yes, I am perfectly aware that lesbians can have sex. My point is that from the point of view of some they can't, and for those who believe that it makes it somewhat more acceptable.

Also, yes, humans are perverted - I've always been. ;) But again even perverted doesn't always mean evil/bad/wrong/whatever. I've known many in the BDSM thang over the years, and for the most part they aren't evil/bad/wrong/whatever.

*sigh* Bikes suits generally don't do it for me...
Oh I fully agree that perverted doesn't mean evil, usually its more like fun instead. ;)

So no Hope babe in a tight leather bike suit? pity.. ;)
Probably not. You see, I'm not so much turned on by what I wear, but what others wear, so either way a bike suit wouldn't do it for me.