(Part 3) Top products from r/gay

I'm not a conservative, but as someone living in the UK I don't think it's fair to compare David Cameron's politics to that of the American Republican party. The usual consensus over here is that our conservative party, the Tories, are politically more in line with the Democrats in America. Over here the Republicans come across as totally batshit.

>I believe that to be be a conservative and to support gay rights are not mutually exclusive. They, in fact, can go hand in hand if we look at it through the correct lens.

I completely agree. And Cameron's statement, which you quote, makes that case perfectly. In fact one of the best conservative arguments in favour of gay marriage I've read was Virtually Normal by Andrew Sullivan. He shows that from a socially conservative point of view, gay marriage makes a whole lot of sense, and that gay marriage is absolutely something that conservatives can, and should, support. The book is over 15 years old, but many of the points he makes are still being thrown around in discourse today.

But having said that I don't see how you, as a gay person, can support the Republican party.

>I believe politics doesn't need to always be black and white

Which is precisely what the Republican party would have you believe. Not only do ~74% of Republicans oppose gay marriage (compared to ~34% of Democrats ~40% of Independents), but Republican supporters have made it quite clear that they do not even want any gay people in their party. Case in point.

The Republican party quite literally hates you.

> you end up with a cultural association that manliness = fucking women, which leads to not fucking women = unmanly, which leads to homophobia.

I think that's a remarkably simplistic and rather shallow way of thinking about sexuality and homophobia.

Culture has to have a foundation somewhere. To suggest that basing it from biology [is a bad thing] is to suggest that it have no foundation at all. The problem is when cultures become averse to augmentation and evolution. Cultural stagnation is what leads to homophobia, not the reality of biology.

There is no one single cause behind homophobia, and anyone telling you that is just plain wrong. There are, however, a few bigger causes of it. Now, my focus in research for the last few years has been in homophobia in a high school setting - so what follows is mostly associated with that (specifically, US high schools).

One of the larger causes of homophobia goes way back to our more primal roots: pack behavior. We are codified to align with a larger pack, because throughout history those outside of the pack aren't treated well, and (going way back) end up dying of starvation or exposure.

So, skipping a whole lot of time, let's turn the page to the high school setting - which is probably more like the old pack behavior than any other time in one's life. Many / Most kids haven't an inkling of what they'd like to be - and not just in career trade, but in what sort of person they'd like to be. So, packs form around social custom. Much of this - and this is the point you were trying to make - comes from how they observe others behaving. And, naturally, much of this comes from the media. (Sidepoint: HS is also where the gender divide begins but that's a whole different paper).

The harsh reality is, fucking women does equate to a higher social standing. It is codified into our systems, through centuries of natural selection. There were points in our evolution that said, "If you don't spread your seed, you'll be pointless." That's a pretty important thing to have in the genes when you're trying to establish a species.

We're no longer at the point where we need that in our mentality, but it is still codified in there, like it or not. Social customs and social obligations are two different things. Two hundred, even a hundred years ago, you were socially obligated to pump out a few kids to help in the fields. A few decades ago you were obligated to pump out some kids to complete the Nuclear Family (two children, minimum, generally).

As much as the Conservative Right here in the US wants [you to believe], you're no longer held to these obligations. Thankfully.

But all of this time with these obligations which have now become customs has left us with a bit of generational lag. My mother, for instance, has a seven brothers and sisters. I've got one younger sister - that's a good indicator of how much generational obligations/customs have changed.

Part of that generational lag occupies a large part of the media, for several reasons. 1) Sex is codified, and because of that, sex sells. As the media is discovering, all kinds of sex sells - so this little media lag will be going away in a generation or two. 2) It becomes part of the cycle (we're still seeing what's socially acceptable to the previous generation on TV - we're just now seeing that change, just like it'll change again at the end of our generation / set of generations).

Let's get back to our high school kids, who've been organizing themselves into their little wolf packs (thankfully, the French gave us a better word: clique). They see these social customs in the media, and naturally use them as a boilerplate for their own behavior.

Now, here's the important part: evolution.

Turns out, a lot of people get sick of these social customs in the previous generation, and they end up passing those protests on to their kids. That's why you have a generation of women who, when told to stay in the kitchen, respond with, "Go fuck yourself." Over a few generations, this leads to some pretty profound social change. That's how you go from women's suffrage being proposed in 1878, to proposed as an amendment in 1919, to ratified in 1920, and to having the first woman <insert_pretty_much_anything> about a generation (give or take) later. 96 years between "Women? Voting? Sure, I guess." and "Hillary 2016!" seems likt a lot, but think about it. That's the rough lifespan of one person.

And each time a huge social change sweeps through, it makes the ones that follow even easier. Just look at LGBT rights. It didn't take 100 years for a massive amount of change. It seems slow to those of us who get to see the worst of it - but it's remarkably fast.

The other, and in my opinion slightly more important factor in social change, comes from the "Defense of the Different."

It's easy to lose yourself in the articles about cruelty - and that needs to be dealt with. But what we very rarely take note of, is how often it happens that things go well.

Another natural, codified, part of our humanity, comes from saving face, both of ourselves and for our friends. When we form bonds of any sort with another person, we expect those bonds to stay intact [and will take lengths to defend them]. The act of "coming out" is a pretty big change in those bonds, and the reason the process is so painful is that you know you're changing the relationship, because - in a way - you're changing your character. Most of the time, these things go just fine. Horror stories scare us so much because, well, they're horror stories.

Anyway, without going on that particular tangent for another six paragraphs, I'll get back to the simpler point: people like their friends. So, say you've got our little pack of high school kids. Say one of them comes out. The natural reaction of the group may be to cast out the injured individual and keep moving. This is where our evolution comes into play, and when we're supposed to say, "So what?"

Friends have the ability to grab back onto that person and pull them back into the group. The group changes. The group evolves. And as that group grows up and gets out into the world, that little interaction shapes the way they deal with people in their lives.

All of this is very complex, and I'm leaving a whole lot out for the sake of brevity.

The West Wing addresses this group behavior with a nice little DADT discussion that I'm quite fond of.

My points are:

1. There are things codified into our system. One of those things is "fuck women procreate, be powerful."
   
   
2. Codified behavior is the basis of our social structure.
   
   
3. The evolution and adaptation of our base social structure is what leads to social change.
   
   
4. Social Change comes in many shapes and sizes.
   
   
5. Homophobia doesn't come from "fuck women, be powerful." It comes from, "This is something I've never encountered before, and I'm scared of it."
   
   
6. We, as a species, get over it^1 by saying, "Oh, this is what that is. That's not so bad." ^1 - "it" can be replaced with anything: women voting, blacks in the military, gays being a thing, gays in the military, etc.
   
   
7. Having social obligations and social customs doesn't lead to a problem. The species neglecting to evolve those social customs is a problem. (We're doing a damn good job of evolving).
   
   ---
   
   Some further reading:
   
   
8. "Dude, You're a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School", an ethnographic study conducted and authored by C.J. Pascoe. (Read this even if you're not interested, it's good.)
   
   
9. "On Facework" - Goffman. One of the best papers on social identity and obligations we hold to each other.
   
   
10. "Victory" - Linda Hirshman. Documents the LGBT community's rise from minority outcast, to one of the strongest and fiercest social movements in the world.
    
    
11. "Queer Bullying" - Tracey Peter & Catherine Taylor. "How Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia Hurts Students".
    
    
12. "The Ideology of "Fag": The School Experience of Gay Students" - George Smith.
    
    
13. Hallway Fears & High School Friendships: The complications of young men (re)negotiating heterosexualized identities" - Michael D. Kehler.
    
    These are only a few of the papers you could read, there's an absolute mass of research out there on homophobia and heteronormality. All it takes is some patience, some reading time, and the ability to coherently form a message from combining and understanding a mass of other content (which is what I do!).
    
    --
    
    Some edits, noted in strikethrough or [additions].

Critics who are against gay marriage, but for social justice:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Equality-Queer-Critiques-Marriage/dp/0615392687/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345951108&sr=8-1&keywords=Against+Equality%3A+Queer+Critiques+of+Gay+Marriage

One cultural commentator who see gay marriage as a desire to conform:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Are-Faggots-Afraid-Objectification/dp/1849350884/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

One article against gay marriage:
Is the LGBT movement walking down the aisle to nowhere?
http://inthesetimes.com/article/13466/beyond_gay_marriage/

Another gay activist against gay marriage:
http://hivster.com/?p=6315

Here are some books I like on general life advice:

The Way of the Superior Man

How to Win Friends and Influence People

The Enchiridion - how a Roman slave overcame disability and used philosophy to survive harsh times, it's a short but challenging read

Happy to help! A few links to get you started:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0609809539/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_HEheAb4BZK6XS

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BBXJH2C/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_FIheAbDT1FDCR

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HEN3JHW/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_hJheAb7V76CNX

Oh I see, you don’t understand that gender and sex are two different things. The concept of gender expression is probably meaningless to you, and yet you probably couldn’t be bothered to learn what it means, so you wouldn’t understand that the reason why a person’s gender expression is expected to match a person’s sex is because it (knowing who the “men” and who the “women” are) makes it easier for men to oppress women. You also don’t understand that gender is a social construct, and I’m guessing you don’t understand what a social construct is either. You’re definitely not aware that what you just said was both sexist and transphobic, because to you masc and femme are indistinguishable from the bodies that perform them, which is why men never cry and women don’t play sports. I’m guessing “male” in that scenario is someone with a penis, so you obviously don’t understand how human reproduction works, and are probably not considering the problem hermaphroditism poses to the gender/sex dichotomy like the fact that some children are surgically altered to be given a penis or a “pussy” at birth because they are born with ambiguous genitalia. Never mind the fact that genitalia has little to do with attraction because it’s kept under clothes(edit: although I acknowledge genital attraction is a thing). You clearly don’t understand that biological sex is different to identify anyway due to the complexity of genes for example people born XXY or XYY, but none of that matters because you’re a troll.

You might want to point them towards Eshel and maybe Wrestling with God and Men which is a book written by a gay orthodox rabbi, that is very positive and helpful, and looks at the halacha critically, but within tradition.

These are some of my favorites in no particular order:

• Sprout
  
  
• Boyfriends With Girlfriends
  
  
• The Evolution of Ethan Poe
  
  
• Thinking Straight
  
  
• Absolutely Positively Not
  
  
• Desert Sons
  
  
• Into This World We're Thrown (Desert Sons Sequel)

So, there was a Christian Evangelical who did something like this: Timothy Kurek, Jesus in Drag.

There are people who have also done similar things. Black Like Me. Self-Made Man.

I don't know how I feel about this. For one, it doesn't feel kosher, and there are so many layers of privilege... and so much disbelief as to whether he'll get it right, or how much he'll get wrong.

You know what I think here? Common People. Specifically, the lyrics "Cause everybody hates a tourist, / especially one who thinks its all just a laugh."

He's going to be a tourist. He'll have the ability to call his dad to end it all, so to speak. He won't really have all his friends vanish, or have those bridges burn, or lose his roots.

I understand the value in having someone cross those lines, and then go back and educate those that didn't what it's like on the other side. I appreciate how difficult it can be. I don't want to dissuade your son from his project, but it makes me so uncomfortable.

The Art of Fielding -- http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Fielding-A-Novel/dp/0316126675

Gentrification of the mind by sarah schulman is my all time favorite memoir of the AIDS crisis. It is a really major document for me in my art practice. Probably one of the most important books to read as a queer individual in my opinion!

https://www.amazon.ca/Gentrification-Mind-Witness-Lost-Imagination/dp/0520280067

Not that I have read them but here is a direction to look in.

These for China

Western Queers in China

The Libertine's Friend

Obsession

Passions of the Cut Sleeve

This one is for Japan

Male Colors

And check for Kindle versions, they cost tons less.

Prepare to take a massive shit. Also, if you're suffering from depression, doing these may help that, too.

Actually, homicide rates are the lowest than they have ever been https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

compared to rates in 1996 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf

There are far too many factors which might influence the decline of firearm related deaths in the late 90's. If you've never read Freakonomics it actually looks at some of the factors which may have lead to the decrease in crime. Basically the theory is that in the wake of the legalization of abortion, people who would have later grown up to be criminals were never born. The book explains it much better than I can, but this is kinda getting into the weeds a bit. My argument is that even if the ban persisted beyond the 2004 expiration, you can't attribute any decrease in crime to the law's success because it is far too complex of an issue to be boiled down to a single factor.

I already gave an explanation for why I don't think these weapons should be further restricted. They account for a tiny fraction of firearm related deaths. If we assume that every death caused by a rifle in 2013 (which is one of the years included in one of the FBI report tables I linked to) were committed by a different person; then what you are suggesting means changing the law because of 0.0000009% of the population. To me, that seems like a huge waste of time, money, and effort that could be spent on way more important things like healthcare.

To be perfectly honest, yes, I think that recreational drugs should be legal, so long as it is done in a way that doesn't negatively impact others. Imagine a world where there are no longer drug dealers. If you want to do heroin, cocaine, or meth, all you would have to do is go down to a store, present ID, make your purchase, then you go home, do your drugs, and everybody can be happy. Prison population would decrease, no more petty street crime, no more adverse effects due to drugs being cut with (more) toxic chemicals. To my knowledge, no country has ever tried it.

There is no other platform that is as adaptable as the AR-15. That is its whole point of existence.

Again, my entire point is that banning or restricting a certain type of firearm will have no effect on the total number of crimes. As I have repeatedly pointed out, you don't have to have an AR-15 style rifle to kill a lot of people. In previous events, large numbers of people have died in single events from a shooter using nothing but two handguns. 50 people could have died from handguns just as easily. Would we be having the same conversation if that were the weapon of choice?

Here is why they shouldn't be banned

• No appreciable amount of crime is committed with these weapons, overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with handguns
  
  
• It would do nothing to stop the illegal trade of firearms between criminals
  
  
• Would only impact people who desire to follow the law
  
  
• They have legitimate sporting purpose
  
  
  
  Sports cars can be looked at the same way. Nobody needs to be able to drive 140mph. People drive them because they like the way the look. The same arguments you make for banning certain firearms can be used to ban sports cars. It would increase public safety, and the only reason people buy them is because they like them. Sports cars serve no legitimate purpose other than to drive fast. If people want to drive fast, they can just store them at race tracks. Driving a sports car increases your likelihood of being in a high speed crash.
  
  I was mistaken when I brought up the Jo Cox death. I had heard/read that the cause of death was due to a shooting, not stabbing. I guess the reports that the suspect had a gun got merged with the actual events. Still, whatever gun the suspect was arrested with would not have been legal to own in the UK, so my point still stands even though my premise was wrong. I was attempting to highlight that even in countries where firearms are heavily restricted, it is still possible for unstable people to gain access to them, not that she could have defended herself.
  
  As far as the effect of armed citizens has on crime, it is difficult to say. It is highly dependent on the situation. Based on the training I received as part of my role as an emergency responder, many active shooters are stopped when confronted/charged. In a place I used to live, an unarmed mall security guard stopped an active shooter when he yelled "stop".
  
  The majority of people who are licensed to carry a firearm (like me) have received some sort of training. Personally, I have done a great deal of training involving firearms, and how to use them defensively. Part of that training is knowing when and when not to intervene in a situation. The people who carry have to be able to assess the situation, and weigh the risk of intervening vs not intervening. Those decisions have to be made very quickly. I would really like it if there were more training available, similar to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g. Again, the appropriate action to take will be different based on the situation.
  
  Do I think that if everyone carried a gun, we would all be safer? No, not necessarily. I do think that if people who have the mental capacity, desire, and ability to do so safely were present and armed in certain situations, outcomes could have been different for many crimes.
  
  More guns would not have helped in Orlando. The event happened in a nightclub, where alcohol was served. Guns and alcohol do not mix.