Breaking the Spell: Rethinking queer community

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

The trade-off with gaining marriage equality is, well, gaining marriage equality. My friends who got married in their beautiful home outside North Hampton, Mass had already been together more than 1/4 century. They had no reason not to get married and lots of reasons to get married, particularly legal ones.

They own two properties together and one of them has had a health issue in the past. They, like all of us, are getting older. Now that it's legal to marry in their state, if they chose NOT to get married they could have signaled to anyone who wanted to challenge the legitimacy of their partnership that they weren't really partners after all. Families have been known to go after properties for lesser reasons after a death.

When we gain marriage equality we give up being allowed to stay together without any legal bond, but with the expectation in a fair minded community, and the hope in one that is less so, that our partnerships will be respected anyway when the doo-doo hits the fan.

Not if your country recognises legal domestic partnership for any sex couples. There may be a registry or you may claim it by filing taxes together.

However, since in both cases the government legitimises one's partnership in order to grant legal rights (which is kind of necessary cause it's more difficult to prove after the fact, in court, the agreed depth and responsibilities of said relationship) there's not a hell of a lot of difference in my mind between them. Neither need a ceremony, both involve paperwork, both are ligitmised by the government.

My mom was the Domestic Partner of my step-dad. She didn't want to get married again. It allowed them legal rights in that she gets his pension now he's dead and they each had their own house, though he lived in hers and let his daughters live in his.

Marriage equality does not necessarily mean loss of recognised partnership in any other way. Many of my stright mates don't opt for marriage as they think it's terribly old fashioned and needless, seeing as there is domestic partnership laws. But they still have to declare their partnership on a tax form!

[Apocalipstic]

I am very Out. I will kiss a woman in public and hold hands....but no stickers of any kind on my car.

[atomiczombie]

I have lived in the SF Bay Area all my life, up until 3 years ago. Now I live about an hour away from Oakland, up on the Sacramento Delta. It's a tiny, almost completely white, tea-party kind of town. Back when I lived in the bay area, I had some not so cool things happen to me, but only once did I ever feel like I might be in physical danger (followed from my car to my apartment by a bunch of sneering teenage boys). Here in Rio Vista, I haven't had anything in the way of harassment.

My old car had an HRC sticker on the bumper for several years, and someone tried to scratch it off at one point (unsuccessfully lol). My new car, which I got last November, I have yet to put any stickers on it. However, I recently went back to the Bay Area to have lunch with a buddy of mine, and we came out of the restaurant to find someone had keyed the front of my car on the hood and headlights. So, even in the SF Bay shitty stuff goes on. There is just less of a chance of physical harm than, say, parts of the mid-west or the south. But it happens. Even in the Castro in SF, gay men get bashed occasionally. Does that mean I think people should be closeted for their own safety? Depends on the level of safety or lack there of. But being in the closet doesn't ever help us get more acceptance. About that I am very sure.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

I've heard quite a few people, even before this thread, say that tolerance is not enough and they will accept nothing less than acceptance. I'm sincerely confused by this. Why isn't tolerance enough? Keeping in mind that we're dealing with human beings, and human beings are notoriously fickle, ethnocentric, xenophobic, and hateful, how do you expect to ever get there? I honestly can't picture a world where everyone likes me. That's just not something that can reasonably be demanded of humans. There's always going to be some asshole who thinks his personal deity requires him to hate me and everyone like me. Unless someone invents a super duper mind control device to wipe out all dissenting thought, I don't think we're ever going to get there. And really, if someone did invent that device, I wouldn't want them to use it on anyone, ever. I really don't care too much if that asshole hates me, as long as my wife and I have the same rights he and his wife do and he doesn't get a free pass to make his hatred my problem.

It seems to me that "tolerance is not enough" basically means you're setting yourself up for frustration. It's kind of like saying "I will accept nothing less than an amusement park on the moon." That sounds fantastic, it would be the most epic vacation of all time, but if that's the only vacation you'll accept, you're never going to go on vacation.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I've heard quite a few people, even before this thread, say that tolerance is not enough and they will accept nothing less than acceptance. I'm sincerely confused by this. Why isn't tolerance enough? Keeping in mind that we're dealing with human beings, and human beings are notoriously fickle, ethnocentric, xenophobic, and hateful, how do you expect to ever get there? I honestly can't picture a world where everyone likes me. That's just not something that can reasonably be demanded of humans. There's always going to be some asshole who thinks his personal deity requires him to hate me and everyone like me. Unless someone invents a super duper mind control device to wipe out all dissenting thought, I don't think we're ever going to get there. And really, if someone did invent that device, I wouldn't want them to use it on anyone, ever. I really don't care too much if that asshole hates me, as long as my wife and I have the same rights he and his wife do and he doesn't get a free pass to make his hatred my problem.

It seems to me that "tolerance is not enough" basically means you're setting yourself up for frustration. It's kind of like saying "I will accept nothing less than an amusement park on the moon." That sounds fantastic, it would be the most epic vacation of all time, but if that's the only vacation you'll accept, you're never going to go on vacation.

For me the phrase "tolerance is not enough" refers to societal and institutional relationships with us, rather than each and every individual asshat. And in that context I agree that tolerance is not enough. Because tolerance is temporary. Tolerance is "for now because I have to" or "for now because it's more trouble not to." When the conditions around the "for now" change, the tolerance can go away. Acceptance is more like "okay, this is the new reality." And while on the individual asshat level, I'm fine with the former, on the institutional level I definitely want the latter.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Sometimes during a nice dinner I have to "tolerate" other peoples gross kids as I try to enjoy my meal to be honest I can't really say I do that because I will ask to be moved so I don't have to tolerate it.

So for me when I hear or someone implies they are tolerating my presence it does not sit well with me. I don't want society to just *tolerate* as if I am somehow mucking up their cozy space and experience in every day life. I want to have the same rights they do when they walk out the front door every morning. I want to be able to eat at a restaurant and not have some douchbag stare at our family because they are all sitting there looking like someone shit in the room.

Tolerance does not equate equality to me, I'd like to walk out the door, visit my partner in the hospital without 34566 questions, claim them as a dependent, and ffs just walk the dogs without it seeming like we somehow brought property value down. Tolerance equates me walking out the door and the sneers happen or the cars get broken into lord knows if we don't cut the grass they report it to the city why are these dykes/queers living near us turn your back here they come. It's about my rights not tolerance.

[weatherboi]

Tolerance creates hierarchy and acceptance creates equality. Through an effort of empathizing, sympathizing and understanding, acceptance creates togetherness. Tolerance creates sides and separation. This is just an opinion of mine.

[dreadgeek]

Snow:

That is not tolerance. If your neighbors were tolerant you would never know *what* they think of your being queer. Breaking into your car is not an act of tolerance. Going out of their way to give you the stink-eye is not an act of toleration. Toleration would mean them nodding as you see one another leaving for work, saying Happy Thanksgiving when you see one another walking the dog, and largely not engaging you very much. If your neighbors tolerated you, they would not respond to your presence in a negative fashion.

So if they are not being tolerant what are they doing? They are trying to do as much as they can get away while not bringing the law around them (which is why the car break-in, it's relatively easy to get away with) and at the same time, trying to find some way to use the law to punish you for being queer. The critical thing, however, is that *they* are restrained by the law. Given that they have broken into your vehicles, that means that they would--if the law did not prohibit it--likely break into your home. But they haven't because the law precludes them doing it. There is no law that says "you cannot break into straight people's homes but queer people, go for it". The law says 'you cannot break into people's homes' and has done with it. What I believe should be our focus is to make certain that queer people are covered equally by ALL laws.

What you should do about your neighbors, I don't know. I *do* know that what they are doing is not showing toleration. They are showing that they do not want the law to come down around their ears. That's not toleration. That's being restrained by the law.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

Sometimes during a nice dinner I have to "tolerate" other peoples gross kids as I try to enjoy my meal to be honest I can't really say I do that because I will ask to be moved so I don't have to tolerate it.

So for me when I hear or someone implies they are tolerating my presence it does not sit well with me. I don't want society to just *tolerate* as if I am somehow mucking up their cozy space and experience in every day life. I want to have the same rights they do when they walk out the front door every morning. I want to be able to eat at a restaurant and not have some douchbag stare at our family because they are all sitting there looking like someone shit in the room.

Tolerance does not equate equality to me, I'd like to walk out the door, visit my partner in the hospital without 34566 questions, claim them as a dependent, and ffs just walk the dogs without it seeming like we somehow brought property value down. Tolerance equates me walking out the door and the sneers happen or the cars get broken into lord knows if we don't cut the grass they report it to the city why are these dykes/queers living near us turn your back here they come. It's about my rights not tolerance.

[dreadgeek]

SA Ma'am;

This is one of those sad truths about our species that I wish were not true about our species. The *best* we can do is make certain that whatever the person's prejudice, they cannot make it *our* problem. Let us admit that unless we are willing to see society become extraordinarily *less* free--which I guarantee you would rebound to our sorrow--all we can do is make the discrimination illegal. After that, it is on a one-to-one basis. We win people over, one interaction at a time. It is illegal to discriminate in housing, education, employment and public accommodation based upon the color of one's skin or one's gender. Has that stopped people from holding bigoted or sexist views? No. Has it made any nation that has adopted such laws a paradise of racial harmony? Not hardly. It has drastically raised the stakes for behaving in a bigoted fashion in the aforementioned. As a *process*--and that is what I think we can change directly are processes--we can constrain by law whether or not someone can decide to not rent to transgendered person purely because they are transgendered. We can mandate that the relevant factors for, say, employment do not include race or sexual orientation or gender presentation or what-have-you.

We cannot make it so that those laws are unnecessary. Not without severely restricting the freedom of others to express beliefs that we might find abhorrent.

Tolerance, to me, is living in a nation of people where some non-trivial number of them believe, things that I might find either offensive or blindingly wrong, but not letting that get in the way of having good interactions with them. Acceptance is simply not allowing some trait to have unnecessary meaning. By that I mean, as I've stated when talking about 'color blindness' that the problem isn't that someone notices that I am black. The problem is caused when they attach *meaning* to my being black beyond what that characteristic can justify. My blackness gives no one any insight into my character, competence, intelligence, generosity, honesty or any other relevant trait. Bigotry is when someone takes my being black to mean that they *do* have insight into my character, that their insight is accurate *because* of my race, and to then treat me accordingly as someone lacking in one or more desirable character traits.

If my neighbors are giving me the stink-eye, then they are not tolerating me. What is happening is that they are restrained from making their feelings known to me in a more direct sense only because of the law and social stigma. If my neighbors invite me over for BBQ, say hello and generally treat me as just another neighbor, then they are *at worst* tolerating me and if they are not already accepting, then may very well be on the road to acceptance. Acceptance, to me, is when my neighbor, upon hearing someone make a derisive remark about queer people says "you know, the ladies across the street are nothing like what you say and given that they're really nice and you're obviously an asshole, I'd prefer their company over yours any day".

All the above can be true without, even once, us ever having a conversation on the topic of "do you accept homosexuals".

My forty-five years black in this nation has certainly taught me that bigotry cannot be legislated away. The direct expression of bigotry can be legislated away and then, slowly, painfully, never-fast-enough, people's minds are changed. As was pointed out by a couple of people, the *best* predictor for how someone feels about enshrining equality for queer people under the law is whether that person has an intimate who is queer. It cuts across most other demographics. Laws--or really just folding us into most existing anti-discrimination laws--can create conditions *enough* that contacts will happen. After that, what will happen is that people will start working next to the queer guy and he'll *stop* being whatever bigoted image the person was raised with and become the guy who helped them out when they were under the gun at work. They'll start living next to a queer couple and they'll no longer be the folks who are a threat to families but the one's who, when the kids got home and no one was there, contacted the parents and drove the kids to the babysitter. That makes them a neighbor.

Look, let us say that there are, essentially, three sides in the national argument about the place of queer people in society. There's our side. Their's the anti-queer people. There's the vast majority of people who hold no active hostility about queers but haven't really thought about us very much. The preference of the first two groups is to win by fiat. The religious right, if given half a chance, would simply make being queer illegal and be done with it. If given a chance, particularly after some infuriating outrage, we would take the easy route and simply pass a law making it illegal to be anti-queer or express such sentiments. The religious right can conceivably have their way. We *never* can. We simply lack any possibility of a majority. So we must win by persuasion. We must win over as many people in the non-aligned group as we can. We do not need ALL of them, we need enough that they are allies and we and our allies are then a majority. This is, essentially, the strategy any numerically overwhelmed group must do--win the argument.

That means that while our opponents *never* have to be realistic, we *always* have to be realistic. That means we have to determine not what the best world would be, but what is the best *achievable* world given the species we have to work with and the fact that we cannot impose our will upon the majority.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I've heard quite a few people, even before this thread, say that tolerance is not enough and they will accept nothing less than acceptance. I'm sincerely confused by this. Why isn't tolerance enough? Keeping in mind that we're dealing with human beings, and human beings are notoriously fickle, ethnocentric, xenophobic, and hateful, how do you expect to ever get there? I honestly can't picture a world where everyone likes me. That's just not something that can reasonably be demanded of humans. There's always going to be some asshole who thinks his personal deity requires him to hate me and everyone like me. Unless someone invents a super duper mind control device to wipe out all dissenting thought, I don't think we're ever going to get there. And really, if someone did invent that device, I wouldn't want them to use it on anyone, ever. I really don't care too much if that asshole hates me, as long as my wife and I have the same rights he and his wife do and he doesn't get a free pass to make his hatred my problem.

It seems to me that "tolerance is not enough" basically means you're setting yourself up for frustration. It's kind of like saying "I will accept nothing less than an amusement park on the moon." That sounds fantastic, it would be the most epic vacation of all time, but if that's the only vacation you'll accept, you're never going to go on vacation.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

Walk me through this, Snowy. In your world, please explain how this works:

1) You walk out your door, your neighbor sees you. What does he do?

Well the guy across the street sneers, the lady behind us looks at us like she's smelling shit or shakes her head, the other two besides us now ignore us and keep their kids away.


2) You walk out your door, your neighbor sees you and sneers. What happens then?

I say nothing, we say nothing. what can we say we can't change their minds about not liking homos and them thinking we're disgusting and going to hell.

Actually, Snowy, I wasn't asking how things are *now*. I was asking, in your ideal world, in the world you were talking about having a right to, how things would be different.

You had said:

I could even throw in there that as a woman I want my space and place to be equally valid if not more valid than the guy next to me who gets it just cause he's a guy.

Sometimes I think I'm expecting to much when I try to take my place in the world but I'll be damned if I won't take it it's mine and my right. I don't just want it for me me me, I want it for alll women, childrens, queers, geeks, underdogs, poor, forgotten people out there.

What does that world look like? So in this world, where your space and place are equally if not more valid, how would things be different with your neighbors? What would that look like? If it would be different HOW would it be different? That's why I asked if, in the world you envision, your neighbors could even *be* anti-gay and if they couldn't, why would they not be able to be?

To me acceptance is never changing as for tolerance can and will change with conditions. I hope that changes as time goes on here, people are pretty closeted here if they are queer, they are quiet it about it and discreet I'm not used to it cause of having always lived in areas that were queer friendly.

Yes, tolerance does change with conditions. But here's what I'm driving at. I do not see *how* we can have a free, open society where there is only acceptance and no need for tolerance. I agree that tolerance is learning to live next to people with whom you might disagree vehemently on one or more points. However, while several people see that as a bad thing, I see it as the *least* bad thing given the species we have to work with. IF America were both ethnically and religiously homogenous then there would, ironically, be less need for tolerance. The reason for that is that if this nation had that kind of homogeneity we would be more culturally homogeneous. But we aren't. We are ethnically and religiously pluralistic. We will *always* have a heterogeneous society and so we have to figure out how to get along with one another. Otherwise, we will rip ourselves apart.

This is where tolerance comes in. I do not have to like that which I tolerate. I just have to tolerate it. Tolerate does NOT mean that I'll put up with X until I can find some way to squash it. Rather, it means that I will let X be if X will leave me be. It most certainly does not mean trying to attack X either physically, verbally or through the law. This is why I'm curious about those who disagree with me about tolerance. If tolerance is unacceptable--and at least two people have stated that it is neither enough nor is it a good thing--what's the alternative? If acceptance is the ONLY thing, then how do we get there from here? In other words, how do people envision creating a society where tolerance doesn't happen because there is universal acceptance?

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can convince an *entire* society to accept ALL difference and treat them as irrelevant. I just don't see it. Tolerance, I think, you can teach because one can attack it from a couple of different directions. But how do you teach *acceptance* without squashing out less accepting ideas? That's why I asked the question about whether, in your best of all possible worlds, your neighbor is capable of sneering at you because you are queer. If he isn't then why isn't he? Is it because we have made it unthinkable? If so, how? Is it because we have created a society where certain facial expressions are taken as prima facie evidence of bigoted behavior? Are we, in the name of queer liberation, ready to embrace the idea of thought-crime? I don't think we should.

Because of my background in evolutionary biology, I see everything as a trade-off. There are no perfect worlds, there are no perfect animals and there are no perfect societies. Because there are always costs, it becomes important to determine what those costs are and consider whether those costs are outweighed by the benefits. So we can have a society that is largely tolerant of difference while still being open and free enough to allow for people who are *not* tolerant, provided that they do not attempt to directly threaten either individuals or the stability of the community as a whole. On the other hand, we can have a society that has no need of tolerance because everyone is accepting--or at least they behave that way--but I think we would then have a drastically less open and free society. I don't think we can have a society of universal acceptance that is free.

Cheers
Aj

[Slater]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

So, even in the SF Bay shitty stuff goes on. There is just less of a chance of physical harm than, say, parts of the mid-west or the south. But it happens. Even in the Castro in SF, gay men get bashed occasionally. Does that mean I think people should be closeted for their own safety? Depends on the level of safety or lack there of. But being in the closet doesn't ever help us get more acceptance. About that I am very sure.

Agreed. I would also like to note that being closeted takes an emotional toll, it is psychological violence in a way. So it's a balancing act between the threat of physical (or financial) harm vs the emotional harm of the closet. Each person has to determine where that balancing point is for themselves, of course, but being closeted isn't necessarily "safe" so much as exchanging one type of risk for another.