Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
still not making sense, one necessarily excludes the other.
if they must deny their homosexuality in public to gain respectable acceptance by society in one instance, how would they gain the same society's respect by becoming loudly open about it?
|
What the? That's
exactly what i'm saying. Those are two (2) separate, distinct, opposing, non-conflatable, you do one OR the other but NOT both, can't have it both ways, divergent, some people choose one and some choose the other, oil and water, diametrically opposed, and different ways of being queer in a straight society.
As a person who is out, my message to the closet cases who think that as long as they play by the rules they can benifit at my (and the rest of the community's) expense? Your silence will not make you safe. If your private decision to be closeted becomes a position from which to attack the queer community? Don't expect to have closet doors any more.
Outing is a legitimate, if difficult tactic. It can, short term, reinforce a message that queer is negative...and as such is a last resort measure. But it may be required to prevent larger damage on the out community from a few self-serving closet cases. In the case of politicians who are willing to support the FMA to keep their political ambitions alive...I think it's unfair for them to continue to expect our discretion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foolthemall
Principled reason for being against gay marriage: the fear that it'll destabilize the entire institution of marriage. I didn't say anything about the reasoning being solid, mind you.
|
Principled involves
beliving your reason. Thus, my conclusion, that a queer person would have no principled reason for opposing it...