Our Predicament

Our Predicament

www.iowntheworld.com graciously, and surprisingly, published a survey I concocted on attitudes of its readers on gay stuff. 90 people replied. Many were demanding that I answer their bleating right then and there. But that was not my purpose. I had bigger fish to fry, which was to show our predicament in this nation of ours (too). But I needed the data, and thanks for providing it. I shall have fun, from time to time, using it for my purposes – for there is no other such data set available that I’ve ever seen. Surveys done about gay folks is always of the “do you think gay people deserve special rights” variety, to which the answer is rightly, No, we do not. There’s more than enough rights and laws around to include us, if only you’d think about it.

Two of the 22 questions were related, in a way:

Do you have a gay relative?

Have you ever spoken to a gay person about what it is like to be gay?

And the results are, as I suspected they would be, all over the place. Now, I just asked rather simple yes or no questions. But some people felt compelled, for their own reasons, to add commentary.

The results were intriguing, including the 20 or so surveys which were humorously answered, and thus of no purpose other than a good joke, perhaps of the sort Jim Treacher at www.thedailycaller.com told me I should appreciate, and I do. Good humor, on any topic, is funny. I’ve done stand up comedy, in gay bars (I don’t think a regular comedy club is quite ready for what I have to quip.) I was once heckled by a Lesbian in the front, just feet away from me on stage, because I told no Lesbian jokes. She was persistent, as Lesbians can be, and I looked at her, finally, and said “You know, young lady, I don’t even know what straight men do with women, I’m totally clueless about what Lesbians do with each other, and I’m afraid you’ll beat me up if I say the wrong thing, and that’s why I have no jokes about you.” The crowd roared in laughter, and even she, for that perhaps satisfied her need for a joke including her in the proceedings.

And I’m excluding the five people who wrote some of the most scurrilous bilge water foul mouth rants and “MYOFB” — well, to those “F” people, I did not demand of anyone to fill out the survey, I merely inquired of those who would be willing. Did not those people’s mothers teach them “If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say it”? Apparently not. That they took the time to do it shows some sort of pathological malice, if you ask me. I know I have no time nor inclination to be nasty to anyone. I’m trying to solve a problem, not create more.

But still the results, and while unscientific in a way, for it’s only IOTW readers, was informative of the larger society. All the numbers don’t quite add up because of the way people answered the open ended questions. I hate multiple choice tests. I even think they should be banned from schools. You either know or you do not, and guessing is not knowledge. That’s part of the gay predicament, no one knows, but guesses and opinions range all over the place, on cause and numbers and when and how do we know, and such.

38 said they had a gay relative, and 28 said they did not.

26 said they talked to a gay person about what it was like,

3 more volunteered that they would want to, but hadn’t yet, and

37 said they did not talk to one of us. Oddly, many of those volunteered that they would not talk to some gay person about the “act.” Well, no, neither would I. I was not asking about sex, however. I was asking of our predicament, and do you listen to us about how we saw it.

For if 38 said they had a relative, and only 26 spoke to someone (and I don’t know if that’s their relative, but let’s assume they are for the moment) it does mean that 12 people have never talked to their gay relative about the predicament gay people face. And that’s not exactly family values, if you wouldn’t even talk to your own relatives. I wonder how many of the ones who both had relatives and talked to us talked to the relatives they had.

And I see today that the Page BI headline is the “Latin Fest draws 3,000 for revelry.” Well, good for them. And did the Gay Fest, held downtown at the Atrium (everyone here in BR knows what that is) with some 10,000 revelers, make the paper? Absolutely not. Oh my, would that cause a ruckus, now wouldn’t it. Certainly so. Promoting Homosexuality would be screamed by the preachers and Lord knows who else, especially those who spent good money to lambaste us just the other day in “My” Advocate, which took the 30 pieces of silver. So we had our festival, and we promoted our business and services to each other, and everyone was appropriately dressed. But for one day, that day, we were allowed out in public and to hold hands too. Such a “special gay right” I’m sure. For to just hold hands is a dangerous thing for a gay couple in public, I assure you, and you can well imagine. But for one day we were allowed. Just like for one day a year we can do so at Disney World. And at our parades. Just one day, which is not too much to ask is it? Is that the “special rights” of which so many speak? Or is that our predicament which you won’t speak to us about?

But then, just this Saturday night, there was a long post at http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=21366#comment-1002252 about malls banning groups of teenagers, or requiring youths to have a chaperone. Yes, well, given the propensity among the hormonally challenged, I’d imagine so. Why, as I said just yesterday, the cops were called out to quell a crowd of marauding screaming heteros bent on destruction of the college town they resided in. But here’s what I posted, about our predicament:

>>And then there’s the gay teens. A teeny tiny minority. Scorned by their fellow teens, scorned by the adults, scorned by society, scorned by the law, scorned by their churches. Still, they go, (I know, I did) two or three together, for we are no more than that in number, and in peace, to go shopping perhaps, and make no ruckus, and ask only “don’t tread on me.” They, and I, are still, supposedly, some evil incarnate, forbidden to file a joint tax return, lest it collapse the Republic. Like we’re even part of this larger culture war between crazed liberals and Democrats, and the rest of the rational society. Oh well, such is life of the gay teen, and gay person, today. Meanwhile, yet another Good Preacher, Bishop Eddie Long, is found with his hands where they should not be, while spouting hypocrisy, and leading a double life, and he’ll be exonerated and the gay teens still scorned. And still forbidden from even holding hands in the malls where straight teens might or might not be rampaging, lest civilization come to a halt. — end

And then, because Iowa had another round of court battles over gay marriage, the eminently sensible Don Surber at http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/21866#comment-182864

went off the deep end, as he’s wont to do when the words “gay” and “marriage” show up in the same paragraph, though he’s quite willing to quote www.gaypatriot.net and www.hillbuzz.org and even liked the idea of the Gay Bar @ the Mosque concept. But gay and marriage, oh, does Mr. Surber go on… and on …

And he concluded his rant with “Consider Plessy vs. Ferguson” as an example of what not to do.

So I responded

>>“Consider Plessy vs. Ferguson”

I have, and it seems excluding gay people is a bigger sport than separate but equal, or any of the laws or court cases against blacks. For we are to be separate and not equal, and seen but not heard, and pay taxes but not talk about redressing our grievances, and live among you and not even admit our presence. Lest we offend. I can understand the concern on the word marriage. Is there then no other term which would suffice? Civil Unions, joinage, twainage, loonies, anything? Or is the very concept a gay couple filing a joint tax return really a threat to the Republic? I’m sure if you give us a word that would please you we’d be most happy with it, do our thing, and never be seen again in the larger scheme of things. For we are a teensy tiny minority, but want to be included. — end

And then I thought back to a doctor’s office visit, where I saw “Country Living” magazine, which showcased a fine home all gussied up by two men — “partners” was the term used, “for 26 years.” But still, not able to file a joint tax return, perhaps even required to set up a Commercial Law type of partnership in order to even get the mortgage and file the property deed, and protect their common, long lived, interests in the property, like proper spouses. That’s our predicament.

Then, over at http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/09/pastors-.html I read this:

“Pastors for ObamaCare?

Wall Street Journal op-ed, Pastors For ObamaCare?, by Jim Towey (Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (2002-06):

If the White House office of faith-based initiatives is going to be used as propaganda unit, it might as well be shut down.”

And indeed it should be shut down. And certainly no gay folks tax dollars should be used to fund it, that’s for sure. Not if Bishop Eddie Long, and the Reverend Haggerd, and the Catholic Church, and the Democratic Baptist ministers of my own city are using those funds from that initiative to help fund the reviling of gay folks in their midst, whether directly, or by offsetting other expenses.

I’m not really happy to pay, by force of the tax man, for my own oppression. You don’t have to like me, and you have the right, I suppose, to say so (but do you have to exercise it?) – but to ask me to pay for the privilege of listening to your screed against me is just going too far. Don’t tread on me with my own money please.

And that’s the gay folks predicament. Which is why we’d be much better off with the TEA Party, to cut the bureaucrats, to cut the taxes, to cut the government down to size. Which is why I asked the questions I did, to find out just how many of you won’t even talk to us about the predicament were in.

Now, wouldn’t it be nice to have a National Commission On Gay Americans – so that we might be uniformly included in the laws of the nation we are a part of? The current patchwork will not work. Any law professor can tell you that. And it won’t go away, this “gay problem,” until you all come to a conclusion. For we’re a persistent bunch, in the pursuit of Liberty, and in the face of astounding opposition. Momma grizzlies? You people are putty-cats compared to what we’ve gone through.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: