I admit to being tired of hearing that saying a person is gay, is talking about their sex life

Mychal Judge, the priest who died on 9/11 while ministering to firefighters, was gay. He was also, as priests are supposed to be, celebate. Saying he was gay isn't talking about his sex life. Being gay, in fairness, does encompass sexual attraction. But it also often affects huge swaths of our lives. We face, at least in theory, losing our relationships with our families. Many of us face a decision as to how to live our lives, straights don't. We decide to either live our lives openly come what may, or hide in the shadows and reap the benefits of straight priviledge. Making that decision changes you, no matter which way you decide.

Watch this video and tell me for Kurt that being gay is about sex.

http://www.afterelton.com/blog/dennis/glee-song-highlights-jesse-gypsy-sammy

last clip

I am not saying I know Kagan is gay, given the article from a good friend, now I think she probably isn't. But it is nothing short of absurd to argue that being gay is only about sex. Mychal Judge shows us that. The simple fact is that a gay version of Kagan would almost certainly be different than a straight version of Kagan. Just like the fact that O'Connor was a woman made her a different justice than a male version of her would have been. And yes, just like Thurgood Marshall was a different justice due to growing up black in the segregated south. Kagan may well not be a lesbian but it surely matters, at least some, if she is or she isn't. And no, not just because of sex.

And I still do not believe that is automatically public information, especially if the party does not wish it to be. We still have the 4th amendment and a reasonable right to personal privacy.

what do +1 and -1 mean?

bonus question: is there some kind of guide to acronymns on DU?

thx,

Scuba

...My comment was directed at the original post that said he was "tired of hearing that saying a person is gay, is talking about their sex life". My point, which I may have failed to make, is that it's not necessary to point out every gay person. As a father of a gay man I know how hateful people can be, and how their obsession with determining who might be gay is pathetic.

Sorry if I offended anyone, except maybe gay-bashers.

He's talking about the way many people, here and elsewhere, try to reduce sexuality to how people copulate. It really is trivializing and offensive, and people do it all the time, knowingly or not.

is that the height of arrogance or what.

including romantic or affectionate or friendly or erotic interactions; that the behaviors are highly variable across the population; that the behaviors can be ambiguous; and that even a single individual's responses may exhibit some plasticity and change over time

I expect you also know that terms like "homosexual" or "gay" are popular cultural abstractions, used inconsistently to describe many different individual phenomena

When dealing with cultural abstractions, like "black" or "chicano," I prefer not to use the terms to describe the person unless the person chooses to describe himself/herself that way; similarly, I prefer not to describe a person as "gay" unless the person chooses to use the term self-referentially

I myself would have no objection to having a "gay" or "lesbian" person on the Supreme bench. I do however object to the idea that it is appropriate to ask Kagan whether she defines herself in such terms: she is entitled to put forth her professional resume together with whatever self-definition she prefers. We did not ask John Roberts whether he had any closeted erotic or affectionate feelings towards men, nor did we inquire into Condoleeza Rice's erotic or affectionate relationships with female roommates when considering her appointment as Secretary of State

Maybe Ms. Rice wouldn't have gone along with all of Bush's plans if he weren't blackmailing her over being gay (if he was doing that something we can't know since we didn't ask)

and the corporate world -- with its petro and "defense" dollars -- figured in 2000 it could grab GHWB's connections to put in his son GWB, a ragdoll of a fellow, brain-damaged by alcohol and cocaine, who would fill government posts with empty suits like Mr HeckuvajobBrownie, letting the corporate world go their merry way unimpeded

i am not now and never have been interested to know knowing who Condi might ever have kissed or touched -- or who she ever considered kissing or touching. for me, it is enough to know that Condi was always a rightwing suckup to imperial power. she had the further useful PR gift of being able to chattering endlessly without saying anything, which is usually what she was pushed on stage to do. knowing more about her personal life wouldn't have enabled me to change any of that that

or it is a puritan, victorian nation. the obsessiveness of sex every second of every day in all ways doesn't lend one to suggest we are prudes as a nation, but sex must be the forefront of all things today. the really absurd part of the argument from those that yell PURITAN at every comment with sexuality are the very ones making the big deal about sex at all times. kinda like the guys continually saying naked isnt a big deal are the ones that make it such a big deal and cause the issues.

sex isn't all of who we are whether gay, hetero, asexual.

i agree with you. i have been arguing for the longest of time, (with two gay brother in laws) that gay encompasses so much of the person and to focus on the sex of it is no better than focusing on the sex of all the rest of us and knock it the fuck off.

it has created not the most positive environments in my families experience that should not have been.

if it happens in the micro of it, .... of course it is the macro of it

yes, we need to get off all things is sex.

and yes, being gay is not only about sex