Two Sides of the Same Coin (Tiny Little Rant Warning)

[Fearless]

I've been floating around this forum for some time now and I've started to see an interesting trend that I'd like your opinion on. It seems to me that we're doing a lot of arguing around here about how best to live our lives, about how best to overturn DADT and DOMA (etc.), about when we want change, and in many cases and places, about frustration over not getting change.

I'm curious to know if the trend I've seen rings true, that there is a increasing disparity between our older members and our younger members age-wise in our beliefs. I've made no attempt to claim having as much experience as many of our members who have been fighting the good fight for decades. So that's why I want your opinion.

Our GLBT youth seems by-and-large woefully ignorant of our past, of the struggles of the GLBT movement before 2003 or so. But too I think that our older members are a bit mistaken of the changing times. Aside from the youthful being patient-like and the older being impatient about the progression of equality, there seems to be a disconnect between the two ages, whereby the experiences of the earlier and the discrimination they faced has been lost upon the younger. The opposite also seems true, that the older do not realize many times that the younger did not have to struggle for their rights, that to them everything has seemingly moved along rather quickly and in the correct direction.

Youth cannot understand the frustration of the older and the older cannot understand why the younger are not as frustrated especially in this forum. I couldn't begin to count the number of people I've argued with in this forum, fellow GLBTers that is. For instance, when I say that I chose who to vote for in the primary (mine has already past) I did so not based on GLBT issues as my core deciding factor but on the war and on the economy and on the fact that my favorite (Kucinich) couldn't possibly win. I won't say who I voted for, but I suppose if you search my Journal you'll easily find out who. (But I'd ask we not debate that choice here.) Nevertheless, clearly to some I've uttered blasphemy to choose a candidate thusly, and to prioritize my economic and international relational beliefs over my GLBT ones.

So while I ask your opinion on my observations, I'd also ask that we here in the GLBT forum understand and realize that we are all on the same side, regardless of who we vote for or what age we are. We, like our counterparts on the Big Board, are all fighting for the same things in the end, but our experiences have given us different views on how to get there. We should embrace these differences and use them to our advantage to gain equal rights and not to call out each other based on preconceived notions of what we believe to be right and wrong. We're each and every one of us wrong at some point so let's all try to find some common ground and work from there.

[Zuiderelle]

1. The disparity to me seems to be that the older of us are getting closer to death

than the younger of us, and are STILL not able to get married to the people we love, despite our ENTIRE LIVES waiting for it.

Speaking from my own personal experience, the desire for marriage was not as strong in my 20s as it became in my 30s and is now so critical to my life in my 40s. The protection of my family is becoming a stronger and stronger priority for me as my years go by.

Yeah, I'm impatient. Impatience that has grown from several decades of waiting.

[Fearless]

4. Some have sacrificed so much so that others in the future will not have to...

People like you did not pass the buck to the next generation. You stood up for what was right then and there so that there was hope that in the future we could all share equally from the cup of equality. And if for whatever reason you never find someone to love wholly and fully, then it is their loss as much as it is yours. I know it's not of much help, but it's hard to find a bright side sometimes.

[Zuiderelle]

5. I don't think you understand. I'm talking about having the rights in MY marriage that straights

have in theirs, so that if something were to happen to me, my partner and my son would be protected in exactly the same way as they would be if we were woman and man. That they would get my pension and social security benefits, that they would not have to pay tax on their inheritance from me, that they could visit me or I them without any legal objection in the hospital.

Since I thought I was clear that I have a family, I'm not sure I understand this "And if for whatever reason you never find someone to love wholly and fully, then it is their loss as much as it is yours. I know it's not of much help, but it's hard to find a bright side sometimes."

What on earth are you talking about? Other than the life partner/wife/spouse I already have, who do you think I need to find? And what is that bright side you're referring to?

[Fearless]

19. I'm sorry I was in a hurry to get off to work, and didn't read thoroughly..

my mistake.

I agree with everything you've said.

[mitchtv]

2. you can start by being more respectful

I generally don't tell people I disagree with that they're out of their minds.(like you said to me in a previous thread last night) Believe me I know that the younger crowd didn't have to go though what we went through, and for that reason, I suppose the demos that I have attended for gay rights are all the same people that have been doing it for the last 20 years; average age 50. Sad really, cause it can all go backward in an instant

eddit to clarify see (---)

[Fearless]

3. If I wanted to be attacked I would have asked to be flamed.

Why is it that so many people have trouble understanding that we all have reasons that we genuinely beleive for what we say and how we act? That was what I was trying to get at. That we all believe that we're right and that we all cannot be right all the time. Therefore, we should be respectful of our fellow GLBTers who may not be right all the time because we ourselves can be wrong some of the time too.

I'm not tring to attack anyone or put blame on anyone. I'm at the point were I step back and see that all we ALL want is equal rights and all that we're doing lately is fighting over how to get there.

I observed that we seem to be divided into two age groups and that we need to bridge that divide and unite as one people. I am not a man of buzz words and feel-good speech. I aim to speak frankly and openly about the big picture. Divided and self-hating we destroy our chances at success. A house divided against itself will always fall.

I understand so well what many of us say, that they are impatient, frustrated, even hurt by the lack of progress over the past 50 or more years, but I also understand the other side, that there are those who do not know this pain and cannot understand this frustration fully. I am one of them. I am 21 years old and I've likely been openly gay for less time than you've been at your present job. But that doesn't mean that I can't understand a problem when I see one. It doesn't mean that I'm less of a gay person than you or any other. We are each a product of our times and with those times come our beliefs. Those who have waited so long are so impatient and those of us who in our short time in the movement can't help but remain optimistic as forward movement is all that we have seen. And I know that can be irritating, but I'm not advocating either side as right or wrong (as neither is). I simply said that we must all learn to understand each other so that if nothing else we'll better understand how to get accomplished what we so desperately need whether we realize it or not.

[Zuiderelle]

6. It's at this point that I say, I do not care about what you think, I am not going to die waiting.

[Fearless]

22. Who asked you to do that?

All I said was that before jumping down each other's throats we should realize that we come from different backgrounds and different experiences. How ever you miscontrued what I said to mean anything harsh or anything accusatory is absolutely beyond me.

[Zuiderelle]

37. Tell me your point then.

From all I can see from your OP and your responses and your blog, you are not supportive of gay marriage and you do not consider it a primary motivation for choosing a candidate. And for some reason you think there is a large divide between the younger and the older of us in this regard.

Did I misunderstand something?

[Fearless]

40. Yes you misunderstood me completely...

If you had actually read my blog, the parts about gay rights or my editorial directly addressing gay marriage (which I am a vehement supporter of) you would know where I actually stand. Here are a few basic editorial links:

http://unwilling-dystopia.blogspot.com/2007/02/same-sex-marriage-versus-civil-unions.html

http://unwilling-dystopia.blogspot.com/2007/01/let-people-vote.html

If you had even read my last post, the one to which you responded to and I am now responding to, you would have my point in a few short and I thought clear sentences. Look there for my opinion and my point or read what I've written elsewhere on this thread.

[Zuiderelle]

42. But you say that gay marriage is not the most important issue for you in deciding how to vote.

And everything I've seen you write (that I can read enough times to make sense of in some cases) is not supportive of our community or our rights. I think you are simply being divisive, while pretending to wonder why we are so divisive. I don't see the divisiveness you claim, except from YOU.

[Fearless]

43. If you don't see divisiveness that's fine. That's what I would've liked to know when I posted...

I'm sorry if it takes you numerous times to understand what I write. The links I provided are not hard to read... the first one is only three or four lines.

To summarize the first link: Civil Unions = Seperate But Equal = Segregation... I can't be more specific.

The second one is quite a bit longer so I won't post it here, but I'm sure it's well written and I'm sure if you picked out a part you didn't understand I'd be able to reinforce what I said. Perhaps you will find context useful: The article is a response to the period of time in my state Massachusetts where a few groups were trying to get a ban on same sex marriage written into the state Constitution.

You say that I am not supportive of our community or its rights, but you can provide no quote nor link because there isn't one, because I am supportive of our community and actively supportive of its rights.

[mitchtv]

7. What are you talking about?

No one is attacking you and furthermore No one is attacking anyone that I can see. Stating an opinion

[Zuiderelle]

8. I just read his blog.

Doesn't make any more sense than anything here. :shrug:

[mitchtv]

11. see mine

ahem It's not for everyone nor does it fit the politically correct views of today's youth.

[Fearless]

25. If you would like to dispute my blog...

then by all means give me a specific example. I have over two years of OpEd there and general attacks are insulting at best. If you don't understand something I said or want to disagree with it, I am more than happy, and I'm not being sarcastic or anything, but more than happy to argue points. However, general put-downs do not float my boat and I won't waste my time with them.

[okasha]

9. But he's been attacking people.

We're "out of our minds," "bigots and intolerables," "hypocrites."

[Zuiderelle]

10. I wondered if it was a pattern.

[okasha]

12. It is.

n/t

[Fearless]

26. I will not break the rules of this forum.

I will maintain as civil a tongue as I can.

I will not hate.

And I will be no one's monkey.

[LostinVA]

46. And I "HATE" in all capital letters

:eyes:

[Fearless]

47. Context. Context. Context.

You were trying to tell me that I wasn't gay and I told you to claim such was hate speech.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=66552&mesg_id=66687

[Fearless]

23. ......---->

"Believe me I know that the younger crowd didn't have to go though what we went through, and for that reason, I suppose the demos that I have attended for gay rights are all the same people that have been doing it for the last 20 years; average age 50. Sad really, cause it can all go backward in an instant"

This is all that I was trying to say.. so to all the previous posts and future ones who seemed to take offense (claiming no one in particular), I'm not completely out of my mind.

But to you personally, the whole disagreement we had last night, and a few others I've had with other people was the reason I wrote this tiny rant. And you said exactly what I said too, so I think we can agree that we should all take a step back sometimes and focus on the big picture instead of the little differences because we could lose everything so quickly.

[mitchtv]

27. Look, we are all pretty friendly here

We will disagree, sometimes vehemently, but we try to keep it reasonable. as it is , for some of us a refuge. A refuge from a sometimes very nasty strait dominated world/DU.There is plenty of shit going on around this board to get ad hominem about. That's a;; I'm saying. We must however get along in this tiny Lifeboat (I get to play Tallulah Bankhead) Oops do you even know who she is?

[Fearless]

29. I'll google it.

:evilgrin:

Cheers,
NTF

For the record, I agree with what you've just said too. Sometimes I forget that there are those who are less lucky that I am. (Not trying to be condescending.) All I've known is progress on the GLBT front, I live with it everyday in my age group. My generation doesn't discriminate as much against us as I think most other's have and do. I have a strong group of GLBT and straight friends and I know that even if I don't get the things that we all want, that I'll be okay at least some how. Sometimes I forget that there are those out there who don't have such support, who have been discriminated against all their lives. I've never really had to deal with that to be honest. It's just one of those experiences that I tried to speak of in the OpEd that some of my generation can be woefully ignorant of.

[mitchtv]

48. Most of my large group of friends was wiped out

Mostly from the Plague. We were not "mainstream". It was pretty fucking wild in Calif during the 60/70's. By the 80's it was grim. I remember every time a DA was up for reelection raids were popular. I was framed and thrown in jail foe taking part in a Gay march on Macy's that was practicing entrapment. I had to get my own self out and it was no fun. I remember being thrown off the podium by the brown Berets at an anti war rally in GGPark, yes were hated by the militant left. Huey Newton eventually spoke up for us. The first Gay-in in GG Park ended with police action. Taking away a few Tenderloin Queens for unknown (to us) charges. Gay was different then it was illegal , we had our own language , and used it. It's not so cute in the macho centric times but we enjoyed ourselves and the straight world was another world We came out and were spit on , just like the GI's coming back from VN claim happened to them >Well it happened to us too. The Ladies were not so involved in the Gay lib movement, they wisely insinuated themselves in Womens lib, and today it is the leas homophobic of all the sectors of the movement. When we were wiped out. The Lesbians came into their own and saved the Gay movement. Oh I ramble

[Fearless]

49. Thanks.

[mondo joe]

13. Dude, I am the last person who wants an orthodoxy of GLBT opinion. I don't want to

vilify other gays for disagreeing, and I think we too often focus on the smaller disagreements over the greater agreements.

Al that said: It looks like you've been insulting and attacking other GLBT posters here. That's not going to win over anyone, and it's not going to invite cooperation.

So you know - don't ask people questions if you don't want to hear or respect them. Don't start by asking people if they're out of their minds.

Just don't do that shit.

[Fearless]

30. Let me take a second to reply...

Conversations between myself and others in other threads are not a factor here, simply by the rules of the forum. When people from other threads follow me here I can feel attacked very easily too and I don't like that.

I asked for opinion, yes that's very true, and I figured a civil answer would do; I thought it would be implied. I'm sorry if I've attacked you personally. I can't remember anymore who I was originally angry at or why, but I do know it wasn't on this thread and it wasn't even today. I'm not going to search them out and I hope they won't search me out anymore.

My only goal was to ask others why we attack each other here in this forum. And my tiny little rant turned into a big fiasco and ironically a proof that we do. What a world we live in.

Cheers!
NTF

[Zuiderelle]

38. This thread proves you're being attacked? Huh?

You appear to be taking things personally that have nothing to do with you. You asked for opinions and you got them. I see no one attacking you, but I do see you reacting very oddly and seeing insults where there are none.

If this is a "big fiasco" you better not go to GDP.

[Fearless]

39. Actually it proves that we misunderstand each other, that we attack each other;...

that there are differing opinions. Why are you still carrying on with me? I'm trying to be reasonable.

[readmoreoften]

14. The gap I see has nothing to do with that at all. Many LGBT young adults I know are actually

more educated about LGBT history than the LGBT folks I know in their 40s and 50s because this information is now taught in college courses. (What they extract from this knowledge is another issue, however...)

The real age gap comes in with "Marriage Rights". I see many, MANY young lesbians in their twenties wholly uninterested in marriage rights because they claim to be "polyamorous" and "radically queer" which they often define, not as politically active, but "committed to exploring new paradigms of sexuality". Sure polyamory exists, but the reality is...most of these folks are just DATING. Or Speed-Dating. They're at the age of dating and self-exploration. There's not a damn thing radical about it. Most of these folks will not be "polyamorous" at 55. Certainly, some will and I wholeheartedly believe in the right of all people to pursue their dream with the one(s) they love. But the reality is, most people aren't going to be at the orgies when they have liver spots and colostomy bags. My sense is that all this self-exploration is a desire to confront the patriarchal (although surprisingly recent) idea that women don't enjoy sex. It's important. But it's not the be-all-and-end-all of politics.

I think some people are getting over this mentality. (A few college kids I know are now saying that "monogamy is the new polyamory".) But the point is that, no matter who you love or how many people you love, sexual experimentation is no substitute for political struggle. And I've been telling the younger folks I know (my partner is in her late twenties, so the majority of the people around me are in this age bracket) that it's a bunch of bullshit to talk about how politically radical you are for having a threesome when you won't lift a finger to fight for a 70 year old lesbian to be able to visit her partner of 30 years in the hospital...or rolling your eyes and calling her concerns "bourgeois". I actually encounter much less of this attitude in Texas than I did in Manhattan, where the dyke and trannyboi world seems overwhelmed with a terrible hipsterism.

What we need is solidarity. I'm 37, and I'm (personally) grateful to the generations of the past who have fought so hard to get us where we are. I am deeply, deeply indebted and working hard to stay faithful to that tradition.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Ah, I could write for pages...

I'm in my forties. I could go on and on about much of this, but let me toss out two quick points for now. First, all of this you say about 'radical queer' and all being more of a phase of life than a phase of history is correct I think. Or a bit of both. I am in my forties and right now I am reading a book called 'The Fairwell Symphony' by Edmund White. It is a memoir of his life in NYC during the 60's and 70's as a gay man. I just read a passage about 1978, and how he'd see guys in "Death to Disco" shirts, disco being sacrosanct to his era. In 1978 I first vistied NYC, that could have been me playing the harbinger of changing times in his story, so easily. I have been learning so much about his age group of gay culture, and learning that he and his peers were fully contemptous of any form of monogamy and considered those of my age, who came out of high school with boy friends and moved to the city with them, to be hopeless and vile sell outs. He remained apolitical deep into Movement times, as he was a liberal, and dig this one my cats and kittens, he was certain no left leaning group or Party would accept a homosexual, and the only one who would was the closet Repulican thing. The left did not welcome us, we crashed the party.
At any rate, and this thread brings to mind such thoughts as well, I wondered why Mr White's story is as new to me as it is, I'm informed and well networked. Why is there a generational tension of a particular kind in this and other places? Why did I not know that in White's time, just before mine, my radical stance was seen as backward, and vice versa? Well there is a reason. To a large extent, we are missing a bunch of people. Almost a whole chunk of men in particular who are not hear to look at Me, Readmoreoften and the OP and say ah, you silly young ones, we have done this dance before. They are all gone and dead and the continuity is interrupted and thus unprepared and not yet wise people like me have to foist ourselves off as the archives of our times.
In short our elders are in short supply. And that is why it feels like a huge gap, more so than it would I think.
What the OP does not know is that either of our two candidates would be better than any before in terms of open discussion of gay rights and culture. By far. Neither one was my choice, and both could up the game as far as I'm concerned, and one made a really bad gaff that still makes me sick, but even with all of that, to the OP I say, if you voted for a Democrat, you did very well indeed, and you are lucky to have them to vote for, either of them. I'd prefer Kucinich or Edwards. But even with Donnie and Doma, these two are the best yet.
Oh, and I will add that there is actual history, and it can even be read, and it is possible to really understand the politics of the past without having lived them. To the younger folk I always recommend And The Band Played On in print, and Angels In America on dvd. Also the older folks! Reading this Edmund White book is doing for me what reading those books would do for someone in their 20's.
The End

[Fearless]

32. Please do write pages and pages...

How else could we be expected to understand our past.

[BillSam]

17. Fascinating post

I live in Manhattan, know some people in their twenties -- I'm late forties -- but am more likely to encounter the "hipsterism" you mention (nice word; I'm gonna steal it!) on blogs and message boards, but you undoubtedly encounter many more younger people than I on a regular basis. And whenever I encounter it it does often come off as the antithesis of gay pride and gay activism -- a whole separate thing that I don't often have patience with. People in their twenties telling ME all about gays and human sexuality when, to coin a cliche, I've forgotten whatever they think they know. Still, I'd like to think I'm open to new ideas but -- after cogitating and researching -- I reserve the right to say something sounds like bullshit no matter how fashionable it may be.

I do have to say that the whole stupid notion that women don't enjoy sex is not recent but goes back generations.

As for the OP, on another thread -- "Input needed for article about blogs etc." -- I asked if people felt there was more hostility on blogs/message boards and the causes for it, with age differences being one listed. While some disagreed with my main thesis, this thread is one example of just what I was talking about!

I don't know if the OP was rude etc. on other threads. Here it seems to me he's just posting a question and repliers at least seem to be over-reacting a bit.

No offense to anyone, and maybe I'm just tired, but I checked both the OP's blog and MitchTV's (I assume the posts are chapters in a novel and it would make more sense if I read the whole thing?) and they BOTH seemed like Greek to me! Sorry!

[mitchtv]

24. unfortunately the blog system buts the end passages on top

with the beginning on the bottom. I will have to delete it all and but it back in reverse. It is not a novel most being quite true. It is essentialy an exercise to get these stories down somewhere, anywhere that will survive me , as my health is on the down hill side. Right now I am struggling to navigate Word, and the blog is my little way of sharing the 60's and 70's for thode that missed them

[Fearless]

31. This is exactly the kind of thing we need more of.

Kudos to you.

[Fearless]

28. We've disagreed on many small things in the past...

I'm not sure if you remember. But I'm happy that we can rationally discuss differences. In democracy that seems most vital. Thank you.

And I'm sorry if my blog doesn't make much sense, it's more of a personal release valve than anything else. The only reason I put it in my profile was because I've written in it for so long that I felt it would be a shame if no one got to read it even if some of it seems like pure crap. And I know that some of it is at least contridictory; opinions change as we age. I hope politics hasn't jaded us all to that notion just yet.

Edit: I'm unclear as to whether by blog you all meant my Journal for DU or my actual blog whose link is posted in my profile... clarification would be helpful to defend myself.

[readmoreoften]

34. Actually, what I meant about women not enjoying sex being a recent phenomenon is this:

In Western culture, from Greece until the 17th century, it was believed that the vagina was a prolapsed penis and that, in the womb, women were men who 'inverted' due to various combinations of factors (including the female sperm being stronger than the male sperm--yes, you heard me right) but the final effect was that the female was formed due to an absence of vital heat.

A corollary of this was that women's sexual pleasure was essential because the sperm produced by their offspring was known to be necessary for pregnancy. Mind you, this is not folk science, I'm talking about, this is standard medicine. (This is, partially, why in Greek literature, when the gods rape the virgins, and the virgins get pregnant everyone calls the virgin a whore: a highly insensitive concept to the modern psyche. But back then, it was common knowledge that you could not conceive without pleasure: ergo, the raped woman who became pregnant was not a victim after all, but an indecent woman who enjoyed the ravishment.)

In fact, it was well-known to all that men were more inclined to relationships and women (in essence, imperfect men who were closer to children and animals) only wanted one thing: sex. Sex, sex, sex. Women were insatiable. That's why men needed protection from their irrational urges.

Fast forward to the 17th century: the clitoris is discovered. It is not fully accepted by doctors until the 19th century--a few decades before the dawn of the Victorian era actually. The clitoris is a highly impossible concept. Women are collapsed men. Their penis is internal. Why would God make women with TWO penises? Particularly that small disfunctional external penis. When the doctors "discovered" that the vagina was not a prolapsed penis but a "mere sheath" and that women's ejaculation was completely unnecessary for conception, the whole world changed. Women's pleasure was not a part of God's plan, therefore it was a part of The Other Guy's plan. Women's sexual pleasure was afterwards, largely categorized as a possible perversion or at least a very naughty and unnecessary thing.

Still, it wasn't until the end of the 19th century that the law was largely convinced that pregnancy was not a sign of consent during rape trials.

So from Antiquity to the mid-19th century, good girls did. From the mid-19th century to the Sexual Revolution, good girls didn't.

[BillSam]

35. Thank you for this information

and another fascinating post!

Really interesting bit of history there!

[Fearless]

20. Absolutely agreed.

[Chovexani]

41. I'm one of those 20-something radical queer polyamorists

And I support marriage rights 100%. Having a partner with a multitude of chronic health conditions and terrible health insurance will do that. I can't put her on my superior health plan even though my job offers domestic partnership benefits because to prove you are domestic partners you have to be registered, and the state I live in doesn't have a DP registry.

Please don't paint with a broad brush. None of the young poly dykes and bi chicks I know exhibit those attitudes (and I know a LOT of them). And, just FYI, being poly is about a lot more than who you sleep with, just like being gay, lesbian or bi is about a lot more than who you sleep with.

That post was kind of hurtful.

[lightningandsnow]

16. I suppose the two groups are different, but, it's not all our fault.

First of all, not all young GLBTers are ignorant of the past. Also, people may have different priorities, but that doesn't mean they don't care about things like marriage rights. Speaking from my own personal perspective, I may not want to get married when I'm older, but the right to do so is, of course, very important. I think most others like me would agree, actually. Also, I think a good thing about younger queers is that a lot of them are getting involved in issues like disability rights, the rights of sex workers, anti-racism, etc. And those are important issues. It would be great if younger GLBT folk could be more informed about history - but it would also be great if the older people could get more involved in issues like the ones described.

And I do object to what some people are saying about polyamory and such. A lot of people are polyamorous, regardless of their age... and to dismiss this as a "phase" is almost as offensive as dismissing a young person's homosexuality as a phase. And some people can be "radical" long into middle and old age... not all of us settle down, you know.

[BillSam]

18. I don't think anyone was necessarily

dismissing polyamory as a "phase," only that for some people it is. Sometimes it just doesn't occur to younger people that those of us who are middle-aged have really lived through a lot of these things even if the terms were different (today: polyamory; yesterday: free love. Not a new concept in the slightest although some young people seem to think it is, just as some young people seem to think the concept of say, bisexuality, only came into being in the 21st century. Been around for many, MANY decades, as has the whole notion of Free Love -- even before the "hippies" -- say the 1920's and even the 19th century. Very few new ideas under the sun!)

I also have to say that your point that a lot of young people are getting involved in other issues and rights battles, such as for the disabled, is not new either. Jeez, I'm sure I'm not the only older person here who was involved in the Civil Rights struggle!!!

I sometimes get the impression -- which may be false -- that despite all the great changes we've lived through, older people are somehow MORE aware of how much farther we have to go than some younger people. As far as I'm concerned, homophobia (external and internalized) is still a MAJOR issue, and for me at least, it's difficult to find the time to get involved in other struggles (only 24 hours in each day, alas) when there's still so much to do to achieve lasting Gay Rights and Equality.

Still a long, long way to go.

[Fearless]

21. Again agreed.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Love your icon!

For my part, I was not saying 'it's a phase' I was saying that it is not new. This is a recurring discussion historically. I am a radical and I am 47. How's that? The point is that what is seen as radical or mainstream within our community differs from moment to moment. The personal part is about the person, how the 'others' see those actions is what I am talking about.
Ok now, as an 'older queer' who is disabled, who has been involved in issues ranging from Choice to electing Jerry Brown to increased police oversight, medical marijuana, the rights of farm workers and other Union members (I'm a Union member) to raising money for animal rights and literacy in this country as well as in Canada and the United Kingdom, I'm very glad younger people are also taking up broad issues. But it is nothing new. It is how I and my friends have always been.Oh and let's not forget the Democratic Party. To think that the younger people are blazing a new highway in that regard is not accurate at all. Older people are not only involved in what you are doing, we built the system in which you are working, and the culture, and we did it for you! And those before my time did the same for me. Thank God, as my generation had to bury people each week while building from zero the entire network of AIDS support and research groups. Out of nothing. In like two years. Just saying, there was a crisis and we met it full on. For quite some time there, those of us with money to spend were paying for Meds and mortgages, being meals on wheels, organizers, thearpists, and bankers. While we mourned. Us older gay people have been doing everything under the sun, for many many years. I for one am estatic to see some of the younger generation finally get up and do something. Long time coming, to be honest.

In terms of knowing history, age is not an excuse. There are books to read, films to watch and elders to speak with. I know all about many facets of histroy that happened prior to the birth of the United States of America. By not knowing your roots, you miss out on so much. You miss out. No one else.
In closing I'd like to point out a comment upthread. Someone says 'older people are upset because there has been so little progress in the last 50 years'...that is simply insane. In 1957, before I was born, being gay was illegal. They arrested us for gathering. The last 50 years has been almost nothing but progress for queerfolk. Hard won under some extreme conditions, but progress none the less. I was the first gay person many of my elders ever met who had never been in the closet. I was in showbiz and everyone was gay or gay friendly and yet no one was out. Anyone who thinks it has been 50 years of no progress is massivley uninformed and is also taking for granted things that were won with blood and spit.
Political times shift and so does what is seen as the norm or the radical thing. That which is seen as radical varies from time to time. Being political at all while being gay was not very cool to many for a long time. Capitulation to the hetro hirearchy, it was. I still know people who are very upset that gay has welcomed any element of monogomy and they are older, and they think we are and always should remain outlaws and outsiders. The very rights and place in society that I seek and live as if I already have, they see as poison and the very opposite of being gay.
Nothing new under the sun, and the choice to remain ignorant of the facts is in itself a luxery you were given by those who went before you. My generation, we had no time to bother with that, no time to worry about which age group was right, we had life or death situations to contend with, our community was at stake, our friends too. We got stuff done. Needle exchange? That was us too. It goes on and on. Very sad that you think your liberties have always been. Gay liberty like that of all other groups was won by actual people. If it were not for the older people-older than me even- we could both go to jail for having this exchange. Just saying.

[BillSam]

44. You've made so many really excellent points!

"Age is no excuse," yes. There are books about the early gay rights movement (even BEFORE Stonewall) and lots of information on the Internet. Let me make it clear that this is certainly not true of all younger gays, but far too many of them have no idea of what's gone before or for some strange reason think that activism didn't begin until they came of age! Maybe their mostly straight parents aren't activists so they assume all older people are the same -- no interest in social causes -- regardless
of their orientation.

I remember meeting a very young lady from GLAAD at a party. I mentioned that I had been involved with New York's Gay Activists Alliance, which was very vocal and visible many years ago. She, of course, had no idea of what I was talking about, no knowledge of the gay groups that had come long before GLAAD, and no real interest in what -- to her -- this old fart had to say, although she was polite enough. Depressing, really.

The corporate LGBT activists of today are largely (if not exclusively) very, very different from the unpaid gay activists of the past, who had only dedication, fervor and an honest need to make things better to sustain them.

I'm curious about your point about some older gays who want to remain "outlaws." I'm not saying this phenomenon doesn't exist, only that I can't really say I've encountered it in any concrete form. Sure, there are guys like myself who don't want every single gay bar to become "mixed" and so on, but that doesn't mean I'm a separatist or want all gays to remain on the political fringes without real rights. Could you elaborate on this (you can send me a private message if you prefer). Maybe some older gay men long for the days of mafia bars and dim lights if only because they were younger and hotter --THAT attitude I have encountered, but it's more about lost youth than anything else.

Thanks for a very interesting post!

[Fearless]

45. You are very right. Age is no excuse.

[Fearless]

33. So to sum everything up...

Thank you everyone who's given me feedback and even a few new ideas. I'm sorry that we can't always talk civilly with each other and I hope to work on my own shortcomings in this department in the future. I have to thank everyone who made this post tops on the GLBT section on the front page. Far be it for me to make awards speeches... Well maybe some other time.

I'd still appreciate any opinions that anyone else has. I've been around these parts for a while and I know that there are a few big players sitting this out so far, and I'd appreciate anything you'd have to say. I hope the morning crew picks this up. I'll check again perhaps tomorrow night if anyone wants my opinion too. And welcome to the madness anyone from BillSam's thread, pull up a seat, and sorry the popcorn has run out. We've been throwing it at each other.