Gay History Month

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Gay History Month

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. Oh don't be silly! There's no such thing.

Don't you know that homosexuals didn't exist until the Village People invented them in 1978?
:sarcasm:

[ZombieHorde]

2. Funny.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Black History Month

encouraged the study of famous African Americans and the impact of blacks on our society. A Gay History Month would do the same, and may cause more speculation on our possible first gay President, James Buchanan.

[yardwork]

4. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, it would encourage people to become more informed.

I voted "good idea" but I also see several potential issues -

1. Some African Americans are offended by comparisons between the Civil Rights Movement and gay rights movement. This would just add to that anger.

2. I doubt it will happen anyway. The schools would resist doing this because the backlash from fundy parents would be huge.

3. I'm generally opposed to setting aside any single group. I wish that gay history was taught everyday.

[iamjoy]

5. Not Good - Here's Why

I don't think gay history month is a good idea. It is not that I don't think we should give full rights and recognition to homosexuals, and it is not that I don't oppose (in principle) the idea of special recognition for those our history (Western History - written largely by white males) has ignored or marginalized.

Women could not hide their gender. African Americans could not hide their race. We know who and what they were. Their contributions may have been overlooked or attributed to white men, but we know Elizabeth Cady Stanton was female and Frederick Douglass was African American. Looking back at Western Civilization prior to the 1960a - can we know for certain who was gay? To try to recognize those who may have been secretly gay is to raise great debate amongst historians. There would be people from both sides who would deliberately try to twist the facts for their own political purposes.

If a gay white man in the 1800s was in the closet, how was he marginalized by the history books? How was he denied his rights other than the right to marry or live openly with the one he loved? Now that seems so basic, and so crucial. At a time, however, when women were the property of their husbands and African Americans the chattel of White masters, not having the right to openly express one's sexuality falls seems less significant than not being able to vote, own property or even say "no" to one's "master's" demands.

I think we would do better to point out to people the contributions homosexuals make today, in their communities and to our nation.

[Jamastiene]

6. Are you basically saying that black gay people do not exist?

Lesbians do not and never have existed? There is sooo much wrong with your argument, I do not even know where to begin.

[iamjoy]

24. Not At All

Gay black people are recognized during Black History Month. Lesbians are included in Womens History Month.

It is only gay white men who would not be included in a designated month because every we always recognize the accomplishments of White Male History month.

And please tell me how we can know for certain who was gay prior to the Civil Rights moment?

[Bluebear]

25. You are not "joy". You are bigot.

[iamjoy]

28. You Call Me A Bigot

You call me a bigot and you don't answer the question. Maybe I made my point poorly before and threw out some distractions that aren't intended as flame bait, but are smoking despite that.

How do we identify GLBT people who lived in a time when to acknowledge their sexual orientation was to face death or complete ostracism by all parts of society?

[LostinVA]

11. One of THE most insulting posts I've ever read on here -- complete with the term "homosexual"

[ronnykmarshall]

31. Homosexual is like Negro

"Oh lets all down the river and sing some old HOMOSEXUAL spirituals ..... Some wheeeeeeeeere over the rainbow".

I just saw "MILK" today and I cringe when I hear the word "Homosexual".

[iamjoy]

43. Sorry I Didn't Know

I honestly didn't know homosexual was outdated or pejorative. I always thought "gay" was the slang/unflattering term and couldn't figure out why it had such broad use.

[NMMNG]

12. Spare me the bigoted nonsense

Both women and black people have "passed" at times over the course of history. Your claim that gay people can all do so, and therefore not only should but don't deserve rights or historical recognition, is both incorrect and hateful. Countless people have been targeted because others knew or merely thought they were gay. That includes plenty of straight people who weren't the least bit gay but were merely presumed to be so by bigots.

People are provided rights and protections for many reasons including race, gender, religion, disability and others. Would you suggest to a religious person that they don't deserve rights because they can pretend to not be religious? Are you suggesting that people invite hate-crimes if they "look gay", wear religious jewelry, express their political beliefs, etc? It certainly seems you're blaming gay people for the bigotry against them ("Gee, if you didn't look like such a queer people wouldn't shit all over you").

If a gay white man in the 1800s was in the closet, how was he marginalized by the history books? How was he denied his rights other than the right to marry or live openly with the one he loved? Now that seems so basic, and so crucial.

Give up your right to marry and be with someone you love then tell me how paltry that is. Perhaps you think it's nothing to be told to live a lie, and to go without some of the most basic needs in life, to please those who hate needlessly and without reason. People like you make me sick the way you trivialize what LGBT people have and still are going through. Marriage bans, adoption bans, their children taken away by homophobic courts, not being able to get a job or being fired just for being gay, DADT and other hateful anti-gay laws are all across the country. And don't even get me started on the hate-crime perpetrated against us.

Screw everyone who claims we don't deserve things because we should "pass". That's just more homophobic bullshit.

[iamjoy]

26. You Missed The Point

Because they had to pretend we cannot identify the sexual orientation of some one who lived prior to the mid-twentieth century with any certainty. Therefore, we would have no guarantee that attempts to recognize individual contributions of GLBT people as part of a History month would be historically accurate.

I am not underestimating the value of being with the one you love, either. The idea of marrying for love is a relatively modern concept. That's why it drives me so crazy when people talk about "redefining marriage." The definition of marriage has been in flux for thousands of years.

Please don't attribute things I didn't say to me. I challenge you to point out the passage from my post where I said that was a good thing, or that it should be the case today. Tell me where I said that anyone should pretend to be something they aren't. I'm merely saying that historically that is what happened - people of repressed minorities or groups faked it when they could and were persecuted when they couldn't. That's tragic and true. It's more tragic that it still happens, although not to the degree it did in the past. Before you point out the hate crimes and hate laws today, I would remind you there was a time in our nation's past when sodomy was a capital crime. So, we've made progress - just not enough.

I look forward to the day when no one has to fake or deny any part of who they are to receive full equality. Perhaps I am thinking of this too clinically in that I am too concerned about historical accuracy and context, but that does not make it bigoted nonsense.

[donco6]

14. Probably the most idiotic reasoning I've seen in weeks.

"If a gay white man in the 1800s was in the closet, how was he marginalized by the history books? How was he denied his rights other than the right to marry or live openly with the one he loved?"

Yeah, just that one little thing. :eyes:

Besides, gay history month is about putting the two together for the benefit of other gay people who need to see that we've been around forever, that we have made valuable contributions to society, and that there's no reason to be ashamed of who we are. It's this lack of connection that leads to isolation in our youth, who then get beaten down by bigots (ahem) into thinking that they are somehow "sick" or "immoral". This leads to depression and suicide.

I myself can attest to this. I realized I was gay when I was 12 years old in 1972. For the next 4 years, I was depressed and suicidal, culminating in a suicide attempt in my Junior year of high school. My mother chose to see it as "having a drug problem" (which I did not have). The idea I was suicidal was even worse in her eyes. Because of this, the few friends I *did* have shunned me. I was kicked out of National Honor Society. Finally, I turned to fundamentalist Christianity, because they were the *only* people who offered me any kind of hope at all. After 15 years of that, I was finally able to stand on my own two feet and acknowledge myself as a gay man.

So, Yes, we do need gay history month. If I'd had some affirmation of myself as a human being, I don't think I'd have had to go through all of that.

[Bluebear]

23. 'other than the right to marry or live openly with the one he loved' - MINOR detail.

People. :crazy:

[iamjoy]

29. Well, Historically Speaking

One hundred fifty years ago, slaves couldn't really legally marry and the "marriages" they had were either arranged by or at least approved by their masters. One hundred years ago a woman was legally the property of her husband - it didn't matter if he beat her or screwed around on her - divorce really wasn't an option if she wanted to be considered respectable. Fifty years ago, many states would not allow inter-racial marriage.

Marrying the person of your choice for love and happiness is a relatively modern concept. You know, we've been changing the definition of marriage in this country...

[iamjoy]

27. How Would That Help?

How would Gay History Month give you affirmation?

Wouldn't you be more likely to have affirmation if we had a Constitutional Amendment that barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity? What good is a symbolic gesture like a "History Month" if the laws haven't changed, much less hearts and minds?

Perhaps I am being callous and insensitive by being overly pragmatic.

As for living with the one you love that is not a little thing at all - today. My point was not to trivialize it in the context of today's mindset, but to point out that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries there was less importance placed on marrying for happiness and love - regardless of sexuality.

And still, my question is not answered. Okay, I'll give you that I made the point about marginalization poorly, or that it's a lame point in the first place. Now, we have my second question - how do we identify GLBT figures with historical certainty? And without this crucial piece, how do we honestly recognize their contributions to inspire and comfort young people who feel isolated by society?

[donco6]

33. So, what you're saying . . .

. . . is that, due to the stigma placed on homosexuality by the church over the centuries, which forced gay men and women to hide their sexuality, we can never be sure if a historical figure was really gay or not. Therefore, we should simply forego recognizing the contributions of gay men and women, due to the risk of misidentification.

Do you really want to continue pursuing this logic? Because it's really offensive. You're saying that, not only do we have to quietly swallow the persecution our historical brethren endured, but we also have to deny their historical contributions . . . because--through no fault of their own--they had to hide their lives from public view. And to misidentify someone as gay would be . . . bad. For some reason.

The fact is, there are plenty of figures who we know without a doubt were gay. And there will always be others about whom people like to speculate - at the risk of offending the religious (David and Jonathan, Christ and John, etc.) But that's a risk I can live with.

And being forced to live with someone you don't love has always been painful - in this century or any other. I really don't think love was invented in the 1900s. For gays and lesbians, not only could they not live with the person they loved, they had to actually perform sex with a gender they were not attracted to. Do you have any idea how difficult that must have been?

[iamjoy]

36. I Recognize It

I acknowledge how difficult it would have been to perform sex with a gender that wasn't right for them (and act like it was "normal").

I don't think we should fail to recognize the contributions of GLBT once we can identify it with reasonable certainty. I like Gay Pride Month, because the focus (at least that I have seen) is about gaining acceptance and looking at it from a more modern perspective. A very moving exhibit I saw had GLBT people and friends telling coming out stories and how it affected them. I stopped and thought hard at the one who wouldn't have pictures of her partner on her desk at work because she didn't want the questions (I have my wedding picture, she can't do the same). I cried at the man whose parents disowned him. To me, that has meaning.

Misidentifying a historical figure as gay would not be right, anymore than inaccurately identifying one as Jewish would be right. Of course, history is full of lies and legends...

[keepCAblue]

20. OMG. Little Ricky, is that you trolling the DU boards again? n/t

[Bluebear]

22. 'African Americans could not hide their race.' - again with this divisive shit.

And "homosexuals" to ice the cake.

[Zuiderelle]

30. You really give yourself away with saying that it's the "right to openly express one's sexuality"

I don't have any care to express my "sexuality" and I doubt that anyone in the 1800s did either. Gay people aren't interested in expressing their sexuality anymore than straight people are. I have no idea what all my straight neighbors do sexually. Reducing being gay to just sexuality is patronizing and absurd. I simply want the same rights that straight people have. A gay woman living in the 1800's had to deal with not only having no personal rights, but also not having any access into the scarce rights of straight women that only came with marriage, without denying their own selves.

We can certainly recognize the people prior to the 1960's that we know were gay like Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, Alice Toklas and so many others. Yes, we have a problem being able to prove that some gay people in the 1800s (and even 1900s) were gay, but it shouldn't stop us from recognizing those few incredibly brave pioneers who lived openly despite all the hatred and fear and bigotry against them.

And what is wrong with raising great debate amongst historians about who might have been secretly gay. I think it's a great idea.

[iamjoy]

32. To Clarify

in terms of openly expressing sexuality, I meant in terms of orientation, not overt acts. The Victorian Era was one of repression all around and the preceding era still wasn't what we'd think of as open. Love stories were still written, there was just no sex. And the love stories that have survived are male/female and the poems were heterosexual or cryptic.

My concern with debating the sexual orientation of a historical figure is that we may distract from the person's documented accomplishments with minimal gain. The true bigots (as opposed to clumsy goofs like me) are not going to believe that some of these beloved historical figures were gay. Some people believe Abraham Lincoln was gay. I don't know if he was or wasn't, but do know that true bigots would do everything they could to prevent it being taught in schools. If we discuss whether a poet had same sex lovers, we risk losing the beauty of the poetry in academic debate.

I would rather talk about the history of hatred and repression in this country for everyone who was different. I would rather spend my energy fighting for a Constitutional Amendment banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (I would have thought the Fourteenth with its "all citizens..." should cover that, but I guess not) than speculating about who in our past may have been gay.

Call me a fool, but please don't think of me as a bigot. We can disagree on what is worth debating and what isn't, but please don't twist my words to think I don't want equality and openness, too. I just have a different idea about how to get it.

Thank you at least for addressing my question about identification. And to be fair, you never called me a bigot, it just seems you might have read more than I meant into the phrase about expressing sexuality.

[donco6]

34. I had to chuckle . . .

"The Victorian Era was one of repression all around and the preceding era still wasn't what we'd think of as open. Love stories were still written, there was just no sex."

I do quite a lot of genealogy work. Judging by the number of children Victorian-era families had, I'd say having sex was not a problem. :rofl:

"My concern with debating the sexual orientation of a historical figure is that we may distract from the person's documented accomplishments with minimal gain. The true bigots (as opposed to clumsy goofs like me) are not going to believe that some of these beloved historical figures were gay. Some people believe Abraham Lincoln was gay. I don't know if he was or wasn't, but do know that true bigots would do everything they could to prevent it being taught in schools. If we discuss whether a poet had same sex lovers, we risk losing the beauty of the poetry in academic debate. "

Now you're talking about historical dishonesty. Just because a bigot will fight to have the truth revealed about a beloved figure (Abe Lincoln or otherwise), doesn't mean a historian shouldn't seek to uncover the truth. And if the truth IS uncovered, I'm confused as to why that would impact the beauty of the figure's creation? Walt Whitman's poetry was considered beautiful before and after his homosexuality was revealed. He's still considered one of the quintessential American poets.

You know, a Constitutional amendment would be utterly grand. But I think there's about as much chance of that as my sprouting wings. Those would be great too. Personally, I believe it to be something of a fool's errand at this point.

[iamjoy]

37. So, Call Me A Fool

but thank you at least for not calling me a bigot.

Victorians had lots of sex, they just didn't talk much about it - romance novels today are bodice rippers full of sex. Love stories one hundred fifty years ago were suggestive if they had so much as a kiss (that's what I meant by no sex)

Walt Whitman's poetry is just as beautiful whether he was gay or straight - I just don't see how we can uncover the truth. I guess you think it's worth trying and I'm not sure that's our best use of time in terms of gaining full equality and acceptance.

[Zuiderelle]

38. I couldn't disagree with you more.

"If we discuss whether a poet had same sex lovers, we risk losing the beauty of the poetry in academic debate."

How do you figure that? I think if anything, that knowing the poet's sexuality could bring a whole new level to the poetry, especially poetry about love.

Your other arguments about preferring to spend time doing this or that is also frustrating, we can do many things at once. We can recognize and research our ancestors who were gay at the same that we work for equality in our lifetime. Just as recognizing black and female historical figures for their contributions to society have empowered blacks and women and shown white men that they are not the only ones that contributed, even though those who wrote our history seemed to try to make it that way, the same would hold true for gays.

And you're right I didn't call you a bigot. But when someone starts to talk about women not being able to hide their gender and blacks not being able to hide their race, in comparison to gays, who by your inference CAN hide their orientation, it puts my back up. You go on and on to insinuate that gay people couldn't have possibly been discriminated against aside from not being able to express their love or sexuality. And that's a HUGE mistake to assume. Many, many men and women were killed specifically because of their orientation.

[iamjoy]

42. Fair Enough

And I should have been more up front about the fact that just because one can hide their gender orientation doesn't mean they should. I very strongly believe they should be able to be open and enjoy all rights and privileges they should be guaranteed as citizens - out or not. Now by saying citizens, you might think I'm just worried about the US. Not so. I mean, why do you think we almost never hear about GLBT people in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran, eh? They probably hide it or... Just as we fight to get rid of violence against women around the world, we should also fight to get rid of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

I really think I am on your side overall in the "culture war", just not this battle. What you really need to get me to sign on to the idea of a GLBT History Month is to get the idea out there and have the Dobsons and Warrens pitch a fit. Then I'll be all for it (having a GLBT history month). Although I would still think it should be combined with Pride Month.

[meegbear]

39. May is Jewish American Heritage Month

http://jewishheritage.ujcweb.org/index.aspx?page=1

That can be hidden by someone and lord knows that was held against them in this country.

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. Our history is important

It shows that, despite persecution, we have always been a part of shaping this country. It shows that the bigots are lying when they say that homosexuality is a "modern disease" and a choice. It shows that we have ties to the past and shows that we have come a very long way despite how things might seem now.

And how DARE you tell us that this does not mean anything.

[One_Life_To_Give]

44. US Gay History Pre-1941?

I don't think anyone is really talking about celebrating Gay history in North America from 1600-1941.
The issue of which historical figures may or may not have been gay isn't the purpose. I would think it might start with the draft/military recruitment of WW2 which I think is the first time many young men realized they were not alone. Focus on events such as the Stonewall riots, Harvey Milk, etc.

[GodlessBiker]

7. Too late. October is gay history month.

http://www.glbthistorymonth.com/glbthistorymonth/2008/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_History_Month

[ZombieHorde]

8. Do you feel that Gay History Month is a good idea, or a bad idea, regardless of its existence?

Oh and, thanks for the link.

[GodlessBiker]

9. I'm in favor of its continued existence.

[hulklogan]

10. A good idea, especially if it teaches people that there have been LGBT people since the big bang.

We didn't just appear in the 1950s like some people like to pretend. There were even gay people before Jesus was born!

[IndianaGreen]

19. King David was bisexual. His pal Jonathan was gay.

I think that if all of us were to burn every copy of the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, the world will be better off. The history of humankind has shown that religion must be buried in the deepest hole we can dig if we are to survive as a species. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is vicious, capricious, psychotic, and cruel. Even if this God existed for real, particularly if He did, we must renounce and reject Him for the sociopath that He is.

[lightningandsnow]

13. "Queer History Month", perhaps?

Or LGBTIAQQ history month?

It's just that whenever I hear "gay" in this context, it always seems to exclude people like bisexuals and trans people, and other nondescript queers. Would Christine Jorgensen be included because she identified as straight, but was trans? Or Susie Bright, because she's bisexual?

I like the idea, I'm just being nitpicky here.

And while we're on the subject of the dreaded "alphabet soup" (well, I don't dread it, but everyone else seems to), I love the acronym FABGLITTER. "Fetish, Allies, Bisexuals, Gay, Lesbians, Intersexed, Transgender, Transsexual Engendering Revolution."

[ZombieHorde]

16. "Fetish"? - Do latex fans really need a history month?

[lightningandsnow]

17. Nah, I'm just saying FABGLITTER is a fabulous acronym.

[ZombieHorde]

18. OK, but at least make the 'F' for 'furry'. Nerds are always excluded.

[Christian30]

15. I'm for it, but...

much like "Coming Out Day" (which was created by HRC), LGBT history month is run by an organization called Equality Forum. To my knowledge, they pick who they are going to honor each of those days with no input from the community. I've seen some folks on their list that I think are being wildly over-emphasized relative to their contributions.

[donco6]

35. Here's the list of names for 2008:

Del Martin & Phyllis Lyon
Stephen Sondheim
Gianni Versace
Sheila Kuehl
Tennessee Williams
Alice Walker
Greg Louganis
Bertrand Russell
Margaret Mead
Mark Bingham
Cleve Jones
Jann Wenner
Harvey Fierstein
Margarethe Cammermeyer
Anthony Romero
Melissa Etheridge
Gene Robinson
John Waters
Robert Mapplethorpe
Georgina Beyer
Tony Kushner
Rosie O'Donnell
Philip Johnson
E.M. Forster
Randy Shilts
Allen Ginsberg
Troy Perry
Bill T. Jones
Andy Warhol
Rachel Carson
Michelangelo

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. Better than "good". A remedy to the biggest part of the problem:

Ignorance.

[TechBear_Seattle]

40. This has existed for 15 years. Gay History Month is Feb. in the UK, Oct in the US

GLBT History Month

The original organizers were promoters of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. October was selected to include National Coming-Out Day, which had been around for almost 20 years already, and because it was towards the start of the academic year. It is February in the UK.

I have also seen June held up as Gay Pride Month, because of the Stonewall Riots which occured June 28-30, 1969.