On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
> I always wonder if you can be gay and not have sex.
Hmm. You're a gay activist, so you know the party line. The current way of defining gay, straight and bi is in terms of orientation: when you fall in love or are overcome with lust, is it with people of the same gender, the opposite, or both?
The big reason of course why the essence of gayness isn't defined in terms of behavior is because behavior is obviously a choice -- you can do it or not. But orientation is beyond your control. And legally that's got huge implications.
As we saw with Bill Richardson last week, this line as become a defining taboo. If you cross it even by accident (and most commentators in the gay community accept his explaination that his crossing was a tired, stupid accident born of mouthing too many things by rote) a hue and cry goes up, because that's how society polices its norms.
So are you opposing this idea? If so I'd be fascinated to hear what your arguments are against it.
On other hand, if you're just making a fine subdistinction -- if you're saying that people with gay orientation who don't act on it aren't fully realized gays -- I don't think anybody would argue with that.
Michael