Global Gay Nation > Separatism vs. Assimilation

Gay Essence

<< < (3/4) > >>

Feral:

--- Quote ---Does anyone seriously believe we think, talk, or hold these archaic views about an eternal Form of Gayness making a "this" into a Gay Essence? Thus, Gayness would have universal features and properties that define every single instance of every Gay Thing. This kind of metaphysical transcendence of an Eternal Animating Form, or in Aristotle's terminology, "soul," would be an ubiquitous "Gay Soul." Seriously? In the 20th and 21st centuries, this kind of thought and talk survives?
--- End quote ---


Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but "yes." This kind of thought and talk not only survives in the 21st century, it does so quite handily. I don't know that I'd be much quoting Plato on the matter though. Plato is, quite bluntly, wrong. His writings are, I think, far more interesting for their paraphrasing of the views of others. While it would be difficult to do so, Heraclitus might be more illustrative of the character of "essence." Alternatively, any of the Epicurean writers would be helpful.

"Gayness" (if that is what one must call it) does have universal features that define being "gay." If one does not have them, then one is not "gay." Would I imagine that gays have only gay qualities to the exclusion of any other? Why on Earth would I do that?

As for the "ubiquitous 'Gay Soul,'" this is a matter for animist theologians, very few of whom play much mind to the rhetoric of Aristotle. Animism is far too gnostic in character to be brought into a discussion that relies so on logic. But yes... this sort of thought and talk also survives.

I am rather puzzled by Mr. Heersink's frequent references to 'queer theorists." I do not think he characterizes their arguments correctly. Queer Theory is redolent with Constructivism. They would be among the first to argue that there is no 'gay essence." It is the Constructivists who disavow the very concept of essence. It would be the Essentialists who do not (hence the name). Queer Theory might be many things, but I do not think one could call it Essentialist.

Stones are hard (at least, all of the hard ones). "Hardness" is a readily identifiable essential quality. All things that are hard posses it. None of the things that do not possess this quality are credibly said to be 'hard.'

Really... while one might dissemble for a very long time if one is clever, it really is quite possible to tell when a person just isn't 'gay.' They're allowed to not be gay of course. Many people aren't gay. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Just as some stones are notoriously hard (diorite, for instance) and some are infamously not hard (talc), there are people who are 'gayer' than others. That talc is deficient in hardness in comparison to diorite does not make it 'not hard' in most meaningful ways. I would not care to be whacked in the head with a lump of talc, for instance.

Rain:
Very interesting.  But the dear doctor is being guided only in and by what other gay men are projecting.  In short, he's taking the "thousands" of gay men he has met at face value.  Oh, that it were so easy that gays could live in a world where everyone took us at face value.  Does he ever wonder how many thousands of straight men he has met that were not at all straight?  

If there is one characteristic that has defined gay people throughout the ages, aside from fucking buttholes and eating pussy (to paraphrase Dr. Heersink), it's that we are chameleons.  That in itself has become a defining characteristic of gay identity all over the world in nearly every culture.  Odd that Dr. Heersink would also miss this point.

Feral:

--- Quote ---it's that we are chameleons.
--- End quote ---


I would intensify that somewhat -- we are chameleons and know that we are chameleons. Even when we aren't being chameleons, it is a conscious decision not to do so, and we know we aren't doing so.

One does not need to believe in anything along the lines of "French atoms" (or even "French souls") to comprehend that there is a difference between an American Quarter Horse and a Camargue. They are quite easy to tell apart, providing one cares at all about the differences. There are three mounted police officers in the excessively quaint town I live in... the three horses are not of the same breed. Some people are quite content to simply define them all as "horses," even to the point of denying that they differ in any respect other than color. That these people decline to recognize that these horses are of different breeds does not make the horses not of different breeds.

vanrozenheim:
You have right. It is in principle a senseless debate to argue about whether "gayness" is important or not, whether it is important if one is straight or a homo. Obviously, for some people being of the homo- or heterosexual species is important, for some not. Can we blame a person who can't see the difference between a Zebra and a Przhewalsky horse? Obviously not, even being amazed about the person's lack of judgement. Quite another thing is, of course, a person whose daily existence and mind state is defined by his Gayness (to the extent that he spends considerable amount of his time with musing and writing about Gayness), and yet pretends that being Gay were of no importance. :wink:

Rain:
One of the amazing things of the "nature vs. nurture" arguments that people consistently overlook is this one...if either of those is to be taken seriously, the nature of gays has HAD to have been altered (AND REENFORCED) over millennia under the brutal "nurturing" or conditioning of heterosexual oppression.  It only makes sense.  So both theories may indeed be right, but not as the theorists expect.  

Natural selection would make sure that only those homos in centuries past who could best hide their gayness would pass on their genes.  The more flamboyant ones who refused to fall into step and marry and procreate would not.  Again, it only makes sense.  So, nature has indeed played a vital and pivotal role in our development.  We should, in theory, share much more than just the ability to perforate an asshole or lick a clit.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page