Some people think "LGBT = loose morals"

[Beth Andrea]

So I was in a class at work the other day and the subject of vowels came up...instructor asked, "How many consonants are in the American alphabet?"

Most of us thought 21...26 letters, 5 vowels (6 if one counts "Y") = 21.

No, he said. There's 19. Y and W are "semi-vowels". While we discussed this, someone mentioned "W is bi...it swings both ways." Another groaned disgustedly and said "That's gross". I said, "No it isn't."

"Yes it is. W shouldn't be sleeping around with whatever letter happens to be next to it."

The conversation evolved quickly after that, but his comment and tone stayed with me...I do think some people tie being LGBT with loose sexual morals.

Myself, I don't think we're any looser than straight people are. But it does bother me a little that some might look at me and think I'm probably a kinky fetishistic floozy just because I have tits and present as a woman.

Oh wait...that's how some people view women in general.

Umm..but yeah, anyway...if anyone is making a video about "Trans 101" for the masses out there, please include a comment about how one shouldn't make assumptions about one's morals based on who they sleep with/date/gender presentation.

[Ltl89]

I think most people tend to see gays as more sexually free and open to more encounters.  It's wrong to make assumptions, but that's how most people see it.  And for some reason people assume bi-sexual people sleep with everyone because they go both ways.  As though straight people mate with everyone that they are attracted to, lol.  The fact is gay or straight, people have libidos and sexual interests.  There are people in every community that have large and small sexual appetites.  Believe me, I know gay men who are very conservative and some straight guys that will sleep with anything.  It depends on the person, not their orientation.

As far as the trans community goes, I think it's extremely laughable that people would perceive us as sexual deviants.  To use myself as an example, I am a virgin and one of the biggest prudes out there.  Yeah, I like guys, but I wouldn't want to sleep with someone I don't love or at least have some emotional attachment to.  Besides that, I have some big sexual hang ups that are related to my body issues.  I can't speak for everyone here, but I imagine some would share these feelings.  Most of us are not wild and out there people. 

In any event, good post.  It's an annoying assumption that I see straight cis people make about us all the time.  It gets tiring. 

[Danielle Emmalee]

Hmm I always thought LGBT = let's get busy tonight

[Beth Andrea]

Hmm I always thought LGBT = let's get busy tonight

LOL...I wish. 

I can't even get ->-bleeped-<-s to come after me.

Which I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing...but one thing is for certain:

Celibacy means no STD's (except by chance occurance, such as on a door knob or toilet seat)

[eli77]

Uh... while the stereotype is unpleasant, due to it erasing our individuality, there isn't anything wrong with being a "kinky fetishistic floozy" if that is what the person is comfortable with. The issues of morality in sex are consent, harm and respect for your partner(s). How many people you sleep with, or what kind of sex you like? Not moral issues. That falls under the fairly standard "judge not lest ye be judged."

From my own experience, queer folks are much more open and communicative about sex and sexuality. Which is a GOOD thing. Because the only way to deal with the actual moral issues pertaining to sex is to make sure everyone is having the kind of sex they want to have and not having the kind of sex they don't want to have.

The dude is a jerk not just for assuming all bisexuals sleep around, but also for assuming that sleeping around is inherently bad.

[suzifrommd]

Beth, I think there's some truth to the notion that LGBT folk tend not be concerned about living within SOCIETY's boundaries (not the same thing as loose morals, though most people think so).

We've already done things that most people think are taboo, so we're more accustomed than most to question what society thinks is kosher.

[Beth Andrea]

Uh... while the stereotype is unpleasant, due to it erasing our individuality, there isn't anything wrong with being a "kinky fetishistic floozy" if that is what the person is comfortable with. The issues of morality in sex are consent, harm and respect for your partner(s). How many people you sleep with, or what kind of sex you like? Not moral issues. That falls under the fairly standard "judge not lest ye be judged."

From my own experience, queer folks are much more open and communicative about sex and sexuality. Which is a GOOD thing. Because the only way to deal with the actual moral issues pertaining to sex is to make sure everyone is having the kind of sex they want to have and not having the kind of sex they don't want to have.

The dude is a jerk not just for assuming all bisexuals sleep around, but also for assuming that sleeping around is inherently bad.

Actually, a person's morals are entirely within their mind. They can choose one set of morals over another, if they wish, and no one should put down another person's moral base.

The exception is when the person uses their moral base to harm others...whether that is to put them on trains for the camps, or even to just try to make the person feel bad.

So yeah, some people think KFF's are immoral...but that is only from THEIR perspective and THEIR values. It does not mean that the KFF is, in fact, immoral. If the KFF is happy with what they're doing, and their partner(s) are too, then they are living according to THEIR morals, and cannot use their beliefs to say that the...shall we say, more religious person...is a "prude." (Even if he is by the KFF's standards).

Judging goes both ways, and correct, we should not do that.

Live and let live, unless you're being harmed by someone else's morals...then do what you must to make them stop.

Just mho.

[eli77]

I'm afraid I don't believe that all opinions are made equal. Believing that homosexuality is a sin makes a person a bad person. Because their belief is inherently discriminatory. And making any statements on the grounds of that belief is unquestionably going to cause harm. Just as the bloke in question, by making his statement based on the belief that sleeping around is bad, is going to cause harm to people who do sleep around. Which makes him a bad person because his moral base is causing harm.

And, yes, it absolutely goes both ways. An asexual, for example, needs the same amount of support and respect, as the KFF.

The reason why I said that consent, harm and respect are universal morals is because a lack in those categories is going to be harmful. Relativism breaks down when it comes to rape, damage (emotional or physical) and objectification. Pretty much everything else is outside the realm of "things that are bad all the time." They are in the realm of "things that are good or bad on a subjective basis" and those are morals that should NOT be imposed on other people. They shouldn't be voiced to other people without the proviso of "this is what is right for me."

We live in a world where morality is constantly being imposed, constantly being weaponized and used to demean and harm. I'm queer. There is no live and let live, yo. There is fighting back or giving in. I'm doing what I can to make them stop.

[Danielle Emmalee]

Believing something can make you a bad person?  Judging someone based on that belief maybe, but not simply having the belief, how is that harming anyone?

[suzifrommd]

Believing something can make you a bad person?  Judging someone based on that belief maybe, but not simply having the belief, how is that harming anyone?

I don't think anything makes one a "bad" person. All people are a mix of harmful and beneficial motivations.

I don't think believing something makes someone a dangerous person. Expressing that opinion, OTOH, might.

[Beth Andrea]

I'm afraid I don't believe that all opinions are made equal. Believing that homosexuality is a sin makes a person a bad person. Because their belief is inherently discriminatory. And making any statements on the grounds of that belief is unquestionably going to cause harm.

I agree that not all opinions are equally valid, or beneficial/harmful. The problem arises when anyone tries to impose their values onto the others.

Let's say we have a group of people who believe homosexuals and homosexuality is "bad" for people and for society. In a free society, they should be allowed to voice their opinions, and yes, to persuade others to their view. So long as no violence of any sort ensues...they should be allowed to say what they want.

It is our role to persuade people that that view is incorrect, and should not be followed.

The homophobic people, let's say, lose the argument. This doesn't mean they will change, it just means they know they won't have a gay-free country. If that is intolerable to them, they could buy an island or something, and declare their own country.

No one in their country (which was uninhabited at first) is gay. Over time, a gay person (or more than one) surreptitiously enter, and live there until discovered. They are then thrown out of the country.

The neighboring countries have a problem with this, so they attack and force the homophobes to allow gays in their country.

Who is harming whom now? Does "diversity" truly survive when one side forces the other into compliance?

Yes, values have different amounts of worth, depending on if one is "inside" ("us") or "outside" (" them")...

The real question is whether we, as individuals, are allowed to consider different value systems, and then apply elements of those which are better than what we started with.

[randomroads]

I don't think believing something makes someone a dangerous person. Expressing that opinion, OTOH, might.

I think anyone who thinks people are potentially dangerous because they express their opinions is dangerous. Why? Because that's how censorship starts.

[LordKAT]

I think anyone who thinks people are potentially dangerous because they express their opinions is dangerous. Why? Because that's how censorship starts.

By saying "might" I got the impression the it depended on how the opinion was expressed, as in words OK, violence not.

[eli77]

The neighboring countries have a problem with this, so they attack and force the homophobes to allow gays in their country.

Who is harming whom now? Does "diversity" truly survive when one side forces the other into compliance?

No, of course not. The behaviour would have to be evaluated in context. However, if you were to take it a step further and say the homophobic country was putting gays in concentration camps and burning them to ash in mass ovens. Perhaps then it would be appropriate for the neighbouring countries to attack and force the homophobes to stop their genocidal behaviour.

What you are talking about is just a decision matrix that has degrees of right and wrong, rather than absolute right and wrong. Which I agree with. That doesn't change the fact that a homophobe attempting to persuade people that gays are bad is imposing their values on other people. One can't live and let live, when one is being directly threatened by the beliefs of another person. One is forced to fight back via appropriate means. In this case, trying to persuade everyone in your society that the homophobes are evil, crazy and bad. And in my country, it's working.

I don't think anything makes one a "bad" person. All people are a mix of harmful and beneficial motivations.

I don't think believing something makes someone a dangerous person. Expressing that opinion, OTOH, might.

Uh... that was fairly obvious hyperbole. Of course people are mixed. Substitute for "bad behaviour" if you prefer.

By saying "might" I got the impression the it depended on how the opinion was expressed, as in words OK, violence not.

Expressing an opinion in words can certainly be harmful and is not always okay. This is were Canadian law differs significantly from the US. We don't protect free speech the same way, nor is it perceived as sacred. Particularly, hate speech is never protected, and in some cases can produce criminal charges if there is a reasonable expectation that the speech could produce or is intended to produce violence or discrimination. For example, if the Westboro Baptist Church came to Canada, they would be arrested and tried for hate speech, and probably spend some time in prison.

True free speech comes at a corresponding price in the freedom of society by increasing the difficulty of living in that society for specific targeted minorities. In order to ensure a free and safe society for all, there must be some constraints on speech. You can't get away with publicly declaring that "all gay people deserve to die and will burn in hell" in Canada. Thank goodness.

[~RoadToTrista~]

Bisexual people are often stereotyped as greedy or faking or nonexistant; and I've often seen it from people who are act serious about their support for gay rights.

Sometimes the T isn't the only letter that people leave out of our LGBT.

[suzifrommd]

I think anyone who thinks people are potentially dangerous because they express their opinions is dangerous. Why? Because that's how censorship starts.

Expressing an opinion that a certain group doesn't deserve rights, doesn't deserve to live, doesn't deserve protections, isn't that dangerous?

E.g. Germany in the 1930s. Didn't start out with gas chambers. Started out with someone expressing an opinion.

[Mariax]

Expressing an opinion that a certain group doesn't deserve rights, doesn't deserve to live, doesn't deserve protections, isn't that dangerous?

E.g. Germany in the 1930s. Didn't start out with gas chambers. Started out with someone expressing an opinion.

Yes, but I am inclined to believe that the problem was not only in that the opinion was expressed, but perhaps moreso,that there was not enough of a voice to expose the opinion for what it was. To be a good Nazi did not require cooperation or compliance, but rather a willingness to turn a blind eye to what was happening next door, at school, or down the street.

I will add a little to clarify.

The notion that someone deserves no rights because of blah blah blah is a horrid, despicable thing to say. But people who say such things rarely have the numbers to do much on their own, unless others allow them to move forward unopposed.

To bring the argument back to OP, I get red faced whenever someone mentions breasts. Pretty tame, right? Well, as much of a lover of them I might be, talking about breasts is not something I could do in a sexual context.

So, if I heard someone saying that TS folks have loose morals, and shouldn't be around kids etc., etc.,I know for a personal fact that that is wrong. Everyone is different, and I tend to the puritanical. I would be taken aback. I would protest that view, and be certain whoever said something like it would not use such faulty reasoning to make a judgement call with.

People's ignorance, if not stupidity, is their problem. However, when they try to act on it, their problem becomes my problem.