[Ansteorra] Same-Gender Consort Proposal

[Miles Grey]

I doubt anyone else will answer Gunnvor's post.  But because speaking 
out against what is wrong is what I do, even if it's to my detriment, I 
cannot let such a blatantly offensive and inaccurate post go unanswered.

On 7/20/2012 2:42 PM, Christie Ward wrote:
>
> I think it's telling that the people most squicked out about gay people in general are the ones hollering loudest to halt the discussion.


Obviously, you don't know me.

>
> The point of MY post was that the unbridled bigotry and hostility of people on this topic wounds me, personally.
>

See.  When we disagree, we're accused of unbridled bigotry and 
hostility.  By one who is a Lion and a Laurel and has taken pains to 
point it out to us.  Please look up the definition of bigotry and 
realize that your refusal to accept an opinion that differs from yours 
on this issue is also bigotry.  That might anger you, but it *is* the truth.


> If we replace every occurrence of "same sex" or "gay" in this thread with "black" or "African American", we'd all (I hope all!) be appalled at the insensitivity and level of hatred being shown.


If you were to draw that equivalence in a group that had a higher 
percentage of black people in it, particularly black people just a 
couple years older than me, you'd learn what hostility - and probably 
very strong anger - is really like.  There isn't the slightest 
comparison.  I understand your desire to equate your own issue with 
racial equality, but, in making the comparison, you are being extremely 
offensive, whether you mean to be or not.  I would suggest you don't 
draw that comparison at any venue where most of the attendees are black.

(In fact, this is not a closed list.  May I be allowed to forward this 
to my black friends?)

Further, your assumption that I - and others - are insensitive or 
showing hatred is both specious and very offensive.  You are providing 
exactly the example I spoke of in my earlier post.  Because I disagree 
with you, in your mind I must be insensitive and hate-filled.

In other words, the only allowable position is yours.  That seems rather 
insensitive, and might even be hateful.  Such intolerance of opinions 
that differ from yours does nothing to change anyone's mind.  Again, 
what it does is exactly what I pointed out in my previous post: 
encourage those who disagree to keep their opinions quiet for fear of 
the repercussions.


> People would complain that they would be deprived of a proper object of inspiration, because the only mental construct they have for an object of inspiration is a white European queen.


Seriously?  We can only draw inspiration from someone who is exactly 
like us?  That is sadly limiting.  I'd hate to have such a perverse view 
of humanity.  Grace Hopper is one of my heroes, and I'm not a woman. 
Dr. Kathleen "Kara" Cooney is also one of my idols.  I'm not a Jew, and 
I revere Albert Einstein (among many other Jews who inspire me).  I'm 
not black, and yet I have the utmost respect for Dr. King, Chip Jones 
(not in the SCA), Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Allen West, and Duke 
Mahdi (the winner of the first Crown Tournament I attended in 
Ansteorra).  I draw inspiration from *people* who are inspiring. 
Perhaps I have an advantage in being not only freakishly tall, but also 
heavily scarred, so there really is no one like me.  If I had the 
closed-minded view about where to look for inspiration that you espouse, 
I'd be completely out of luck.  But aren't we all unique?  If someone 
must be like you to inspire you, how is anyone ever to be inspired?


> I guess the only near parallel of the people who have suggested that "children would be at risk" in the same sex consort scenario


Who suggested that on this list?  I can't find it.  Seems like you're 
constructing a strawman.


> the more self-aware may actually begin to understand why I say that the opposition to same sex consorts really boils down to bigotry.


And there it is again.  It's never far from the surface, is it?  If my 
opinion differs from yours, I *must* be a bigot.  Perhaps if you were 
more self-aware, you'd recognize your own bigotry, because that is 
exactly what you're demonstrating.  How are you *any* different, any 
less closed-minded, any less bigoted than the people whom you are 
railing against?  Quite simply, it is *you* who have levied vile 
accusations against people who have done nothing more than have the 
temerity to express an opinion that differs from yours.  If I draw 
censure for pointing it out, then so be it, because this *must* be said. 
  In this post, you are more guilty of bigotry, of hatred, and of 
intolerance than anything that has been posted to this thread to date. 
What makes it worse is you *are* a Peer and a Lion, and *you* should be 
the one setting the example.


> I understand and realize that there are a lot of people who have not evolved enough personally to be copacetic with queers.

You're making an assertion for which you don't have the slightest 
evidence.  Worse, you do so using a term which, if I used it, would 
result in me being excoriated for being offensive.  Does that mean it is 
now officially approved for me to use the word "queers" to refer to gays 
and lesbians?  After all, you are a Peer and a Lion, the one to whom we 
all should look for inspiration, the one who sets the example we all 
should emulate.  If "queer" is the word you use, then "queer" is the 
word we all should use.


> But barring same-sex consorts in Crown Tournament is NOT going to provide you a completely heterosexual SCA environment.


Again, you're creating a strawman without the slightest evidence. 
Indeed, given that the SCA was founded in Berkeley, we all can be 
certain that queers (your word, not mine) have been part of the SCA from 
the start.


> Not only that, but we are ALREADY serving you on the Board of Directors, as landed nobles, as Great Officers of State, in baronial offices, cooking for you at feasts, autocratting your events, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

So?  No one has said otherwise.


>
> The only thing this ban accomplishes is to firmly seat our LGBT members at the back of the SCA bus as being unworthy to compete in Crown Tournament.


This is decidedly incorrect.  Also I thought the correct term was 
"queer."  It's a whole lot easier to say than "LGBT."


> And, like my beautiful and wise lady, I wonder how is it that I am worthy if I fight for one of my male friends, but suddenly unworthy if I want to fight for my lady?  When I have fought for Damaris in lists such as the Tournaments of the Lions in Bjornsborg, I was "good enough" to be named one of the Lions for that year. My service as an officer was "good enough" when I was doing it as a lesbian. My arts were "good enough" when I was elevated to the order of the Laurel and I was certainly an out lesbian then, too. Why is it that the ONLY thing in the SCA that I am "unworthy" to do is to fight in Crown Tournament for the one person who inspires me?


Do you indeed fight in the heavy lists?  Were you planning to enter 
Crown Tourney?  Or has all this outrage - and the vile insults you have 
levied - been nothing more than an academic exercise?  If it is the 
latter, your conduct here has been quite execrable.


>
> I'll tell you the part of the discussion that makes me tired and sad and angry: it's people throwing up excuse after excuse, often even when a particular excuse has been roundly rebutted and disproven over and over, instead of people just saying, "queers make me uncomfortable, and I want to discriminate against them on that basis".


I find this grossly inaccurate assumption to be very irritating.

   Miles Grey
   Just a brewer
   One who now probably has very little chance of anything more