My Mother Stood Up In Church And Defended Me

[Liv]

Rather enjoyable (and action packed) read about being gay, coming out, and having your parents choose you over their religion; as well as, America's idea with what gay should be from my favorite actor, John Barrowman.

'Actually, they couldn't have been better about it. They had a pretty good idea that I was gay, of course. Parents so often do. But I do remember my dad saying to me at the time, "Your mother and I don't discuss what happens in the bedroom with you, so why should you with us?"'

john barrowman.jpg (27.88 KiB) Viewed 933 times

Most touchingly, his parents - deeply Christian churchgoers - publicly defended him against their gay-hating friends, even choosing to leave their church because of its inherently homophobic approach.

'My mother stood up in church once when someone said that all gays should be put on an island and left there. "How dare you," she said. "That is my son you are talking about." My parents walked out. They lost friends. I admire them so much for taking that stand. I never had a problem with being gay, but their acceptance made it so much easier.'

He is incredibly close to his parents, to a level that most people won't admit to. 'I was staying in a hotel with them just recently, and I wandered through to their room to have a chat and got into bed beside them.

I'm not ashamed to admit that. My mum thinks you are never too old for a cuddle. My dad is the same. If I was sitting with him now, I'd have my shoes off and my feet in his lap. I like that I can be like this with them. There's no pretence there.'

He has been with his partner, architect Scott Gill, for 13 years, and seems to have applied the same 'work-bloody-hard-at-it' mentality to his relationship.

Two years ago, they became civil partners. He still refuses to use the term 'marriage', because 'that has religious connotations, and why should we want to be associated with a religious institution that hates us?'

John is clearly in an impossible situation when it comes to his sexuality. He would like it to not be an issue. He says, 'I'm an actor. Not a gay actor. Is Brad Pitt ever described as a "straight actor"?'

But he acknowledges that some do see him as a role model, particularly because of Captain Jack's persona - bisexual, or 'omni-sexual' as he prefers to describe him, but belonging to an age where sexual orientation is no longer even classified.

Still, he can't help railing against the homophobia in the showbiz world - still as rampant as it is in his parents' church, he believes, only much more insidious.

He was famously rejected for the role of Will in Will & Grace, on the grounds that he was 'too straight'. He rolls his eyes. 'Because I like sports and I like cars, I'm not easy to slot into that "camp" box. To me, it is just pigeonholing. Too easy.'

He believes that the Will & Grace model is a perfect example of what is wrong with the way the big American networks portray 'gayness'.

'If that programme was true to life, Will would have a boyfriend. But they want to perpetrate the myth that he is waiting to be "cured".

'I hate that. I've never wanted to be "cured". There is nothing wrong with me. I am walking proof of how a man can be gay and still have a loving partner, a great home, dogs, a happy family, all that stuff.'

He's getting perilously close to 'family values' here, I tease. He laughs. 'No, no. I'm far too naughty for that.'
cite

If you're not familiar with John who is famous for his role in Torchwood, (or even if you are) I'd highly recommend his series, "The Making of Me":

The Making of Me (6 Parts)
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m27Awmlgi38
Part 2: (DEAD) http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... f+Me+2%2F6
Part 3: http://youtu.be/YTluaVblioQ
Part 4: http://youtu.be/ND-YWHueaFU
Part 5: (DEAD) http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... f+Me+5%2F6
Part 6: http://youtu.be/pfLcmSp3p8Q

Barrowman seeks to answer the question: why am I the way I am? In this one-hour special, Barrowman sets out to unearth what the latest scientific research can tell him about the origins of his homosexuality.

His search for evidence takes him back to his roots to meet family and old friends. He also meets with psychologists and geneticists, compares his DNA to his heterosexual brother's, and conquers his claustrophobia to undergo a brain scan - all in the quest to find out how nature and nurture might have interacted to make him who he is.

Barrowman tells the BBC: "My sexuality has never been deliberately hidden. I'm in a committed relationship with the love of my life, Scott Gill, and he is as much a part of the family as my sister's husband, Kevin, and my brother's wife, Dot. However, just because I'm comfortable with my sexuality doesn't mean that I'm not curious about it and that's one of the reasons I agreed to take this journey to discover the making of me."

[A Person]

Sorry, does nothing for me, my spaghetti is completely soft and limp.

I can see that he's good looking and that women (and some men) would find him hot, but he's no more sexually attractive to me than this good looking person

baby1.jpg (30.33 KiB) Viewed 1514 times

- and yes there are people who would find that sexually arousing too

Frankly I find your continued assertions that everyone is a bit gay as silly and misguided as you presumably do when people say you are choosing to be gay. My sexual orientation is not my choice any more than yours is, it's just how I am

[Liv]

I know you've said that before, but you saying it's "silly" sounds a bit like the close minded stereotype built into your gender.

I don't think anyone chooses to be gay, nor does anyone choose to be straight... but I think we all have the capacity to love either sex.

That's what I'm saying.

There's plenty of of men and women who live fully functional sexual lives, even bearing children who are gay and lesbian and choose to fill that role later in life.

Being gay or lesbian has very, very, very little to do with the actual sex act... though there's nothing wrong with saying I prefer the female body over the male body and you saying the opposite.

Then we toss labels on things. If I start dating a man, was I straight all along or do I turn straight? Now that's silly.

[A Person]

I think we all have the capacity to love either sex.

Of course. But being 'gay' is about homosexual attraction, not agape. You know that which is why you posted the picture of Barrowman.

Being gay or lesbian has very, very, very little to do with the actual sex act...

Just as being married isn't just about the sex - but it's still important.

there's nothing wrong with saying I prefer the female body over the male body and you saying the opposite.

No, I'm with you on that one. I will go further, I don't just prefer the female body, I don't find the male body sexually stimulating - even Barrowman's.

I don't think it's a "close minded stereotype built into your gender", there are lots of sexual activities that fail to interest me. Anal sex for one - with either gender, bestiality, pedophilia (although I can't say that about ephebophilia), sadomasochism etc.

I also understand that there is a continuum of sexuality from hetero to homosexual, and that labels can be misleading. But labels are useful general descriptions, I have no problem with labelling myself heterosexual, it's succinct and accurate. I can see that you might find it difficult to find a label that succinctly describes your (somewhat complicated ) sexuality

Perhaps silly is the wrong word - but the idea that straight people are choosing to be straight or being 'close minded' by not embracing their alleged homosexual side is just as chauvinistic as the religious right claiming that people choose to be gay.

[Liv]

Not that I'm trying to offend, but I'm certain you've had sex with yourself. Everyone has, but that doesn't make you Asexual- yet you have been and that wasn't with a woman in reality.

While I'm enjoying your argument paralleling me with the religious right I think it's a deflection as is my own sexuality. I'm not telling you you have to identify with any of it- that's what the labels are for. I'm merely suggesting the fact that humans as a species, is as most every species on earth, is a bi-sexual one... and while you, for instance may have a strong inclination at this point in your life for a certain gender to mate with, this does not prevent that from changing as you change as a person, or does it preclude you from being wrong since I'm guessing you've never actually participated in it. The idea of sex, and the act of sex are two different things.

I also think sexuality in general gets in the way of our love lives with other people. We limit ourselves due to monogamy and sexuality, and it prevents relationships with friends, co-workers, etc.; even if we never intend to have sex with them because there's always something in the back of our mind judging them if they're sexually attractive to us.

Here try this. Next time you see a fat ugly person you'd never be sexually attracted to- before you go up and talk to them, imagine having sex with them. It'll put a smile on your face, and makes it much easier not to make that partition we put up in our minds.

[BecauseHeLives]

Liv, since you are saying you were born as a homosexual (made that way) do you preclude the idea that it is possible for you that you may change your sexual preference in the future? When I was a kid there were several food items I did not like and DID like but as I got older many of those taste changed and the opposite is now true. So if given that a person can permanently change preferences (and lets say that you actually did) would you ever be conscious enough to recognize it AND admit it?

[Liv]

You can change, but it's not something YOU can change.

If that makes any sense. Look I'm okay with AP thinking I'm wrong, or that I'll continue to think what I want to think... but the bottom line is the human body is a sexual machine that's a combination of thousands of factors that make up our preferences, our gender, and our sexuality.

Can it be changed... sure... is it morally justifiable to do so even if we could... no.

You cannot however decide to be gay, straight, etc. All I'm saying is one day, (like numerous Republicans and Priests) you may wake up one day and find yourself a little less inclined towards your current sexuality than you used to. The human body changes... we change.... but not by our own doing. Our ability to have sex, and enjoy it with both sexes is always there- it's just may be less or more preferential at different times in our lives.

This is a real abstract and difficult subject... I definitely don't want to offend anyone. Certainly my unique perspective has lended itself to my beliefs, but ultimately none of it matters since I'm a-ok with whatever you choose for yourself, or choose to define yourself as.

[A Person]

Not that I'm trying to offend, but I'm certain you've had sex with yourself. Everyone has, but that doesn't make you Asexual- yet you have been and that wasn't with a woman in reality.

If you're saying I've masturbated then - yes I have. I usually imagine being with a woman and have never imagined being with a man.

While I'm enjoying your argument paralleling me with the religious right I think it's a deflection as is my own sexuality

.

I'm saying your argument is directly equivalent to that made by the religious right - not that you are.

(n)or does it preclude you from being wrong since I'm guessing you've never actually participated in it. The idea of sex, and the act of sex are two different things.

You don't have to experience something to know you ain't gonna like it. I'm sure that I could enjoy the physical act of sex with a man - a hand is a hand and a mouth is a mouth - or a machine for that matter. But - and I don't see how I can make it any plainer - I don't find men sexually attractive or arousing - and isn't that the essence of 'sexual orientation'?

I also think sexuality in general gets in the way of our love lives with other people. We limit ourselves due to monogamy and sexuality, and it prevents relationships with friends, co-workers, etc.; even if we never intend to have sex with them because there's always something in the back of our mind judging them if they're sexually attractive to us.

I don't see how not being sexually attracted to men is a limitation. Do you feel limited by not being sexually attracted to rocks? There are lots of unattached rocks around and some of them are very interesting, having been around for billions of years. Just think what you are missing out on by limiting yourself to humans.

Here's a nice gneiss with a fascinating story to tell about its 2 billion year history



You see, you're still suggesting that sexual orientation is a personal choice - how many times have gay men been told they're not gay, they just haven't tried sex with the 'right woman'.

Here try this. Next time you see a fat ugly person you'd never be sexually attracted to- before you go up and talk to them, imagine having sex with them. It'll put a smile on your face, and makes it much easier not to make that partition we put up in our minds.

SterlingVanDjerk.jpg (15.33 KiB) Viewed 1338 times

Eeewwww. Sorry, no smile on my face.

[Liv]

I'd tap that ass....

[A Person]

Metric or SAE?

Tap & Die

[Liv]

LOL....

Seriously, I heard Sterling's totally a changed man... and is going to start some freethinker atheist website or something... of course it's just a rumor.... When we see the website, we will know.

This could be a new start for the poor guy.

[Liv]

On the topic: "You're not straight either.":

http://www.grero.com/

[A Person]

The main thrust of his thesis is that in different cultural environments more people had homosexual partners and that homosexuality is cultural rather than solely genetic or epigenetic.

I won't dispute that, it's quite possible that had I been brought up in Greco-Roman times and culture I'd be enthusiastically bi- or homo-sexual. However I wasn't and I'm not. Perhaps I was conditioned by society but if so it worked. I'm not homophobic, just not homoerotic.

[grero]

Author of the book here. (I noticed a few hits from here in Google Analytics.)

The main thrust of his thesis is that in different cultural environments more people had homosexual partners and that homosexuality is cultural rather than solely genetic or epigenetic.

That's close enough. Though Chapter 10 adds that homosexuality itself is a bad word since it's a conflation of many different/unrelated concepts, all of which just share that two men are involved. That we primarily focus on "two men" and make that into a category is a cultural invention, not a natural category as many assume.

[A Person]

Well - thanks for stopping by.

Though Chapter 10 adds that homosexuality itself is a bad word since it's a conflation of many different/unrelated concepts, all of which just share that two men are involved.

I'd say it's a 'good' word in that it's clear, descriptive and well understood. And not just that two men are involved - homosexuality refers to two people of the same sex.

I am aware that in different cultures there is a different stigma placed on the fucker and the fuckee, in the 70's I had a conversation with an Iranian friend who explained how a man who had wronged you could be permanently punished by being anally raped and having the photos circulated. There was no stigma attached to the raper but the victim would be permanently shamed.

I think this is likely because when a man adopts the fuckee role, he's not so much being receptive as submissive, giving up his manhood and adopting the role of chattel i.e. a non-person. So much of the Old Testament is reinforcing the role of women as chattel - crimes against a woman were property crimes. The context of Deuteronomy 22 is a compilation of property crimes: oxen, asses, proofs of virginity and compensation for a raped girl as damaged goods that has a reduced value.

Female homosexuality, i.e. lesbianism, seems to have received little or no attention. Perhaps because it was never seen as presenting a threat to male dominance. Unless a woman wore men's clothing which was expressly forbidden.

[Liv]

Female homosexuality, i.e. lesbianism, seems to have received little or no attention. Perhaps because it was never seen as presenting a threat to male dominance.

It's quite weird that it was almost accepted in the past, but now it appears to be threatening to marriage and families.

Now that women are not financially tied to men, the need for me is purely a preference of taste it would seem.

[A Person]

The difference is that women are no longer dependent on men and can make it on their own - or with another woman.

That's very threatening to the average Christian right-winger who feels that his testicles are a divine gift of dominance over 50% of the population.

[grero]

Well - thanks for stopping by.

Though Chapter 10 adds that homosexuality itself is a bad word since it's a conflation of many different/unrelated concepts, all of which just share that two men are involved.

I'd say it's a 'good' word in that it's clear, descriptive and well understood. And not just that two men are involved - homosexuality refers to two people of the same sex.

But why is genitalia the primary focus of sexual classification? Why not classify based on the race of the partners? Or the role taken, as was customary for penetrative sex acts in Rome and elsewhere (ie. the top would be considered masculine no matter what)? The reason we go with genitalia is because Rome was taken over by the Christians and they focused on reproductive vs non-reproductive sex. In the 19th century, the procreative/non-procreative dichotomy morphed into hetero/homo: male-female can result in kids, while male-male can never. My point is that the hetero/homo framework is not as natural as people assume.

I am aware that in different cultures there is a different stigma placed on the fucker and the fuckee, in the 70's I had a conversation with an Iranian friend who explained how a man who had wronged you could be permanently punished by being anally raped and having the photos circulated. There was no stigma attached to the raper but the victim would be permanently shamed.

Yes, being a bottom for a Roman citizen was held in negative light, though the restriction did not apply to slaves or foreigners. Non-penetrative sex acts between males were not restricted though.