Houellebecq,

"I just wish some gay people wouldn't be so camp and theatrical. I find it annoying. I don't see why camp people cant just talk normally..."

I believe that it raises two issues:

1. The high voice which is the main thing is independently caused but tends to go together. Most get it and some don't. Some heterosexuals talk like that eg. Mike Tyson and Neil Sedaka. Research indicates that it results from infant environment. The point is that it isn't just a game. That is basically how they have always talked and it would feel unnatural to talk otherwise. Sure they can change it and some do with speech therapy. Given the Tyson example it is trite to point out that it doesn't reflect a biological condition like low testosterone. But for them to talk 'normally' it would feel like you putting on that voice.

2. The second thing is the theatrical and that overlaps because some use their high voice in a distinctive way to be more theatrical. You need to understand that many gay males are teased at school and take it very badly. Some research suggests that they take it worse than it was meant. (What the victins consider terrorising the perpetrators intend as pressure to conform with the expectation it will produce change) For them the reality is that they are being terrorised so that is their experience. Putting on a theatrical persona is a way of hiding behind something. It can be their way of managing a lot of hurt in their background. Feeling annoyed or telling them not to be silly is probably not the most appropriate response.

"...I think us poor de-factos should march for the right to not be married off by the Guvment. Maybe we can march with the Gays next time. Actually I should be able to sell my license to marry to a gay person who wants to."

Well wanting defacto relationships to be de-recognised is a new angle for supporting gay marriage. I haven't heard that one before.

as for other articles here IMHO it is very important to not include lesbians under the term "gay" [mainly because THEY don't want to be, as it is The G Word that has failed Homosexuals]

as seen even the official lobby group of GLBTI [and I have no idea of what an Intersex is] distinguishes between gay and lesbian [as does our very own Mardi Gras]

What does GLBTI stand for?
‘GLBTI’ is an acronym that stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex. The Commission understands that GLBTI people form a diverse group and sexuality or gender identity is only one aspect of a person’s total identity. However, this part of our website looks at the common areas of discrimination that GLBTI people face.

mjpb,

Interesting theories.

Although on some level I think it's actually an aggressive behaviour. Like a sort of hyper-extroversion, an in-your-face style of conversing. Like you say, it could well be a reaction to years of abuse. Or maybe because they tried so hard to fit in with a more macho culture, now they are accentuating more than necessary their 'gayness'. Once they have made the step to come out of the closet, they feel the need to really slam the door and make a show of it.

I know I don't feel any 'pride' in being hetero, but people talk about gay pride. I can understand a statement that you are not ashamed, but to say you are proud is an acceptance in some way that you should feel ashamed. If you leave out the assertions of pride it's a more convincing refutation to people who see it as shameful. The statements of gay pride give undue credibility to the argument that it's shameful.

Lastly, I think the camp way of behaving is like a mating call so other gays will know you're gay and know it's safe to approach you without copping a homophobic bashing. A survival mechanism perhaps.

Regardless, it's still bloody annoying. I also think you overestimate the % of gays that are camp. I reckon about 20%, regardless of how much the media loves the stereotype. So, in summary, I realise the poor guys have had a heck of a hard time, but camp theatrical goings on irritate me. Then again so do extroverts in general.

'Well wanting defacto relationships to be de-recognised is a new angle for supporting gay marriage. I haven't heard that one before.'

Well my argument, which I didn't elaborate because others are sick of me complaining, is that the new de-facto laws put in place (in a sad attempt to avoid recognising gay marriage but still give gay couples equal rights), have the effect of marrying all de-facto couples off.

There now remains no option in society of cohabitation without risking your property and superannuation and being responsible for the live in partner's future earning capacity. Actually you can pay a nice Lawyer to attempt to get out of it, but it's a retrospective marrying off of a many a couple who don't commit to any such thing. That's why they didn't get married. Duh.

If people want to be married, they can get married. There are many situations where a couple wish to retain their financial independence while living together.

Who is the government, to decide for you, that you commit to be financially responsible for anyone who you shack up with for a couple of years? Equally who are they to say to gay people you aren't really committed to the person who you want to spend the rest of your life with?

Being a Christian I FULLY support anyone who finds happiness. It's not my place to judge ANYONE, I leave that to God and the Atheists. I personally can't see MY particular God having issues with people being complete as an indivdual, or a couple. I appreciate there is some out there who call themselves Christians that pass judgement on others but fortunately they don't speak for God, or me.

I'm trying to be the best person I can without trying to buy my way into 'heaven'. If that's not good enough for God, then so be it.

If being gay is being true to yourself then more power to ya.

Anyone who cast generalisations and judgements on others are hypocrites, suzeonline.

There now remains **no option** in society of cohabitation without risking your property and superannuation and being responsible for the live in partner's future earning capacity.
---

Exactly as I warned in my book before the change to the FLAct, and THAT simply reinforces my stance above that it is ONLY men who would be dumb enough to get bought off by the Govt [mainly in USA, but we always follow like lap dogs] to accepting the G Word, in what was essentially a sick joke

Women are smart, hence are the winners in Family Law and even with no Govt assistance with Lesbianism, simply won the battle on their own by doing nothing more than being smart and working together. It's all here http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/glb/glbbw.html with the clincher:

See, I'm not unschooled about these things. I got the memo. You know, the one from Lesbian and Gay Central, with the flashing neon "Politically Correct Alert!" bannered across the top.

Lesbian sexuality is very scary to non-gays. It smacks of Barbara Stanwick-after-your-wife. They only know us by our sexuality. They only know us by their pornography, usually written by their men. And faked pictures in -- boy magazines with wild tongues going at each other.

"From this time forward, let everyone committing acts of speaking in public refrain from this vile, stereotypical subject matter. It is the official policy of this body, and theretofore binding and irrevocable, that the image of lesbian America shall be of wholesome, whole hearted, asexual girl-next-door. Genitalia-deleted flesh Barbies. Dyke Doris days. Little sisters. Daughters. For acceptance, it is paramount, repeat urgent, repeat critical, repeat absolutely necessary, that all sexual references be eliminated from our speaker's bureau vocabulary.

We trust you will follow this dictum to the precise letter to accomplish our world wide agenda, or else the entire community will trash you with in an inch of your stomach lining, excommunicate you from the cooler social occasions, and generally make your life heck on wheels.

Why?

Because we said so.

Your Ever-vigilant Homosexual Oversight Committee."