The primary negative effect I felt as a gay man came from the preacher, who felt the need to respond to news about LGBTQIA topics and remind the congregation that I basically wasn't allowed to exist. I had to hide this aspect of myself and pretend to be straight so my Dad (a teacher and a youth minister, in an era where I wasn't legally allowed to exist either) wouldn't lose his job.
Once I was able to leave home, and the law was adjusted, and I finally called my Dad to tell him I had my first real crush and was about to ask someone out, he was nothing but supportive and a great weight was lifted. Finally, I didn't have to lie to everyone I knew all the time. I could just be honest.
At no time during any of that was I ever truly straight. But I've learned to wear that mask when required. My aspect didn't cause me to take up drugs, or sleep around, or stay in abusive relationships just because I'd finally found the right orientation in a partner. Indeed, I'm currently single and pursuing a career in computer science, because that's a bit more interesting. The only thing "coming out" changed was allowing me to stop lying all the time. I was just able to finally be me.
That's it. That's all I ever wanted: to stop pretending to be something I'm not.
What sort of "alternative lifestyles" are you referring to, and what are the negative effects of them? What are some "traditional lifestyles", and how might you suggest they be promoted?
The whole GNOME desktop for one. All of a sudden it seems like every PC became a tablet.
> what are the negative effects of them?
Loss of features and the rich control and customization normally afforded by a desktop computing experience. You know, the things that made it better than a tablet experience.
> What are some "traditional lifestyles"
Using KDE or Windows, where the minimize button never went away, where you have a taskbar with a tray, which shows you little tray programs that often have no durable windows outside of their tray menu -- not should they need to. Not trying to hack functionality back in via extensions that break so often that it feels like they're meant to condition you into not trying to change some Apple fanboy's Design Philosophy. My phone originally autocorrected that to Pathology, and I shouldn't have changed it.
> and how might you suggest they be promoted?
No promotion is needed, things will balance out as people realize how bad GNOME and GTK are. Projects are switching to Qt, not away from it, and KDE's market share is often reported as big as or bigger than GNOME's despite GNOME being the default in all the big distros whereas KDE is something people have to seek out on their own.
> Society has to find a way to promote traditional lifestyles
Why?
If those lifestyles are so superior why do they need promotion? It's almost like people are not some homogenous blob, but individuals with their own wants and desires.
To be devils advocate here we also have to promote healthy eating, getting screened for cancer, or smoking PSAs. Just because something might be classified as "superior" doesn't mean that it will always self promote or be accessible.
Further, if we engage with the likely meaning here, I would also pose the question: why do we need to promote a “lifestyle” at all.
If being straight is an inherent trait that isn’t a choice, surely promotion is pointless. If it is a choice then the question still stands. If sexual orientation is chosen, what difference would it make what someone chooses in the first place? They have a right to determine that for themselves.
But of course sexual orientation isn’t a choice, so promoting heterosexuality seems like it would be little more than a “the majority of us exist!” marketing campaign. Which seems bizarre to me.
Yeah, I was confused by the same thing. It is one thing to promote drugs/alcohol/etc., but what does “traditional lifestyle” even mean.
I have a strong feeling that the answer to this will heavily depend on the region. And for countries that already have similar legislation (which is mostly just various flavors of religious states for now), I will just say, I neither vibe with their idea of “traditional” (women not being able to drive a car or walk in public without a male chaperone, stiffling freedom of speech because badmouthing the politicians and higherups, etc.) nor would want to live there for plenty of practical reasons beyond that. And for non-theocratical states, we got Russia with their prison sentences for “promoting alternative homosexualism lifestyles” (with “promoting” including just silly stuff like displaying the pride flag or posting a pro-lgbtq tweet).
All of those things are done in favor of “promoting traditional lifestyles” (or in favor of “discouraging ‘harmful’ non-traditional lifestyles”, depending on what those governments feel like going with on a particular day). And all I can say is that those places just seem like they would be plain sucky to live in[0] for many reasons beyond that, with their “traditional lifestyle”-related legislation being just a symptom of the larger incompetence and idiocy.
0. Had about 15 years of experience formerly living in one of those places, and can confirm that it sucks beyond belief. And it wasn’t even that bad compared to other more religious and authoritarian places.
I like how the presumably straight sibling comments don't seem to know what the "alternative lifestyles" dog whistle means in context here. There is a long history of saying being lgbt is a lifestyle choice.
I'm genuinely fascinated by what negative effects you perceive of people who are gay, trans, ace being able to live their lives openly instead of being forced to pretend otherwise and ultimately failing at it.
What is gained by society by forcing a lesbian into a straight marriage? You've just created a sexless marriage with extra steps.
We all know what the "traditional lifestyles" means and that the OP is clearly anti-LGBT but we have to pretend that we don't know what it means and ask them to explain.
>What is gained by society by forcing a lesbian into a straight marriage? You've just created a sexless marriage with extra steps.
I think the point is than in Islam women have no choice but to sex with their husbands without a "good reason". For men it is marginally less obliged, but still expected that they should have sex with their women (though it is not as explicitly urgent, it seems, as for women to spread their legs when required).
Still, having sex with someone who's not really into it sounds fairly unappealing to me.
> I like how the presumably straight sibling comments don't seem to know what the "alternative lifestyles" dog whistle means in context here. There is a long history of saying being lgbt is a lifestyle choice.
I'm pretty sure we all knew that. It's just funnier to get them to say it themselves. Also I aint straight.
zeta0134|1 year ago
Once I was able to leave home, and the law was adjusted, and I finally called my Dad to tell him I had my first real crush and was about to ask someone out, he was nothing but supportive and a great weight was lifted. Finally, I didn't have to lie to everyone I knew all the time. I could just be honest.
At no time during any of that was I ever truly straight. But I've learned to wear that mask when required. My aspect didn't cause me to take up drugs, or sleep around, or stay in abusive relationships just because I'd finally found the right orientation in a partner. Indeed, I'm currently single and pursuing a career in computer science, because that's a bit more interesting. The only thing "coming out" changed was allowing me to stop lying all the time. I was just able to finally be me.
That's it. That's all I ever wanted: to stop pretending to be something I'm not.
squigz|1 year ago
shrimp_emoji|1 year ago
> What sort of "alternative lifestyles"
The whole GNOME desktop for one. All of a sudden it seems like every PC became a tablet.
> what are the negative effects of them?
Loss of features and the rich control and customization normally afforded by a desktop computing experience. You know, the things that made it better than a tablet experience.
> What are some "traditional lifestyles"
Using KDE or Windows, where the minimize button never went away, where you have a taskbar with a tray, which shows you little tray programs that often have no durable windows outside of their tray menu -- not should they need to. Not trying to hack functionality back in via extensions that break so often that it feels like they're meant to condition you into not trying to change some Apple fanboy's Design Philosophy. My phone originally autocorrected that to Pathology, and I shouldn't have changed it.
> and how might you suggest they be promoted?
No promotion is needed, things will balance out as people realize how bad GNOME and GTK are. Projects are switching to Qt, not away from it, and KDE's market share is often reported as big as or bigger than GNOME's despite GNOME being the default in all the big distros whereas KDE is something people have to seek out on their own.
turtle_heck|1 year ago
[deleted]
ambentzen|1 year ago
If those lifestyles are so superior why do they need promotion? It's almost like people are not some homogenous blob, but individuals with their own wants and desires.
scanny|1 year ago
TheNewsIsHere|1 year ago
If being straight is an inherent trait that isn’t a choice, surely promotion is pointless. If it is a choice then the question still stands. If sexual orientation is chosen, what difference would it make what someone chooses in the first place? They have a right to determine that for themselves.
But of course sexual orientation isn’t a choice, so promoting heterosexuality seems like it would be little more than a “the majority of us exist!” marketing campaign. Which seems bizarre to me.
andsoitis|1 year ago
What is the set of traditional lifestyles? Why that set? Who gets to choose what all the valid traditional lifestyles are?
filoleg|1 year ago
I have a strong feeling that the answer to this will heavily depend on the region. And for countries that already have similar legislation (which is mostly just various flavors of religious states for now), I will just say, I neither vibe with their idea of “traditional” (women not being able to drive a car or walk in public without a male chaperone, stiffling freedom of speech because badmouthing the politicians and higherups, etc.) nor would want to live there for plenty of practical reasons beyond that. And for non-theocratical states, we got Russia with their prison sentences for “promoting alternative homosexualism lifestyles” (with “promoting” including just silly stuff like displaying the pride flag or posting a pro-lgbtq tweet).
All of those things are done in favor of “promoting traditional lifestyles” (or in favor of “discouraging ‘harmful’ non-traditional lifestyles”, depending on what those governments feel like going with on a particular day). And all I can say is that those places just seem like they would be plain sucky to live in[0] for many reasons beyond that, with their “traditional lifestyle”-related legislation being just a symptom of the larger incompetence and idiocy.
0. Had about 15 years of experience formerly living in one of those places, and can confirm that it sucks beyond belief. And it wasn’t even that bad compared to other more religious and authoritarian places.
haunter|1 year ago
Whenever I hear “traditional lifestyle” it usually means patriarchy and keeping women as slaves
spencerflem|1 year ago
Spivak|1 year ago
I'm genuinely fascinated by what negative effects you perceive of people who are gay, trans, ace being able to live their lives openly instead of being forced to pretend otherwise and ultimately failing at it.
What is gained by society by forcing a lesbian into a straight marriage? You've just created a sexless marriage with extra steps.
twixfel|1 year ago
>What is gained by society by forcing a lesbian into a straight marriage? You've just created a sexless marriage with extra steps.
I think the point is than in Islam women have no choice but to sex with their husbands without a "good reason". For men it is marginally less obliged, but still expected that they should have sex with their women (though it is not as explicitly urgent, it seems, as for women to spread their legs when required).
Still, having sex with someone who's not really into it sounds fairly unappealing to me.
spencerflem|1 year ago
squigz|1 year ago
I'm pretty sure we all knew that. It's just funnier to get them to say it themselves. Also I aint straight.