neither of us is wrong, it is all perception and how far we wish to compartmentalize the world (as our brains are wont to do).

i see us as distinct, you do not, and i see your point, too, and i whole-heartedly believe it. i don't think these two concepts are mutually exclusive.

i say tomato, and you say...holocaust.

that's one word. of course we're as integrated into the cultures that surround us as we are integrated into the races that surround us.

inevitably what we are talking about in terms of group definition is something that is in process, something that is in need of being in created.

and one does not create races.

Personally I don't really identify a lot with what so called "gay culture" represents. I think the future for us lies in becoming more at one with the rest of society rather that becoming further isolated from it.

i don't think you understand what i'm saying.

you are assuming that i am being reductionist because i insist upon talking about homosexuality as a phenomena that a "community" a "race" or a "people" is inadequate to describe. you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with an imagined and commonly held point of view. i have not said that homosexuality is not a community or a people (though it is certainly not a race). there are obviously homosexual communites and cultural aspects to homosexuality (though i don't think it's useful or interesting to try to parse out yet another subculture when it's so obvious that we are integrated into larger cultures) but the common factor will always be sexual attraction, the cultural formations that arise out of that phenomena and experience may be varied but they exist because of that experience. that is not being reductionist, it is being accurate. it is our multiplicity and diversity that is interesting and worth exploring and what bonds us together is our shared experience. don't project your assumptions on me by equating that shared experience with "body parts". it is precisely because that experience is so basic that it is so univeral, that it reaches into absolutely all spaces and time and cultures. it is in fact far more reductionist and "limited" to talk about "a" gay culture, much less a gay "race". "broadness" of mind is not what is required in thinking about how unity might be created and how our history might be understood or our rights fought for but clarity and depth of perception. in fact what you call "broadening" is merely a nit-picking, cloudy, muddle.

"You're reducing the a sexual culture to it's most basic commonality, body parts, and that's horribly unfortunate. "

i don't think you understand the way genetics works very well. if it is genetic it would make no sense for it to be the result of gay parents. there could be no selective advantage for it as a genetic trait if it were reproduced that directly. the selective advantage would have to be for the family group as a whole. possibly by creating a certain number of individuals that are not directly involved in competition for mating rights, providing a release valve for rivalry and tension or something similar. the fact is that we dont know, but it's perfectly obvious that the vast majority of gay people are born to straight parents. the point being that we are still necessarily and universally linked with straight people through heredity and therefore do not constitute a distinct race.

"There's no rules to heredity that say two gay people cannot breed heterosexually. The catholic church have been forcing people into that for eons. "



that's obviously irrelevant as at least one parent has to share the racial identification. which is clearly not true for gay people.

and, by the way, the muddle that you describe in the definition of race is precisely why it is not a good term to use to talk about the unity of gay peoples. it's not even particularly useful to talk about skin color as you say, much less culture, which is why the term ethnicity is so currently in vogue as the quote earlier in the thread so eloquently described.

"There are also no rules to heredity that dictate that both parents must possess a trait for it to result in racial identification. People have been arguing about that for eons, especially in the black community. Is a mixed race person one race or the other, or a third entirely? Who claims them? I'd recommend broadening your outlook."

and by the way, what exactly do you mean by saying i should "broaden my outlook"? you mean think about and understand these ambiguities? it is precisely because i think about and understand these ambiguities that i demand clarity.

I think I'm curious as to what the intention of this question is..? by the way.. if you're straight, and "queer" how do you define queer for yourself?..

I don't think that distinguishing Black people (since we seem to be one of the more popular examples) actually provides any power to deal with life. Distinguishing accomplishments does.. Distinguishing or creating that "I am valid because a Black Man invented the street light" at the end of the day doesn't allow me to own much of anything..

Me distinguishing that I am valid because I am valid.. allows me to own anything and everything..

If I can own the accomplishments of human beings, that has a lot more weight and provides more confidence than restricting that ownership to being Black or Queer.. Yes.. we can own those things, I just hope that's not all we own.. there's so much more possible..

You're narrowing the subject to suit your preposterous argument, arguing semantics rather than accepting a commonly understood premise in the scientific community. I'm aiming at race predominance (e.g. sickle cell anemia, tay-sachs, etc.) for which studying treatment in the most highly affected grouping is the most cost efficient and productive method. But you're welcome to continue arguing if it pleases you.