I was implying that it couldn't really be like a marriage in his case because he hadn't been in the company of his twin for so long. Perhaps for others it is. Not being a twin, I decline to commit myself to a definitive reply.
Yes. We all have common ground in that we're human and yet, that commonality can only extend so far. What's it like to grow up in a home where the parents weren't divorced? I can't answer, because I didn't experience it. What's it like to have a father who derails your dreams? That one, I can answer (but not here). And as for what it's like to be gay, I also couldn't say just as a gay man might have trouble describing what it's like to be straight or lesbian, although any of us can make educated guesses based on some of the commonalities we all share.
Well, for me it definitely feels like it. (As far as i understand marriage) And when I described that way all I meant was it's very intimate usually. You don't have to actually together at the time for the description to apply.
Ah! I didn't realize you were speaking from experience... I'm assuming you're saying you are a twin. (If you implied it or came right out and said it earlier, I missed it and if that's the case, I do apologize.)
Okay this might be a long one but hopefully it will help you. I am a straight man but I've grown up around homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals. What I've always found annoying but also compelling is that when some sort of sexuality is focused on in fiction, it seems to just be there for the pure reason that the writer wants to show how accepting he is. "Hurr durr look at the gay peeple." I've seen it and it's pretty shallow. The best advice I can give you, is the most simplest: Any LGBT relationships is like any other relationship. There are flaws, mistakes, happy times, sad times, sexual tension, attraction, and confusion. Just like heterosexual relationships. The idea is to have an idea of what these people are, show what they are somehow, and then move on with the story unless their sexuality really does come into the story as a large point e,g, a romance. Your characters can have an attraction to any sex and identify as any sex and still be fully functioning people that you see in stories. Dumbledore was gay, but we never knew--it didn't impact the story, and unless you want to emphasize on the sexuality-aspect of a character, we don't need to know much more than what we did before.
This is what I've been saying. It's just an orientation. And to suggest otherwise is fuel for discrimination. It really doesn't make much difference except for the social conbations which vary and are not necessary includes.
I just read Stephen King's "Revival" over the weekend, and he's got what to me seem good examples of how to and how not to do gay people. First (very moderate spoilers ahead), the MC's older brother turns out to be gay. The story begins when they are both too young to be sexually anything, but progresses to a mention that the character wouldn't have any interest in girls ever, then to his bringing a boyfriend to a family reunion. One family member disapproves, but it's based on perceived personal failings of the boyfriend, not sexuality. This section is done well, IMHO, because there was no reason to make the character gay, hence no reason not to. However, (slightly bigger spoiler) there's also a female character who is portrayed as enthusiastically heterosexual when she's younger, but apparently just to drive the plot, is later switched to being in a committed relationship with another woman. I hope it's not marginalizing to bisexuals or people who have not yet come out, but this just didn't work for me. Her partner (King's choice of words) is a nurse, which is critical to the plot, and it looks like he faced a choice between either trying to make the audience accept a male nurse or a female character whose orientation shifted while she was offstage. Just didn't work well for me.
Unfortunately, a lot of social justice warriors don't feel that way. It's mind boggling how many threads we have like this on WF.
Fortunately the beliefs of social justice warriors are complete bullshit and should never be regarded as anything other than pro-victim wank.
I will say though I don't think you can say why people are doing it. And inclusion is a nice idea, it just needs to be handled with consideration for the individuality of authors I can help you there. Imagine being attracted to a woman. Then it's a man. Bam, you're gay. There you go. Seriously, why do you think people talk about it being the "same love" and the idea it doesn't mean anything? Because it is and it doesn't. It really doesn't change much.
I think he means the glorification of victimhood through over-attention to it, leading to a degree of exaggerated belief in the extent of one's victimhood.
This feels a little extreme as a statement. There is plenty of good ic civil rights activism, indeed it is why I care about solving the flaw so much
There's a large difference between a real activist and a SJW. I'm advocating an anti-victim approach. Who wants to be a victim? Who wants to spend their lives identifying as somebody who is offended over trivial things? And when said trivial things are explained or mentioned, who wants to argue with somebody such trivial things? The most simplest way to explain such a thing is like so. Most SJWs, not real activists with common sense seem to find offense at any sort of response to their beliefs. If I turn around and say that we need for gay characters in fiction, SJWs will respond with "Well why not more lesbians?" It's a trap. I advocate common sense. I can't take any sort of 'civil right' advocates online. Argue that shit in the streets, don't bring the pointless tirade online. You're not saving one genderfluid identifying lamp here. The way that civil rights and acceptance of once-taboo issues are solved is by treating them with the normality and respect of anything else. Hence, putting any kind of LGBT characters in your novel should be no different to putting in a heterosexual character. There are gay heroes, lesbian villians, transsexual sidekicks, evil gay men and strong, powerful, gods of every sexuality in the windmills of your mind.
An activist will vy for rights. Will do things in a positive manner to improve civil rights; advocating positive approaches in professional manners. SJWs will rage on tumblr about men sitting in a certain position on trains and argue that misandry doesn't exist.
Its very hard to tell the two apart, a big part of being a SJW is doing whatever you can to appear to be a legitimate activist. However, there is one common difference i've found between the two; An activist had something happen, experienced or witness an injustice, and choose to devote their efforts to fighting it. A SJW was already primed to fight something, anything, and the first thing that rears its head, usually in a mainstream way, they fight for. In the end, the activist fights to better the situation, the SJW fights for the sake of fighting, till there is nothing left that opposes them. Then they move on to the next target.
I've been an activist for gay rights. I've been a supporter of LGBT acceptance. I have been told by numerous SJWs, who will blindly attack anything they see as a threat, that I am Hitler reborn. I've been told that because I am a straight, white, male that my opinions on LGBT and any social issues is null and void. Simple fact: Activist; common sense and effort to change the world. SJW; No sense, inner-wants come out as anger and control. No logical approach.
This person is wrong, and they're an asshole, but they're a part of a large group of assholes. If you're a woman, at least once in you're life some asshole said, 'you can't do this because you're a woman." There's an equivalent for just about every ethnicity America has essentially implemented an ideology of "If everyone is discriminated against, then no one is!" instead of just ignoring the assholes. Now everyone fights over whose discriminated against more, like its some kind of contest. (also the answer is black handicapped women are discriminated against the most, just an FYI)
At the end of the day, what we're describing (SWJ phenomenon) is part of a much larger problem - 21st century self indulgence.
It's necessary part of maturing as a society though. Generations past did what they were told, because as children they were beaten until they listened. Now we have an entire generation of people who are expected to do the right thing because its right. Tons of problems that had been suppressed by force are popping up. Its like when The USSR broke up and all those smaller countries who had been under their control, who reallllllly hated each other, started fighting.
I agree, but I also believe there is always more to be done. So for say, a black man to focus on black civil rights and then leave would be selfish. They're improving their stance but they don't care about others. That's why it's important to care about many issues. Because otherwise you are inevitably going to be biased towards your own, and loose a lot of the moral highground of civil rights.
