Emmanuel Sandhu out of the closet?
Tracy Johnson
and regular posters here should know that this is not intended in that
way. Therefore I would appreciate not being flamed for discussing
Emmanuel Sandhu's sexual orientation, please.
This morning I was walking by a grouping of newspaper boxes and noticed
Emmanuel Sandhu's picture on the cover of Xtra West, which is a gay and
lesbian newspaper in Vancouver. They showed him in a spiral position,
with the words "Emmanuel Sandhu: Heating Up the Ice" or something like
that. I don't read Xtra West, but if anyone here picked this up, did
Emmanuel come out of the closet? I was curious, simply because from what
I understand, most gays and lesbians understand how hard it is for
people to come out of the closet and so don't "out" people in such a
public way. And I've never seen a heterosexual individual on the cover
of Xtra West, so I'm assuming the feature at least implies, if not
outright states, that Emmanuel is gay.
At any rate, if any fellow Vancouverites have looked at this paper and
tell me what it says, or if any RSSIFers can tell me if I missed
Emmanuel publicly stating his sexual orientation, I'd be curious to
hear. I was just really surprised to see his picture on this paper when
I hadn't heard that he'd publicly come out of the closet. (Assuming he
was ever in, of course.)
Tracy
nick
Tracy Johnson wrote:
> This morning I was walking by a grouping of newspaper boxes and noticed
> Emmanuel Sandhu's picture on the cover of Xtra West, which is a gay and
> lesbian newspaper in Vancouver.
Why didn't you just buy Xtra West and read what is says? You weren't afraid
that people might think you're gay, right? :)
N.
Robert Dister
Tracy Johnson <tljo...@home.com> wrote:
Hmmmm, what would it mean if The Advocate puts George W. Bush on its
cover.....?
Ellen B. Edgerton
: > public way. And I've never seen a heterosexual individual on the cover
: > of Xtra West, so I'm assuming the feature at least implies, if not
: > outright states, that Emmanuel is gay.
Or it could be that Sandhu is a skater that a lot of gay people enjoy
watching, and that they thought a cover story on him might attract
readers. I would assume they interviewed him for the story and that he's
cool with the idea of being featured in their magazine, whether he is gay
or straight - same as other straight celebrities who have made the cover
of the Advocate?
hudson
You don't have to be gay or lesbian to read Xtra West. It has articles
on gender issues that heterosexuals might find informative. It's free
at the Vancouver Public Library for all readers regardless of age, race,
creed, colour and gender persuasion. It's okay to pick up a copy; your
hands won't get dirty.
darby wiggins
On this ng, the topic is skating and things that affect it. Now, a pregnancy
would affect one's ability to skate and IMO, is a subject that WITHIN REASON
could be talked about (the illegitimacy is not, even though I personally
disagree with children out of wedlock but appose abortion, so I'm caught) If
the person were married then I think it would be okay to talk about it. Any
injury a skater suffers is newsworthy, so is a change of coach, rink, ect.
Even expressing our own opinions about costumes, music, choreography,
presentation, overall appearance is okay as long as we all remember that the
these our our opinions and the skater should do what makes them happy.
Judging, marks, ordinals, skating orders, ect are fine to be talked about.
But not the sexual orientation. Whether someone is heterosexual or
homosexual does not affect their ability to skate.
When someone can show me that one orientation can jump higher, farther: can
spin faster, in better positions: can connect steps well and cover the ice
properly and overall deliver a better program then we can discuss how ones
sexual orientation comes into play.
So unless it effects
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> at the Vancouver Public Library for all readers regardless of age, race,
> creed, colour and gender persuasion. It's okay to pick up a copy; your
> hands won't get dirty.
>
You know, I don't understand the couple of messages that basically (IMO)
suggest that the only reason someone would not have bought this magazine
was because they're homophobic or afraid their hands would get dirty.
How about these explanations: someone was in a hurry; someone didn't have
change; someone didn't see anything else on the cover that interested
them.
I don't think I've ever purchased (or gone to the public library to read)
a magazine such as the Advocate or the one that Tracy speaks of. It
doesn't mean I'm homophobic, I'm pretty sure.
If someone happened to see Ms. magazine in passing, and it had a skating
reference on the cover, and they didn't buy it, I don't think I'd assume
they were anti-feminist.
Sheesh.
-- Kate
Tracy Johnson
Xtra West is free. But I didn't pick it up myself not because I don't want
people to think I'm gay, but because I'm not gay and I have certain religious
beliefs regarding homosexuality that make me uncomfortable with picking up a gay
/ lesbian publication.
However, I shouldn't be condemned for that, because I've never condemned anyone
for their lifestyle, so please don't make this an issue about me.
Tracy
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> But not the sexual orientation. Whether someone is heterosexual or
> homosexual does not affect their ability to skate.
>
Actually, we have discussed the topic of sexual orientation in an on-topic
way -- whether (and, for some people, why) there are a disproportionate
number of gay men in the sport, whether being openly gay hurts a skater
either in terms of their marks or in terms of their marketability, etc.
And we're comfortable talking about people who are open about their sexual
orientation -- whether it's revealed through a public statement (such as
Galindo), or through actions (such as getting engaged, or appearing
kissy-kissy at public events).
And I'm glad Tracy brought it up, actually, because I'm sure there are
people who just assume (without even questioning) that Sandhu on the cover
of whatever the magazine is indicates that he's gay. And this gives
people an opportunity to say, well, he hasn't (to my knowledge, anyway)
been open about his sexual orientation.
If it had been Galindo on the cover of this magazine, people would be
comfortable saying, yes, he's revealed his sexual orientation. So why
can't we be comfortable saying that Sandhu hasn't (to my knowledge,
anyway) made any public statement about it, but that such magazines often
highlight both openly heterosexual and openly homosexual individuals?
-- Kate
Fiona McQuarrie
: Or it could be that Sandhu is a skater that a lot of gay people enjoy
: watching, and that they thought a cover story on him might attract
: readers. I would assume they interviewed him for the story and that he's
: cool with the idea of being featured in their magazine, whether he is gay
: or straight - same as other straight celebrities who have made the cover
: of the Advocate?
Ellen makes a good point, but Xtra West is quite different from the
Advocate. It is a very "out and proud" newspaper, and I can't recall (from
my readings of it, which admittedly aren't completely regular) there ever
being a story in it about someone who was straight and "gay-positive" (or
whatever the term is these days). It pretty much confines itself to
coverage of people who are gay.
Now, having said that, I will also say that I haven't seen this particular
issue Tracy is referring to, so I don't know what the Emanuel story is
about.
Cheers, Fiona
Tracy Johnson
It could be, but unlike the Advocate, I've never seen a heterosexual
individual on the cover of this newspaper, so that's why I was surprised. But
it could be, certainly. That's why I was curious.
Tracy
Sandra Loosemore
> On this ng, the topic is skating and things that affect it. [...]
> Judging, marks, ordinals, skating orders, ect are fine to be talked about.
> But not the sexual orientation. Whether someone is heterosexual or
> homosexual does not affect their ability to skate.
Oh boy, it's the topic police again. Groan....
> When someone can show me that one orientation can jump higher, farther: can
> spin faster, in better positions: can connect steps well and cover the ice
> properly and overall deliver a better program then we can discuss how ones
> sexual orientation comes into play.
Sexual orientation can make a difference to a skater's career in a
great many other ways. A skater's public image can have a big
influence on what endorsement, touring, or television opportunities
are available to them.
When Brian Orser was fighting a losing court battle to keep his
palimony suit records private, his argument was that he thought he
would lose some of his high-profile professional gigs if it were known
that he were gay. It doesn't seem like that turned out to be the
case, but the fear is still there. OTOH, I can see that other gay
skaters might not want to turn themselves into a poster boy for
gay-related causes the way Rudy Galindo has. A well-known, current
elite eligible competitor like Sandhu who decided to come out of the
closet would still be facing pretty much unknown territory, in terms
of marketing themselves. Such issues are certainly on-topic for this
newsgroup, as much as discussing Tara Lipinski's or Kristi Yamaguchi's
marketing and endorsement deals, or Michael Weiss's propaganda
campaigns.
I also think there are legitimate issues for discussion about the
artistic and creative choices skaters make, and how they relate to
their sexual orientation or personal relationships. For instance,
some people have wondered if Galindo has gotten shoeboxed into doing
campy tour programs because the public is willing to tolerate gays as
long as they're being funny, but serious programs with gay-related
themes would still leave many spectators squirming uncomfortably. On
the flip side of the coin, people have often critized Sandra Bezic's
group numbers for Stars On Ice for being too relentlessly
heterosexual, girl/boy oriented. We've also had discussions about
brother/sister pair and dance teams up against the conventions of
portraying heterosexual romance in their programs. Are there program
themes that are as off-limits for gay skaters as many people seem to
think heterosexual romance is for a brother/sister pair team? If an
openly gay ice dancer skated a steamy romantic number with his female
partner, would people think "yuck", find it unconvincing, or just shrug
it off and think that learning to act is all part of ice dance?
Anyway, you get the idea. If you aren't interested in these topics,
you don't have to read threads about them, but such discussion *is*
relevant and on-topic for this newsgroup.
-Sandra
DG511
writes:
>Whether or not Emmanuel is gay or not is none of our business.
>
Some gay people want to be out and to be known as out. Others don't. I think
Lorrie Kim's Rainbow Ice site is the best for this kind of thing, and I suggest
visiting it if you haven't already.
http://www.plover.com/rainbowice/
My personal policy is to view Lorrie's site as the definitive one. Maybe this
thread will lead Lorrie to do some investigating and updating. Maybe not.
Daria
hudson
Fiona McQuarrie <mcqu...@sfu.ca> wrote:
Almost every person who lives and breathes in Vancouver knows that Xtra
West promotes the gay lifestyle. David Tarrant, well-known host of the
Canadian Gardener TV show, was featured on the cover and only the most
uninitiated would think he was promoting spring bulb planting. To the
best of my knowledge, that cover story didn't deter Western Canadian
gardeners from planting annuals or perennials.
Rick
Did he look like he was hiding a volleyball under his shirt in the picture?
- Rick, in a silly mood
Ron Ng
If he is out of the closet, it's perfectly ok to talk about it.
Even if he wears a gay scarf, it's okay to talk about it.
Ron Ng Knows!
nick
We're just wondering why she didn't pick it up to find out about the article
herself since she is the one interested in it. She also said that it is a
free publication. If a publication is FREE and there was an article I was
interested in, I think I would pick it up and read it.
Nick
gobigred
"darby wiggins" <dwig...@gmu.edu> wrote in message
news:3AA92E6F...@gmu.edu...
> Whether or not Emmanuel is gay or not is none of our business.
If he was pregnant, would it be? ;)
I dunno whether he's gay or straight or somewhere in-between, but IMHO
Emmanuel definitely is a Diva with a capitol D. And that ain't necessarily a
bad thing.
Amy
kbra...@binghamton.edu wrote:
> You know, I don't understand the couple of messages that basically (IMO)
> suggest that the only reason someone would not have bought this magazine
> was because they're homophobic or afraid their hands would get dirty.
>
> How about these explanations: someone was in a hurry; someone didn't have
> change (SNIPPAGE)
Well, gee Kate, the only problem is that Tracy later explained her reason for
not buying the magazine:
" Xtra West is free. But I didn't pick it up myself not because I don't want
people to think I'm gay, but because I'm not gay and I have certain religious
beliefs regarding homosexuality that make me uncomfortable with picking up a
gay
/ lesbian publication."
Yup, she's too uncomfortable to pick up the magazine and glance at the
article just long enough to answer her own question, but she's NOT too
uncomfortable with taking the time to write a three-paragraph post on the
topic and put it on the world-wide internet. Puh-leeze.
Amy
Fiona McQuarrie
: Well, gee Kate, the only problem is that Tracy later explained her reason for
: not buying the magazine:
: " Xtra West is free. But I didn't pick it up myself not because I don't want
: people to think I'm gay, but because I'm not gay and I have certain religious
: beliefs regarding homosexuality that make me uncomfortable with picking up a
: gay
: / lesbian publication."
: Yup, she's too uncomfortable to pick up the magazine and glance at the
: article just long enough to answer her own question, but she's NOT too
: uncomfortable with taking the time to write a three-paragraph post on the
: topic and put it on the world-wide internet. Puh-leeze.
Oh, give her a break. I would sooner listen to Tracy be honest about why
she didn't read the magazine than listen to the Ron and TFBWWW Show about
why Katia Gordeeva is a slut and a threat to modern civilization as we
know it. You may not agree with Tracy's reason but you could at least be
respectful of her explanation.
Cheers, Fiona
Ron Ng
>We're just wondering why she didn't pick it up to find out about the article
>herself since she is the one interested in it.
Because she doesn't believe in gays.
Ron Ng Knows!
Hattie54
>Lorrie Kim's Rainbow Ice site is the best for this kind of thing, and I
>suggest
>visiting it if you haven't already.
>
Harriet
Mrsfrz
I can't quite put my finger on what I want to say, so forgive me if I ramble
off topic, but all this talk about wondering who is gay and who is not is
unsettling to me because it seems to imply to some that it would affect a
person's view of that skater. I was talking to one of my patients about skaters
a while back when she mentioned that she used to love Brian Boitano until he
had a "personality change". Being that this woman was an ultra right wing
conservative (no offense to those who are) who has probably had many wonderful
encounters with gays who she didn't know were gay, I could only assume that she
didn't like Brian because someone must have told her he was gay. I was too
startled and diplomatic to ask her to elaborate.
My own 13 year old son was (past tense) an excellent skater who showed a lot
of potential. One of the things that contributed to him finally quitting, even
after making it to Jr. Nationals, was the "shame" he felt by being in a sport
that many of his male peers thought was a gay sport.He just couldn't rise above
the teasing and his perceived feeling of being unpopular because of it.It
didn't matter that he had many friends who admired him. No wonder we don't have
many male skaters in this country. There is so much negative peer pressure.
Even our local radio sportscaster puts down figure skaters, male and female.
Why can't we stop worrying about these things?
That brings me back to the topic of not wanting to pick up the newspaper
because of religious views. In these types of publications, there are usually
many good articles about the gays' struggles and various human interest issues
that would be so enlightening to a reader who had never explored these things
with an actual gay person; a reader who perhaps had an opinion based on
religious teachings, but never ventured out of that realm to really find out
the truth about gays, that they are no different than you and me except who
they are attracted to.
Please, I am not trying to attack anyone's religious views. I may not have
phrased everything just right. I'm just trying to promote a balance between
unquestionable faith and reality. There has to be compromise that would hurt
neither and accept all.
I am not gay, just a middle aged mom, but I have many gay friends and
relatives, some who are not with us anymore, and out of respect for them I feel
I must stand up for equality and acceptance. Thanks for letting me ramble on.
Susie
Smallovian Insider
<nick778...@DELETEaltavista.com> writes:
>Tracy Johnson wrote:
>
>> This morning I was walking by a grouping of newspaper boxes and noticed
>> Emmanuel Sandhu's picture on the cover of Xtra West, which is a gay and
>> lesbian newspaper in Vancouver.
>
>Why didn't you just buy Xtra West and read what is says?
Is there a web site for the paper?
Peg
reply to p.egl...@aol.com [re move the obvious ext ra dots]
27vfl00aml
==
join OT-r...@egroups.com - for off-topic discussions. Send an email to
OT-rssif-...@egroups.com to subscribe
@>--\-Any request to delete this post is a forgery-/--<@
Ron Ng
>a while back when she mentioned that she used to love Brian Boitano until he
>had a "personality change"
He's still the same whiny person he always was. And he still wears gay scarves.
Ron Ng Knows!
Alhuncc
>campy tour programs because the public is willing to tolerate gays as
>long as they're being funny, but serious programs with gay-related
>themes would still leave many spectators squirming uncomfortably.
I wish Rudy would again perform the "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" program that
was sadly caught in the ISU Pro-Am debacle of 1998, and Dick Button would again
provide his completely natural and off hand commentary on the meaning of the
rainbow scarf.
Back on topic...I do wonder how someone can be reticent to pick up a free
publication on a subject that violates his or her beliefs, but would have
quietly answered her question on a possibly sensitive topic, yet will bring up
both the topic and her beliefs on a widely read newsgroup.
That said, didn't anyone read the darned thing so we all can shut up??
Amanda
MorryS
>From: mrs...@aol.com (Mrsf
>My own 13 year old son was (past tense) an excellent skater who showed a lot<
Sorry to hear your son is (past tense)
mandol...@webtv.net
>Back on topic...I do wonder how someone can >be reticent to pick up a
free publication on a >subject that violates his or her beliefs, but
>would have quietly answered her question on >a possibly sensitive
topic, yet will bring up >both the topic and her beliefs on a widely
read >newsgroup.
ITA with both you & Amy in that I find it very strange that her
religious beliefs prohibit her from answering her question privately,
but they don't stop her from seeking the answer to the same question
(that has the potential to be a sensitive topic) on a world wide forum.
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> not buying the magazine:
>
> " Xtra West is free. But I didn't pick it up myself not because I don't want
> people to think I'm gay, but because I'm not gay and I have certain religious
> beliefs regarding homosexuality that make me uncomfortable with picking up a
> gay > / lesbian publication."
>
Well, okay, okay, none of my hypothetical reasons were accurate. But I
still think it was kind of odd that people jumped to the conclusion that
she was 'afraid' to pick it up.
I feel ambivalent about this. On the one hand, condemning someone's
values, whatever they are, within pretty wide boundaries, is abhorrent to
me, unless they're actually denying someone their rights. On the other
hand, I would like everyone to agree with me -- wouldn't the world just be
nice and homogeneous and, well, *right* that way? (I don't have any
problem with whatever sexual orientation).
But then, I started thinking...suppose I was walking down the street, and
saw a magazine known for publicizing views that I found offensive. And
there was a skater on the cover. I could see myself not particularly
wanting to pick the magazine up and read it in detail, because it would
almost certainly only offend me, but being curious about whether the
skater espoused those views. (Yeah, I know, I should be more open minded.
So should we all. And I could watch hundreds of hours of certain
political commentators, and I'd probably walk away even more convinced
they were wrong.)
I don't know the magazine in question, so I'm sure it's not a perfect
analogy -- but the point is, I can understand why someone might be curious
about something, but still not want to read the article, even though it
sounds kind of irrational to be interested but not interested enough.
I understand that it appears odd to ask about what what's in an article
that you could have read yourself, but that's not exactly what Tracy asked
-- her question was more specific. Had Sandhu declared his sexual
orientation?
Like Daria, I consider Lorrie Kim's website to be the definitive list, so
I assume the answer is no....but it does seem odd that the magazine was
then presumably departing from its usual practice (at least from what
Fiona and others have said).
I'm cranky, and I'll just apologize to everyone. I'm (1) wanting Worlds
to be here *tomorrow*, and (2) irritable that if a single skater were to
get pregnant, it had to be the traditional target of the trolls here.
-- Kate
Tracy Johnson
> all this talk about wondering who is gay and who is not is
> unsettling to me because it seems to imply to some that it would affect a
> person's view of that skater. I was talking to one of my patients about skaters
> a while back when she mentioned that she used to love Brian Boitano until he
> had a "personality change". Being that this woman was an ultra right wing
> conservative (no offense to those who are) who has probably had many wonderful
> encounters with gays who she didn't know were gay, I could only assume that she
> didn't like Brian because someone must have told her he was gay. I was too
> startled and diplomatic to ask her to elaborate.
Well, I have been pretty upfront about my own conservative views, in as quiet and
respectful a way as possible, but as someone you would probably consider to belong
in the above category, I will say that I have never let any skater's sexual
orientation bother me. For example, Brian Orser is one of my all-time favorite
skaters, and beyond just his own skating, I was also thrilled to death when I heard
he was working with Elvis on a program for this season. And I think a search of my
posting history will support that. My worst condemnation for a gay skater came when
I expressed distaste over some of Rudy's programs, but I've expressed similar
distaste over Evgeny Plushenko's hip gyrations, so those feelings apply whether I
know the skater's sexual orientation or not.
> My own 13 year old son was (past tense) an excellent skater who showed a lot
> of potential. One of the things that contributed to him finally quitting, even
> after making it to Jr. Nationals, was the "shame" he felt by being in a sport
> that many of his male peers thought was a gay sport.He just couldn't rise above
> the teasing and his perceived feeling of being unpopular because of it.It
> didn't matter that he had many friends who admired him. No wonder we don't have
> many male skaters in this country. There is so much negative peer pressure.
> Even our local radio sportscaster puts down figure skaters, male and female.
> Why can't we stop worrying about these things?
Again, as a conversative individual, let me say that I wasn't worrying about this
when I posted the question about Emmanuel. I was asking a question about him, out
of curiosity, like I would ask a question about any skater who appeared in a
publication that was geared towards a very defined audience. Emmanuel's sexual
orientation has no bearing on my feelings about him or his skating, and I am not
worried about it at all.
Having said that, I feel very sad that males are being made to feel "unmanly" if
they pursue figure skating, and so I empathize with your concerns and with your
son's feelings. I don't believe that skating is a "feminine" sport, and I don't
believe that a man who participates in it must automatically be gay. I also don't
believe that it matters one iota as regards his skating, if a man who participates
in it *is* gay.
> That brings me back to the topic of not wanting to pick up the newspaper
> because of religious views. In these types of publications, there are usually
> many good articles about the gays' struggles and various human interest issues
> that would be so enlightening to a reader who had never explored these things
> with an actual gay person; a reader who perhaps had an opinion based on
> religious teachings, but never ventured out of that realm to really find out
> the truth about gays, that they are no different than you and me except who
> they are attracted to.
I think you assume too much. People who have different views about homosexuality
don't necessarily have those views because they're ignorant about gays and their
struggles. Believe me, I am very well aware of the struggles of gays. I have a
lesbian friend who's been to hell and back. She's a wonderful person, and I feel
very sad about her struggles. I've read several books on homosexuality, on the
scientific and genetic arguments, on the struggles of gays and lesbians... I'm not
ignorant. And I'm not uncompassionate because of my views. I am respectful,
compassionate, and absolutely DO NOT believe that a person's sexual orientation has
*anything* to do with the kind of person they are. I don't believe they're evil,
like a Ron Ng probably does. I think sexual orientation really has no bearing on a
person's character, integrity, and personality.
> Please, I am not trying to attack anyone's religious views. I may not have
> phrased everything just right. I'm just trying to promote a balance between
> unquestionable faith and reality. There has to be compromise that would hurt
> neither and accept all.
I like to think I've reached a pretty good compromise. I *really* appreciate your
thoughtful and well-framed remarks, and I just want to offer the counter that
people who have different views about homosexuality aren't necessarily hateful,
ignorant, or uncompassionate. I believe myself to be the antithesis of people like
Ron Ng, and hope that I can be respected for my opinions, as I try to respect
others'.
Tracy
Tracy Johnson
Ron, you don't speak for me. Not now or ever.
Tracy
Tracy Johnson
> Amy <am...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Yup, she's too uncomfortable to pick up the magazine and glance at the
> : article just long enough to answer her own question, but she's NOT too
> : uncomfortable with taking the time to write a three-paragraph post on the
> : topic and put it on the world-wide internet. Puh-leeze.
>
> Oh, give her a break. I would sooner listen to Tracy be honest about why
> she didn't read the magazine than listen to the Ron and TFBWWW Show about
> why Katia Gordeeva is a slut and a threat to modern civilization as we
> know it. You may not agree with Tracy's reason but you could at least be
> respectful of her explanation.
Thank you, Fiona. I really do try to be very fair, open-minded, and respectful of
others, and I get upset that people don't show me the same courtesy. I wish that
people would realize that you can disagree with something someone is doing, without
condemning the individual. The two posters you mentioned do nothing but make people
with conservative views look like hateful nutcases, and I despise them as much for
that as all of you do.
Tracy
Tracy Johnson
> I feel ambivalent about this. On the one hand, condemning someone's
> values, whatever they are, within pretty wide boundaries, is abhorrent to
> me
I didn't *condemn* anyone, Kate.
(I'm snipping the rest of your post, but I do realize you made some points that at
least stated an understanding of my actions.)
You know, this is really -- and I do mean *really* -- frustrating. I also have
religious views about not having sex outside of marriage, and I have many friends
who -- guess what! -- have sex outside of marriage. It's something I disagree with,
based on my own religious beliefs, but disagreement does not equal condemnation. I
understand that not everyone shares my views. If I didn't understand that, I would
hardly have any friends, since certainly my view on sex outside of marriage is most
definitely not shared by the vast majority of the population!
Well, homosexual sex is no "worse" in my books than any of the other conservative
religious views I hold. The fact that it's an emotionally charged issue, especially
here, is not *my* fault. People here are assuming too much about how I view gays
and lesbians, based on one *tiny little sentence* (and an extremely quiet and
non-confrontational one at that) that I used to explain why I didn't pick up the
magazine.
Frankly, I think that people who assume so much about me -- and the worst has not
been exhibited here, but in private, very angry emails to me since I started this
thread -- are as bad in condemning me for what I believe as anything that I might
be doing. They don't know what my attitude is towards gays and lesbians. They
assume I'm a hate-monger, like the evil people who turned Matthew Shepard's (sp?)
funeral into a demonstration, and who really *do* condemn homosexuals in an
astonishing and appalling way.
Well, guess what? I'm not a hate-monger. I JUST DISAGREE about something. Like I
disagree with sex outside of marriage. *That's* hardly an issue of hate, and none
of my friends who have or have had sex outside of marriage believe that I hate them
or am somehow evil for my views.
Why everyone else in the world can express their views and I cannot disagree, with
the utmost respect for our differences, is beyond me. I didn't condemn anyone in my
post, and I never will.
Tracy
Hattie54
>had a "personality change". Being that this woman was an ultra right wing
>conservative
mrsfrz
Brian B isn't gay like the other Brian . I've talked to folks offline and they
say he is a skirt chaser .They have seen enuff evidence there to know he isn't
gay .
Harriet
Lorrie Kim
Tracy Johnson <tra...@softrak.com> wrote:
>You know, this is really -- and I do mean *really* -- frustrating.
[snip]
>I didn't condemn anyone in my
>post, and I never will.
I'm a bit taken aback, myself. It would never have occurred to me
to jump on Tracy for anything. She alerted the newsgroup to something
newsworthy that she saw, posed a perfectly legitimate question, and when
asked why she hadn't picked up the magazine, answered factually.
I did leave a message on XTRA! West's voicemail, and e-mail a
Vancouver friend, to find out if the content of their Emanuel Sandhu
feature would be relevant to Rainbow Ice. I haven't heard back from
either yet, but from Sandra's report on another thread, it doesn't sound
like it. Gay-related publications are always publishing text and photos
of non-gay people -- so Sandhu's appearance on this cover means nothing
for sure except that gays in Vancouver also watch skating and are aware of
the identity of the national champion.
Lorrie Kim
lor...@plover.com
Fairforall2
>they say he is a skirt chaser .They have seen enuff evidence there to know he
isn't
>gay .
>
>Harriet>
>
DG511
<big snip>
>I didn't condemn anyone in my
>post, and I never will.
True. Even though I do not share Tracy's views on the topic, I think she was
within rights not to pick up the paper. There are publications I haven't
gotten because I didn't like their editorial stance or because I didn't like
that they had featured on the cover a person whom I strongly dislike (and yes,
some pubs do track cover photos and news stand sales -- why do you think People
runs a picture of the late Princess Diana every opportunity they can find?).
We're not here to compare our views of politics, lifestyles, or the cosmos.
We're here to discuss skating. There have been responses to this thread noting
why sexual preference might be a relevant topic here. But we're still
speculating at this point, which some folks dislike -- and for good reason.
What I'd like to suggest (and this is not a criticism of Tracy) is that we all
bookmark the Rainbow Ice site and go there with this type of question in the
future.
Daria
Rick
>In article <m366hi1...@lilypad.frogsonice.com>, Sandra Loosemore
><san...@frogsonice.com> wrote:
>
>[snipping an interesting post]
>
>> On
>> the flip side of the coin, people have often critized Sandra Bezic's
>> group numbers for Stars On Ice for being too relentlessly
>> heterosexual, girl/boy oriented.
>
>[snip]
>
>Speaking of this, I have to confess...I'm glad Tara Lipinski is apparently
>not doing the Canadian SOI tour, because it means they'll probably have to
>re-work the part of the "backstage gossip" ensemble number in which she's
>pretending to whine about being the only skater not involved in some sort
>of relationship...going down the line of skaters, pointing to each one and
>saying "Married...taken...married...married....ALWAYS taken..." etc. I
>couldn't help but wonder how they were going to handle it when they got to
>Brian. (She could have called him "taken" and left it at that, but...)
How about "Check Lorrie's website"? (borrowing from the comment per Steven
Cousins)
- Rick, in a silly mood again
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> been exhibited here, but in private, very angry emails to me since I started this
> thread -- are as bad in condemning me for what I believe as anything that I might
> be doing. They don't know what my attitude is towards gays and lesbians. They
> assume I'm a hate-monger, like the evil people who turned Matthew Shepard's (sp?)
> funeral into a demonstration, and who really *do* condemn homosexuals in an
> astonishing and appalling way.
>
I agree. What disturbs me about this thread is the notion that somehow
someone is *obligated* to hold a certain view about sexual orientation.
Tracy's not saying, IMO, that we all have to agree with her. She's not
even condemning anyone who is gay. She has a right to her beliefs. And,
frankly, it's kind of nice to see someone who holds what probably is a
minority opinion on this ng, and isn't trying to force others to agree
with it....as opposed to some of the more strident declarations in the
Gordeeva thread. This *is* the way to express difference -- politely
expressing one's opinion, and the decisions one has made for oneself,
without trying to establish it as the 'correct' view for everyone.
-- Kate
Tzigaane
In article <3AA9D581...@softrak.com>, Tracy wrote:
>Thank you, Fiona. I really do try to be very fair, open-minded, and respectful
of
>others, and I get upset that people don't show me the same courtesy. I wish
that
>people would realize that you can disagree with something someone is doing,
without
>condemning the individual.
Tracy, respectfully, I think you sincerely mean this, but if you do believe it,
why is Sandhu's orientation even an issue? And if your views are strong enough
to prevent you from looking at the article to satisfy your curiousity, what is
really different about asking the question here? To the casual observer (me)
the pieces don't quite add up. It comes across to me that you need the
information because you feel somehow obligated to make a judgement. It would
seem that if you really didn't want to judge him and it didn't really matter to
you whether he is or isn't, you wouldn't *want* to know - because if your views
are *so* strong then his being gay *would* affect your opinion or feelings
about him. I don't know if I've said this very clearly or not and I hope I
haven't offended you, but I wanted to explain how it looked to at least one
observer.
Tzigaane
P.S. I'm truly sorry to hear that you've gotten nasty email over this. You
certainly don't deserve it.
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> someone is *obligated* to hold a certain view about sexual orientation.
> Tracy's not saying, IMO, that we all have to agree with her. She's not
> even condemning anyone who is gay. She has a right to her beliefs. And,
> frankly, it's kind of nice to see someone who holds what probably is a
> minority opinion on this ng, and isn't trying to force others to agree
> with it....as opposed to some of the more strident declarations in the
> Gordeeva thread. This *is* the way to express difference -- politely
> expressing one's opinion, and the decisions one has made for oneself,
> without trying to establish it as the 'correct' view for everyone.
>
I better add this: for the record, I'm talking about Running Nose, not
anyone else, though there's been probably a degree of stridency in many
posts, including my own.
-- Kate
Ruth Lafler
Fairforall2 wrote:
Hattie's our idiot ... a community just isn't a village without one.
--Ruth <who doesn't filter trolls like Hattie because she likes to be reminded of
both the depth and breadth of stupidity and mean-spiritedness in the world>
DASBABY932
it, why is Sandhu's orientation even an issue? And if your views are strong
enough to prevent you from looking at the article to satisfy your curiousity,
what is
really different about asking the question here? <<
Oh come on!!!! She explained it!! She's curious! This is like the stuff
about "Why would anyone care if Katia is pregnant?" PLEASE!! I'm not saying
we have the right to know, or it's the best part of our characters, or there's
no paradox or whatever, but so what! Yes, her curiosity led her to ask it here
but not to pick up the actual magazine, but that's her issue. From what I
gathered, she believes nobody but anybody out has ever been featured on the
cover of this publication. So she's asking if Sandhu is out. She's not even
asking if he's gay or if anyone knows if he's gay, she's asking if he's out,
meaning, has Sandhu himself declared himself to be gay. Not that I know the
answer.
WoogieVill
Baiul or Gordeeva.
::throws post granade::
::hides and waits for explosion::
::or at least an eye roll::
Naomi Lloyd
lurker/sometime poster on rssif. I read the Xtra West occasionally. I have
not seen the most recent issue.
My difficulty with going out and picking up a copy to answer your question,
Tracy, is that I feel that in your paradigm, I will be doing your dirty
work. You will be benefiting from something without "tarnishing" your
beliefs. If you do not agree with reading it, why would you want me
reading? Wouldn't my reading it and passing the information on to you,
constitute reading it yourself in a second-hand way?
I am not expressing myself very clearly, but the situation does not feel
right to me. I guess I just find it a weird suggestion - that someone who
does not agree with the sexual orientation choices I have made, nevertheless
wants to benefit from them in some way.
I will however go out and pick up a copy of this and let everyone know, as I
realize there is a high level of interest in this, and of course I am
interested too.
Naomi
"Tracy Johnson" <tra...@softrak.com> wrote in message
news:3AAA330E...@softrak.com...
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> Tracy, is that I feel that in your paradigm, I will be doing your dirty
> work. You will be benefiting from something without "tarnishing" your
> beliefs. If you do not agree with reading it, why would you want me
> reading? Wouldn't my reading it and passing the information on to you,
> constitute reading it yourself in a second-hand way?
>
Actually, I don't think so. There's a difference between picking up a
magazine, and reading an entire article, and getting an answer to a very
specific question.
This is the best analogy I could think of for this: I'm pretty pro-gun
control. Suppose I pass a magazine on the street that I know is devoted
to celebrating ownership of *any* type of weapon....and I see a skater on
the cover. I could see being curious about whether the skater had ever
made a public statement about the issue. I could also see myself not
particularly wanting to read about that skater and his relationship to
that issue in depth.
I realize it's not a perfect analogy, for several reasons. But the point
is that wanting to read an entire article in a magazine that by most
accounts emphasizes issues of sexual orientation, and wondering if someone
has publicly declared their sexual orientation are not *exactly* the same
thing. Getting a simple answer here (which seems to be he hasn't, and the
magazine has just deviated from prior practice in putting him on the
cover) is not the same experience as reading the magazine.
And, as others have pointed out, it's her choice whether to read the
magazine. If you think she should have to read the magazine to find out
the answer to her question, then don't provide the answer.
-- Kate
Hattie54
>
>--Ruth <who doesn't filter trolls like Hattie because she likes to be
>reminded of
>both the depth and breadth of stupidity and mean-spiritedness in the world>
>
Its the old biddie Ruthie ! She's been gone a long time . Where is my last mean
post ? Guess you are behind the times . Go to the Katia posts and see who has
posted the most .
Harriet
Naomi Lloyd
Sandhu as its cover story. There is a picture of Emanuel doing a spiral on
the front cover. The article is skating related and gives an account of
Emanuel's season. It notes that Emanuel avoids discussion of his private
life. None of the issues covered will be new to figure skating fans:
- his uneven track record
- his struggle with whether to stick with figure skating last summer
- his performances at Nationals (in detail)
- media attention and his popularity on the net
- his ability to combine artistry and athleticism
More interesting than the story itself is another article alongside this one
asking why so few gay skaters come out. "In a 1997 interview with Xtra West
a noted choreographer claimed that only around 10 percent of male figure
skaters are gay. So why don't we hear from them more often? According to
choreographer, Keven Cottam: 'The sport of figure skating is still fairly
homophobic. Even if they were gay, most skaters won't come out.'"
The article goes on to say:
"Interestingly Skate Canada refused to provide Xtra West with a cover
photograph of Emanuel Sandhu. They claimed the issue would be on the street
for too long before the World's competition. What is this, Hate Canada or
Skate Canada? (You'll notice Xtra West found a photo from another source.)
Canada's national figure skating organization needs to deal with this....The
rest of the country has matured in their dealings with our community. We're
being marketed to and targeted and invited to join just aout everything
these days - except figure skating. The worry about being associated with
anything remotely gay continues to mar Skate Canada's relationship with the
gay community."
Naomi
Naomi Lloyd
gun control, would probably pick up the issue and scan the article. I
wouldn't feel I was selling out on my beliefs to do this. (Although I am
really opposed to Playboy, I did look at the net photos of Katarina Witt
that were said to be so arty. I wouldn't have felt comfortable asking
someone else to report back to me on them even if they agreed with Playboy
and read it every week. To me, that would feel hypocritical.)
More importantly: from my perspective there is more at stake in this
discussion than all of us having our own belief systems and tolerating one
another. Yes this is a laudible goal. But the playing ground is not
even here. My disagreement with Tracy will not effect her right
to practice her religion and her sexual orientation. Her disagreement
with me will negatively impact my life in almost every aspect. Her
disagreement will effect my civil rights, which have been so hard won in
the last decade in Canada.
Because, however respectfully someone disagrees with my orientation, it is
likely that they will vote against my right to be at my partner's side in
hospital as her spouse, to inherit her pension, to immigrate with her as
my partner, to raise children together, even to file taxes as a couple.
When it comes to voting, people vote their beliefs. And I can't see how
someone could disagree with my choices and vote for my rights. It becomes
a very personal issue for me. And being asked to provide that person
access to my community's newspaper, seems wrong.
Naomi
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> Well to go by your analogy I, who have similar views to yours on
> gun control, would probably pick up the issue and scan the article.
Which would be fine.
> I
> wouldn't feel I was selling out on my beliefs to do this.
It's not a question, for me, of selling out my beliefs; it's a question of
being able to choose what I want to read. I wouldn't feel obligated to
read the article on gun control. I wouldn't expect to get scolded if I
asked whether the skater on the cover had ever made a statement about gun
control.
(snip)
>
> More importantly: from my perspective there is more at stake in this
> discussion than all of us having our own belief systems and tolerating one
> another. Yes this is a laudible goal. But the playing ground is not
> even here. My disagreement with Tracy will not effect her right
> to practice her religion and her sexual orientation. Her disagreement
> with me will negatively impact my life in almost every aspect.
I don't believe that's true. I'm talking about Tracy's choice not to read
an article, and to hold beliefs regarding her own value system -- not
aboue her right to negatively impact your life.
> Her disagreement will effect my civil rights, which have been so hard
> won in the last decade in Canada.
>
You have no evidence about Tracy's views on civil rights.
> Because, however respectfully someone disagrees with my orientation, it is
> likely that they will vote against my right to be at my partner's side in
> hospital as her spouse, to inherit her pension, to immigrate with her as
> my partner, to raise children together, even to file taxes as a couple.
You have absolutely no idea whether that's true of Tracy. And whether it
is or not, you have no right to determine the political and religious
views of others. Part of civil rights *is* the right to hold opinions
with which others disagree.
-- Kate
SIPAAMS
>ITA with both you & Amy in that I find it very strange that her religious
beliefs prohibit her from answering her question privately, but they don't stop
her from seeking the answer to the same question (that has the potential to be
a sensitive topic) on a world wide forum.<
I thought that Kate made the point very well earlier of why someone might do
this - let me give an example of what I mean. If I were walking down the
street and saw a white supremist magazine with a skater on the cover, I would
NOT want to pick up the magazine, but I would still be curious as to why a
skater was on the cover. Obviously, everyone has their own comfort zone, and
it is not the same for everyone.
Alison
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Love one another as I have loved you. - J.C.
Morgan Dhu
>I realize it's not a perfect analogy, for several reasons. But the point
>is that wanting to read an entire article in a magazine that by most
>accounts emphasizes issues of sexual orientation, and wondering if someone
>has publicly declared their sexual orientation are not *exactly* the same
>thing. Getting a simple answer here (which seems to be he hasn't, and the
>magazine has just deviated from prior practice in putting him on the
>cover) is not the same experience as reading the magazine.
I'd simply like to make a comment here about the assumption that
everyone featured in a magazine or newspaper which serves the queer
community must of necessity be themselves queer. While I'm not
familiar with this specific paper, I do read their sister publication,
Xtra, which is based in Toronto. Xtra does not exclusively write about
people who are queer - although it would be correct to say that the
majority of people and organisations featured in the paper are queer
or queer-friendly.
Articles and features in such magazines are chosen to address matters
of interest to their readership. Believe it or not, some of the people
who are of interest to queers are either not queer, or choose not to
discuss their personal lives in public. I've seen a variety of
articles and even cover stories in the queer press about people who
are not queer.
And now, back to skating. I think it's great that Sandhu is getting
the press interest that a Canadian champion merits, especially just
before a World Championship that is being held in the city in which
he trains.
- Morgan Dhu
==============================================================
If you have two loaves of bread, sell one and buy a hyacinth.
==============================================================
Virginia Blalock
wrote:
>More interesting than the story itself is another article alongside this one
>asking why so few gay skaters come out. "In a 1997 interview with Xtra West
>a noted choreographer claimed that only around 10 percent of male figure
>skaters are gay. So why don't we hear from them more often? According to
>choreographer, Keven Cottam: 'The sport of figure skating is still fairly
>homophobic. Even if they were gay, most skaters won't come out.'"
Yes, it does seem that the skating community(which supposedly has more
skaters who are gay than other sports) is more homophobic than the
general population. I have also read in various entities about skaters
being asked to have "beards" and so forth. I recall the skating
community letting Chris Bowman get away with murder partially because
he was a skirt chasing so and so and I guess it looked good to see a
public skater being hetero.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jocelyn
>"Interestingly Skate Canada refused to provide Xtra West with a cover
>photograph of Emanuel Sandhu. They claimed the issue would be on the street
>for too long before the World's competition. What is this, Hate Canada or
>Skate Canada? (You'll notice Xtra West found a photo from another source.)
How interesting! I have a feeling that the only thing that will affect
Sandhu's placement at Worlds is how many times his velveted butt hits the ice!
Thank you for the report, Naomi.
Jocelyn
Hattie54
>is or not, you have no right to determine the political and religious
>views of others. Part of civil rights *is* the right to hold opinions
>with which others disagree.
>
>- Kate
Amen, a few forget that .
Harriet
Jennifer Lyon
your belief system. You don't have to agree with everything you
read. I sure don't, even if it's a publication that's more or
less in line with my views.
A free newspaper is a good place to start, since you aren't
handing over any money to the company that produces it. The best
free publications can usually be found in record stores or near
college campuses. One time, I happened to pick up a newsletter
for black feminists and found a blurb about Surya Bonaly.
----------
In article <20010310195853...@ng-bk1.aol.com>,
Naomi Lloyd
not proving a productive discussion
<kbra...@binghamton.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.BU-L4.10.10103101912460.25480-100000@bingsun2...
> > More importantly: from my perspective there is more at stake in this
> > discussion than all of us having our own belief systems and tolerating
one
> > another. Yes this is a laudible goal. But the playing ground is not
> > even here. My disagreement with Tracy will not effect her right
> > to practice her religion and her sexual orientation. Her disagreement
> > with me will negatively impact my life in almost every aspect.
>
> I don't believe that's true. I'm talking about Tracy's choice not to read
> an article, and to hold beliefs regarding her own value system -- not
> aboue her right to negatively impact your life.
This part of my post was not addressed to your post. It was going back to
my initial mullings over why I felt so uncomfortable about Tracy's request.
I am a member of the gay and lesbian community. Although I do not agree
with everything Xtra West says or does, it is my community's newspaper.
Someone who disagrees with the choices everyone in my community has made
wants access to this newspaper's articles. She politely and respectfully
expresses her disagreement with our choices. She is lauded for being able
to express her views respectfully. I agree that this is a good thing for
all of us to practice. However, as a lesbian, I feel offended that I am
asked to channel the information to her while knowing she disagrees with my
way of life. I am simply trying to express that it's not a case of just
"disagreeing" with me. It's knowing what the end results of politely
disagreeing will be for me.
> > Her disagreement will effect my civil rights, which have been so hard
> > won in the last decade in Canada.
> >
>
> You have no evidence about Tracy's views on civil rights.
I am not talking about civil rights in general. I'm talking about gay and
lesbian civil rights. Those who disagree with homosexuality do not vote for
legislation that allows us to "marry", have children, have our children get
access to books that support our choices etc.
> > Because, however respectfully someone disagrees with my orientation, it
is
> > likely that they will vote against my right to be at my partner's side
in
> > hospital as her spouse, to inherit her pension, to immigrate with her as
> > my partner, to raise children together, even to file taxes as a couple.
>
> You have absolutely no idea whether that's true of Tracy. And whether it
> is or not, you have no right to determine the political and religious
> views of others. Part of civil rights *is* the right to hold opinions
> with which others disagree.
I am not sure what you mean by "determine" Tracy's views. If you mean that
in it is wrong to assume that she is not part of our community's struggle
for our rights, I think it would be naive to think otherwise. In all my
years of talking to people about my sexual orientation I have never met
anyone who has disagreed with homosexuality, and yet voted for legislation
that legitimated it.
Tracy has expressed her disagreement with homosexuality. I have said that
for me the issue is not her politeness in doing so, but that she wants the
very people with whom she disagress (and for whom her disagreement has
concrete consequences) - gays and lesbians (or their allies) - to pass along
information from our community's newspaper, when she is in fact not a friend
or supporter of our community.
Naomi
Ann Watson
"Naomi Lloyd" <nll...@home.com> wrote in message
news:pBBq6.191613$df5.5...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com...
: I am not talking about civil rights in general. I'm talking about gay
and
: lesbian civil rights. Those who disagree with homosexuality do not
vote for
: legislation that allows us to "marry", have children, have our
children get
: access to books that support our choices etc.
==
I don't happen to believe children are anybody's "civil right".
Ann Watson
starscream31
gay magazine. That in itself is a miracle.
dario
Fiona McQuarrie wrote:
> Ellen B. Edgerton <ebed...@newstand.syr.edu> wrote:
> : Or it could be that Sandhu is a skater that a lot of gay people enjoy
> : watching, and that they thought a cover story on him might attract
> : readers. I would assume they interviewed him for the story and that he's
> : cool with the idea of being featured in their magazine, whether he is gay
> : or straight - same as other straight celebrities who have made the cover
> : of the Advocate?
>
> Ellen makes a good point, but Xtra West is quite different from the
> Advocate. It is a very "out and proud" newspaper, and I can't recall (from
> my readings of it, which admittedly aren't completely regular) there ever
> being a story in it about someone who was straight and "gay-positive" (or
> whatever the term is these days). It pretty much confines itself to
> coverage of people who are gay.
>
> Now, having said that, I will also say that I haven't seen this particular
> issue Tracy is referring to, so I don't know what the Emanuel story is
> about.
>
> Cheers, Fiona
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please remove the words *nospam* from my email address when replying,
otherwise the mail will come back as undeliverable.
Tracy Johnson
> I am a lesbian figure skating fan who lives in Vancouver and a long-time
> lurker/sometime poster on rssif. I read the Xtra West occasionally. I have
> not seen the most recent issue.
>
> My difficulty with going out and picking up a copy to answer your question,
> Tracy, is that I feel that in your paradigm, I will be doing your dirty
> work. You will be benefiting from something without "tarnishing" your
> beliefs. If you do not agree with reading it, why would you want me
> reading? Wouldn't my reading it and passing the information on to you,
> constitute reading it yourself in a second-hand way?
To be precise, I didn't ask anyone to read the article on my behalf. I simply
asked if anyone had read it. That's a far different question. In fact, I didn't
even ask specifically about the article's contents, just about whether anyone
knew if Emmanuel Sandhu had openly declared himself to be gay, because I was
surprised at his *appearance* on the cover of the magazine.
I would *not* have specifically asked someone to get the magazine on my behalf
and read it. If I had done so, I certainly agree that that would've been
inappropriate and hypocritical.
However, if you feel that I was out of line in making the request at all, even
in the way I did it, I apologize for stepping on your toes. I know the sensitive
nature of this subject, and I was very careful in the way I asked about it.
> I am not expressing myself very clearly, but the situation does not feel
> right to me. I guess I just find it a weird suggestion - that someone who
> does not agree with the sexual orientation choices I have made, nevertheless
> wants to benefit from them in some way.
No, I didn't want to benefit. I wanted information, and I asked *anyone* who
might know the answer to my question. I didn't hope to "use" anyone's sexual
orientation or anything even remotely like that.
You said in another post:
> But the playing ground is not
> even here. My disagreement with Tracy will not effect her right
> to practice her religion and her sexual orientation. Her disagreement
> with me will negatively impact my life in almost every aspect.
Excuse me? Now that's unfair. Society and the legal system is bending far more
quickly to your views than to mine, and I think it's very one-sided to imagine
that your views don't impact me. They do, as evidenced by the everyday goings on
in the world around me.
But this isn't about me, or my viewpoints, and I've tried *SO* hard not to make
it that. I was extremely careful in how I asked the question, I have been
extremely respectful in my expression of my beliefs, and yet it still is made to
be about me. I can't possibly imagine anything I could've done differently to
ask the question in a more appropriate and "valid" way.
> being asked to provide that person
> access to my community's newspaper, seems wrong.
Well, what about if an article about, say, Kristi Yamaguchi appeared in a
Southern Baptist publication? (I'm not Southern Baptist, I don't know much about
them in fact, but I chose them for the example because I know they're a very
large denomination in the US.) If the Southern Baptists disagreed with your life
choices (which they probably do), would you want to pick up the magazine if all
you wanted was to know whether Kristi Yamaguchi had suddenly declared herself to
be a Southern Baptist? Probably not. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that
no one would condemn you for asking that. However, when the positions are
reversed -- when it's a Christian conservative individual asking a question
about a possibly gay skater appearing in a gay magazine -- I suddenly I become
the bad guy. It's unfair to me, and try as I might, I don't know how to engage
in discussions about this sort of thing if even the *simplest* question becomes
such a hot button issue here. I really don't.
Tracy (who's feeling very frustrated and sad about this whole thread :-( and
wondering what I didn't listen to my instincts and keep my mouth shut)
Tracy Johnson
> I'd simply like to make a comment here about the assumption that
> everyone featured in a magazine or newspaper which serves the queer
> community must of necessity be themselves queer. While I'm not
> familiar with this specific paper, I do read their sister publication,
> Xtra, which is based in Toronto. Xtra does not exclusively write about
> people who are queer - although it would be correct to say that the
> majority of people and organisations featured in the paper are queer
> or queer-friendly.
Morgan, I didn't make that assumption. I asked if that was the case or not,
stating that I wasn't *sure* because I had never *seen* a straight individual
featured on the cover of their newspaper.
Tracy
SophiaS371
>When it comes to voting, people vote their beliefs. And I can't see how
>someone could disagree with my choices and vote for my rights. It becomes
>a very personal issue for me. And being asked to provide that person
>access to my community's newspaper, seems wrong.
>
>Naomi
>
>
whoa, tracy is not voting away your rights. perhaps you have come across such
condemnation in your lifetime that you read that into what someone may
innocently write. and i certainly understand where you're coming from--but
could you consider understanding where tracy is coming from. i don't know that
i would have been as open as she -- especially on this board. and in hindsight
she may even regret her post because of how it came across.
peace.
sophia
Naomi Lloyd
> Naomi Lloyd wrote:
> > But the playing ground is not
> > even here. My disagreement with Tracy will not effect her right
> > to practice her religion and her sexual orientation. Her disagreement
> > with me will negatively impact my life in almost every aspect.
>
> Excuse me? Now that's unfair. Society and the legal system is bending far
more
> quickly to your views than to mine, and I think it's very one-sided to
imagine
> that your views don't impact me. They do, as evidenced by the everyday
goings on
> in the world around me.
I do understand that my views impact you and that you are faced with
discrimination for holding more conservative views but I do not believe that
you, as a conservative, face the practical daily struggles I do as a result
of being gay - including explaining to future employers why I left a job
(because my partner got a transferred. "What does he do? Oh, it's a
she..." ); getting spousal employee benefits at work; finding a doctor with
whom I can be out etc. For this reason I can't simply say to myself: "Tracy
and I have different but equally valid viewpoints. Your disagreement
becomes part of a large picture that society holds up to me (despite some
legal gains) that says there is something wrong with me - at the very least
that I have made a mistake and am living out a mistake.
> Well, what about if an article about, say, Kristi Yamaguchi appeared in a
> Southern Baptist publication? (I'm not Southern Baptist, I don't know much
about
> them in fact, but I chose them for the example because I know they're a
very
> large denomination in the US.) If the Southern Baptists disagreed with
your life
> choices (which they probably do), would you want to pick up the magazine
if all
> you wanted was to know whether Kristi Yamaguchi had suddenly declared
herself to
> be a Southern Baptist? Probably not. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts
that
> no one would condemn you for asking that. However, when the positions are
> reversed -- when it's a Christian conservative individual asking a
question
> about a possibly gay skater appearing in a gay magazine -- I suddenly I
become
> the bad guy. It's unfair to me, and try as I might, I don't know how to
engage
> in discussions about this sort of thing if even the *simplest* question
becomes
> such a hot button issue here. I really don't.
I would probably read the article, because I wouldn't see it as morally
wrong to read the publication. It is difficult to find good analogies.
I do not think you are the "bad guy" in fact I enjoy dialogue over this
issue, and appreciate the calm and polite way in which you've conducted the
discussion. You are right that it is a hot button issue - I think when
people disagree with our life choices it is always a "hot issue": whether it
is parents disagreeing with children's choices, friends not liking one's
choice of spouse/partner (whatever your orientation) etc.
I realise that this has got way off topic, so will not post another message
to this part of the thread. I am more than willing to discuss it via email
if you're interested.
Naomi
Glaadrial
> I
>couldn't help but wonder how they were going to handle it when they got to
>Brian. (She could have called him "taken" and left it at that, but...)
How 'bout: "Unavailable"
Hattie54
>that
>i would have been as open as she -- especially on this board. and in
>hindsight
>she may even regret her post because of how it came across.
>
>peace.
>sophia
Its a shame some folks can't understand where Tracey is coming from on the gay
mag issue .
Harriet
michael farris
Glaadrial wrote:
Or "Canadian"
Or "Silver medal"
Or ... (maybe I'll just stop now)
-mike farris
Trudi Marrapodi
tzig...@aol.com (Tzigaane) wrote:
> In article <3AA9D581...@softrak.com>, Tracy wrote:
>
> >Thank you, Fiona. I really do try to be very fair, open-minded, and
respectful
> of
> >others, and I get upset that people don't show me the same courtesy. I wish
> that
> >people would realize that you can disagree with something someone is doing,
> without
> >condemning the individual.
>
> Tracy, respectfully, I think you sincerely mean this, but if you do
believe it,
> why is Sandhu's orientation even an issue?
I can see where you're coming from. Although I have to admit...I might
have asked the same question as her myself, in the same situation. And
then thought better of it. But it would have been kind of like a "He
hasn't gone and come out, has he? Because if not, it's interesting that
he's just on the cover of this publication anyway." But, that said, it
would probably not have been a really wise thing to do.
> And if your views are strong enough
> to prevent you from looking at the article to satisfy your curiousity, what is
> really different about asking the question here? To the casual observer (me)
> the pieces don't quite add up. It comes across to me that you need the
> information because you feel somehow obligated to make a judgement. It would
> seem that if you really didn't want to judge him and it didn't really
matter to
> you whether he is or isn't, you wouldn't *want* to know - because if
your views
> are *so* strong then his being gay *would* affect your opinion or feelings
> about him. I don't know if I've said this very clearly or not and I hope I
> haven't offended you, but I wanted to explain how it looked to at least one
> observer.
>
> Tzigaane
I think this viewpoint comes pretty close to mine. If it really doesn't
matter, why does one need to know?
> P.S. I'm truly sorry to hear that you've gotten nasty email over this. You
> certainly don't deserve it.
I second that emotion. Nobody deserves that (except maybe a troll, and it
wouldn't hurt a troll anyway).
--
Trudi
Just Another Ventilator of Ice Skating Around the World
"Life is too damned short for me to read the dubious opinions of idiots" --Peg Lewis
"This could be a good semester to consider in depth the color blue."--Actual line from description of cinema course in Binghamton University Course Guide, Fall 2001
TFBWWW
thats because he did NOT DISERVE to win the gold!
TFBWWW
~August 1, 1999 - the day my prayers were answered!~
Tracy Johnson
> I appreciate Tracy's post emphasizing that she does not condemn anyone for
> anything. But, that said, I think the point some people are trying to make
> is that either: a) If you have personal limits on what you will do to
> satisfy your curiosity, don't go expecting other people who go beyond
> those limits to inform you; and b) curiosity, while normal and human,
> isn't necessarily a virtue that demands accommodation.
For the LAST time, I have stated VERY clearly that I did not expect anyone to go beyond any limits on my behalf.
I asked if anyone knew if Emmanuel had stated his sexual orientation. I asked if anyone had read the article. I did NOT ask if anyone would read the article for me.
I'm sick of defending myself over this. This is become insulting, frankly. I've done nothing wrong here. I asked a simple question that, if it had been anyone else
asking, or someone who was less honest about her personal beliefs, would not have become such an issue.
Tracy
DG511
writes:
>It can be very educational to read something that goes against
>your belief system. You don't have to agree with everything you
>read. I sure don't, even if it's a publication that's more or
>less in line with my views.
>
>A free newspaper is a good place to start, since you aren't
>handing over any money to the company that produces it. The best
>free publications can usually be found in record stores or near
>college campuses. One time, I happened to pick up a newsletter
>for black feminists and found a blurb about Surya Bonaly.
However. . . even free newspapers know how many copies they print and track how
many of those copies come back in one form or another (they have their means).
This affects ad rates, which affects their income. Therefore, I would NOT pick
up a free newspaper that was dedicated to a point of view I actively oppose. I
would prefer to have the newspaper rot in the box, serve as nesting material
for mice, or get ruined by rain that seeped into the box. My need to be true
to my own values would override my curiosity about a skater.
Having said that, I agree with Jennifer that it can be elucidating to read
things targeted at people unlike yourself. I've done it, and it's been
amusing, enlightening, exasperating, etc.
I don't share Tracy's views on homosexuality, but I think she's been polite and
fair in expressing herself, and I don't think she should be ragged on for not
picking up the damned newspaper if it does indeed violate her values.
I also think that other article that was alongside the bit about Sandhu sounds
pretty interesting and of greater relevance to this news group.
Daria
DASBABY932
>>The problem is (and this applies to both situations)...there seems to be a
belief now that simply because curiosity is "natural," that it is always a
GOOD THING and that it MUST be satisfied.<<
Can't it be satisfied if the guy is OUT - meaning, if he has made a PUBLIC
STATEMENT of his sexual orientation? Because that was ALL Tracey was asking.
That's what "out" means, I believe. She did NOT for someone to read the
magazine for her. As far as she understood, only those publicly out have been
on the cover of X-tra West, so when she saw Sandhu on the cover she asked if he
were publicly out. Jeez! It's the equivalent of asking - has Katia announced
she's pregnant - which is not the same as asking IS Katia pregnant!!!!
janet swan hill
>I'm sick of defending myself over this
Don't bother. It's not worth it. Unfortunately, the lesson to be taken out of
this episode is that there are some questions it's better not to answer
honestly.
If Tracy had said "I thought I saw Caligula on the cover of Psychopaths R Us
yesterday, but I couldn't stop to pick it up. Does anyone know whether Caligula
has actually admitted to being insane?" or if she had said "I saw that Al Gore
is on the cover of Prominent Republicans, but I was in too much of a hurry and
couldn't pick it up. Did he change parties?" it would have been a pretty
short thread, and Tracy wouldn't have been subject to people telling her how
she ought to behave and what she ought to believe.
janet
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> >is that wanting to read an entire article in a magazine that by most
> >accounts emphasizes issues of sexual orientation, and wondering if someone
> >has publicly declared their sexual orientation are not *exactly* the same
> >thing. Getting a simple answer here (which seems to be he hasn't, and the
> >magazine has just deviated from prior practice in putting him on the
> >cover) is not the same experience as reading the magazine.
>
> I'd simply like to make a comment here about the assumption that
> everyone featured in a magazine or newspaper which serves the queer
> community must of necessity be themselves queer. While I'm not
> familiar with this specific paper, I do read their sister publication,
> Xtra, which is based in Toronto. Xtra does not exclusively write about
> people who are queer - although it would be correct to say that the
> majority of people and organisations featured in the paper are queer
> or queer-friendly.
I understand that. I wasn't assuming that the magazine only highlighted
openly gay individuals. Certainly the DC Advocate doesn't. And that was
my first guess for why Sandhu was on the cover even though (by all
accounts here) he's never made a public statement about his sexual
orientation. But then Tracy and Fiona mentioned that this particular
publication generally *does* put individuals that are openly gay on its
covers. I've never seen the magazine either, so I can't speak for whether
that's always been true -- I'm just going by the reports of the
Vancouverites.
> Believe it or not, some of the people
> who are of interest to queers are either not queer, or choose not to
> discuss their personal lives in public.
No. Really? Gosh, next thing you're going to say is that they want to
buy the same kind of products that heterosexuals do, and a magazine such
as this one would have the same kinds of ads.
(snip)
>
> And now, back to skating. I think it's great that Sandhu is getting
> the press interest that a Canadian champion merits, especially just
> before a World Championship that is being held in the city in which
> he trains.
>
I agree. And to me, the interesting thing here is not that a poster
choose not to read the magazine -- it's that Skate Canada choose not to
send pictures of Sandhu, even though he seems pretty willing to be in the
magazine.
-- Kate
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> your belief system. You don't have to agree with everything you
> read. I sure don't, even if it's a publication that's more or
> less in line with my views.
>
I'll remember that the next time I'm dithering about whether to change the
channel from Rush Limbaugh. :) I'm pretty sure I'll still switch the
channel.
Joking aside, I understand that opening yourself up to different points of
view can be educational. But I still think that people aren't obligated
to read something they're not going to enjoy reading.
-- Kate
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> This part of my post was not addressed to your post. It was going back to
> my initial mullings over why I felt so uncomfortable about Tracy's request.
> I am a member of the gay and lesbian community. Although I do not agree
> with everything Xtra West says or does, it is my community's newspaper.
> Someone who disagrees with the choices everyone in my community has made
> wants access to this newspaper's articles.
Well, I think we disagree about her basic question. It sounded to me like
she wanted to know if Sandhu has made any public statement -- in that
paper or elsewhere -- about his sexual orientation. She never asked for a
synopsis of any of the articles.
-- Kate
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> I think this viewpoint comes pretty close to mine. If it really doesn't
> matter, why does one need to know?
>
Oh, I think it's interesting to know who is openly gay. And, I'd add,
that's the whole point of Lorrie's website, isn't it? If you're curious
about who is openly gay, it's a great resource. I will never understand
how this ng generally seems to say "Lorrie's website is great" but
"There's no reason for anyone to be curious about sexual orientation."
It's interesting to know for a lot of reasons. It's interesting to know
how federations might 'encourage' skaters to not reveal their sexual
orientation, unless it's heterosexual. It's interesting to know how it
affects someone's marketability. It's interesting because the assumption
is always that the number of gay athletes in skating is higher than in
other sports -- but as long as the skating establishment is perceived to
be somewhat homophobic, we'll never really know.
It's none of my business that Rudy Galindo is gay. But he's chosen to
talk about it publicly, and much of what he says is interesting to me.
-- Kate
Morgan Dhu
>No. Really? Gosh, next thing you're going to say is that they want to
>buy the same kind of products that heterosexuals do, and a magazine such
>as this one would have the same kinds of ads.
<grin> shocking thought, isn't it?
>I agree. And to me, the interesting thing here is not that a poster
>choose not to read the magazine -- it's that Skate Canada choose not to
>send pictures of Sandhu, even though he seems pretty willing to be in the
>magazine.
That was indeed interesting. I did not understand the reason Skate
Canada reportedly gave for declining to supply photos - that the issue
would be on the street too long before Worlds. Even if SC felt that it
would have been better in terms of publicity if the story had come out
closer to the date of Worlds, it doesn't make sense to me that this
would be a reason for refusing to co-operate. Any publicity, no matter
when it's timed, is going to have some effect.
It would be regrettable if in fact SC had declined to co-operate
*because* the story was in the queer press.
- Morgan Dhu
==============================================================
If you have two loaves of bread, sell one and buy a hyacinth.
==============================================================
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> The problem is (and this applies to both situations)...there seems to be a
> belief now that simply because curiosity is "natural," that it is always a
> GOOD THING and that it MUST be satisfied.
>
No. Tracy was very specific about her question: she didn't ask whether
he was gay, she didn't speculate about whether he was gay, she asked
whether he had made a public statement about his sexual orientation.
When it became clear that Sandhu had *not* made a public statement about
his sexual orientation, Tracy did not come back and say, well, I need to
know if he's gay!
Same with Gordeeva. She has made what many people consider to be a public
statement. Choosing to participate in a celeb softball tournament while
pregnant (that was what it was, right?) is no different for a lot of
people than choosing to skate publicly (although, thankfully, we've been
spared stupid posts about 'what if she'd gotten hit with a softball?').
If it had turned out that the post was not credible, or she had been in a
private environment, then there would be no legitimate demand to satisfy
anyone's curiosity.
-- Kate
Sandra Loosemore
> Same with Gordeeva. She has made what many people consider to be a public
> statement. Choosing to participate in a celeb softball tournament while
> pregnant (that was what it was, right?) is no different for a lot of
> people than choosing to skate publicly (although, thankfully, we've been
> spared stupid posts about 'what if she'd gotten hit with a softball?').
No, it was a charity skating show at Simsbury, not a softball
tournament. Gordeeva was introduced and came out to give a little
speech, but didn't skate, or get hit by a softball (or a volleyball,
either).
-Sandra
Jennifer Lyon
----------
In article <20010311133029...@ng-fw1.aol.com>,
dg...@aol.compelling (DG511) wrote:
You can pick it up, read it, and then put it back. I do that all
the time with free newspapers because it saves a few trees.
TFBWWW
its also intresting to know who is secretly gay. :)
TCAXEL
>Tracy>
>>I'm sick of defending myself over this
>
>Don't bother. It's not worth it. Unfortunately, the lesson to be taken out
of this episode is that there are some questions it's better not to answer
>honestly.
You know, Tracy spoke based upon a personal emperical evidence (Emmanuel was on
the cover of a gay paper which normally only puts public gay personalities on
it's cover ) not on just hearsay or gossip.
She asked a simple question. There was nothing titilating or offensive about
her post, but she made the crime of admitting she doesn't necessarily approve
of homosexuality based upon her individual beliefs.
Tracy certainly wasn't *demanding* to know the answer, but the response of some
here sure make it sound like that.
*Sometimes* there is a reverse antihomophobia hysteria here on RSSIF and this
IMO thread is a perfect example of it.
THEO
"I don't want you to make me younger, I'm paying you to make me older"- patient
to doctor.
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> the cover of a gay paper which normally only puts public gay personalities on
> it's cover ) not on just hearsay or gossip.
>
> She asked a simple question. There was nothing titilating or offensive about
> her post, but she made the crime of admitting she doesn't necessarily approve
> of homosexuality based upon her individual beliefs.
I agree.
I'm going to try to make this my last post on the subject (as well as on
whether a credible report of Gordeeva is 'gossip') because I can tell I'm
starting to dig my heels in. Not good. :)
But I'd like to observe -- and congratulate us, actually -- that with the
exception of the two trolls in residence, not a single post that I've seen
here in the past week has speculated on anyone's sexual orientation.
There's been a lot of discussion on whether a particular poster should
have read a particular publication before asking a particular question --
but not a single person has started drifting into a discussion of Sandhu
in particular, other than to observe that he's made no public statement
about his sexual orientation, whatever it may be. I think that's great,
frankly, and it shows that people here *aren't* particularly obsessed with
speculating about personal lives.
I'd also like to extend the same observation to the Gordeeva thread,
albeit less enthusiastically. That one, too, has had a few off-topic
posts (it's sort of unclear to me how the 'morality' of anyone's choices
affects their skating, although I can see the relevance of the Target
discussion), and I think people are making a lot of assumptions about the
particular situation, -- but, on the bright side, not a single person has
suggested that they have a 'right' to know the details of the particular
situation that's been reported. And I haven't even read that more than a
handful of posts speculating / making assumptions about the details of the
situation, other than to observe what's apparently obvious. Many if not
most of the posts have been skating related -- either drawing on a
discussion of what Gordeeva wrote in 'My Sergei' or talking about the
potential impact of single parenthood on marketability, etc.
As always, both threads really are more about ng norms, and appropriate
topics of discussion, than about the personal lives of the skater in
question.
I'd also observe that with the exception of two or three resident trolls,
pretty much everyone else here ignored the rumors about Gordeeva's
pregnancy until they received a credible report to that effect. That says
a lot of good things -- it suggests that people understand that this ng is
not the place for speculation about the personal lives of anyone.
Just trying to point out a silver lining or two. :)
-- Kate
Ron Ng
>say he is a skirt chaser .
Men wear skirts in that area of the world you know.
Brian Boitano is also well known for wearing gay scarves himself!
Ron Ng Knows!
michael farris
I don't perceive what the problem is and I certainly don't think Tracy's being unduly homophobic or anything like that.
She has a problem with homosexuality. Big deal, lots of people do, but (and this is the important part) she
a) doesn't go around telling adults how to behave in their private lives
b) avoids exposing herself to material which would bother her (and which would probably only increase her disapproval)
What's the freaking problem? I think she's behaving entirely appropriately.
She and I clearly disagree about the homosexuality issue. She's against it, I'm all for it (slight exageration, I'm bi, and I think the gender(s) one is drawn to is
about as important as preferring tea to coffee). But we're all adults here, I understand her disapproval (I don't agree, but I understand) and I hope she can understand
(not agree with, but understand) my position. Then we can move on.
It's called 'Being an Adult 101'.
For myself, I'm morally repelled by John Grey(sp?) and Nora Ephron and the flaring nostril pseudo-sexuality of Ice Dancing (I'm not joking, I'm completely serious) But,
anyone wanting the Ward and June Cleaver life for themselves is welcome to it. (That's just meant as an example, of things I disapprove of, but have no desire to stop
people from partaking of, if they so wish).
Finally, I think Tracy's position is _far_ less damaging to queer folk than many so-called gay activists (the ACCEPT ME! DAMNIT! school) who only serve to alienate
people (and serve as excellent fodder for the extremists on the other side who _do_ have evil in their heart).
-mike farris
Suzanne Lainson
michael farris wrote:
> For myself, I'm morally repelled by John Grey(sp?) and Nora Ephron and the flaring nostril pseudo-sexuality of Ice Dancing (I'm not joking, I'm completely serious)
Nora? Are we talking about Nora the director, Nora the spurned wife of Bernstein, or Nora the toast of Esquire during the late 1960s-early 1970s?
So how does Sally Quinn strike you?
For those of you need the Ephron background, you can find it here:
http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=276
Suzanne
Valerie Stark
DASBABY932 <dasba...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Tracy, respectfully, I think you sincerely mean this, but if you do believe
>enough to prevent you from looking at the article to satisfy your curiousity,
>what is
>really different about asking the question here? <<
>
>about "Why would anyone care if Katia is pregnant?" PLEASE!!
Ummmmm... why WOULD anyone?
I'm not saying
>we have the right to know, or it's the best part of our characters, or there's
>no paradox or whatever, but so what! Yes, her curiosity led her to ask it here
>but not to pick up the actual magazine, but that's her issue. From what I
>gathered, she believes nobody but anybody out has ever been featured on the
>cover of this publication. So she's asking if Sandhu is out. She's not even
>asking if he's gay or if anyone knows if he's gay, she's asking if he's out,
>meaning, has Sandhu himself declared himself to be gay. Not that I know the
>answer.
Asking if somebody's out makes the tacit statement that this person is gay
and closeted.
Valerie
Valerie Stark
Valerie
In article <Unxq6.191510$df5.5...@news1.crdva1.bc.home.com>,
Naomi Lloyd <nll...@home.com> wrote:
>I am a lesbian figure skating fan who lives in Vancouver and a long-time
>lurker/sometime poster on rssif. I read the Xtra West occasionally. I have
>not seen the most recent issue.
>
>My difficulty with going out and picking up a copy to answer your question,
>Tracy, is that I feel that in your paradigm, I will be doing your dirty
>work. You will be benefiting from something without "tarnishing" your
>beliefs. If you do not agree with reading it, why would you want me
>reading? Wouldn't my reading it and passing the information on to you,
>constitute reading it yourself in a second-hand way?
>
>I am not expressing myself very clearly, but the situation does not feel
>right to me. I guess I just find it a weird suggestion - that someone who
>does not agree with the sexual orientation choices I have made, nevertheless
>wants to benefit from them in some way.
>
>I will however go out and pick up a copy of this and let everyone know, as I
>realize there is a high level of interest in this, and of course I am
>interested too.
>
>Naomi
>
>
>"Tracy Johnson" <tra...@softrak.com> wrote in message
>news:3AAA330E...@softrak.com...
>> kbra...@binghamton.edu wrote:
>>
>> > I feel ambivalent about this. On the one hand, condemning someone's
>> > values, whatever they are, within pretty wide boundaries, is abhorrent
>to
>> > me
>>
>> I didn't *condemn* anyone, Kate.
>>
>> (I'm snipping the rest of your post, but I do realize you made some points
>that at
>> least stated an understanding of my actions.)
>>
>> You know, this is really -- and I do mean *really* -- frustrating. I also
>have
>> religious views about not having sex outside of marriage, and I have many
>friends
>> who -- guess what! -- have sex outside of marriage. It's something I
>disagree with,
>> based on my own religious beliefs, but disagreement does not equal
>condemnation. I
>> understand that not everyone shares my views. If I didn't understand that,
>I would
>> hardly have any friends, since certainly my view on sex outside of
>marriage is most
>> definitely not shared by the vast majority of the population!
>>
>> Well, homosexual sex is no "worse" in my books than any of the other
>conservative
>> religious views I hold. The fact that it's an emotionally charged issue,
>especially
>> here, is not *my* fault. People here are assuming too much about how I
>view gays
>> and lesbians, based on one *tiny little sentence* (and an extremely quiet
>and
>> non-confrontational one at that) that I used to explain why I didn't pick
>up the
>> magazine.
>>
>> Frankly, I think that people who assume so much about me -- and the worst
>has not
>> been exhibited here, but in private, very angry emails to me since I
>started this
>> thread -- are as bad in condemning me for what I believe as anything that
>I might
>> be doing. They don't know what my attitude is towards gays and lesbians.
>They
>> assume I'm a hate-monger, like the evil people who turned Matthew
>Shepard's (sp?)
>> funeral into a demonstration, and who really *do* condemn homosexuals in
>an
>> astonishing and appalling way.
>>
>> Well, guess what? I'm not a hate-monger. I JUST DISAGREE about something.
>Like I
>> disagree with sex outside of marriage. *That's* hardly an issue of hate,
>and none
>> of my friends who have or have had sex outside of marriage believe that I
>hate them
>> or am somehow evil for my views.
>>
>> Why everyone else in the world can express their views and I cannot
>disagree, with
>> the utmost respect for our differences, is beyond me. I didn't condemn
>anyone in my
>> post, and I never will.
>>
>> Tracy
>>
>>
>
>
Valerie Stark
michael farris <m...@amu.edu.pl> wrote:
>Glaadrial wrote:
>> >From: tru...@clarityconnect.com (Trudi Marrapodi)
>>
>> > I
>> >couldn't help but wonder how they were going to handle it when they got to
>> >Brian. (She could have called him "taken" and left it at that, but...)
>>
>> How 'bout: "Unavailable"
>
>Or "Canadian"
>
>Or "Silver medal"
>
>Or ... (maybe I'll just stop now)
Or "Waaaaaaay too old!"?
Or "Twice my age!"?
Valerie
Glaadrial
>I'm sick of defending myself over this. This is become insulting, frankly.
>I've done nothing wrong here. I asked a simple question that, if it had been
>anyone else
>asking, or someone who was less honest about her personal beliefs, would not
>have become such an issue.
Ah, but look at the discussion the "simple" question generated...isn't that why
we're here anyway.
Generally speaking, if one wishes to exit a conversation, one can just stop
"talking." The "wrongness" of anything you've done is determined individually
and falls into the realm of off topic opinion. You feel you did nothing wrong;
others may agree or disagree, but what has that to do with skating?
It has been stated by the topic police that the validity of the discussion
regarding the original question, is appropriately on topic. I have appreciated
the on topic discussion, and pretty much skimmed the rest to get to know the
context within which others post. Frankly, it's all been intersting to me, so I
continue.
BTW: A response to this post may generate a reply from me. OTOH, maybe it
won't, I may choose to let the response stand unanswered. Eventually, the
thread will end...life goes on.
kbra...@binghamton.edu
> >about "Why would anyone care if Katia is pregnant?" PLEASE!!
>
> Ummmmm... why WOULD anyone?
>
Yeah, I know, I swore I wouldn't do this....but the answer is: Because
people who have read My Sergei, for instance, are interested in how
Gordeeva's life is going -- to the degree that she's willing to share
that, of course. By your logic, zero people would have purchased that
book (I didn't, actually, becausee I wasn't all that interested -- but I
could understand why people were). For that matter, by your logic, no one
would read biographies in general. A lot of people become interested in
the personalities of the athletes who they watch. What's the big deal?
(snip)
> Asking if somebody's out makes the tacit statement that this person is gay
> and closeted.
>
I disagree, strongly. The only reason some people -- certainly not me --
assume that it makes a tacit statement is that they assume that the only
people who don't want to comment about their sexual orientation must be
gay. I certainly don't make that assumption. It's quite possible, AFAIC,
that Sandhu is engaged in a torried love affair with a woman, and just
doesn't want to discuss his sexual orientation or that love affair with
the press. Or, maybe he really hasn't been involved with anyone at all,
and considers the question of sexual orientation somewhat irrelevant --
he's a young guy, after all. I certainly wouldn't assume that he's gay,
any more than I assume that someone I see in public with a member of the
opposite sex is entirely and permanently heterosexual.
-- Kate
Glaadrial
>
>*Sometimes* there is a reverse antihomophobia hysteria here on RSSIF and this
>IMO thread is a perfect example of it.
>THEO
Or, perhaps, people are interested in discussing hot topics among people who
share a similar anticipation of a very hotly contested World Championship
Figure Skating event.
BTW: Who do you think will win at Worlds?
kbra...@binghamton.edu
>
>
Not Sandhu. :)
My picks for the men's:
Pluschenko
Yagudin
Hmmmm....don't know about #3. And I could easily see the top two getting
flipped.
My picks for the ladies:
Slutskaya
Kwan
Butryskaya
Hughes
Volchkova
Gusmeroli
Although I could see some flips there, too, including the first two.
In some ways, it's the men that are much more in flux. Some interesting
questions:
Will Tim Goebel achieve his Grand Prix success, and finish in the top 6 or
so men? Or will it be a repeat of the GP Final, and Worlds last year?
Will Eldredge and Stojko finish close to the top, or will injuries or the
inconsistencies associated with returning to competitive skating make them
finish perhaps even out of the top 10? (Personally, I'm hoping for Honda
to have a surprisingly high finish.)
For the ladies, will Nikodinov achieve her Nationals success, and finish
as high as #8? Will Jennifer Robinson achieve last year's success, and
finish in the top 10? Will Sarah Hughes achieve last year's success, and
finish in the top 8? Will Russia and the U.S. dominate decisively, taking
as many as 6 as the 8 or so positions?
I'm heading off to Vancouver next week, and I'm really looking forward
to seeing skaters that I would never see on tv -- perhaps even getting a
chance to see some skaters who don't make it out of qualifying. :)
-- Kate
Tracy Johnson
> Tracy, respectfully, I think you sincerely mean this, but if you do believe it,
> why is Sandhu's orientation even an issue? And if your views are strong enough
> to prevent you from looking at the article to satisfy your curiousity, what is
> really different about asking the question here? To the casual observer (me)
> the pieces don't quite add up. It comes across to me that you need the
> information because you feel somehow obligated to make a judgement. It would
> seem that if you really didn't want to judge him and it didn't really matter to
> you whether he is or isn't, you wouldn't *want* to know - because if your views
> are *so* strong then his being gay *would* affect your opinion or feelings
> about him. I don't know if I've said this very clearly or not and I hope I
> haven't offended you, but I wanted to explain how it looked to at least one
> observer.
This is not at all true. I'm curious about Katia's pregnancy, and about Gary
Beacom's legal troubles, and about Scott's (thankfully past) battle with cancer,
and all kinds of things concerning skaters. There's no judgment here. As I said the
other day, my posting history supports the fact that I appreciate gay skaters, such
as Brian Orser.
Tracy
Tracy Johnson
> What I'd like to suggest (and this is not a criticism of Tracy) is that we all
> bookmark the Rainbow Ice site and go there with this type of question in the
> future.
Just for the record, I did check Lorrie's site. The fact that Emmanuel wasn't
listed there might have simply been because this was a very recent piece of news,
so I thought the question worth asking anyway.
Tracy