"Flaunting it"?

[Belk]

I ask them what they mean. I don't assume. And I've already posted numerous times here what flaunting means to ME.

Fair enough. I ask because I have seen posters on this forum and others us things like holding hands, weeding rings, and introducing someone as their husband as "flaunting" their deviant lifestyle.

The message they send is that homosexuals need to stay hidden so that they are not confronted with it.

 

[Polycarp1]

I'd say the only people looking my username as a statement of my sexuality are narrowminded people who can only view life through their own sexuality.



My whole point has been and continues to be that I DON'T VIEW IT THAT WAY. I don't consider that flaunting one's sexuality. However, if said user's name was "JacksGayHusband2004" that would be different. That I consider flaunting, just as if I put "TheHeterosexualPreachersWife2004" as my username. That makes a POINT of my sexuality.



And as I've maintained, I disagree with the notion that it's flaunting. I can't speak for BeanieBoy's coworker. Some people are stupid and will take offense at anything.

That being said, any time someone is 'proud' of being gay, on a Christian site where a good number of members believe homosexuality to be a sin, you have to understand there's going to be some flak.



But apparently you believe I'm rubbing my nose in everyone's face that I have carnal knowledge of a pastor. So you're no better than the people who think a homosexual is flaunting their lifestyle based on the pictures on their desk or their username.



Forgive me if I have a hard time with the backpedaling.

After re-reading our exchange, I realize that we're at odds, not on what we are saying, but on the underlying assumptions. And I suspect we're far closer on them than might be thought at first gasp.

As I was using it, one's sexuality is not equivalent to one's sex life, or one's sexual orientation, but the romantic-sexual component of what makes you up as an individual. You are a heterosexual, not because of your desires or what you may or may not do in bed with your husband, but because you are a person in a committed marital relationship who loves your husband in a marital way. The entire complexus of what makes your marriage work is a part of your sexuality by this definition.

And it's that point, which seems to escape a large proportion of the anti-gay poster contingent, that is crux to what we're saying. (Meaning both of us, I think.) You are not in point of fact flaunting what you do in bed by your username -- and I honestly did not mean that. The point that I was trying to make, and which provoked you to take offense (for which I am sorry), is that your (hetero-)sexuality is key to the whole relationship with your husband, not just the sex act aspects of it. You love him as a man, as the man to whom you're committed, in a different way than you love your children, your friends, your birth family, God, mankind, your home, etc.

And this is true for the committed gay person as well -- it's not just the sex-driven aspects but the whole interpersonal relationship that define their (homo-)sexulaity, and the love, desire, loyalty, commitment, etc., are closely analogous to your own.

And from what you've had to say, I suspect we in fact agree on that -- that the misunderstanding lay in my failing to define what I meant by 'sexuality'. Am I correct?

 

[Zebra1552]

Red, white and blue isn't a rainbow.

What picture are you looking at?

 

[presto]

sorry I have not read all the pages what exactly are we flaunting?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I see what you are saying, and I apologize for being snippy there in the end with the backpedaling comment.

I think for me the difference is that I don't view my life as defined by my heterosexuality. I realize that gay people probably view their life through their homosexuality because society forces them to (ie., the headlines). For example, I wouldn't view a gay man wearing a wedding ring as flaunting his gay status any more than me wearing my wedding ring is me flaunting my hetero status. But yes, some people would and that's just sad.

Just my musings. I think you are right that we are closer than we thought we were.

After re-reading our exchange, I realize that we're at odds, not on what we are saying, but on the underlying assumptions. And I suspect we're far closer on them than might be thought at first gasp.

As I was using it, one's sexuality is not equivalent to one's sex life, or one's sexual orientation, but the romantic-sexual component of what makes you up as an individual. You are a heterosexual, not because of your desires or what you may or may not do in bed with your husband, but because you are a person in a committed marital relationship who loves your husband in a marital way. The entire complexus of what makes your marriage work is a part of your sexuality by this definition.

And it's that point, which seems to escape a large proportion of the anti-gay poster contingent, that is crux to what we're saying. (Meaning both of us, I think.) You are not in point of fact flaunting what you do in bed by your username -- and I honestly did not mean that. The point that I was trying to make, and which provoked you to take offense (for which I am sorry), is that your (hetero-)sexuality is key to the whole relationship with your husband, not just the sex act aspects of it. You love him as a man, as the man to whom you're committed, in a different way than you love your children, your friends, your birth family, God, mankind, your home, etc.

And this is true for the committed gay person as well -- it's not just the sex-driven aspects but the whole interpersonal relationship that define their (homo-)sexulaity, and the love, desire, loyalty, commitment, etc., are closely analogous to your own.

And from what you've had to say, I suspect we in fact agree on that -- that the misunderstanding lay in my failing to define what I meant by 'sexuality'. Am I correct?