The mindset that decries public queries about an individual's sexual orientation

[ruggerson]

Betrays deep and systemic homophobia.

No one objects if the question is asked whether an individual has/had a wife or a husband.

Which is essentially the exact same question.

Inquiring whether someone is gay is not prying into their sex life. It is merely asking about the structure of their adult family.

If we demonize natural inquiries into whether an individual is gay, we are perpetuating the worst kind of homophobia.

The double standard has to be demolished. All it does is underscore the insinuation that there is something wrong with being gay.

It is perfectly appropriate to ask about someone's sexual orientation. We are living in 2012, not 1962.

[CJCRANE]

1. I thought it was irrelevant

if you're referring to thread Ambassador Stevens.

[joeybee12]

55. Yeah, a gay man working in an area of the world where gay men are routinely

killed ain't relevant.

That's not to say he was gay or even to speculate...but it would have relevance.

[lunatica]

2. Frankly I don't ask anyone about their sexual orientation

It has absolutely no bearing on anything relevant to anything in my relationship with people. I don't care. And it's also none of my business. If someone tells me they're straight or gay I'll believe them but it does nothing to alter what I think of them or how I relate to them.

[ruggerson]

3. As is your prerogative. N/t

[whistler162]

5. You don't, before shaking their hand for the first

time, inquire as to their sexual orientation! QUITE SHOCKING!<sarcasm squared>

The OP must get the fisheye from a lot of people IF they do as they say.

[hedgehog]

4. We are living in 2012, not 2062 - and GLBT queer people

are still asserting their right to be out and about in society. We are still at the point if Y is a respected member of society, and it turns out that Y is a member of the GLBT community, someone somewhere will finally get it.

[ibegurpard]

6. really?

is it appropriate to ask someone whether they have a wife or husband in a job interview? if they're gay? what religion they are? and any other questions like that which have no bearing on their ability to do the job?
stop trying to justify outing...the only time it's appropriate is when someone's hypocrisy needs to be addressed.
It's up to an individual to make that decision any other time. And recently murdered people should be given the same respect.

[ruggerson]

13. If you don't think

That the question "is he married?" is an everyday occurrence in an office environment, then you're living on a different planet than I am.

I was asked recently, by a newly hired member of management, if I had a wife and kids. It is considered to be a perfectly normal routine question.

[ibegurpard]

16. there are things you are PROHIBITED from asking about in a job interview

marital status is one of them...so, no, it's not a perfectly routine normal question.

[ruggerson]

18. I wasn't talking about a job interview

I was talking about the other 364 days out of the year.

[ibegurpard]

20. I was...in the post you replied to

but nice deflection

[ruggerson]

23. You wrote

In the same post: "the only time it's appropriate is when someone's hypocrisy needs to be addressed."

If you truly believe that, you must be offended on almost a daily basis when you hear someone say "is he/she married?"

[ibegurpard]

25. no I wrote

"stop trying to justify outing...the only time it's appropriate is when someone's hypocrisy needs to be addressed."
you conveniently left the first part off...a common tactic when someone with a losing argument is trying to play gotcha.

And I started the post with "is it appropriate to ask someone whether they have a wife or husband in a job interview? "...which I then expanded upon.

you want to try again?

[ruggerson]

30. I repeat

You wrote:"the only time it's appropriate is when someone's hypocrisy needs to be addressed."

Whether you were referring to the term "outing" or asking about someone's orientation is irrelevant, since apparently you believe them to be essentially one and the same (something we actually agree on.)

We're not going to get anywhere discussing "outing" because we are apparently so far apart in our worldview that it would be pointless. Suffice it to say that I don't even believe in the concept of "outing.". It is a dated and archaic construct that in and of itself is a heterosexist paradigm.

[ibegurpard]

37. you don't believe in the concept of "outing"...

so, apparently, sexual orientation is completely a non-issue in any society in the world...that would have to be the case for the concept of outing to be meaningless.
That would, indeed, be nice but you don't get to create your own reality.
As long as sexual orienatation DOES remain an issue, I'm glad that it remains a potent weapon to use against bigoted closet-case hypocrites.
I'm thankful that we've made as much progress as we have.

oh, and to address your other point: no, I don't believe "outing" and asking someone their orientation is the same. Outing is something you that do against someone's will...asking someone their orientation is requesting their participation.

[joeybee12]

54. How is simple curoisity outing? How? Was DSC gonna yell it from

the rooftops? If a man who was in that position that amabassador Stevens was is definitely a lot of people would be curious about...no one is betraying his family or friends...your's and others' over-reaction is indicative of the homophobia that so-called progressives cannot get past.

[ruggerson]

69. There is a vast difference between what I wrote:

"asking about someone's orientation" and what you wrote: "asking someone their orientation."

Those are two entirely different actions and meanings, yet you pretend that I wrote and meant the latter, when it's quite clear that I did not.

[Warpy]

7. I quite disagree

I think a homophobic legislator's sexual orientation is fair game. Ditto a homophobic religious person, especially one who thinks being gay is a disease to be cured or a sin to be imprisoned.

Other than that, it's completely inappropriate to fish around for anyone's sexual orientation because it is irrelevant if they are not trying to oppress gay people.

[CTyankee]

10. Thank you, Warpy. I absolutely agree with you...

it's also very annoying to be called deeply homophobic for thinking this way. ambassador Stevens is dead and cannot speak for himself. And he was a courageous American and public servant. This upsets me no end...

[renie408]

21. I can see this, but the way the DU member was attacked in another thread

was out of line in my opinion.

They were not idly speculating about Stevens' sexual orientation. They were pondering it as a direct result of a line of argument being promulgated by the right on the appropriateness of Stevens being employed in the Middle East. That got entirely skipped over by half the people on the thread who went from zero to OUTRAGE in .2 seconds. This was also a homosexual member and I think their point was gay or not, Stevens had a right to be where he was and it is wrong for the right to say that HIS presence was inflammatory or the reason for his being attacked.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Except for concern about the family that the ambassador left behind...

... I don't think the structure of his adult family is germane.

I don't think that this view is homophobic.

[intaglio]

9. But you are not asking about a husband for the Ambassador

you are asking about a private behavior that is irrelevant to the Ambassadors death.

Your post portrays you as being a victim but ignores the surviving victims of Ambassador Stevens death - his family and loved ones (whoever they might be). If he had been married to a woman but there were no children would you posit that he and his partner were celibate and that that celibacy played a part in his death? Of course you would not! The Ambassador chose not to be open about his sexuality, whatever that was, and if you had any respect for the man you would honour his choice.

Problem, if you persist in claiming you have the right to examine Ambassador Stevens sexuality you have no moral right to protest right wing bigots lying about the unstated sexuality of criminals or hated public figures to foment irrational prejudice and hate.

[mitchtv]

11. he sure seemed Gay to me

there is nothing wrong with it, either to think he is, or discuss it with others. I reiterate, no one is trying to "out" someone for nefarious reasons. Apparently enough of us feel it is worth discussing. I am not really intersted in hearing the opinions of priviliged DUr's. on outing and what's appropriate, which is why I generally post on LGBT;

[cali]

12. I disagree

it does not necessarily denote deep and systemic homophobia.

I didn't post in that thread because I thought it was ghoulish. Maybe if we weren't talking about someone who was just murdered, talking about his sexual orientation would be different.

And I'd feel the same way about discussing that person's sexuality if they were straight.

Forgive me for not thinking that a person's sexual orientation is the be all and end all of who they are.

[ruggerson]

17. Ah. Wouldn't be complete without the standard red herring.

First of all, you know damn well that if the question were asked "was he married", there would have been no outcry whatsoever. And no one would have called it "ghoulish."

And I have made no argument that a person's sexual orientation is the "be all and end all" of who they are. Matter of fact, my position underscores just the opposite. I don't reserve sexual orientation to some special class Of horrible, unmentionable discourse. The more routine and mundane it becomes, the less reasons the stupid and uninformed will be able to find anything objectionable about it.

[cali]

41. no red herring. I simply expressed my thoughts on the matter

and my objection to you declaring unilaterally that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a bigot.

[renie408]

22. Did you READ the post?

They were speculating about his sexual orientation as a direct result of a line of argument being used by the right. Some conservatives are saying Stevens was gay and that it was inappropriate to post him in the Middle East as that was what may have led to his attack. THAT is why they were trying to figure out if he was actually gay or not.

[A HERETIC I AM]

14. I've started to really hate the term "homophobia"

"phobia" means fear. People that don't like gay people aren't afraid of them, they're just being assholes.

[Nye Bevan]

15. When someone chooses to keep their sexual orientation private,

it's creepy to launch an investigation into whether they were gay after they have been murdered.

[loli phabay]

43. +1000 to this

[DevonRex]

19. This is a special case, too.

He had been in the Foreign Service for years. In order to ensure he could get the widest possible choice of postings he could not allow his orientation to be known to family and even close friends. Why?

Because the day might come when they could be asked or even compelled to talk. The clearance level for these positions is astronomical. There can be no chance of blackmail. Thus the extreme caution and discretion.

His death would NOT have been a result of someone finding out he was gay. Let's put that to rest now. Let's also put to rest the thought that he hid his orientation from his family because they wouldn't have accepted him for who he was. He was protecting them and safeguarding his career, one he was extremely good at. You only had to take one look at both Hillary and Obama and listen to what they said to know that. Hell, even listen to how devastated McCain was.

All this presupposes that he was, in fact, gay. We don't know for sure. But being gay is just as good as being straight so I see no harm in discussing it. His family isn't paying attention to us. They might be offended by how the Freepers are putting their gay hatred and tying it to him, but we at DU are PROUD of him.

[renie408]

24. DID ANYBODY ACTUALLY READ THE GODDAM THREAD?

Jesus, I like to think liberals are smarter than this, but you know, HALF OF YOU AREN'T. You are all OUTRAGED and chest beating without even taking the damn POINT of the post into account.

It isn't like DSC was being gossipy and nosy for the shits and giggles of it. They wrote that they had come across a line of discussion among conservatives that Stevens was gay and that it was irresponsible to post him in the Middle East. That his homosexuality led to his murder.

And it is WRONG under those circumstances to try to figure out if he is actually gay or not and to comment on it? ESPECIALLY if you are a gay person yourself??

Shame on you! All of you who have been so frigging high and mighty and OBTUSE.

[Melinda]

26. ^^^This^^^

[Nye Bevan]

27. "I have been doing some research into the question of whether Ambassador Stevens was gay"

Again, creepy.

If his family chooses to comment on this or on any other aspect of his life, fine.

Otherwise, just leave it. By all accounts he was a great guy and I don't give a shit whether he was gay or not. Just let him rest in peace.

[renie408]

28. OH MY GOD

I think my head is going to explode.

But THANKS for making my point for me! It is always nice to get help, even if you have NO IDEA that you are helping.

[Nye Bevan]

32. Dude. Chill.

And how did this "line of argument promulgated by the right", which is (of course) absolute bullshit garbage, suddenly become so credible that DUers feel the need to launch investigations into it? Most of the time when the right comes out with this crap, we do not get a bunch of DUers launching their own inquiries.

[renie408]

33. Because the Duer who started the thread is GAY.

And the subject is dear to them.

Because we speculate on things all the time and nobody gives a shit. Unless it is one of those subjects that results in half of the DU barfing up some Pavlovian response.

And DUers investigate things all the damn time.

Just STOP. STOP defending it. There isn't any defense.

[joeybee12]

51. Curiosity is not like some congressional investigation...

Your overreaction to the post speaks volumes about what you really think.

[LadyHawkAZ]

31. The family did comment

The post with that comment has sat in the thread without comment from any of our "researchers".

At first, I was just annoyed because the question of orientation wasn't relevant to the man's death, but after that I got pissed. Now we're just being deliberately disrespectful.

[renie408]

34. So now it is deliberately disrespectful to say someone might have been gay?

And that would make the point that other people were trying to make.

[Nye Bevan]

36. Nope. It's disrespectful to investigate and pry into a murder victim's sexual orientation.

Let the surviving family decide what information they want to make public about the loved one they lost.

Anything they choose not to comment on, just let it go. Regardless of what stupid stuff is coming from the right.

[cthulu2016]

63. Not disrespectful.

The whole framing assumes a kind of, Speak good of the dead, don't talk about his failings, like being gay.

The term "pry into" is loaded, of course, but the OP is about asking.

Nobody calls the family to ask whether it is okay to out someone as heterosexual in the obituary by saying "survived by his wife and three children."

[LadyHawkAZ]

42. Once you reasonably know someone's orientation

it is deliberately disrespectful to continue to insist otherwise. Yes. Absolutely yes it is.

[Raine1967]

38. I did.

and I'm willing to say that had you written the op, it would have been FAR better understood. The OP of which you speak was poorly communicated. The author of the OP could have used your help in making that clear.

I understand why there was so much disagreement in the thread. It was a badly written post, imo.

[Confusious]

47. He wasn't killed for being gay

He was killed for being an American.

And so were the other three people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014232040

Do you think the other three people were gay too?

[LadyHawkAZ]

29. If he was out, or had given some indicators of being gay, sure.

If he had been murdered for possibly being gay, sure.

Otherwise it's just completely irrelevant wishful thinking at best and invasive speculation at worst, and it should have stopped with this post. Instead, people have now decided that he not only must have been gay, but he was being forced to hide it because of his job, and are calling other DUers bigots and homophobes because we won't force an orientation on a dead man that he apparently didn't have.

All because he wasn't married and had no kids, and some wingnuts started a rumor about that.

People aren't ASKING if he was gay, they are SPECULATING that he was and attacking those who either point out that he seems to have not been, or find it irrelevant to his death. There's also a disturbing insistence that it's our right to have that information made public, whether an individual wants to give it or not, and that since a person's dead, what they might have wanted doesn't matter.

This all spells horseshit, and total disrespect for the man and what happened to him.

If you want to ask, ASK. Don't start off with the premise that he was, and launch attacks on anyone who disagrees, while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Those are two different things.

[renie408]

35. So, basically you are pissed over the semantics involved in the title of the thread.

I am just going to leave that whole 'disrespectful' thing alone because that is just a shit storm waiting to happen and I don't have a dog in that fight.

EXACTLY where did DSC force orientation on anyone? EXACTLY where did they attack anybody? Cause I can show you at least a HUNDRED posts where they were attacked for something that gets done here every damn day about other subjects.

The hypocrisy here today on a multitude of threads has certainly been eye opening, that's for sure.

[LadyHawkAZ]

49. Basically I am pissed about everything about that thread

from the initial wingnut-rumor spew to the insistence that GLBT people have no right to privacy to ignoring the evidence that indicated he was straight while continuing to insist he was probably gay to the total lack of interest in a dead human being. The semantics are probably the only thing that didn't piss me off.

DSC wasn't the only person in the thread. Every post after post #48 was posted- ALL of them- that continued to speculate on his orientation were pushing an orientation on a dead man who was by all indicators not gay. That includes this "gay hero" post and this "forced into the closet" subthread and this "gay man who died for his country" post. Every one of those were posted after this post:

muriel_volestrangler (60,770 posts)
48. FWIW, his brother says he had many girlfriends

Tom says his brother never married but had many girlfriends over the years.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/national_world&id=8807574

ALL SPECULATION AFTER ^THIS POINT^ IS DISRESPECTFUL HORSESHIT UNLESS NEW EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED. It's not like people could have missed it- the fact was repeated in several places in the thread. Not ONE of the "we're just asking" crowd even responded to it. It was dismissed completely in favor of "well, maybe he was just forced into the closet". This is NOT OK. It wasn't OK to drag his sexuality in where it didn't belong to begin with and regurgitate RW rumor to do it- but it REALLY wasn't OK to KEEP doing it after it was known to be wrong. How would you feel if this were you?

[joeybee12]

50. Your overaction speaks volumes...nt

[LadyHawkAZ]

57. No, but this might...

I get the Mormons on one side of me telling me I'm a misguided, deluded straight woman because I say I'm attracted to women, and the lesbians on the other telling me I'm fence-sitting and just afraid to come all the way out because I say I'm attracted to men. I get my sexuality questioned by everyone. But hey, it's OK because they're just asking and it might be true???

Fuck that noise. Overreaction? No. It's not OK, it will never be OK.

[Zoeisright]

39. Oh bullshit. It's nobody's goddamn business but that person.

Ever hear of manners?

[Nye Bevan]

40. but.... but.... if some right-winger ALLEGES something, we just HAVE to investigate!

According to some here, at least.

[loli phabay]

44. yup it was his call to make in life and we should respect whatever he decided, i hate this culture

of outing people as its nobodys business.

[cthulu2016]

66. Was Winston Churchill married?

Did JFK have kids?

Why do I know the answers to these deeply invasive questions about such private matters?

After JFK spent his whole life hiding his deep dark secret that he was heterosexual, and here I just blurted it out.

It is not bad manners to wonder about someone's identity. Not their sexual proclivities, their identity.

[TwilightGardener]

45. I don't think it's "perfectly appropriate" to ask about (or snoop around for)

someone's sex life when he didn't make sexual orientation an issue in his work, didn't disclose his orientation publicly, AND/OR when he's dead and can not speak for himself anymore.

[Starry Messenger]

46. Whole lot of concerned straight folk who "don't care" about orientation around here recently.

It was a perfectly reasonable question, but the US is still a backward country. Shows around here too.

[Starry Messenger]

62. No. That wasn't the implication at all actually.

One gay DUer, dsc, asked a question about Stevens and all hell broke loose here. I think the reaction here from straight people was hostile and right wing. There is nothing wrong if wondering if someone is gay except to a bigot.

[CJCRANE]

67. I've deleted the previous post

as I misunderstood the point of the other OP.

[L0oniX]

48. I'm so thankful that my pony and I are not the focus anymore.

[onpatrol98]

52. Soul Searching...

I'm trying to do some soul searching on this one. I was one of the individuals who was perplexed at the attempt to "out" Whitney Houston. That conversation went downhill in a hurry with my participation probably adding a lot more flame to the fire than I would have preferred.

But, maybe I am beginning to get it...I am not the quickest of learners or listeners. But, now that I think about it, I can remember reading an article about a song that I liked. It was mentioned that the original writer of the song was black. I was immediately intrigued. I wanted to know more. It turned out that the original artist was Doris Akers. To be honest, the name would have been enough for some people to know, but I wasn't familiar with her, so I went digging for more information. But to be honest, my entire motivation was simply to find out if she was black. I found pictures of her, and they didn't help. Articles that discussed her work offered no details about her ethnicity, of course, just her talent.

It wasn't until I read a bio on Wiki that I found out she was indeed a black woman. It made me feel good to know for sure. It made me proud (I'm not sure why?) to know that she was black and that her songs had done so well and touched so many from so many different backgrounds. It just made it more special for me.

I'm wondering if this is similar for the GLBT community. If people constantly seem to attach negativity to who you are, maybe the positives mean a lot more. So, if this guy was a great guy, meant a lot to so many people, did so much for our country, he was special - that's true. But, if he was gay, also. For a community within our community, his accomplishments mean even more. Because it would be another example of how not only are gays just like everyone else, but more importantly, that there is often exceptional-ism within their ranks.

And, I mean "their" only in the sense that sometimes in a minority representing group, it can often seem like an us versus them experience.

So, maybe it isn't important to me whether or not this man was gay. And, it really isn't. I think I may be closer to understanding why it may be important to someone else. I was quite hostile when everyone one wanted to say Whitney was gay AFTER she was dead. It just seemed so pointless to me. But, maybe that was the point. I didn't realize it at the time, but maybe I was exhibiting some pretty homophobic behavior. I still think the guy that did it was tacky. But, I think wanting to know is probably more normal than I was willing to admit...

If he was gay and chose not to highlight that aspect of his life. I can respect that, too. I imagine his family would rather us focus on his accomplishments and his good nature. If everything in life was fair, maybe nothing else would matter.

[Starry Messenger]

65. I think you explained it exactly.

[cthulu2016]

53. B-I-N-G-O

[MineralMan]

56. Personally, I'm not concerned about anyone's orientation.

But some people are, and they can ask the questions and look into it if they want. I can't see why that would bother me, frankly. If it is a matter of interest for some, as in the case of the Ambassador, I can't see the problem with checking that out.

[cthulu2016]

59. It is not about Concern, or Approval or Disapproval

Most straight people and even many gay people are so locked into sets of antique assumptions that they do not recognize that "don't ask, don't tell" cannot work in civil society.

Jack over there has a wife and three kids. I know that because he talks about them all the time and has pictures of them on his desk.

Jim is... well, Jim is some kind of neutral being. Don't really know much about him.

Jim is not fully integrated into the surrounding society.

Now, if Jim says, "I'm gay" many will view that as TMI. Dude, that's your business. It's irrelevant.

But it is no less relevant than Jack's family. His wife and kids would be surprised to learn they are irrelevant to who he is.

Jack announces every day that he is heterosexual. Just not in those words. Many or most heterosexuals do.

But if you say, "What's Jim's deal? Is he gay?" it will often be met as if you asked something shocking. WHy would anyone want to know??!!??

But it is about who the heck Jim IS. Does Jim take the bus or drive? Does Jim live in the city. Does Jim have Pets. Does Jim like Baseball?

It is asking who another human being is.

And that fact that some would despise Jim for the answer is not as dehumanizing as for all to presume that such things are private.

Do you and your wife use a strap-on? Private.
Do you have a wife? Not private.

Are you gay should be in the second category, not the first. It is an identity question, not a sexual practices question.

[MineralMan]

61. As I said, I see no problem with people asking the question.

I wouldn't if I didn't know the person or deal with the person. If I did, I'd know anyway, I suppose. As you said, I'd know in most cases, from the photos on the desk or whatever. It wouldn't be much of a big deal for me one way or another, in any case.

As a monogamous person, I'm sexually involved with one other person. Any one else's sexuality isn't particularly relevant to me. If it is relevant to someone, then they can look into the question. It's not a big deal.

In the case of the Ambassador, he is deceased. The inquiry won't cause him any annoyance, I'm sure, so that's fine. I'm not sure an answer will be found, but it's OK to ask and do some research, if it's of interest. For me, it's not of interest.

I've known and worked with many, many people in my lifetime. Some, I've known well. Others, for whatever reason, keep their personal life separate from their business life. Those people, unless I become part of their personal life, I may not know much about, even if I work with them. I've known a number of people who simply never said anything or demonstrated anything about their life away from work. If that is their choice, I leave them to that choice.

Everyone is different, and I don't see it as my business to know what they don't reveal about themselves. I may not know their religious beliefs, their address, or much of anything about many people I have met or even some I've done business with for a long time. If they reveal such details, I know them. If they don't, I assume that they're not interested in sharing that. Maybe they're model airplane enthusiasts. That could be an important aspect of their lives. If they share that with me, I'll know it. Otherwise, I won't.

I've always had a few people who I considered friends. Those I knew well. With others, who I have a more distant or more formal relationship, I may not know much at all about them beyond our actual interactions. That's fine with me.

I simply don't feel the need to know about the lives of people I encounter. Even less do I feel the need to know about people I've never met or interacted with in any way. It's just not one of my interests. For others, it may be, and they can explore to their hearts' content, and with my blessing. I'm easy. If someone wants to know anything about me, they can just ask, and I'll provide whatever information they want. If they don't ask, I may not say anything about my life, unless we become more than casual acquaintances.

[cthulu2016]

64. You are right. My response shuld not have been to you.

I was going to say what I just said in response to some reply or another here, bbut your post was fine.

[MineralMan]

68. No problem. It gave me a chance to expand my thinking a little bit.

nt

[ruggerson]

70. Beautifully articulated. EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS POST.

Nt

[mitchtv]

71. thanks

too bad so
many cannot fathom that concept

[Zorra]

72. Great post. Simple, clear, and true. nt

[KatyaR]

73. Sorry, but I disagree.

It is NOT "perfectly appropriate" to ask about someone's sexual orientation. There are those of us who don't care to share; we don't care what anyone else's is, and others shouldn't care about mine.

I say this as a 55-year-old single woman, never married, no children, who is sick and tired of the whispers and innuendo about my sex life. I don't give a shit about having a relationship, haven't for years, and I'm more the better for it. It's nobody's business but mine WHY I chose this "lifestyle," and I'm insulted that anyone thinks they have the right to insinuate things about me that are none of their business.

If someone's gay, it's up to them to tell, not me and not somebody else. If they're perfectly happy not to announce it to the world, so be it. I know it's hard for many people to believe, but there are those in this world who don't want to "wear a mark" denoting their sexual orientation or status for the entire world to see.

And the idea that you're not "integrated" into society because you don't have photos of your kids on your desk makes me crazy. I have a picture of my dog in my cube, and the reaction I get is like I'm some sort of damaged crazy woman who needs a pat on the head and a smile. I'm sick and tired of being excluded from so many things because I don't have a "family." I HATE that word. Apparently if you're not married with 2.5 kids, you don't count as human in this society.

Go ahead and jump all over me, that's fine. I'm just sick and tired of being talked about behind my back.