LGBTAI+ Questions, Information and Discussion thread!

[Mono Vertigo]

The title does, I didn't. Because I disagree with their inclusion for the reasons I literally just gave you.

Okay, I'm going to forget my last post.
Admittedly, asexuals are more invisible than the other letters, and generally not as disadvantaged, but they do suffer from social pressure, as mentioned previously. Sometimes hate crime, even (such as corrective rape, which is something that can still happen to lesbians today, and asexuals may be targeted as well, since the result of their behaviour is identical: they're not having sex with people of the opposite gender).
Before I fell in love but after I realized I had no libido, I felt somewhat angsty about it, thinking I'd never find someone like me, and that I'd have to have sex with whoever would become my significant other (because my partner would OBVIOUSLY be sexual and want some), because if 99,999% of the population (supposedly) did and liked what was supposed to be such a fundamental event of human existence, then it couldn't be so bad, right? (It did terrify me a bit, but hey, when you're afraid of being a freak and staying alone for the rest of your life, rational thought stops being a given. Hindsight is 20/20 though.)


(Also, you'll helpfully note that I also added a + at the end of the acronym, implying I consider more letters to fit there.)

[Miriel]

Asexuals? I would call it a stretch to include them among some kind of oppressed minority. At most people don't get asexuals, becuase to basically everyone sex is great. But I've never seen anyone trying to stop them from getting married or having their correct gender listed on their documents. And them not wanting to have sex is hardly something that most people care about. If I don't want to have sex with a woman, nobody is going to even blink at it. It's not apparent and if you don't make a big deal out of it, acting in disgust over the very notion of sex (which you shouldn't be doing anyway, since it's a jerk move that makes other feel like they are doing something wrong), nobody is going to give you any flak over it.

More importantly, the LGBT movement, as far as I know, is a civil rights movement. Asexuals already have all civil rights if they also happen to be cis (ugh, you made me use that word ) and heterosexuals. Problems arise when, you guessed it, they are bi, or trans, or gay or whatever else. In which case... Well... Asexuality isn't really the relevant part. And in which case I can see perfectly why they are part of the LesbianGayBisexualTransgender community...

The lack of understanding is a big one. + asexual people tend to be characterized as loners, as weird or strange people, and are excluded of many discourses. Sure, it's not as hard as what other groups live, but since I'm part of three sexual, romantic and gender minority categories, I can tell you that I feel all of them, just in different ways and times.

The LGBT acronym is very imperfect, which is why, here, we have LGBTAI+. Which includes "asexual". And it's not only a civil rights movement. A lot of activities in the community are just of the "share your experience/socialize" kind.

[Kalmageddon]

They're a list of gender and sexuality minorities. Asexuality is a sexuality minority. There we go.

So are pedophiles. So are people into zoophilia. Or Necrophilia. How about you include them as well? No? Well, then...

[Astrella]

So are pedophiles. So are people into zoophilia. Or Necrophilia. How about you include them as well? No? Well, then...

Consent is the difference there. And it's not really original to pull the slipperly slope argument like that....

[Kalmageddon]

Consent is the difference there. And it's not really original to pull the slipperly slope argument like that....

Ok.
How about BDSM? Consent is very much necessary. Do they count as LGBT+?

You also didn't answer my other argument, the one that says that your definiton of LGBT+ ("misrepresented by society and its expectations") ends up including everyone.

[Miriel]

You also didn't answer my other argument, the one that says that your definiton of LGBT+ ("misrepresented by society and its expectations") ends up including everyone.

Exactly. It just proves our society is messed up, which it is.

The movement for gender and sexual equality is everyone's fight.

[Mono Vertigo]

Two of them inherently include problems of consent, all of them are very accompanied by an unhealthy lifestyle and/or psychological disorders (as in mental problems that affect negatively their well-being, not "just" behaviours that are outside the norm, which used to be a reason why transgenderism, homosexuality or asexuality were considered psychological disorders as well), all might be caused by earlier trauma and/or cause trauma to the partner, and two are very likely to cause significant physical injuries to the partner.
These orientations, if acted upon, would likely cause distress to any party involved, and so shouldn't be condoned.
Okay, now we've got that out of the way.

(I don't know much about BDSM, so before I put my foot in my mouth, I'll let someone else, who knows what they're talking about, answer that.)

Heterosexuals are not sexual minorities. People are expected to be heterosexual. Even today, if they do not meet that expectation, they will likely suffer significant social pressure, or not benefit from the same rights as heterosexuals.
That being said, heterosexuals are also subject to social pressure, it's just recognized that they're not as serious as those sexual minorities suffer. (Though it would be great to get rid of these expectations too because they're harmful and stupid.)

[Kalmageddon]

Exactly. It just proves our society is messed up, which it is.

The movement for gender and sexual equality is everyone's fight.

No, no, Astrella's definiton is that LGBT+ is not just about sexuality and gender, it's about anyone that is not this perfectly average strawman.

Hey, you are free to include whomever you like.
I'm just saying that the more categories you include, the less importance you give to each one. Case and point: the other LGBT thread. Basically taken over by trans support stuff (it happens, not blaming you for that), to the point where a lot of their members decided to leave because they couldn't contribute anymore. You gave a perfect example on how such a broad group ends up falling apart simply because its individual components end up not having that much in common.

My personal philosophy is that it's better to do one thing very well than a whole lot of them badly.

(I don't know much about BDSM, so before I put my foot in my mouth, I'll let someone else, who knows what they're talking about, answer that.)

I do. It's something most people don't expect in a normal relationship. And yet it's not covered by the LGBT+ community because... Because it's not illegal, it's not oppressed and while it may be looked down upon, it's still something personal.
You know, kinda like asexuality?

[Serpentine]

Ok.
How about BDSM? Consent is very much necessary. Do they count as LGBT+?

You also didn't answer my other argument, the one that says that your definiton of LGBT+ ("misrepresented by society and its expectations") ends up including everyone.

BDSM can be included under "Queer", according to the Wiki on it.
Pity you're not the one who gets to decide this for all these people who aren't you, hey?

[Miriel]

No, no, Astrella's definiton is that LGBT+ is not just about sexuality and gender, it's about anyone that is not this perfectly average strawman.

... with regard to gender and the expectations thereof (including sexuality), yes.

Personally, feminism and LGBT stuff are different points of view of the same problem.

Hey, you are free to include whomever you like.
I'm just saying that the more categories you include, the less importance you give to each one. Case and point: the other LGBT thread. Basically taken over by trans support stuff (it happens, not blaming you for that), to the point where a lot of their members decided to leave because they couldn't contribute anymore. You gave a perfect example on how such a broad group ends up falling apart simply because its individual components end up not having that much in common.

My personal philosophy is that it's better to do one thing very well than a whole lot of them badly.

That's a tactical concern. It's why I tackle trans* issues at my college with a specifically trans* group, not within the LGBT+ society.

It doesn't mean one group or another is not in the movement.

[Mono Vertigo]

IMHO, you have one good point: the LGBT+ community is more of a grouping of sub-communities (trans* people, bisexuals, homosexuals, etc). They are not always directly related. That makes it difficult to work toward improving everybody's life.
Now, that would be, let's say, the equivalent of grouping together black people, Asian people, Arabs, Native Americans, Latinos, etc, knowing each of these sub-groups have themselves different origins, cultures and nationalities and have sometimes little in common (an average Chinese man and an average Japanese man might be both from the same continent and general area, but it would be stupid to pretend there's no difference between them).
Why would it be helpful to group them together? Simply to understand the mechanics of institutional racism in the Western world, which affects all of them. (You'll also note that, like the LGBT+ community, a sub-group might be racist against another, or have vocal jerks among their members. But that's something that happens with literally any group of humans, no matter what they have in common.)
The LGBT+ community operates under the same principle: identify, and fight against unfair sexually-based discrimination.

[Kalmageddon]

BDSM can be included under "Queer", according to the Wiki on it.
Pity you're not the one who gets to decide this for all these people who aren't you, hey?

Would you stop strawmanning me?
I don't give a crap about deciding for anybody's life.

You really have a hard time grasping the fact that one might have a different opinion while still respecting your right to have one of your own, uh?

The LGBT+ community operates under the same principle: identify, and fight against unfair sexually-based discrimination.

Finally, someone that gives an appropriate answer.
Thank you, this clears things up.

Though, if that's the intent, it really shouldn't exclude heterosexual people from it. One can be discriminated against based on being heterosexual as well.
Honestly, I feel it needs a new name.

FAUST, fight against unfair sexuality treatment.

[Serpentine]

That's why the "A" is often held to cover "Allies" as well, and also part of why the + is often included.

[Kalmageddon]

That's why the "A" is often held to cover "Allies" as well, and also part of why the + is often included.

Ally doesn't mean you are part of something, though. It means you tag along for the ride. This to me carries unfortunate implications.
But at this point we are discussing semantics, no need for that.

It all started because somebody said that asexuals can't possibly be heterosexuals and I kinda got sidetraked from there.

[Marnath]

Would you stop strawmanning me?
I don't give a crap about deciding for anybody's life.

You really have a hard time grasping the fact that one might have a different opinion while still respecting your right to have one of your own, uh?

The problem is that your opinion involves telling a bunch of asexuals to their faces that we don't exist. Yeah it's true that we run the spectrum from "nothing" to "I'm not really into it, but ok." That is not the same thing as saying
asexuality doesn't exist. Just because an asexual is willing to have sex with someone that doesn't mean they're attracted to that person.

I'm grey-asexual which means I do feel a little attraction, in my case to women(hooray boobies ^-^ ) I sometimes appreciate that a woman is beautiful but I've never wanted to do anything about it. For me, it's an aesthetic appreciation, not so much "she's sexy." I'm not really against the idea of sex and if not for the fact that I'm also aromantic I'd possibly have tried it already just to see, instead of saying no(although probably not because I'm pretty sure she was a little under-age, but that's off-topic.)

The point is that although I'm farther along the spectrum than the aces who don't feel any attraction, it would be inaccurate to call me a heterosexual. Because I said I'm not, and would you really know me better than I do?

[Kalmageddon]

The problem is that your opinion involves telling a bunch of asexuals to their faces that we don't exist.

No, it doesn't.
I don't think asexuality is relevant enough to form a community over it, that's for sure. Just like I would say that a lukewarm passion for chocolate wouldn't be enough to do so. But nobody's deying you exist.
Of course if you feel that you being asexual is such a big deal and so central to your identity, go ahead and be offended if you want, because I sure would have a hard time understanding why, unless there was some kind of religious subtext to it, you know, chastity and stuff. But it's done without malice nor any intent to forbid you from being asexual.
I just find that knowing how little someone wants to have sex is an irrelevant piece of information for everyone except their partner. Being gay or bi has at least political and social relevance, what with all the controversy over gay marriage and other similar subjects. But asexuality has never been something most people are interested in or shocked by.
As I said, with a lot of religions (without going into detail) it's even something to be expected by some of their priests.

Then again, you know what else is quite irreleveant? The fact that I find it irrelevant. As I said, I was mostly out to prove that asexuals can be heterosexuals and got sidetracked into talking about why exactly are they part of the LGBT community, but Musashi explained it in a clear fashon.

[banthesun]

Asexual and aromantic people also often get dismissed with the same "reasons" as LGB people:

Spoiler

Show

"It's just a phase."
"You just haven't found the right one yet."
"How can you know you don't like it if you haven't tried?"
"You're just confused."
"You're too young to be certain."
"You just want attention."
"You must have been abused as a child."

This kinda seems like a strange and possibly dangerous reason for their inclusion. It's based off of other people's opinions, and makes me think of the LGBTAI as a grouping of 'easily dismissed' people, which could have some benifits, but when it comes to funding support organisations seems like it could be a "let's just give them something to shut them up" situation.

I can understand it as being included as a minority sexuality though.

They're lesbians with no personal interest in sex, which in a world full of "when are you going to get married?" and "where are my grandchildren?" and "you scored? High five, bro!" and "why won't you go out with me?" and general "people want sex and that's the way it should be", it is A Deal and it is Different. Maybe not as much of a Big Deal and as Obviously Different as the stuff relevant to a world full of "fire and brimstone!" and "boys kissing boys? Ew!" and "we'll fix these so-called lesbians by raping 'em, that'll do it!", but still *A* Deal, and *A* Notable Difference.

I have to ask again about high-libido people. There still is a lot of sociatal pressure against sexuality, especially for women (ridiculously so in many developing countries). Stuff like 'slut shaming' and the like. To me that seems like as much of a reason to include high-libido heterosexuals as it is to include heteroromantic asexuals. Unless queerness is defined by not engaging in heterosexual sex, in which case are bi people only half queer? That's only a half serious question, I just had to include it though

Ok.
How about BDSM? Consent is very much necessary. Do they count as LGBT+?

You also didn't answer my other argument, the one that says that your definiton of LGBT+ ("misrepresented by society and its expectations") ends up including everyone.

Perhaps it has to do with few BDSM practicioners strongly identifying as either a dom or a sub (or both, I guess) that leaves it more as a fetish than an identity. Or perhaps that the support they need is generally more in the realm of practical sexual advice.

I'm here to ask questions, not give answers, so if someone could give a yes/no on my theories that'd be great.

Would you stop strawmanning me?
I don't give a crap about deciding for anybody's life.

You really have a hard time grasping the fact that one might have a different opinion while still respecting your right to have one of your own, uh?

Kal, some of your posts did read as kinda aggressive to me, so Serp mightn't be thinking you respect her right to her opinion based on that.

Just chiming in for the new thread smell to say hi, and complain that, like too many, all the boys I like are straight. I was invited out to post-exam, small-but-raucous house party and discovered that of the 8 other people there, three were straight guys I have a crush on.

Minor relationship woes like this seem pretty petty, but it's sort've frustrating to slowly realise that the only ways I'm liable to end up in a relationship beyond 'blind luck and extreme patience' are dating apps.

Otherwise, big exam in 10 hours, so I should be in bed.

Um, just making sure, but you didn't mean to post this in the main rainbow thread, did you?

Also, late here, so my post may be a bit of a mess. I hope it's all comprehensible, and please excuse any mistakes.

[Serpentine]

I have to ask again about high-libido people. There still is a lot of sociatal pressure against sexuality, especially for women (ridiculously so in many developing countries). Stuff like 'slut shaming' and the like. To me that seems like as much of a reason to include high-libido heterosexuals as it is to include heteroromantic asexuals. Unless queerness is defined by not engaging in heterosexual sex, in which case are bi people only half queer? That's only a half serious question, I just had to include it though

I could see an argument for it. I can think of two possible angles for why there's been no movement for it, though:
1. I'm not sure how to explain this one. Basically, there's a cap on how not-sexual a person can be: zero. Zero sexual, totally lacking, i.e. asexual. But it's harder to define the upper limit on "normal", short of "literally has sex at every single moment". At that extreme, it's getting to the point of being a serious medical problem - which may be an issue in itself, I'm not sure. It's like temperature: in Kelvin, temperature goes from 0K, and can go no further, up until... theoretically infinite temperature. You can at the very least define "cold" as "getting pretty close to 0", but how do you define "hot"? You might not know where "cold" ends, but you have an idea of where it starts. "Hot" could be 100, 1000 or 1,000,000, depending on the context. Feh, I'm not explaining it right and I'm not sure it's a real reason anyway.
2. Particularly in cases of slut-shaming and controlling women's sexuality, the issue of high-libido people has I think been much more of a feminist issue - the pressure on men to be hypersexual being the flipside of this. Basically, the issues surrounding what society considers "too much interest in sex" are better addressed in movements other than the Queer Rights movement. Whereas, for whatever reason, the issues surrounding what society considers "too little interest in sex" are best handled under the Queer umbrella.

If anyone has anything more solid on this subject, I'd be curious to see it.

[Kalmageddon]

Kal, some of your posts did read as kinda aggressive to me, so Serp mightn't be thinking you respect her right to her opinion based on that.

I know, I never mastered the art of talking as if I don't mean it.
Plus, the fact that I'd strike the sun if it insulted me doesn't help.

[Ifni]

No, it doesn't.
I don't think asexuality is relevant enough to form a community over it, that's for sure. Just like I would say that a lukewarm passion for chocolate wouldn't be enough to do so. But nobody's denying you exist.

Actually, they are. (You may not be, but the existence of asexuality is denied on a pretty regular basis.)

Kalmageddon, I'm asexual and not attracted to anyone. I'm interested in men to approximately the degree that a (completely) straight man is interested in men, and interested in women to approximately the degree that a (completely) gay man is interested in women. Am I straight? Gay? Bi?

I'm also aromantic, but when I was trying to figure out whether I was aromantic or not, the only possibility I ever considered was biromantic - I have close friendships with people of both genders. Turns out, those ties do not translate into romantic relationships.

When I was a young teenager (late 90s) there was very little knowledge of asexuality. I was weird because I wasn't interested in boys: the assumption was that I must be lesbian (which in the country I lived in at the time was a felony - I'm not saying actually being gay would have been easier). I didn't think I was a lesbian, because I wasn't attracted to girls either, but never having even heard of the possibility that people might be asexual, I had no real word to describe what I was feeling (or not feeling).

You don't get a little card in the mail at puberty saying "Oh, by the way, you're never going to feel sexual attraction to anyone, but that's just how your body/mind works and isn't a sign of anything wrong with you". If you tell anyone (outside certain spaces), odds are very good you'll be told you're sick / repressed / in denial / tragic / need to get your hormones checked / are just a slow developer / don't know your own mind.

I do not grok sexual attraction. I can only model it as a magic button in people's heads, a black box to which I have no access. It's a foreign language that I've learned to fake, but I don't and can't understand it. I live in a society in which it is assumed that sexual attraction is a universal human experience, like feeling hunger or tiredness (it's pretty common to see statements like "sex is a fundamental part of being human / everyone wants sex", often in progressive spaces as pushback against religious fundamentalists).

It is helpful to me to have a word for this, and acknowledgement that it's not a disorder, just an orientation that a significant fraction of humanity shares. It certainly would've made my teenage years a lot easier, but better public recognition of asexuality would still have a personal impact for me today. As a tiny example, it would be nice to have people not automatically assume that if I attend a dinner with a friend, we must be dating (which can cause confusion and social issues when the friend is actually in a relationship with somebody else). In the same vein, it would be nice to never again be called a liar for telling someone I'm asexual and thus uninterested in dating them for reasons entirely unrelated to what a nice guy they are.

On a larger scale, the marriage-related rights the gay community has fought for are often relevant to a lot of asexual people, since one of the side effects has been a rethinking of which relationships we privilege and how far those legal advantages (in e.g. taxes, adoption, immigration, health insurance) can be extended. I think in some of the places where civil unions have been enacted, they can also be applied to friends living together long-term, or siblings sharing a home.

I don't tell people IRL I'm asexual unless it's directly relevant to them. But people knowing more about it would be great. And as I've described above, I do feel I share common experiences and quite a few issues with people in the LGB part of the community (and I try to be a good ally on issues we don't have in common), despite not being LGB myself.

(Not trying to disregard the T part of the community, or any others, just that I feel the issues that have come up for me as an asexual person map more closely onto common LGB experiences.)

EDIT: Also, I think people are getting a bit confused between libido and attraction. The common definition of asexuality is that it involves not feeling sexual attraction to anyone. You can be a very-low-libido straight person, and feel attracted to people of the opposite gender but in practice not want sex very often - you'll still have a better understanding than I do of what people mean when they say "wow, that guy/girl is hot".

[Coidzor]

So are pedophiles. So are people into zoophilia. Or Necrophilia. How about you include them as well? No? Well, then...

So you're saying that you view asexuals as identical to inherently harmful sexual practices, eh? That's quite the non sequitur.

What purpose do these distinction serve outside of singling out asexuals from heterosexuals and create a divide?

Sorta reversed the order there. The divide exists, people came up with a term for it.

Would you say a straight man who sleeps with a guy to find out if he's gay is bisexual?

Well, that's sort of a problematic construction, now isn't it? He's probably not straight if he feels the need to go the point of having sex with men to determine his sexuality, and he'd almost definitely have been Questioning during the scenario itself and the lead up to it.

Though, I admit, my understanding of our current understanding of the metaphysics of sexuality are a bit dated, so I might be missing an entire dimension.

*coughs lightly*

Anyway...

So, this came up in RWA a bit earlier, but this seems a more appropriate venue to double check what the current mores are; what's the etiquette about inquiring as to someone else's identity/orientation in the context of a GSA or similar groups?

[Serpentine]

I think in the context of a GSA, you can potentially bring it up as fairly casual conversation: "So hey, what do you identify as, then? Cis, queer, what? Cuz I'm *blah blah blah*" etc.

[Jormengand]

Plus, the fact that I'd strike the sun if it insulted me doesn't help.

Well, why don't you just Iron Heart Surge the sun?

[Kalmageddon]

So you're saying that you view asexuals as identical to inherently harmful sexual practices, eh? That's quite the non sequitur.

Yeah, that was sort of gratuitous. I actually wanted to cite the BDSM practices first, but the temptation to use something more extreme got the best of me. I was probably too focused on the idea that saying that anyone that is oppressed for his sexual preferences was a perfect candidate for the LGBT community was pretty short-sighted. The magic happened when Musashi aknowledged that it's unjust persecution that should be fought.
With all the talking about "don't judge me, yo" I honestly thought for a second that some people here might have been willing to defend even those, just on the basis that they are universally despised.

Both you and Astrella did right in calling me out on that one, I could edit it out, but let it stay there to act as a memento, doesn't go against any rules anyway.

Well, why don't you just Iron Heart Surge the sun?

I would, but that coward still runs from me.

[Irish Musician]

Ally doesn't mean you are part of something, though. It means you tag along for the ride. This to me carries unfortunate implications.

I am a straight/cis male. I have never been attracted to men, only women, and married my wife because I love her and wanted a heteroromantic relationship with her. I am an Ally to this community. I do what I can to help the people, I stand up and fight against injustice as much as I can, and I fight the unfair treatment of anyone who isn't considered (and I absolutely loath this word) "normal."

I am not here to tag along for the ride, I am not just taking a nap int he back of the car while the community drives through the road hazards. I an sticking my self out the side window and blowing away debris with my shotgun. Does that make sense? I am not just here to let bad **** happen to this community. I am not here to watch. I am not here to "tag along." I am here to get my hands dirty, and I am damn proud to be called an Ally. These people are just like everyone else.....just people. No better, no worse. And I am here to stand by them and show the world that they are not freaks.....that they are just like me.

So while I know you didn't necessarily mean to give it, I take offense to being summed up in a definition saying I do not count, or that I am tagging along. I am here for the long haul, dude, and I am never going to stop standing by them.

M

[golentan]

Kalmageddon, if you don't learn to compromise you're going to be in for a rough life.

[Kalmageddon]

I am a straight/cis male. I have never been attracted to men, only women, and married my wife because I love her and wanted a heteroromantic relationship with her. I am an Ally to this community. I do what I can to help the people, I stand up and fight against injustice as much as I can, and I fight the unfair treatment of anyone who isn't considered (and I absolutely loath this word) "normal."

I am not here to tag along for the ride, I am not just taking a nap int he back of the car while the community drives through the road hazards. I an sticking my self out the side window and blowing away debris with my shotgun. Does that make sense? I am not just here to let bad **** happen to this community. I am not here to watch. I am not here to "tag along." I am here to get my hands dirty, and I am damn proud to be called an Ally. These people are just like everyone else.....just people. No better, no worse. And I am here to stand by them and show the world that they are not freaks.....that they are just like me.

So while I know you didn't necessarily mean to give it, I take offense to being summed up in a definition saying I do not count, or that I am tagging along. I am here for the long haul, dude, and I am never going to stop standing by them.

M

Oh, that's not what I meant, "tag along" wasn't the appropriate figure of speech, my bad, I'm not a native english speaker.
The unfortunate implications are of the "you are an ally to them as long as you do what they want you to do" variety. Though I realize in practice it might not be exactly this, that's why I said that I don't like the term. It's the impression it gives me, though it's at least partially irrational.

Of course LGBT people are like anyone else, by the way, it's exactly why I don't like them making a distinction and making up new ways to call themselves different and single out everyone based on every minute detail of their sexuality or identity.
But I do realize that there are people on the other side of the barricade that actually try to single them out for other reasons, to limit their freedom and all that bad stuff.
I had written a long and complicated post to explain myself better, but at this point, I would be just going off topic... Suffice to say, I don't like factions. Any faction. Doesn't matter what they are fighting for, inevitably they end up oppressing someone innocent and singling out those that don't belong to them. Since I can't fight the concept of "faction", seeing how it's too deeply rooted in the human brain, I fight what I don't like about them.
That's all there is to it.

Kalmageddon, if you don't learn to compromise you're going to be in for a rough life.

I already learned to compromise. And after learning about it, I didn't like it and I chose not to do it.
My life's already been rough. As long as I have air in my lungs and blood in my veins, I can take it.

[Irish Musician]

The unfortunate implications are of the "you are an ally to them as long as you do what they want you to do" variety. Though I realize in practice it might not be exactly this, that's why I said that I don't like the term. It's the impression it gives me, though it's at least partially irrational.

Never have I ever been told I had to do things anyone else's way but my own. And I never will. The only thing that I have been asked to give tot his community is respect. So I have.

Of course LGBT people are like anyone else, by the way, it's exactly why I don't like them making a distinction and making up new ways to call themselves different and single out everyone based on every minute detail of their sexuality or identity.
But I do realize that there are people on the other side of the barricade that actually try to single them out for other reasons, to limit their freedom and all that bad stuff.
I had written a long and complicated post to explain myself better, but at this point, I would be just going off topic... Suffice to say, I don't like factions. Any faction. Doesn't matter what they are fighting for, inevitably they end up oppressing someone innocent and singling out those that don't belong to them. Since I can't fight the concept of "faction", seeing how it's too deeply rooted in the human brain, I fight what I don't like about them.
That's all there is to it.

You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain. I get that, I really do. But not in instances where factions are being oppressed or discriminated against. Which there are over here in the states. They label themselves these things, because people keep putting them in their own boxes, trying to file them into a system that doesn't include them int he first place. People want to fix them, to change them, to "make them right" again. That is why distinction is so important. Yes, we are all the same and in a perfect world we would leave it at that and no one would care who did what with whom (or didn't do) and life would move along.

But that is not the world we live in. In a world of oppression and discrimination you have to have your voice be heard. And the more people try and silence you, the louder you have to be until your point is taken and you are able to live equally with everyone else. Will there still be discrimination and hate? Of course. But if you have the same basic rights as anyone else, then I would imagine that it is easier to ignore such things. When everything is equal, who cares who doesn't approve of you, ya know?

M

[Heliomance]

They may have sex, but they don't have sexual attraction. Asexual, heterosexual, homosexual, etc., is just about sexual attraction.

Most heterosexual people are heteroromantic, that is true. Not all though -- someone with a heterosexual drive and no romantic attraction to anyone could be heterosexual and aromantic. And not all heteroromantic people are heterosexual. Desire to have sex with someone and desire to have a relationship (under any definition) are not the same thing.

There are asexual people in every romantic attraction category.

Seconding this; sexual and romantic attractions are not the same thing. I'm pretty certain by this point that I'm entirely bisexual. I think guys and girls are both hot, I enjoy fantasising about both. I am, however, currently exclusively homoromantic. I have little interest in actually having a relationship with a guy. I would love to have a girlfriend, I have no desire for a boyfriend. That doesn't stop me being bisexual though.

[golentan]

Seconding this; sexual and romantic attractions are not the same thing. I'm pretty certain by this point that I'm entirely bisexual. I think guys and girls are both hot, I enjoy fantasising about both. I am, however, currently exclusively homoromantic. I have little interest in actually having a relationship with a guy. I would love to have a girlfriend, I have no desire for a boyfriend. That doesn't stop me being bisexual though.

And like that, a small dream died.