politically i'm definetly a queer liberationist and you could quite easily label me as that if i told you my views.

but i think my views on homosexuality are often seperate from my views on the world (capitalism, the militairy, sexism and racism).

so although i believe in "we're here we're queer" etc.... i don't shout those political statements out when i'm at a socialist conference.

Although to be fair there are a hell of a lot of people on the left in the UK who are queer so it's not as big a deal.

Have to say though i am against don't ask don't tell and i know a  lot of people with similar political viewpoints to me are against it, even if you are anti-militairy it's still considered wrong!

I think assimilation can be harmonized with liberation ideology.

Liberation ideology (in the way that you articulated it above) was the proper (and only practical) response at the time the when being gay was seen as very very fringe, when the simple act of coming out was seen as incredibly shocking and radical. Back then, you couldn't just come out and be seen as normal. Anyway, at some point, I think there came a breaking point (circa Stonewall) when people just said, "Well fuck it, I'm not going to hide anymore!" Liberation was all about breaking down boundaries, allowing gays and lesbians to live openly and freely, and not apologizing for being gay.

Strangely enough, as you pointed out above, there seems to be this strain in liberation ideology that gays are somehow fundamentally different from heterosexuals (in a way that is above and beyond simply loving someone of the same sex), and sometimes I think - lurking in the background - that kind of thinking is, in a way, an internalization of what straight society used to (and sometimes continues to think) of us - that we are not normal. And I think that kind of thinking is limiting, especially in this day and age.

The fundamental concept of liberation is that boundaries should be broken, limitations should be erased, and that gays should have as many options as possible. And there is one boundary that has yet to be broken down - being integrated into mainstream society. We can't get married - THAT is a limitation. We can't serve openly in the military - THAT is a limitation. We can't adopt in certain jurisdictions - THAT is a limitation. For those who want to do those things, they are foreclosed from doing so. Of course, (some) old school liberationists believe that gays and lesbians SHOULDN'T want to do those things, which is sad, because they are essentially placing boundaries on what gays and lesbians should or shouldn't want.

Some gays and lesbians want to fit in. I say go for it. They're the ones who are going to be fighting the ground battles for acceptance in suburbia. They are the ones who are heading into uncharted territory. They are the ones who have the tough road ahead. They are the true radicals of our time. The liberationists are already free to "liberate" themselves from things like the idea of having children already! What's so radical about that? 

Think of it this way: Some people like plain old cheese sandwiches, and some other people just don't get it, thinking that cheese sandwiches are plain and boring. However, cheese sandwiches should still be added to the menu of options, because it will make a segment of restaurant-goers happy without limiting the cheese sandwich haters' right not to order cheese sandwiches.

In order to be fully liberated, all boundaries should be broken, including those leading to territory deemed by old school liberationists to be conformist and cheese sandwich-y in nature. 

However, the fact that assimilation is even an option and not some far fetched fantasy means that we are more liberated than ever!

I don't see the groups as necessarily diametrically opposed as is the premise of the post. To do so buys into a stereotype and boxes our community into oversimplistic and unreaslistic roles in almost a cartoonish way.

I've never stuck out like a sore thumb with a neon lesbian sign over my head, but that doesn't mean that I have any scorn for those who do. I believe in the rights of all people to be how they want to be, whether flamboyant or tacit in the way they express their sexual orientation. Every "community" is different and made up of people who think and act differently. To speak of the "black community" or the "jewish community" is usually missing out on the point that there isn't one cookie cutter, monolithic formula in groups (although this has yet to be proven with the fringe (non) mormon group with the Texas compound and the over 400 abused kids--).

i should note that i did not write the article above. it was posted in a bisexual community to which i belong on livejournal.com. i copied and pasted the writing, including the like to the person(s) that wrote it.

~~Come With Me If You Want To Live: the forum

http://www.afterellen.com/node/31891

I think it's silly the whole thing. As humans no matter what we do we are different but our basic needs, wants and wishes are the same. With this basic blueprint, we can work together to realize our goals. I feel people should express themselves as long it does not endanger anyone else. If anything this argument is more about the conflicting cultures of the majority with any group (ethnicity, sexual orientation or lifestyle) there will be problems.