Individuality or Group Identity?

[dfiant]

It's not a thought that has crossed my mind, but reading your post made me think about it East.

I think individuality is the most important dynamic of a group, so therefore I believe individuality is the more important.

I have always considered myself as somewhat and outsider because I have never really been able to identify entirely with any particular group, not that I have ever really tried. I'm a gay man, but I have never really identified with the gay community, there are many many times when activists have protested for rights and what they have said has made me shake my head in disbelief. You can't fight fire with fire, it just brings you or your community down to the level of the percieved evil/wrongdoers. If you push too hard you just alienate the very people you want to be accepted by.

If you believe someone is wrong or you don't agree with someone, then agreeing with me merely based on the fact that you may have one thing in common..IE sexuality, then you are compromising your own identity and individuality.

Be true to your identity, individuality and beliefs...HONESTY is #1

[azulai]

I think you can disagree with an opinion of a group and not be disloyal. I personally can't comprehend ever having 100% agreement with any person or cause. So, in my thinking you have to be an individual within a group. All the thoughts pooled together and batted around make for more creativity and progress.

Who will cause the rethinking of ideas, if you don't voice yours?
If we don't question and challenge, will there be innovation of ideas?

IMO, it is one's duty to speak out.
There is always the question in my mind, doesn't silence encourage the tormentor and not the victim? If one excuses certain things/behaviors, what else will they excuse?

I believe there is time for respectful discourse but also time for very clear lines to be drawn.

As far as GOProud, there's very little I agree with them. Pandering to Coulter was just one more thing for me to roll my eyes about. The Log Cabin Republicans are the ones that actually challenged DADT and forced progress.

[jbrowder24]

Hmmm, I don't think I would have defended them East. I might have clarified the situation if I felt more informed about their reasonings, but I would still be like, "You know, they're doing what they think is best for their organization. I personally don't agree, but that's why I'm not in their organization." I think there are certain things we need to value - equality, opportunity, freedom of speech/expression, etc. - but that doesn't mean we can't recognize there are other values that we can go ahead and disagree with.

For example, I may or may not want kids, regardless, I'll support that gays should be able to adopt regardless of my views on having kids myself. But if there were a gay association for homeschooling, I might disgree with it and not defend it. I don't feel the need to defend other white people or other males just because I'm a white male, and I don't share all the same values as other gays just because I'm gay too.