I agree completely. There's no such thing as "gaydar" and you can't tell what someone will be attracted to just by looking at them. That said, a distinct lgbt culture has arisen over time. Slang terms that were (and still sometimes are) more like code used to refer to gay experiences and relationships in public without risk of being judged by anyone who might overhear. People who do fit the stereotypes exist as well. They just tend to stand out more, which is why some people are shocked to hear that an otherwise "normal" guy or gal bats for the other team.Auro-Cyanide wrote:While I'm all for people presenting all different types of relationships in a realistic and relateable manner, I am a bit iffy about the suggestion that one's sexuality is apparent in one's character. For some people it is and for some people it isn't. You can't tell someone's sexuality by looking at them, or even seeing how they act. While people of different sexualities may deal with different problems in life, which again depends on the differences in their own lives, I don't think it should be an independant part of it. Is there really any difference between a girl being afraid to come out to her parents and a girl afraid to tell her parents that she is in a relationship with a guy?
Again, I'm all for seeing relationships that actually acknowledge what's going on in them, what I would be very wary of defining characters by who they love. It doesn't work that way in real life, with the exception when people CHOOSE to define themselves by their sexuality or when other people do it for them (and that could be a very interesting characteristic in and of itself, just not one suited for everybody. It can also be dangerous when a society decides who you are for you).
What I'm trying to say is, you can never just know someone's orientation by looking, but there are some people for whom it's a larger part of their lives than "swap out the men (or women) for women (or men) and it's exactly the same."
Consider the US military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. There were a lot of gay people who didn't want it repealed. Not because they didn't want it repealed, but because they opposed the wars in the Middle East and saw "pretending to be gay" as a way to get out of fighting in an unjust war. When DADT was repealed, a lot of people who were in the military came out, which was great, but a lot of people who were gay came in droves to join the military. Surely they hadn't all been seriously thinking "I wish I could be in the military." Some of them had to have joined just because they finally could. And some of those people died because they joined.
I'm not chiming in on these issues personally because I don't want to start a fight, but my point is, lgbt issues are more complex than just "if you support gay people you support a and b and oppose y and z."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_culture <~ more on the kind of stuff I'm trying to get at