Can you not see, with your castigation of certain members of the LGBT community, how you are supporting and giving ammunition to people like GodLovesUs?

President Zapetero of Spain could not have stated it any better when he said "A decent society does not humiliate any of it's members."

That also applies to how we gays treat our own as well.

Are we LGBT people a decent society, or are we just as bad as the Christers who never miss an opportunity to humiliate us?

Food for thought.

Now seriously, go find someone else to harass.

Cunt.

* Please see the irony in this post *

I also agree with the original post. But I have to admit I am a bigot, I hate Christians. Why? because THEY hate me.

"They" just who are "THEY"? THEY are the people I see on TV and the obvious outspoken ones who shake their bible and tell me I am going to hell. THEY are the ones who protest funerals and proclaim they know whats best for our country. THEY try to exorcise the gay demons out of people.

I hate THEM.

Yet, how many people who are Christians do I not see in a public arena. How many might actually be great loving people? I dont know and honestly I am so sick of the bible being shoved down my throat, I dont care about those people. Every time I turn around it's Jesus this, and Jesus that. I wish we could round them up and send them all off to some island and get rid of them and their crosses.

Wait, did I just say that? Why? My mother is Christian, I dont hate her. Perhaps I know a good Christian that isnt like what the pubic shows or the ones on soap boxes screaming for me to repent. (Ahh, there is where it comes in, the reasoning) Not all Christians are bad hate filled screaming preachers. Well, its too bad for Mom because I still have my opinion. Send in the Lions!

* Please see the irony in this post *

Fear is that powerful. It festers in the mind and clouds judgement. We all know this so lets not act dumb. You are marching down the street with half naked men, naked men, me
n dressed in woman's clothes and leather bears and you expect any one who sees this spectacle to take you seriously as a group that deserves respect and rights.

The Gay culture is represented as a promiscous one. A flamboyant AIDS infested den of iniquity to religious groups, family groups and any group that may decide to add their support to your cause.
You are in the position of disadvantage here and u cannot dictate the terms of how people will accept you.

BTW, people who do not support homosexuality are doing as a resul of their religious beliefs and cannot be called bigots. Bigots are pple who are hate filled. I do not hate anyone gay or otherwise..as a xtian i cannot be like so called religious hypocrites and say something is right when it is wrong.

Yeah youre right, your metaphor flew right over my head and you right along with it.

The only point Im simply trying to make; A Pride parade should be a public view on how we as a community are progressing and making ourselves visible while maintaining some dignity and integrity.

Whatever else kind of parade or festival is open for it's context. There is a time and place for it.

So schlukitz, just who the hell are you today? If youre living in a fantasy world then it's time to grow up. Going to work in a leather harness? I can't stand 30, 40, 50 year old boys.

I cant stand to see the silly flaming queen character on TV any longer, that is not funny anymore when so many of us are being beaten and killed for who we are, the numbers of anti-gay attacks are growing and the hate is building.

I can assure you, if gay marriage becomes federally accepted, we had better grow some balls and drop the fairy wings.

A time will come though when grown men stop living out a fantasy and realize the world around them has accepted the gay community and we are a part of the real world. It is only then, when you can stand on the shoulders of the men who have fought the stereotypes you propagate and have won, then you will have no need to showcase yourself or prove to the world that you are a grown man who lives outside of reality.

So go ahead and show your freak, I am so tired of this debate.

"You're way off the mark. You mentioned some bible story. Personally I don't think Jesus ever existed, he is a myth along the lines of Mithra and Horus. Just another damned story to control people."

Personally, I don't think Jesus ever existed either. There is no empirical evidence that he did. And you are right. Jesus is just another damned story to control people. On those two points, we agree totally.

I used the biblical story merely as a figure of speech to illustrate the point that we are not required to march in step, and think, act and dress in accordance with the dictates of the majority. We should all feel free to express ourselves and be wh we are. Hence, the comparison between having to wear a dull, drab gray overcoat, as opposed to wearing a coat of many colors.

Obviously, the metaphor flew right over your head. Had you been able to comprehend it, there would have been absolutely no reason for you to say "Unless youre a complete nutcase you know what goes over the line in terms of being taken seriously and being a joke."

In other words, check your own stupidity before you attempt to call others on what you perceive to be their stupidity.

"Philosophy is about argument, and logic. It's not very popular…gotta think hard about things."

Amen! That's why the bible is so popular with so many people. It does all the thinking for you. LOL

ANd I apologize for the aside, but it's unforgivably ignorant that such drivelous mischaracterization is introduced…anywhere.

The father of philosophy? Hmmmmmmmmmm. Who is the father of philosophy? The father of modern philosophy is descartes…he's not the father of philosophy, though…that's a suspicious title… Most of descartes doesn't deal with the philosophy of religion, either.

Look, Plato was not a christian. predated Jesus's life and teachings and was a lot smarter than the bible people and jesus combined (assuming jesus even existed)… Parmenides was not a christian nor a jew (the presocratics weren't monotheistic worshippers, either). The republic isn't watered down bible teachings. Nor is anything Aristotle wrote. If anything, the bible is watered down philosophy…for example, really horrendously primitive virtue ethics that Aristotle would laugh at and deride along with most of his contemporaries with devastating arguments. There were christian philosophers who dealt primarily with the philosophy of religion, but they aren't even the majority of them (medieval philosophers). And philosophers throughout history disagreed with each other, and are said to employ "common sense" and common sense isn't always what is needed. Common sense leads to disagreements, too. Common sense ain't so common…and sometimes, it's not all that sensible.

I doubt you'll find much in the bible in the writings of Hume…Wittgenstein, Russell, Moore, Carnap, Quine, Davidson, Austin, Putnam, Dummett, Pig/Rorty…or the continentals, either. Most of philosophy has nothing to do with the bible or christianity, or god. IN fact, the philosophy of religion is just one sub topic, actually not even a pure topic (philosophy is epistemology, metaphysics–what 'to exist' means–philosophy of language, logic, ethics, phil of mathematics, philosophy of mind). Even the bulk of Locke, Hobbes, Hume…nothing to do with watered down bible verses (Hume was an atheist, for example and introduced some pretty devastating arguments against religion). It's a common meme that philosophy=religion…but I just don't see anyone who's ever read philosophy or knows anything about it who says such things. Most philosophers (people who make their money off of teaching philosophy and doing it) are atheists…and unconcerned atheists at that–meaning that they don't even think about god in doing philosophy. They don't work in that area.

You're way off the mark. You mentioned some bible story. Personally I don't think Jesus ever existed, he is a myth along the lines of Mithra and Horus. Just another damned story to control people.

Ive never hidden the fact I am gay.

You need to open your eyes a little bit; learn to listen, and then STFU.

THIS WHOLE POST IS MAKING ME FEEL HOMOPHOBIC, AND I AM OPENLY GAY!

Apparently, you don't know what the bible is because the father of philosophy came after the books of the bible that laid down his ideas. He was just well studied for that time and the bible was just one of the many books he got ideas from. However, when I said I didn't like philosophy, I mean dates and times and all that jazz. When it is all said and done, it is nothing more than common sense for anyone with a brain and they can all arrive at the same conclusions without even having a freaking clue who Socrates or Locke or any other philosopher even is.

The man who wrote this opinion piece is a heterosexual who is obviously stuck in the sixties and who thinks that this is the perfect outfit for a hot, sultry, southern, mid-July day.

"As natty as a movie star in a gray wool suit and pressed white shirt, his eyes remain calm beneath the shade of a wide-brimmed fedora. It's a gentleman's outfit"

Sounds like something out of of a Harlequin novel, doesn't it?
He's almost fifty years out of date years and needs to get with the times. Even Harvey Milk wore jeans and T-shirts in many of his public appearances.

I took my first trans-Atlantic flight to Paris in the mid-sixties. Everyone on the plane was wearing a suit, a white shirt and a tie, myself included. I arrived at Orly rumpled and disheveled and looking like I had slept in my clothes, which in fact, I had.

Can you imagine dressing like that on a flight to Europe in this day and age? People would stare at you like you lke you were out of your mind.

You don't know what philosophy is…philosophy predates the bible, for example. Philosophy is about argument, and logic. It's not very popular…gotta think hard about things.

I'm sick of this conversation

Well at least we agree on that.

And since Tim seems to have taken off without explaining why being an American should entitle anyone to a set of inalienable rights that the rest of us are not worthy of, I'm off too.

There's only one law: the utility that a law promotes. That's it. A law is only as good as the purpose it serves, and only justified in serving that purpose when it assists people in resolving conflicts that result from pursuit of preferences. YOu keep talking about this "natural law"…well, that can mean a lot of things. Do you mean god's decree? What do you mean? Innate? Inborn? Genetic right to free speech? I don't think there's a free speech gene.

While not everyone agrees with it, natural law has been an accepted idea since aristotle. Locke's theory of property rights doesn't undercut them.

Undercut natural law theory? WTF are you talking about? Oy…don't talk about aristotle; it's annoying. Locke believed that laws were justified, transitively, by the light of the divine. The point is that Locke did not believe all people were equal and entitled to equal resources, etc. His arguments galvanized colonialism, and a host of atrocities inflicted upon indigenous peoples. As I said, his metaphysical theories are of much more value than his political theories. HUME is superior to all of the philosophers you've mentioned (a lot moreso than locke and rousseau; less so than hobbes).

It may have taken developed societies to codify our body of inalienable human rights, but they are built on the foundation that we have rights that can neither be granted nor removed by any government.

Well, apparently they can and are. There's only one RIGHT and ONE LAW and all laws are measured against it…that's why they come and they go. Ethics trumps social law; and the two are forever distinct.

It may have taken developed societies to codify our body of inalienable human rights, but they are built on the foundation that we have rights that can neither be granted nor removed by any government.

I know some people like Kenneth Starr might argue otherwise.

But before we go down this rabbit hole I am still wondering what might fit the definition of an "american human right" which other human beings do not deserve. Call me an idealist, but I was under the assumption we were all trying to help each other.

Which two philosophers? You mentioned three. Locke did not believe in the equality of people, or cultures, or civlizations (re: argument for ownership). Innate rights are tricky, because one must first get around to what we mean by innate rights. As I said, with respect to specific laws/cultures, I'm a positivist, but about the overall similarity in bodies of law insofar as they are meant to resolve conflicting interests and enable people to pursue their preference satisfaction, I think that reflects an innate biological drive that is evolved. Thus, no "law" or "right" exists independently of human beings and societies, but bodies of laws, rights, and certain conventions are derived from the species: evolved to facilitate social interaction within a large scale society. Look up Hume's distinction between natural and artificial virtues.

Well no, I didn't think we were having an argument either.

I thought we were arguing similar positions on this thread until you implied that the concept of innate rights was tainted by association with religious people.

(and you haven't said whether you agree with Tim in SF about exclusively American rights).

Or perhaps it's just the fact I am the one making the statement.

I was in Winnipeg, actually. Home of the first openly gay mayor in North America.

I don't care for Rousseau and Locke with regard to their political/legal/ethical theories. Aside from a few arguments, they were wrong almost all of the time. Locke has more to say in his theory of perception.

Hobbes is not a good example of a natural law theorist; though the ruler derived his power divinely. Hume is a much better example of a philosopher I'd refer to in this matter, being both "objective" and "subjective" at the same time; as much a natural law theorist as a legal positivist.

I still don't see an argument…

So natural law is okay when you're touting rousseau, hobbes and locke, but bad when it's me pointing out that our rights to marriage, security and equality are based on that same foundation?

Human rights are the universal whether the subject in question is queer, catholic, or nazi. That's why they are called Universal.

But by all means, enjoy your Great American Rights if you feel it is important to be so special and distinct. I'll enjoy my rights, and my distinctly non-American pride celebrations.

Now that we've been catty back and forth about a word, let's move on.

I do appreciate your respectful comments about my politics. I voted for McCain. Obama has done little to impress me thus far, so I feel good about my decision at the moment.

BTW, I apologize for asking if you were gay in another thread. You were sounding like one of those older, straight females who sometimes post here, so I was actually being serious with that question. No offense was intended.

I don't see an argument against legal positivism. I don't want to read your cut and paste jobs, either, so forget about it. Natural law theory is often used by religious people, too (e.g., Aquinas is perhaps one of the best historical examples). "God's law".

I don't. I wasn't there, so I only have to go on what I can read.

BTW, you sent me the link to the very Wikipedia page I read to check my facts before I made my post regarding the gay youth at Stonewall.

On the other hand, it does come down to the fact that all these rights we are fighting for are innate and universal, and that we are all here to help one another, not build up walls and exclude.

You know what. I had a great time at Pride yesterday, and none of this fucking bullshit is going to erase that. But we're not doing to get our rights recognized by suppressing who we are and stuffing ourselve back into closets.

This whole discussion is fucked, considering that if you want to see a great slut parade all you you just have to show up at any Mardi Gras or Carnival festivity. It's no problem for the straights. Why should we be chiding each other about it?

Pffft!

Well if it applies to non-Americans in your own country then I think you recognize we are not talking about "american" rights, but universal human rights.

You might want to do a bit of research into the concepts and theories of natural law and universal rights.

But if you feel there is some kind of magical firewall between yourself and the rest of the world be my guest.

I'll continue to post here whenever I feel it is appropriate, and I'll continue to have fun at Pride celebrations, wherever I happen to be. I wish you all the best getting those American rights recognized.

On a side note, now he will probably get on my ass about him being able to fight his own battles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS9jBmbdeX4 (I used this video in a class project that I did on Gay and Lesbian Literature Criticism for my undergrad which was done with 3 chicks and another gay guy. I lost points for "not having credible outside sources, but our intent of the whole presentation was to tell it how it was regardless of how pissed off the rest of the class became or how much our grade took a hit for it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

http://www.socialistalternativ.....ewall.html

As a former drag queen (it got way to costly to do it any longer as I live 45 minutes from the closest gay bar), I am damn proud of my sisters and my brothers (those boys that dance for your tips) and their part in the gay movement for the decades that started with Stonewall. The amount of money raised by these people and given away to gay related causes is STAGGERING. If they want to show up and do their thing (most of the time for charity) outdoors during pride month and at pride parades then by all means let them.