Thanks, rfloh, said far better than I could have/would have when I realized I was feeling rather off about not seeing the heaping praise of John's post. STARTING OFF WITH "we're all human, so why are these gay people crowing" misses the point by a country mile. That and the already-mentioned KKK reference is your lead? Then the "and, of course, the church is bad to say so religion politics etc. etc....." Eh.

If that's not what you meant, John, that's certainly how it came off.

I praised John & didn't the same message you did. John has more than once espoused an admirably "Love thy neighbor" brand of Christianity, a brand sadly lacking in the gay marriage debate as well as generally. I read his post as an eloquent appeal not to judge based on sexual orientation, an issue which to John seems inconsequentail vs. God's unconditional love. (for the record I'm a wavering atheist)

I'm OK with pride parades for the reasons stated above & I'll hazard a guess John isn't too upset by them either, although he wishes they were unnecessary. I was just giving John a thumbs up for a decent & thoughtful post. No surprise, really, he is a decent & thoughtful guy.
That's all.

You're comparing gay pride to the KKK? I suggest reading up on the history of homosexuality in the 20th century

Uh no. Although I can see how it was easy to come to that conclusion from what I wrote. It was more an indictment of the illogic of their feelings of superiority--gay pride isn't about being superior (that I know of). I thought that was obvious--I guess not.

Sorry for the confusion.

The other points of the why's of "gay pride" are well taken but I still think it would be more constructive if they played up their humanity (read: every bit as capable of compassion and greatness as anyone) and since they are fully human with all that it implies, they are entitled to the rights enjoyed by humans.

We are who we are and that's not what is important since we have little say in the matter--it's what we do that counts and I just feel the focus on the fact that what they are has no bearing on what they can contribute to society so why is that the focus of their pride/feelings of self-worth?

Isn't that what fear and prejudice is often about--being afraid that the group in question will somehow be "harmful" or a detriment to society at large?

I hope this analogy doesn't fall flat, but what speaks louder about someone's worth: Jackie Robinson or a burning cross? One is saying we are great because of who we are (without offering anything close to concrete proof but is just making a statement) while the other is actively demonstrating worth through achievement and integrity?

I guess I'm just sad that this is an issue at all--you'd think after several millennia of bloodshed, pogroms, death camps, mass graves and suffering we'd realize that hatred based on differences is a major detriment to human happiness.

Best Regards

John

I guess I'm just sad that this is an issue at all--you'd think after several millennia of bloodshed, pogroms, death camps, mass graves and suffering we'd realize that hatred based on differences is a major detriment to human happiness.

That's fine, john. No one participating in a "Gay Pride" parade is pushing hatred, though. Nor should they be seen as inciting it.

Nor should they be seen as inciting it.

Well, I hope nobody thinks I feel that they're inciting hatred by doing it. I was just questioning its utility.

I mean, one Sam M. speaks louder to me than 1000 parades.

Best Regards

John

I wonder if Sam has ever participated in a Gay Pride parade?

I was just questioning its utility.

Do you question the utility of St. Patrick's day parades? Veteran's Day parades? Etc?

I guess I'm just sad that this is an issue at all--you'd think after several millennia of bloodshed, pogroms, death camps, mass graves and suffering we'd realize that hatred based on differences is a major detriment to human happiness.

Agree agree agree.


I just feel the focus on the fact that what they are has no bearing on what they can contribute to society so why is that the focus of their pride/feelings of self-worth?

Because the BASIC sense of self-worth and pride - the things that inform and enable contributions to society, and feeling ok with one's self - have not been given or shown to this population. Those feelings have been beaten down, and taken out of them. The need for pride and self-worth needs is more basic and important than immediate tangible contributions, and needs to come first. And to get it up to that point, some over-shooting and over-compensation cannot exactly be surprising.

One Sam M. speaks louder to you than 1000 parades, however, the parades are more for the POPULATION than for your gratification. They need to speak to each other, too, not just to you. And I know plenty of people, gay friends who wouldn't be caught dead in a pride parade. Definitely.

One Sam M. speaks louder to you than 1000 parades, however, the parades are more for the POPULATION than for your gratification. They need to speak to each other, too, not just to you.

That was my point with the St Paddy's Day example,and to a lesser degree, the Veterans day example.

The St.Paddy's day parades seem to be inclusive (except in the case of gays, here in Boston. A gay Irish Amercian organization was prohibited from marching in the parade here).

The theme of the St Paddy's day parade is "everyone is Irish today!" I can see why a Gay Pride parade may make some folks uncomfortable, if they equate it the same way. Oh well. Too bad for them.

You go to P-Town, and every day is "Gay Pride" day. And, today is probably the most outrageous day of all to hang in P-Town. Halloween is the Gay High Holiday. It's quite a show. Very funny. No tension. Just a good time for all who care to either participate or observe.

Has anything good ever come from the mixing of religion and politics?

I made this point in the other thread. Separation of church and state is in my opinion about the best thing the founders did for us.

As to the rest, it was great to read, but there are reasons they have those parades, as pointed out. Look at it this way: if the polls are correct, we are about to elect a black guy* (yes, I know he's actually mixed, but bear with me) as POTUS. How far away do you think we are from an openly gay president? It is my belief that in many quarters grassroots tolerance of homosexuality is far behind that of race. I would say two generations--maybe more.

*Silver had kind of a funny line on 538 the other day. What odds could you have gotten in 1908 that the USA would elect a black man as President before the Cubs won another World Series?

The need for pride and self-worth needs is more basic and important than immediate tangible contributions, and needs to come first. And to get it up to that point, some over-shooting and over-compensation cannot exactly be surprising.

That's understandable enough.

Best Regards

John

John,

Uh no. Although I can see how it was easy to come to that conclusion from what I wrote. It was more an indictment of the illogic of their feelings of superiority--gay pride isn't about being superior (that I know of). I thought that was obvious--I guess not.

Sorry for the confusion.

I want to make it clear I like your writing a lot, so I wasn't attacking you.

The other points of the why's of "gay pride" are well taken but I still think it would be more constructive if they played up their humanity (read: every bit as capable of compassion and greatness as anyone) and since they are fully human with all that it implies, they are entitled to the rights enjoyed by humans.

But the GLBT community, whether in the US, or Europe, does try to take the human rights and human beings tact too. There are different methods of advocacy. Some people are willing to discuss the issue of equal rights for the GLBT community civilly, without resorting to derogatory remarks, or attempts to "cure" a GLBT person; with those people civil discourse is possible. With politicians like Bill Richardson, who basically made the same point that you are making, albeit in a pretty tortured manner, GLBT people are humans beings, they should have equal rights with other human beings, persuasion and civil discourse is ideal.

With people who consider you sub human, and say so publicly, or advocate forcibly "curing" you, or advocate applying various forms of pressure to "cure" you, do you believe civil discourse is worth the time and frustration and anger?

If an atheist opens a dialogue by making derogatory comments about Christianity, snarks about Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or by stating that you need to "free" yourself, and see that you achieved something difficult particularly difficult yourself, and not via your religious beliefs, ie Josh Hamilton and his addiction problems, what would your reaction be?

We are who we are and that's not what is important since we have little say in the matter--it's what we do that counts and I just feel the focus on the fact that what they are has no bearing on what they can contribute to society so why is that the focus of their pride/feelings of self-worth?

Maybe because oftentimes, even in modern tolerant western societies, a GLBT person, especially a transgendered person is made to feel ashamed of whom they are growing up, or are ostracised growing up. Because sometimes, it is more difficult growing up as GLBT person. Because even today, GLBT people, especially transgendered people, hide whom they are growing up. It's only when they grow older, and are more secure , more financially independent for one, that they dare be who they are. It's still not all that uncommon for parents even in modern western societies to want to have nothing to do with their transgendered kids, in some cases kicking them out of home when they are in their teens, if the child continues to insist on being transgendered.

I hope this analogy doesn't fall flat, but what speaks louder about someone's worth: Jackie Robinson or a burning cross? One is saying we are great because of who we are (without offering anything close to concrete proof but is just making a statement) while the other is actively demonstrating worth through achievement and integrity?

I agree. How do you suggest people like Kent, Smotlz, LaSorda, or Sophia of Spain be convinced of this? How do you suggest the 30 legislators of French National Assembly who published a 453 page Report on the Family and the rights of Children, which rejected same-sex marriage, which stated,

children, confronted with mutations in family models, be fully taken into account and not suffer from situations imposed upon them by adults.

And we're only talking about tolerant modern western(ised) societies here. Not countries where being a GLBT person is a crime, punishable by jail sentences. And where laws against being GLBT are used against opposition politicians.

I guess I'm just sad that this is an issue at all--you'd think after several millennia of bloodshed, pogroms, death camps, mass graves and suffering we'd realize that hatred based on differences is a major detriment to human happiness.

I'm enraged.

I was just questioning its utility.

Do you question the utility of St. Patrick's day parades? Veteran's Day parades? Etc?

Without pretending for a second that in everyday life gays are accepted on the level of Irishmen or Veterans, the truth is that in at least a few cities, the annual Gay Pride parade has been just about as co-opted by the local officials as St. Patrick's Day itself. But beyond that I think that Lassus is correct, that the point of the parades is its effect on the participants more than anything else. I can only reach back to my own memories of the innumerable civil rights marches I was in, in order to understand that.

I can only reach back to my own memories of the innumerable civil rights marches I was in, in order to understand that.

I can't help but wonder if that would be a better approach.

To me, it's a lot like the collusion issue and Barry Bonds. What I mean is this--Bonds is such a lightning rod for emotional, visceral reaction that it is difficult to get people to look at the larger issue: collusion and its effects on the spirit of competition. Instead you get a lot of "OMFG, look at teh size of his head u arsehole!!1!!"

I can't help but wonder that because of generations of negativity, people's emotions on the subject tend to cloud the larger issue.

Perhaps getting some emotion going in the other direction might be useful. Most feel very strongly about "civil rights" and what was accomplished in the 1960's in "consciousness raising."

Here's the thing, we like sex and it's everywhere. You might say that it's a "noisy" (heh) subject. The thing is, it's not a sexual issue yet it is often perceived as such in many quarters. The "noise" causes the main issue to be drowned out--that it is about civil rights and not about advertising your preference in intimate matters. To me, the focus should be on rights, but indirectly and inadvertently playing up the sexual angle "gay pride" it's causing folks to miss the main issue.

I don't know, I'm kind of plowing some new ground here mentally and am working my way through it. Maybe going the civil rights direction might prove more productive.

BTW, rfloh--great post and no, I didn't view your earlier points as an attack. I have appreciated everybody's thoughtful feedback.

Best Regards

John

To me, the focus should be on rights, but indirectly and inadvertently playing up the sexual angle "gay pride" it's causing folks to miss the main issue.

This is somewhat off-topic, but to me this whole thing merely points out how ridiculous the whole notion of state-sponsored marriage really is. To me, government has no business whatsoever in marriages.

To me, government has no business whatsoever in marriages.

Agreed, but the genie is out of the bottle, isn't it?

Civil rights marches and demonstrations such as sit-ins, at least those in the South, always served four purposes: (1) Chipping away at the fear factor in the black community, which was understandably enormous once you got into the small town and rural areas of the Deep South; (2) showing the local white community that the Jim Crow status quo wasn't acceptable, and trying to get them to see how it looked from the other side of the tracks; (3) using the national media as a means of alerting the country as a whole to the brutal reality of southern conditions; and (4) putting pressure on the federal government to get involved in what up to then had been seen as an intractable local problem.

Not being gay, it's not for me to read the motivations of those who take part in Gay Pride marches, but if you change "black" to "gay," strike "of the Deep South" out of the first part, and substitute "local" for "southern" in the third part, the parallels might not be all that much of a stretch. You can take the analogies too far---it's easier for a nervous gay person to "pass" than it would be for a dark-skinned African American---but the comparisons between gays and blacks aren't completely out of line. In both cases it comes down to the simple question: Are we serious when we talk about human rights?

Are we serious when we talk about human rights?

The perfect question.

Best Regards

John