NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.qx.se/nyheter/bilder/200709/20070929092439.jpg

So, religionists are getting their knickers in a twist (http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=23319) over the evil homosexuals and are demanding "apologies" and threatening "boycotts" over those fucking faggots using religious imagery in an ad for the Folsom Street Fair.

Because you know, there is nothing more insulting in this world than homosexuality. Nothing more humiliating - nothing more their little cosmic Jew would despise more! Well, to them I say "piss off, you homophobic wankers!"

Be it Mohammed pictures or Christian icons, I don't give a crap. Kvetch all they want, long since has the time passed when their little delusions and magical beings in the sky got to dictate to us perverts and workers of iniquity what is and is not comme il faut.

Personally, I like the reference, but - as is our habit - Sweden's "been there, done that" a decade ago, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29) and we did it in a church with the arch bishop's blessings. Nice to see others catching up, even if ever so slightly.

Religionists have a twisted concept of reality...

http://www.chick.com/tractimages59879/5003/5003_02.gif

To them, it's maddening mobs of homosexuals screaming epithets at their peaceful protest against homosexuals, while being mowed down by the mob and secular forces, brutalized and then being thrown in jail for "hate crimes" by just standing there...

IOW the absolute opposite of what is ACTUALLY is happening.

Typically they (the religionists) are standing on the side, screaming epithets, and then being arrested for instigating brawls.

Well, if you're anything to go by Fass, then there really is nothing more insulting in this world than homosexuals. I wonder whether I got my grammar right there

For me, it was a fairly subtle image. I didn't get it straight away, and probably wouldn't have had unless I had been told that there was a religious symbol in the picture.

But then on another level I don't like it so much. It's another picture that suggests that homosexuals are all about sex. Homosexuality might be, but not homosexuals. It's a subtle difference. Bah, what do I care anyway, it's just a picture.

I disagree with you. I think religious people should have the right to protest anything they disagree with, it's their country as well as the gays and the atheists. The answer is to call them out on their bigotry -- tell them what you think of them, and let them on their way. A Christian shouldn't be told to shut up simply because he disagrees.

It's another picture that suggests that homosexuals are all about sex.

Nope, it's a picture that suggests that the Folsom Street Fair is all about Leather Pride and the sexual connections thereto. Which it is. So...?

Well, if you're anything to go by Fass, then there really is nothing more insulting in this world than homosexuals. I wonder whether I got my grammar right there

For me, it was a fairly subtle image. I didn't get it straight away, and probably wouldn't have had unless I had been told that there was a religious symbol in the picture.

But then on another level I don't like it so much. It's another picture that suggests that homosexuals are all about sex. Homosexuality might be, but not homosexuals. It's a subtle difference. Bah, what do I care anyway, it's just a picture.

I can't really say I care. Religious nutjobs have decried the evil of everything forever; few take them seriously.

I don't really give a shit if homophobic 'religionists' protest against homosexual religious imagery, it's to be expected.

The answer is to call them out on their bigotry -- tell them what you think of them, and let them on their way. A Christian shouldn't be told to shut up simply because he disagrees.

I just did. I told them to piss off. And I'll tell them to shut up over whatever I want - it's a hell of a lot more pleasant than what they would do to me had the brave people who came before me not told them to stuff it.

http://www.qx.se/nyheter/bilder/200709/20070929092439.jpg

So, religionists are getting their knickers in a twist (http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=23319) over the evil homosexuals and are demanding "apologies" and threatening "boycotts" over those fucking faggots using religious imagery in an ad for the Folsom Street Fair.

Because you know, there is nothing more insulting in this world than homosexuality. Nothing more humiliating - nothing more their little cosmic Jew would despise more! Well, to them I say "piss off, you homophobic wankers!"

Be it Mohammed pictures or Christian icons, I don't give a crap. Kvetch all they want, long since has the time passed when their little delusions and magical beings in the sky got to dictate to us perverts and workers of iniquity what is and is not comme il faut.

Personally, I like the reference, but - as is our habit - Sweden's "been there, done that" a decade ago, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29) and we did it in a church with the arch bishop's blessings. Nice to see others catching up, even if ever so slightly.

Religious folks bitching about teh ebil gay? What the bloody fuck else is new?

Oh, and hey Fass, been a while.

They have a right to be upset.
This implies that Catholic hierarchy is into of-age men.

Religious folks bitching about teh ebil gay? What the bloody fuck else is new?

But you see, this time it's not the Muslims that are getting their knickers in a twist over a "blasphemous" image. It's other religionists. Just goes to show they're all of the same concrete.

Nope, it's a picture that suggests that the Folsom Street Fair is all about Leather Pride and the sexual connections thereto. Which it is. So...?Fair enough.

But the instances of depictions of homosexuals for reasons other than sex are few and far between. And that bothers me.

But you see, this time it's not the Muslims that are getting their knickers in a twist over a "blasphemous" image. It's other religionists. Just goes to show they're all of the same concrete.

Although I'm not really seeing any rioting and mass violence.

But the instances of depictions of homosexuals for reasons other than sex are few and far between. And that bothers me.

It bothers me (actually, it doesn't - I couldn't really give a crap) that you don't seem to have looked very much at all for these "depictions of homosexuals".

Although I'm not really seeing any rioting and mass violence.

Neither did I with the Muslims in the west.

Fair enough.

But the instances of depictions of homosexuals for reasons other than sex are few and far between. And that bothers me.

Well, what is different between homo/hetero/bisexuals is their sexuality, so when they aren't expressing their sexuality you won't know, you have no reason to.

It bothers me (actually, it doesn't - I couldn't really give a crap) that you don't seem to have looked very much at all for these "depictions of homosexuals".Why should I have to look. If I have to look then it means such instances are rare and generally not in line with societal norms.

I just did. I told them to piss off. And I'll tell them to shut up over whatever I want - it's a hell of a lot more pleasant than what they would do to me had the brave people who came before me not told them to stuff it.

I really gotta go with Fass on this one.

But the instances of depictions of homosexuals for reasons other than sex are few and far between. And that bothers me.

How is a depiction of a homosexual in ways not related to his/her sexuality any different than a depiction of a heterosexual in ways not related to his/her sexuality?

I can think of numerious shows plays and movies that had gay characters who weren't constantly having gay sex

Well, what is different between homo/hetero/bisexuals is their sexuality, so when they aren't expressing their sexuality you won't know, you have no reason to.

How is a depiction of a homosexual in ways not related to his/her sexuality any different than a depiction of a heterosexual in ways not related to his/her sexuality?The most frequent depiction of homosexuals is as a bit character who have a crisis related to homosexuality, and then disapear never to be heard of again. An example of which is Skins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skins_%28TV_series%29).

I can think of numerious shows plays and movies that had gay characters who weren't constantly having gay sexCare to mention any, because my mind is drawing blanks a the moment.

But you see, this time it's not the Muslims that are getting their knickers in a twist over a "blasphemous" image. It's other religionists. Just goes to show they're all of the same concrete.

Granted, but I hope you won't be overly surprised to hear that Hindus can get their knickers in a twist about stuff like this too.

I think it goes for pretty much anyone who believes in a religion.

Who cares really? Its just another reason for you to bitch about how terrible people of religion are, because God knows that none are really worthy of life.

I'm surprised that you didn't expect such a thing. Either you really didn't, or maybe you just want to go on complaining about the tragedies of speaking openly against something people don't agree with on a moral basis.

http://www.qx.se/nyheter/bilder/200709/20070929092439.jpg

So, religionists are getting their knickers in a twist (http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=23319) over the evil homosexuals and are demanding "apologies" and threatening "boycotts" over those fucking faggots using religious imagery in an ad for the Folsom Street Fair.

Because you know, there is nothing more insulting in this world than homosexuality. Nothing more humiliating - nothing more their little cosmic Jew would despise more! Well, to them I say "piss off, you homophobic wankers!"

Be it Mohammed pictures or Christian icons, I don't give a crap. Kvetch all they want, long since has the time passed when their little delusions and magical beings in the sky got to dictate to us perverts and workers of iniquity what is and is not comme il faut.

Personally, I like the reference, but - as is our habit - Sweden's "been there, done that" a decade ago, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29) and we did it in a church with the arch bishop's blessings. Nice to see others catching up, even if ever so slightly.

That post is not surprising on so many levels... Two I guess.

http://www.qx.se/nyheter/bilder/200709/20070929092439.jpg
That's a great picture. I can't believe some people are getting all righteous over it. I like the design. Besides, how different is this from the original anyway? Last I checked, both were littered with men; the only real difference being in the attire.

I will have to side with Fass on this. The objects are quite unreasonable given what this is based on.

Care to mention any, because my mind is drawing blanks a the moment.

Will and Grace, Ellen, Rent, Entourage, Friends, Roseanne, Dynasty, The L word, Queer as Folk some reality tv programmer about a personal trainer woh is a lesbian, forget what it's called...Babylon 5, Law and Order, in the Xmen comic books Mystique is bisesual and one male mutant whose name I forget is gay...although he's not a character in the show, one character in Scrubs has a gay son who is mentioned occassionally...


That's what I got off the top of my head.

The most frequent depiction of homosexuals is as a bit character who have a crisis related to homosexuality, and then disapear never to be heard of again. An example of which is Skins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skins_%28TV_series%29).


Really? I've never heard of skins, and I can't think of any other examples. Anyway, Heterosexuals are always being portrayed for their melodramtic dating dilemas and sexuality on TV. Homo/bisexuals are just noticed more.

Really? I've never heard of skins, and I can't think of any other examples. Anyway, Heterosexuals are always being portrayed for their melodramtic dating dilemas and sexuality on TV. Homo/bisexuals are just noticed more.Skins was only first shown in the UK 6 months ago. It probably hasn't made it across the pond yet.

But anyway, this is enough to shut me up.

Will and Grace, Ellen, Rent, Entourage, Friends, Roseanne, Dynasty, The L word, Queer as Folk some reality tv programmer about a personal trainer woh is a lesbian, forget what it's called...Babylon 5, Law and Order, in the Xmen comic books Mystique is bisesual and one male mutant whose name I forget is gay...although he's not a character in the show, one character in Scrubs has a gay son who is mentioned occassionally...


That's what I got off the top of my head.Half of those are good examples. With the rest I can't think at all who you're referring to... like Friends...

I disagree with you. I think religious people should have the right to protest anything they disagree with, it's their country as well as the gays and the atheists. The answer is to call them out on their bigotry -- tell them what you think of them, and let them on their way. A Christian shouldn't be told to shut up simply because he disagrees.

They have every right to protest and complain, just as we have every right to tell them to fuck off back to the Dark Ages. Freedom of Speech cuts both ways.

Will and Grace, Ellen, Rent, Entourage, Friends, Roseanne, Dynasty, The L word, Queer as Folk some reality tv programmer about a personal trainer woh is a lesbian, forget what it's called...Babylon 5, Law and Order, in the Xmen comic books Mystique is bisesual and one male mutant whose name I forget is gay...although he's not a character in the show, one character in Scrubs has a gay son who is mentioned occassionally...


That's what I got off the top of my head.Hell, on most of those the gays are practically celibate.

Half of those are good examples. With the rest I can't think at all who you're referring to... like Friends...Ross's first wife, Carol, left him for another woman. Carol is the mother of Ben, Ross's son.

Hell, on most of those the gays are practically celibate.

Ross's first wife, Carol, left him for another woman. Carol is the mother of Ben, Ross's son.Bit character don't count. Mainly because there sole purpose is to provide for a certain set up, with little to no characterisation of the character. Carol's being so that Ross is seen as a guy who is completely hopeless with women and is fairly insecure about it.

The funny thing is, the man who painted the picture this poster is parodying was homosexual himself. It's only fitting, actually, that it be used for this.

The funny thing is, the man who painted the picture this poster is parodying was homosexual himself. It's only fitting, actually, that it be used for this.

That's the really glorious irony in all of this - the homophobic religionists bitching about the fags making use of the imagery painted by another fag.

"Today Da Vinci, tomorrow that other huge fag, Michaelangelo!"

That's the really glorious irony in all of this - the homophobic religionists bitching about the fags making use of the imagery painted by another fag.

"Today Da Vinci, tomorrow that other huge fag, Michaelangelo!"

Shhhhhhh, You'll topple their self delusion.

True, but even shows where a main character is gay, it's rare for it to be shown in a relationship. It was a big deal here for there to be a male/male kiss shown on TV.

People in the US are generally prudes when it comes to this stuff.

Bit character don't count. Mainly because there sole purpose is to provide for a certain set up, with little to no characterisation of the character. Carol's being so that Ross is seen as a guy who is completely hopeless with women and is fairly insecure about it.True, but even shows where a main character is gay, it's rare for it to be shown in a relationship. It was a big deal here for there to be a male/male kiss shown on TV.

...
So, religionists are getting their knickers in a twist (http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=23319) over the evil homosexuals and are demanding "apologies" and threatening "boycotts" over those fucking faggots using religious imagery in an ad for the Folsom Street Fair.
....

I don't understand your objections to their objections. It's entirely self-evident that this add/poster was designed with the direct purpose of drawing attention to itself. The more objectionable it is the more it would be talked about, the more it is talked about the more successful it would be as an advertisement for the fair that it is promoting. Obviously the intention of this years add designers was to offend some people and get the poster/add noticed, if offensive enough it would end up being shown in media outlets that otherwise would never have bothered to show their poster. Free and wide spread media coverage by purposely being offensive.

Why then are you protesting that the purpose of the add was achieved?

Bit character don't count. Mainly because there sole purpose is to provide for a certain set up, with little to no characterisation of the character. Carol's being so that Ross is seen as a guy who is completely hopeless with women and is fairly insecure about it.

see now you're shifting goalposts a bit. Everything in a sit come ia a setup for something else. I can think of a ton of examples where heterosexual relationships are used for the exact same purpose. Elaine and Jerry's relationship in Seinfeld, Frasier's ongoing woman problems and Nigel's relationship with his two ex wives and Daphne in Frasier,

Now true, a lot of times homosexual characters are brought in is for the purpose of introducing their homosexuality as, in and of itself, being somewhat related to the story, and fully fleshed out characters who also happen to be homosexual is less common, but it does happen.

Sometimes it happens so subtly (such as in Babylon 5) where the characters homosexuality/bisexuality is only recently discussed.

oh, and another. Buffy, where Willow and Tarra, and later WIllow and Kennedy, were overt lesbian lovers.

It took me until I read the article to finally realize what the religious symbolism was. I had no idea it was a depiction of the last supper.

Meh, screw those complaining. It's a free speech thing.

Because, of course, deliberately selecting to parody The Last Supper was not trying to get precisely this reaction.

Get down off your cross, there, Fass. When folks poke a sleeping dog with a stick, they shouldn't be surprised at the snarls.

I think it goes for pretty much anyone who believes in a religion.

I might postulate that anyone who believes in anything at all, religious or otherwise, gets their panties in a bunch whenever they see something that they perceive as insulting tho their beliefs. It's one of our favorite pastimes as human beings, being outraged at the injustice of it all.

I mean, should I be surprised to see Fass kvetching about religionists kvetching? Hardly.

When folks poke a sleeping dog with a stick, they shouldn't be surprised at the snarls.

Ooooh...

It gets me everytime...

Because, of course, deliberately selecting to parody The Last Supper was not trying to get precisely this reaction.

Get down off your cross, there, Fass. When folks poke a sleeping dog with a stick, they shouldn't be surprised at the snarls.

While I agree that there should be no suprise if we don't keep pushing the limit of what they accept how are we ever supposed to get them to a somewhat reasonable level

As far as this goes it was more subtle then it could have been in fact I did not realize it without being told off hand

in the Xmen comic books Mystique is bisesual and one male mutant whose name I forget is gay...


That would be "Northstar" who teaches economics.

http://www.qx.se/nyheter/bilder/200709/20070929092439.jpg

So, religionists are getting their knickers in a twist (http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=23319) over the evil homosexuals and are demanding "apologies" and threatening "boycotts" over those fucking faggots using religious imagery in an ad for the Folsom Street Fair.

Because you know, there is nothing more insulting in this world than homosexuality. Nothing more humiliating - nothing more their little cosmic Jew would despise more! Well, to them I say "piss off, you homophobic wankers!"

Be it Mohammed pictures or Christian icons, I don't give a crap. Kvetch all they want, long since has the time passed when their little delusions and magical beings in the sky got to dictate to us perverts and workers of iniquity what is and is not comme il faut.

Personally, I like the reference, but - as is our habit - Sweden's "been there, done that" a decade ago, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29) and we did it in a church with the arch bishop's blessings. Nice to see others catching up, even if ever so slightly.

Kvetch. That's a funny word. I'll add it to my vocabulary.

Anyway, completely regardless of my opinions and attitudes towards christianity, religion, homosexuals, and homosexuality, I'm going to side with the religionists on this issue.

Yes, many christians are offended by gays. This is because gay sex is forbidden in the Bible. Therefore any explicit unification of christian symbolism with homosexuality is going to piss people off. It's almost like having a neo-nazi rally in a synagogue. Personally, I don't know why homosexuality is such a big deal to fundies compared to other sins, but that's irrelevant in regards to this matter.

Now, since homosexuality has nothing to inherently do with christianity, the only conceivable reason for using christian symbology like this is to deliberately piss christians off. That is bad form, no matter which holes you like to explore with your penis.

No, I'm not saying that the fundies will stop hassling gays even if gays refrain from using christian symbols offensively, but two wrongs won't make a right. Because of free speech, I wouldn't expect or even want them to apologize, just like I didn't want anyone to apologize for the Muhammed pictures. What I would expect of them is to not whine about homophobes. The gays lose their moral high ground with stuff like this.

That's the really glorious irony in all of this - the homophobic religionists bitching about the fags making use of the imagery painted by another fag.

"Today Da Vinci, tomorrow that other huge fag, Michaelangelo!"

...but since their works themselves are not (at least explicitly) offensive to christianity, their sexual orientation doesn't matter. First of all, the Bible doesn't forbid homosexuality itself, just the act of gay sex between men. Anyone, who says otherwise, doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Gay sex is a sin, according to christianity. But then, christianity defines sin so strictly that every human being is a sinner. If the works of gay sinners were to be boycotted, then the works of straight sinners should be as well. The type of the sin shouldn't matter.

It's almost like having a neo-nazi rally in a synagogue.

Unless homosexuals suddenly became a movement that, as one of its main proponents, advocates the wholesale slaughter and genocide of christians...no, it's actually nothing like it, and that is an extraordinarily crappy analogy.

Homosexuals didn't murder christians en mass. Homosexuals didn't force christians into ghettos. The comparison is, frankly, disgusting.

Fact: some religious zealots take extreme, unhealthy pleasure in doing everything in their power to spread hate and intolerance towards gays.

An eye for an eye, I say. If some gays want to kick them in the metaphorical religious nuts by appropriating their religious imagery and using it as their own, then tough cookies on the fundies.

There are gay Christians out there, and they too are free to interpret, portray, and celebrate their religion as they see fit. If some bears want to make a publicity on a "last supper" thematic, they're perfectly entitled to do so.

The religious radicals can rant as much as they like. Let them froth at the mouth, it shows the rest of the world just how anal retentive, contemptuous, self-righteous and hypocritical they are.

Unless homosexuals suddenly became a movement that, as one of its main proponents, advocates the wholesale slaughter and genocide of christians...no, it's actually nothing like it, and that is an extraordinarily crappy analogy.

That is rather irrelevant, since neo-nazis don't have the means to actually commit any genocides, and at least I haven't heard of them killing a lot of individual jews lately. The point was just that having a neo-nazi rally in a synagogue would be incredibly offensive to jews, because it would combine something that they consider evil and vile, with something that is holy to them, thus defiling the holiness. It's not a perfect analogy, but it could have been worse.

That is rather irrelevant, since neo-nazis don't have the means to actually commit any genocides, and at least I haven't heard of them killing a lot of individual jews lately. The point was just that having a neo-nazi rally in a synagogue would be incredibly offensive to jews, because it would combine something that they consider evil and vile, with something that is holy to them, thus defiling the holiness. .

and again you missed the point. Yes, allowing Nazis to have a rally in a synagogue would be remarkably offensive because, and wait for it, Nazis...killed jews. These guys...make a parody of a painting. A painting of an event that occured 1500 years before the painting was made. A painting by a man who was not only a homosexual, but regularly had homosexual sex. A painting by a man who, by all indication, would be queen of the gay pride parade.

What holy symbol? What sacred image? A painting by a man who had more in common with the ones parodying the picture than the ones who are offended?

Sorry, no, it's a damned bad analogy.

You know, I'm be tempted to say a closer (but still not quite accurate) analogy would be a Jewish organization using a parody of Nazi symbolism in one of their ads.

You know, I'm be tempted to say a closer (but still not quite accurate) analogy would be a Jewish organization using a parody of Nazi symbolism in one of their ads.

you're right. The far closer analogy would be a Jewish organization using a parody of a painting that contained nazi symbolism, that was painted by a jew.

You know, I'm be tempted to say a closer (but still not quite accurate) analogy would be a Jewish organization using a parody of Nazi symbolism in one of their ads.

Yes, because Neo Nazis are kinda running low on reasons to rant about Judaism as of late.

:p

and again you missed the point. Yes, allowing Nazis to have a rally in a synagogue would be remarkably offensive because, and wait for it, Nazis...killed jews. These guys...make a parody of a painting. A painting of an event that occured 1500 years before the painting was made. A painting by a man who was not only a homosexual, but regularly had homosexual sex. A painting by a man who, by all indication, would be queen of the gay pride parade.

What holy symbol? What sacred image? A painting by a man who had more in common with the ones parodying the picture than the ones who are offended?

Sorry, no, it's a damned bad analogy.

Like I said earlier, I have no idea why some christians are so mortally offended by gays. But they are. It doesn't matter why the offensive thing is offensive, because the reaction among the offended is the same. There would be a difference only if the nazis had the capability to actually cause jews to be killed with their rallying. As it is, both cause nothing but unnecessary grief.

What the nazis have done to jews and gays to christians, might matter to outside observers such as us. The jews and christians are not in the position to examine this so objectively.

I explained earlier, why the orientation of the artist doesn't matter.

You know, I'm be tempted to say a closer (but still not quite accurate) analogy would be a Jewish organization using a parody of Nazi symbolism in one of their ads.

It would be more accurate, but it wouldn't work in this context. It's because I'm trying to help people see this thing from the christian fundies' point of view, and people don't generally want to relate with nazis.

It would be more accurate, but it wouldn't work in this context. It's because I'm trying to help people see this thing from the christian fundies' point of view, and people don't generally want to relate with nazis.

Tell ya what once they stop being oppressive and degrading to homosexuality those of us on the other side of the fence will stop pushing the envelope

I dont care if they dont like it personally maybe we can at least desensitize them to this sort of thing so they curb many of their extremist behaviors

Tell ya what once they stop being oppressive and degrading to homosexuality those of us on the other side of the fence will stop pushing the envelope

I dont care if they dont like it personally maybe we can at least desensitize them to this sort of thing so they curb many of their extremist behaviors

They are being "Degrading to homosexuality?" More degrading than dressing up in leather chaps and participating in mock sexual orgies in the streets, proving the very point of their objections? Interesting.

Curb their extremist bahaviors? What is the entire point of the fair/parade in question if it's not an excuse to perform extremist behavior in public and get away with it?

I'm sure the people that object to the parade/fair and the poster/add in question in this topic would also object to New Orleans’ Mardi Gras heterosexual behaviors as well, so it’s not likely just a homophobic objection but a sexuality in public objection and then their objections are compounded by their feelings of being 'targetted' for mockery by the add/promotion for the event as well.

They are being "Degrading to homosexuality?" More degrading than dressing up in leather chaps and participating in mock sexual orgies in the streets, proving the very point of their objections? Interesting.

Actually, the "point" of doing those wild and outrageous things is to emphasize that there's nothing wrong with it. Adults have sex. Consensual sex between adults is not wrong, no matter how weird or icky somebody else may find it.

So yeah, some people object to such things. Just like some people object to the existence of homosexuality. The point of the Pride parade is to inform those people that gay people are still gay anyhow. Gay people are going to be themselves, and they are going to be as outrageous as they want, because it's a free fucking country (pun intended).


Curb their extremist bahaviors? What is the entire point of the fair/parade in question if it's not an excuse to perform extremist behavior in public and get away with it?

What do you mean, "get away with it"? Dressing up in leather gear isn't illegal. Making out in public isn't illegal. What's there to "get away with"?

Here, let me answer that: the reason gay people can't be wild and outrageous in public all the time is not because it's illegal, but because some asshole homophobes will ILLEGALLY beat the living shit out of gay people under normal circumstances.

At Pride, however, gay people can feel safe. They can be wild and crazy because they know that they're not going to get jumped by a bunch of homophobes.

Anyhow, straight people get nutty at festivals and parades, too, so it's nothing remotely unique to gay people. Safely in crazy numbers, and all that.

Religionists always kvetch.

Customer (Christian):"Why are you working on a Sunday?"
Employee:"Why are you patronizing businesses on Sunday if you don't think people should work that day?"

Actually, the "point" of doing those wild and outrageous things is to emphasize that there's nothing wrong with it. Adults have sex. Consensual sex between adults is not wrong, no matter how weird or icky somebody else may find it.

So yeah, some people object to such things. Just like some people object to the existence of homosexuality. The point of the Pride parade is to inform those people that gay people are still gay anyhow. Gay people are going to be themselves, and they are going to be as outrageous as they want, because it's a free fucking country (pun intended).

This isn't technically a 'gay pride' parade, it's a festival celebrating leather outfits.

Here, let me answer that: the reason gay people can't be wild and outrageous in public all the time is not because it's illegal, but because some asshole homophobes will ILLEGALLY beat the living shit out of gay people under normal circumstances.

At Pride, however, gay people can feel safe. They can be wild and crazy because they know that they're not going to get jumped by a bunch of homophobes.

I don't think that's much of a problem in San Francisco anymore. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a festival is just an annual excuse to host a party.

Anyhow, straight people get nutty at festivals and parades, too, so it's nothing remotely unique to gay people. Safely in crazy numbers, and all that.

I totally agree, in fact, actually, I think I already said that, when I said...


I'm sure the people that object to the parade/fair and the poster/add in question in this topic would also object to New Orleans’ Mardi Gras heterosexual behaviors as well, so it’s not likely just a homophobic objection but a sexuality in public objection and then their objections are compounded by their feelings of being 'targeted' for mockery by the add/promotion for the event as well.

Religionists always kvetch.

Customer (Christian):"Why are you working on a Sunday?"
Employee:"Why are you patronizing businesses on Sunday if you don't think people should work that day?"

actually it's not that bad that shops are closed on Sunday. Smaller businesses can't afford to hire more people the way large shops can. That way small business owners also get a day rest. (of course other work can still be done on Sundays)

actually it's not that bad that shops are closed on Sunday. Smaller businesses can't afford to hire more people the way large shops can. That way small business owners also get a day rest. (of course other work can still be done on Sundays)

True, though that doesn't mean they have to pick Sunday. Matter of fact, most of the Indian businesses and restaurants in my area are closed on Mondays, because it's the slowest business day of the week (we Indians like to shop on Sundays while y'all are at church.)

They are being "Degrading to homosexuality?" More degrading than dressing up in leather chaps and participating in mock sexual orgies in the streets, proving the very point of their objections?

Yep.

Will and Grace, Ellen, Rent, Entourage, Friends, Roseanne, Dynasty, The L word, Queer as Folk some reality tv programmer about a personal trainer woh is a lesbian, forget what it's called...Babylon 5, Law and Order, in the Xmen comic books Mystique is bisesual and one male mutant whose name I forget is gay...although he's not a character in the show, one character in Scrubs has a gay son who is mentioned occassionally...

That's what I got off the top of my head.

There was also Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which responded to righties' supposition that "homos don't take their relationships seriously" with "oh yeah? Willow's girlfriend got shot, so she flayed the guy alive then tried to end the whole world." :D Dark Willow rocked :)

http://www.qx.se/nyheter/bilder/200709/20070929092439.jpg

a decade ago, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29) and we did it in a church with the arch bishop's blessings. Nice to see others catching up, even if ever so slightly.

haha.
Those are awesome.

http://www.qx.se/nyheter/bilder/200709/20070929092439.jpg

meh. They're prob just jealous of the physiques.

meh. They're prob just jealous of the physiques.

I know I am... darned sexier-than-me gits... ah well, at least they're not trying to steal mah girlie from me (that's something I really don't understand - christians care more about homosexuality than adultery! I don't care who you sleep with to be honest... just don't steal them from me... please)

They are being "Degrading to homosexuality?" More degrading than dressing up in leather chaps and participating in mock sexual orgies in the streets, proving the very point of their objections? Interesting.

Curb their extremist bahaviors? What is the entire point of the fair/parade in question if it's not an excuse to perform extremist behavior in public and get away with it?[...]


I think it bears mentioning that Folsom is primarily a leather/fetish festival, attended mostly- but not exclusively- by gay people, not a 'gay festival' coincidentally attended mostly by kinky people.

That said, someone- gay, straight, or in this case kinky- participating in a street festival celebrating kinky sexuality isn't "degrading" themselves, they're enjoying their liberty. "Degrading" is being told "you can't do that because it's 'sick.'" And calling that behaviour- which is consentual by everyone involved and as much a matter of subjective, personal taste as being 'vanilla' is- "extremist" says as much (or more) about the person saying it as it does about the person being labelled. Participants in Folsom aren't there to say "look at me, I'm so extreme!" They're there because kink is what they're into, and they don't think that makes them 'sick' or 'wrong,' and as such they don't feel like they should be forced to keep it hidden like some dirty secret. Similar to how the average straight, vanilla person probably doesn't feel sick or wrong, and doesn't feel like their chosen way of displaying affection (be it holding hands, making out, etc) is something to be ashamed of or cooped up behind closed doors.

Fact: some religious zealots take extreme, unhealthy pleasure in doing everything in their power to spread hate and intolerance towards gays.

An eye for an eye, I say. If some gays want to kick them in the metaphorical religious nuts by appropriating their religious imagery and using it as their own, then tough cookies on the fundies.


You realize that's from the Bible, right?

actually it's not that bad that shops are closed on Sunday. Smaller businesses can't afford to hire more people the way large shops can. That way small business owners also get a day rest. (of course other work can still be done on Sundays)

Oh, I know... The point is, however, why would a group who feels working on Sunday is wrong, patronize a business on Sunday... It's like going to a sex shop to buy a dildo and then telling the employees these shops are sinful.

News flash: Fassigen hates Christians and other "religionists" so much that he doesn't give a damn what they think :rolleyes:

Fassigen, please, by all means, remain a sexual deviant for the remainder of your natural life, thereby rendering the human race the highest possible service you can by withdrawing your genes from the gene pool. Never, never, never have normal sex with a human female, as that might result in your accidentally procreating, not to mention getting you kicked out of the club. And never donate to a sperm bank either.

I don't know whether to pity you, pray for you or just wait in eager anticipation for the time you come knocking on the Pearly Gates, when St. Peter tells you to turn around and bend over, and the sudden smile on your face at that request turns to a grimace as he kicks you the hell out of the kingdom.

Actually, I do know ;)

News flash: Fassigen hates Christians and other "religionists" so much that he doesn't give a damn what they think :rolleyes:

Fassigen, please, by all means, remain a sexual deviant for the remainder of your natural life, thereby rendering the human race the highest possible service you can by withdrawing your genes from the gene pool. Never, never, never have normal sex with a human female, as that might result in your accidentally procreating, not to mention getting you kicked out of the club. And never donate to a sperm bank either.

I don't know whether to pity you, pray for you or just wait in eager anticipation for the time you come knocking on the Pearly Gates, when St. Peter tells you to turn around and bend over, and the sudden smile on your face at that request turns to a grimace as he kicks you the hell out of the kingdom.

Actually, I do know ;)

From what I have read he cares for that sort of attitude about as little as any thing else, you may have cause to worry if you keep it up.

I disagree with you. I think religious people should have the right to protest anything they disagree with, it's their country as well as the gays and the atheists. The answer is to call them out on their bigotry -- tell them what you think of them, and let them on their way. A Christian shouldn't be told to shut up simply because he disagrees.

It's not the fact that they disagree per se. It's the fact that most - not all- but most Christians that decide to protest are stupid. And when smart people protest, people get the point of the protest. When stupid people protest, people get pissed off and want to riot.

News flash: Fassigen hates Christians and other "religionists" so much that he doesn't give a damn what they think :rolleyes:

Fassigen, please, by all means, remain a sexual deviant for the remainder of your natural life, thereby rendering the human race the highest possible service you can by withdrawing your genes from the gene pool. Never, never, never have normal sex with a human female, as that might result in your accidentally procreating, not to mention getting you kicked out of the club. And never donate to a sperm bank either.

I don't know whether to pity you, pray for you or just wait in eager anticipation for the time you come knocking on the Pearly Gates, when St. Peter tells you to turn around and bend over, and the sudden smile on your face at that request turns to a grimace as he kicks you the hell out of the kingdom.

Actually, I do know ;)
New Mittani, as usual your inability to be even remotely reasonable or respectful causes me to grimace.

News flash: Fassigen hates Christians and other "religionists" so much that he doesn't give a damn what they think :rolleyes:

Fassigen, please, by all means, remain a sexual deviant for the remainder of your natural life, thereby rendering the human race the highest possible service you can by withdrawing your genes from the gene pool. Never, never, never have normal sex with a human female, as that might result in your accidentally procreating, not to mention getting you kicked out of the club. And never donate to a sperm bank either.

I don't know whether to pity you, pray for you or just wait in eager anticipation for the time you come knocking on the Pearly Gates, when St. Peter tells you to turn around and bend over, and the sudden smile on your face at that request turns to a grimace as he kicks you the hell out of the kingdom.

Actually, I do know ;)

If Fass didn't give a damn what they think, Fass wouldn't be posting an opinion of this event. People who don't give a damn about someones viewpoint, simply do not address said viewpoint.

There's a big difference between not caring about something, and being opposed to something.

News flash: Fassigen hates Christians and other "religionists" so much that he doesn't give a damn what they think :rolleyes:

Fassigen, please, by all means, remain a sexual deviant for the remainder of your natural life, thereby rendering the human race the highest possible service you can by withdrawing your genes from the gene pool. Never, never, never have normal sex with a human female, as that might result in your accidentally procreating, not to mention getting you kicked out of the club. And never donate to a sperm bank either.

I don't know whether to pity you, pray for you or just wait in eager anticipation for the time you come knocking on the Pearly Gates, when St. Peter tells you to turn around and bend over, and the sudden smile on your face at that request turns to a grimace as he kicks you the hell out of the kingdom.

Actually, I do know ;)

And you know what you'll get when St. Peter asks you to bend over? ;)

http://www.qx.se/nyheter/bilder/200709/20070929092439.jpg

So, religionists are getting their knickers in a twist (http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=23319)

their little cosmic Jew

"piss off, you homophobic wankers!"

their little delusions and magical beings in the sky got to dictate to us perverts



Bitter aren't you. I bet your a lot of fun to be around.

Bitter aren't you. I bet your a lot of fun to be around.
To be fair, a whole lot of people in this world have good reason to be bitter. Blaming them for being angry is counterproductive.

I personally think that's really offensive, that poster. It's their right to do it, but if you've got any balls, you want to criticise someone's beliefs, you'll come out and say it to their face. That poster's about as mature as spray painting dicks on the sides of churches.

And I got nothing against gay people, but if the gay COMMUNITY wants respect, they should knock off that Mardi Gras, gay pride crap. It's not a festival, it's the antics of retards. And before you call me a homophobe, if straight people did it, it would still be the antics of retards.

We're here, we're queer, nobody cares. Gay pride. Everyone's proud. Gay pride, black pride, white pride, puma pride. It's an erection. It's a natural thing, we've all got one, let's get on with it. I could have one right now.

I've not got one.

I personally think that's really offensive, that poster. It's their right to do it, but if you've got any balls, you want to criticise someone's beliefs, you'll come out and say it to their face. That poster's about as mature as spray painting dicks on the sides of churches.

You do realize, of course, that the original painting of the Last Supper was done by a gay man. Don't you think it's pretty fucking sick for homophobic Christians to use his artwork as a poster for their beliefs, despite the fact that the artist would obviously not agree with them?

Personally, I think the artist would be far more likely to side with the gay folks in this case.

You do realize, of course, that the original painting of the Last Supper was done by a gay man. Don't you think it's pretty fucking sick for homophobic Christians to use his artwork as a poster for their beliefs, despite the fact that the artist would obviously not agree with them?

Personally, I think the artist would be far more likely to side with the gay folks in this case.

It's a picture of their god! Do you have any idea how offensive that would be?

It's a picture of their god! Do you have any idea how offensive that would be?
If they are so offended by homosexuality, then they probably shouldn't choose a painting BY A GAY MAN as a centerpiece for their religious beliefs, don't you think?

Because it would be pretty hypocritical to turn around and bitch about how "offensive" it is for gay people to get their icky gay cooties all over an image originally painted BY A GAY MAN, wouldn't it?

News flash: Fassigen hates Christians and other "religionists" so much that he doesn't give a damn what they think :rolleyes:

Fassigen, please, by all means, remain a sexual deviant for the remainder of your natural life, thereby rendering the human race the highest possible service you can by withdrawing your genes from the gene pool. Never, never, never have normal sex with a human female, as that might result in your accidentally procreating, not to mention getting you kicked out of the club. And never donate to a sperm bank either.

I don't know whether to pity you, pray for you or just wait in eager anticipation for the time you come knocking on the Pearly Gates, when St. Peter tells you to turn around and bend over, and the sudden smile on your face at that request turns to a grimace as he kicks you the hell out of the kingdom.

Actually, I do know ;)

Oh is New Mittanni, great hater of Muslim "barbarism" and silly superstitions, appealing to fictional deities to punish those NSG opponents he disagrees with?

I think he is!

I guess it's OK to be an ass, as long as it's for YOUR version of the Abrahamic god?

It's a picture of their god! Do you have any idea how offensive that would be?

It's a picture of some guys around a long table... yes it looks similar but who cares?
And Jesus was a man.
If someone made a picture based on evolution (which has been done a few times actually) or on string theory, or on galileo, I would think "Hey! Homage ^^" not "BURN THE FUCKERS!"

Homage is not offensive, which is what this picture is in reality, if it was a mockery they'd be screwing each other on the table and pulling lewd faces, etc... instead it a few people dressed in a specific style of clothing who, actually, look quite pleasant.

How is a depiction of a homosexual in ways not related to his/her sexuality any different than a depiction of a heterosexual in ways not related to his/her sexuality?

I can think of numerious shows plays and movies that had gay characters who weren't constantly having gay sex

How about depictions not based on stereotypes. Not every gay is a lisping hip-swishing limp wristed twink - some guys are just regular guys whom you couldn't pick out as gay even if you were the best gaydar in the world.

How about depictions not based on stereotypes. Not every gay is a lisping hip-swishing limp wristed twink - some guys are just regular guys whom you couldn't pick out as gay even if you were the best gaydar in the world.

And a lot of straight men would probably come up on it first... I trip loads of people's gaydars... I think it's because I don't reek of testosterone though...

And a lot of straight men would probably come up on it first... I trip loads of people's gaydars... I think it's because I don't reek of testosterone though...

Same - most people assume I'm gay, but try to hide the questioning by asking non-gender specific questions like, 'do you have a partner'? :P

I think it is just the fact that for many people they assume that some gay guys aren't guys; that it is some how impossible for someone who is gay can be a bloke, like working on cars and do blokey things.

Shows seem to focus on *one* type of gay. Imagine if the only guys on television were over the top masculine men, and the only females were vulnerable and naive ladies who needed protecting - there would be people up 'n arms, and yet, no one seem so see the hypocrisy with how us gays are portrayed in the media.

It's a picture of their god! Do you have any idea how offensive that would be?But we all know it's ok for them to be offensive by telling gays they're going to hell.:rolleyes:

But we all know it's ok for them to be offensive by telling gays they're going to hell.:rolleyes:

Their counter excuse would be that they 'love homosexuals' and 'want them to change for the sake of their soul'.

Its interesting the warped perspective of what they consider 'love'.

But we all know it's ok for them to be offensive by telling gays they're going to hell.:rolleyes:

In fairness, the people complaining haven't said that, and we shouldn't assume they will.

You do realize, of course, that the original painting of the Last Supper was done by a gay man. Don't you think it's pretty fucking sick for homophobic Christians to use his artwork as a poster for their beliefs, despite the fact that the artist would obviously not agree with them?
I don't know, a picture's a picture. It is ironic, though.

Personally, I think the artist would be far more likely to side with the gay folks in this case.
I don't think so, actually. Living in the late 15th century, Leonardo was probably as Christian as they come. Besides, it's his picture. If my painting was parodied like this I'd be mad, god or no god.

...I don't know whether to pity you, pray for you or just wait in eager anticipation for the time you come knocking on the Pearly Gates, when St. Peter tells you to turn around and bend over, and the sudden smile on your face at that request turns to a grimace as he kicks you the hell out of the kingdom.

Actually, I do know ;)

New Mitanni reveals much in this statement about himself and the conservative christian mindset. He eagerly awaits Fass going to hell. He takes great pleasure in the suffering of others. It seems that the christian right takes much more pleasure in sending others to hell than in themselves going to heaven. It would seem that New Mitanni's version of heaven would be where he gets to watch in comfort the sadistic torturing of sinners in hell. Perhaps he'll have a box seat with Jesus overlooking hell where they can hear the tormented screams of the damned while enjoying some lemonade and jerking each other off.

I personally think that's really offensive, that poster. It's their right to do it, but if you've got any balls, you want to criticise someone's beliefs, you'll come out and say it to their face. That poster's about as mature as spray painting dicks on the sides of churches.

And I got nothing against gay people, but if the gay COMMUNITY wants respect, they should knock off that Mardi Gras, gay pride crap. It's not a festival, it's the antics of retards. And before you call me a homophobe, if straight people did it, it would still be the antics of retards.

We're here, we're queer, nobody cares. Gay pride. Everyone's proud. Gay pride, black pride, white pride, puma pride. It's an erection. It's a natural thing, we've all got one, let's get on with it. I could have one right now.

I've not got one.

And if those coloreds would just behave and quit all the marching and getting arrested, we'd all be better off.

Ever read Letter from a Birmingham Jail (http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html)? Apply it to your thinking about homosexuals.

you'll come out and say it to their face.

Whatever else that poster may be, it's not exactly behind their backs....

For me, it was a fairly subtle image.

Subtle as a jackhammer.

Who cares really? Its just another reason for you to bitch about how terrible people of religion are, because God knows that none are really worthy of life.

I'm surprised that you didn't expect such a thing. Either you really didn't, or maybe you just want to go on complaining about the tragedies of speaking openly against something people don't agree with on a moral basis.Yeah cuz teh gayz should know better! And also, Fass is clearly the author of the picture in question. Bad Fass!

http://www.vexappeal.com/lolgod/uploaded_images/sinz-781986.jpg

Because, of course, deliberately selecting to parody The Last Supper was not trying to get precisely this reaction.

Get down off your cross, there, Fass. When folks poke a sleeping dog with a stick, they shouldn't be surprised at the snarls.
Hmm, odd...is that the justification you'd use to support Muslims rioting in Denmark? Or was that situation of deliberate provocation ok?

I'd just like to say, for those of you who go on about how frothing at the mouth Fass can get, and wonder why on earth he takes this all so seriously...believing that in this day and age, people really are accepting and he has nothing to bitch about:



Fassigen, please, by all means, remain a sexual deviant for the remainder of your natural life, thereby rendering the human race the highest possible service you can by withdrawing your genes from the gene pool. Never, never, never have normal sex with a human female, as that might result in your accidentally procreating, not to mention getting you kicked out of the club. And never donate to a sperm bank either.

I don't know whether to pity you, pray for you or just wait in eager anticipation for the time you come knocking on the Pearly Gates, when St. Peter tells you to turn around and bend over, and the sudden smile on your face at that request turns to a grimace as he kicks you the hell out of the kingdom.

Actually, I do know ;)
I'm sorry, but I don't care how you try to justify this. It's hatred, pure and simple, and it needs to be opposed. If you were facing this kind of smug, bigoted shit, and being told about all the horrible things you are facing for being a 'deviant' for being a 'bad person' by nature of your orientation...I think you'd be a bit pissed too.

This shit is spouted ALL THE TIME, by people who feel justified becaues of their religious views. It's no longer okay to use religion to justify the subjugation of 'semi-humans' and 'savages', but it is still extremely common to use it to justify hating people because of the gender of the person they want to sleep with.

I'd just like to say, for those of you who go on about how frothing at the mouth Fass can get, and wonder why on earth he takes this all so seriously...believing that in this day and age, people really are accepting and he has nothing to bitch about:


I'm sorry, but I don't care how you try to justify this. It's hatred, pure and simple, and it needs to be opposed. If you were facing this kind of smug, bigoted shit, and being told about all the horrible things you are facing for being a 'deviant' for being a 'bad person' by nature of your orientation...I think you'd be a bit pissed too.

This shit is spouted ALL THE TIME, by people who feel justified becaues of their religious views. It's no longer okay to use religion to justify the subjugation of 'semi-humans' and 'savages', but it is still extremely common to use it to justify hating people because of the gender of the person they want to sleep with.

Amen.

When folks poke a sleeping dog with a stick, they shouldn't be surprised at the snarls.

Did you just compare right wing christians to meat eatting animals who are incapable of logic and respond based purely on instinct?

Well...alright, but personally I prefer to expect human beings to comport themselves to standards higher than those we expect of animals.

Even christians.

Hmm, odd...is that the justification you'd use to support Muslims rioting in Denmark? Or was that situation of deliberate provocation ok?Just FYI, they didn't. People did elsewhere, 3 months after the fact. Presumably because various regimes and special interest groups found it politically opportune at the time.

Just FYI, they didn't. People did elsewhere, 3 months after the fact. Presumably because various regimes and special interest groups found it politically opportune at the time.

Wait...I get my news from NSG! Are you telling me that NSG is wrong?

*whole world collapses*

Wait...I get my news from NSG! Are you telling me that NSG is wrong?

*whole world collapses*:p
Another FYI moment: the Danish government's support party routinely make speeches in parliament that makes those cartoons look like a loving compliment. The Muslim Minority has, to the very best of my knowledge, never rioted over that either. A few maladjusted Muslim youths sometimes attack GLBTs, but then, so do most other maladjusted youths. In that respect, religion's just an excuse to fuck shit up, and GLBTs an easy target with lots of media coverage.

I'd just like to say, for those of you who go on about how frothing at the mouth Fass can get, and wonder why on earth he takes this all so seriously...believing that in this day and age, people really are accepting and he has nothing to bitch about:


I'm sorry, but I don't care how you try to justify this. It's hatred, pure and simple, and it needs to be opposed. If you were facing this kind of smug, bigoted shit, and being told about all the horrible things you are facing for being a 'deviant' for being a 'bad person' by nature of your orientation...I think you'd be a bit pissed too.

This shit is spouted ALL THE TIME, by people who feel justified becaues of their religious views. It's no longer okay to use religion to justify the subjugation of 'semi-humans' and 'savages', but it is still extremely common to use it to justify hating people because of the gender of the person they want to sleep with.
Indeed.

This is a lot like those threads on sexism where a whole bunch of people feel the need to explain to us poor, stupid women that sexism is gone and there's nothing for us to bitch about...and all the while there are several sexist assholes posting woman-hating rants in the same thread. Because sexism is dead, m'kay?

Gay people are loud and pissed off for a reason. If you want them to shut up, you're not going to get anywhere by telling them to shut up because the very reason they are loud and pissed off is because of all the people telling them to shut up. So don't waste your time.

Instead, if you really, honestly, just want gay people to be quiet, and you really, honestly, don't have a problem with gay people, then the best use of your time would be fighting homophobia and helping to ensure equality for gay people. That's the fastest way to get what you want.

Of course, I don't believe for one tiny instant that the people who suggest gay people quiet down and quit complaining are actually supportive of gay rights. Such people are concern trolls. They "helpfully" suggest methods that are completely counterproductive.

you're right. The far closer analogy would be a Jewish organization using a parody of a painting that contained nazi symbolism, that was painted by a jew.

' Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp With Eva and Adolf at Berchtesgarten (sp?)'

Subtle as a jackhammer.I r british atheist. Most religious symbolism flies straight over my head.

I r british atheist. Most religious symbolism flies straight over my head.You're not the only one.

' Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp With Eva and Adolf at Berchtesgarten (sp?)'

I loved the most recent rendition of that! I really though Nathan Lang did a damn good job in his role... It takes real talent for someone as gay as he is to play such a straight role...
(I also thought it would have been funny in The Birdcage if the roles had been set as they originally were.... With Nathan and Robin each playing the others characters. I know Nathan can easily do a man's man, but it would have been funny seeing Robin as a transvestite).

I loved the most recent rendition of that! I really though Nathan Lang did a damn good job in his role... It takes real talent for someone as gay as he is to play such a straight role...
(I also thought it would have been funny in The Birdcage if the roles had been set as they originally were.... With Nathan and Robin each playing the others characters. I know Nathan can easily do a man's man, but it would have been funny seeing Robin as a transvestite).

There isn't enough Nair on the planet to make Robin Williams a transvestite. :p

There isn't enough Nair on the planet to make Robin Williams a transvestite. :p

LOL, oh come on now. He pulled off a woman ok in Mrs. Doubtfire! I personally think he is a good enough actor to do it...

And if those coloreds would just behave and quit all the marching and getting arrested, we'd all be better off.

Ever read Letter from a Birmingham Jail (http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html)? Apply it to your thinking about homosexuals.

The difference being the tactics employed by each group, though. Whereas King and the SCLC sought to appeal to the consciences of the silent majority of white folks, by creating a movement with which they could identify. He succeeded in saying "Look, we're just like you, not different in any way."

Too often, though, the gay pride movement has not taken that tack. Rather, certain events tend to highlight the differences between the participants in the movement and the rest of general society. Excessively flamboyant dress, perceived lack of seriousness, extremely flamboyant behavior, emphasis on sex acts themselves, etc. It doesn't endear the movement to Joe Sixpack, which makes success less likely.

Just like how the greatest gains for the civil rights movement were made before the Black separatist movement came to prominence, highlighting differences from society is what's most likely to hurt the gay rights movement.

Honestly, the most convincing thing the gay rights movement could do is to show normal, stable, functioning gay families. That's what's gonna convince the populace, not a dude in a bikini wearing peacock feathers attached to his but riding a float in San Fran.

The difference being the tactics employed by each group, though. Whereas King and the SCLC sought to appeal to the consciences of the silent majority of white folks, by creating a movement with which they could identify. He succeeded in saying "Look, we're just like you, not different in any way."

I don't think that's why King succeeded at all. I think he succeeded by saying, "Even people who aren't just like you deserve to be treated like human beings."

That was his freaking point.


Too often, though, the gay pride movement has not taken that tack.

Really? How often is "too often"? Do you have numbers on how frequently the "gay rights movement" as a whole engages in "flamboyant" activities as opposed to "we're just like you" type of activities?


Rather, certain events tend to highlight the differences between the participants in the movement and the rest of general society. Excessively flamboyant dress, perceived lack of seriousness, extremely flamboyant behavior, emphasis on sex acts themselves, etc. It doesn't endear the movement to Joe Sixpack, which makes success less likely.
Sorry, but this is just plain bunk.

The whole point of the gay rights movement (and the Civil Rights movement) has been to assert that all people should be treated as equals under the law, even if some of them have a different skin color or different genitals or different sexual orientation from the people who currently hold power.

Hiding away these differences and trying to make ourselves as nonthreatening to Joe Sixpack as we possibly can be...well, that's the same old crap we've been asked to do for generations. Shhh, brown people! Shh, gays and lesbians! You'll scare the white hetero man! Don't be so loud and uppity! Just get along to get along! Because that's worked out sooooooo well for you this far, amiright?

The difference being the tactics employed by each group, though. Whereas King and the SCLC sought to appeal to the consciences of the silent majority of white folks, by creating a movement with which they could identify. He succeeded in saying "Look, we're just like you, not different in any way."

Too often, though, the gay pride movement has not taken that tack. Rather, certain events tend to highlight the differences between the participants in the movement and the rest of general society. Excessively flamboyant dress, perceived lack of seriousness, extremely flamboyant behavior, emphasis on sex acts themselves, etc. It doesn't endear the movement to Joe Sixpack, which makes success less likely.
And how exactly does this matter? I for one am a very stout defender of the right to difference. Conformism is the death of creativity. Everyone has the right to be as damn different from the rest of the world as they want, be it because of their dress style, hair color, sexual orientation, etc.

Plus, you seem to overlook that 95% of participants in gay pride parades are simple, Joe-Average guys and gals who do volunteer work for nonprofit organisations and people who simply support the bid for equal rights.

There are also people such as I who work differently to underline the fact that gay people are just the same as straight people. Every time I visit a classroom to answer questions about sexual diversity (part of my volunteer work), prejudices fall. Everytime I go shopping for groceries holding the hand of my boyfriend (when I'm lucky enough to have one), every time I stroll in town with an arm around his waist, every time I kiss him goodbye before stepping off the bus or going to class at the university, every time I do any of this I'm showing the rest of the heterosexuals who aren't open to sexual diversity that we are, in every way, similar to them and have the same emotions, aspirations, and needs.

I'll never be one to point fingers at the most flamboyant members of our community. Know why? Because they can be as fucking different as they want to, and it's okay, because this(Canada) is a free country. I keep hearing about how the USA is a free country as well: perhaps it's time for you guys to start behaving as if it were.

And how exactly does this matter? I for one am a very stout defender of the right to difference. Conformism is the death of creativity. Everyone has the right to be as damn different from the rest of the world as they want, be it because of their dress style, hair color, sexual orientation, etc.


As am I, but the problem is that emphasizing the differences is going to alienate the vast bulk of the population. If a minority group social movement wants to make progress, they need to take steps to get the majority group to be able to identify with them. Otherwise, they can show off their differences all they want, but they're not going to make an inch of political headway.

Hiding away these differences and trying to make ourselves as nonthreatening to Joe Sixpack as we possibly can be...well, that's the same old crap we've been asked to do for generations. Shhh, brown people! Shh, gays and lesbians! You'll scare the white hetero man! Don't be so loud and uppity! Just get along to get along! Because that's worked out sooooooo well for you this far, amiright?

That's the thing, though. Change will not happen by scaring the white hetero male. Emphasizing the similarities will make it so that Joe Sixpack will become accustomed to whatever group is in the spotlight, and therefore that group will lose the stigma that existed previously.

Change will not happen by scaring the white hetero male.

I for one couldn't give a santorum stain about what does or does not scare the white, hetero male. And you know what? Change did happen in my country regardless of the white man's fears. So, allow me not to give that stain about your "don't rock the boat" house-niggerism, either.

As am I, but the problem is that emphasizing the differences is going to alienate the vast bulk of the population.

I don't agree with this, either.

In my experience, being yourself and being honest about your differences is what helps people become more comfortable with them.

For example, my high school class had a very "out" gay boy (call him "John"). He made a lot of people very uncomfortable at first, because he made no effort to hide his sexual orientation or "tone down" his natural behavior. But the more open he was, the more comfortable people became. They got used to it. They realized that it didn't matter if he was different, he was still a really nice guy.

He put up with a whole lot of pressure and nasty shit at first, because of assholes who were freaked out and who wanted him to just shut up and get back in the closet so they didn't have to be confronted with a gay kid. But because he stayed out and proud, our school became a better place. I know this personally because I had not one, but two good friends who specifically said that the only reason they felt comfortable coming out at our school was because "John" had been out and proud.


If a minority group social movement wants to make progress, they need to take steps to get the majority group to be able to identify with them.

I don't see how history bears this out at all. In the history of my country, minority groups have to be loud and aggressive and fight for legal equality.


Otherwise, they can show off their differences all they want, but they're not going to make an inch of political headway.
You say this, yet the last 20 or so years contradict your theory. Gay rights have been expanding thanks to a loud, active gay community, and acceptance of gay and lesbian people is higher now than ever before. Loud and proud works. Always has.

There are also people such as I who work differently to underline the fact that gay people are just the same as straight people. Every time I visit a classroom to answer questions about sexual diversity (part of my volunteer work), prejudices fall. Everytime I go shopping for groceries holding the hand of my boyfriend (when I'm lucky enough to have one), every time I stroll in town with an arm around his waist, every time I kiss him goodbye before stepping off the bus or going to class at the university, every time I do any of this I'm showing the rest of the heterosexuals who aren't open to sexual diversity that we are, in every way, similar to them and have the same emotions, aspirations, and needs.

And that's precisely what society needs to overcome the superstitious stigma associated with homosexuality.

I'll never be one to point fingers at the most flamboyant members of our community. Know why? Because they can be as fucking different as they want to, and it's okay, because this(Canada) is a free country. I keep hearing about how the USA is a free country as well: perhaps it's time for you guys to start behaving as if it were.
Even though their flamboyance actually hurts the cause of homosexual rights, though?

As am I, but the problem is that emphasizing the differences is going to alienate the vast bulk of the population. If a minority group social movement wants to make progress, they need to take steps to get the majority group to be able to identify with them. Otherwise, they can show off their differences all they want, but they're not going to make an inch of political headway.

Actually, I'm in disagreement with you over this. It's why we have constitutions guaranteeing basic freedoms and rights, and equality for everyone. Nowhere, under no circumstances, should a minority group be dependent on the majority's goodwill and blessing to be granted equality.

It's false on oh-so-many levels. Do you really think women, blacks, and other minority groups would ever had achieved legal equality by just trying make the majority group in power identify with them? No, they wouldn't have. Even to this day, in 2007, a lot of people still don't identify with women's right and black's civil rights movements.

The goal here is not to force everyone to conform to the majority to make political headway: it's to drill in the fucking thick skulls of the majority that just because they're more numerous doesn't mean they are allowed to push their own views, opinions, on others, and that they are not allowed to use the power they hold to punish minorities into submission.

That's the thing, though. Change will not happen by scaring the white hetero male. Emphasizing the similarities will make it so that Joe Sixpack will become accustomed to whatever group is in the spotlight, and therefore that group will lose the stigma that existed previously.

Screw the white hetero male and the damn horse he rode in on.

If people don't like this "scary" movement then let gays have the same rights, including the right to be married and miserable. To have the movement stop using methods that are loud then perhaps they should be afforded their rights. Nothing was achieved by being silent.

That's the thing, though. Change will not happen by scaring the white hetero male.

Hon, every single progressive change toward legal equality in the history of the USA has come over the screams and whines of terrified white heterosexual males.

Civil Rights weren't given to black people by nice white folks who finally recognized that them Negros are sorta okay after all. Black people and their allies fought for those rights, and won them for themselves. Women's Rights weren't handed over by men who noticed that womenfolks maybe should be treated a bit better. Women and their allies fought every step of the way.

It is, frankly, stupid to think that if gay people are just nice enough then they'll be given legal equality. They won't. Gay people are going to have to fight, just as racial minorities and women have to keep fighting, in order to establish their rights.


Emphasizing the similarities will make it so that Joe Sixpack will become accustomed to whatever group is in the spotlight, and therefore that group will lose the stigma that existed previously.
Um, actually, that would accomplish the opposite, by reinforcing the idea that only people who are similar to Joe Sixpack deserve to have legal equality. That kind of undermines the entire fucking point of the movement.

I don't think that's why King succeeded at all. I think he succeeded by saying, "Even people who aren't just like you deserve to be treated like human beings."

That was his freaking point.

No, his point was we're all human beings, and as such, we should all be treated as such, with no regard to our race, class or otherwise.

No, his point was we're all human beings, and as such, we should all be treated as such, with no regard to our race, class or otherwise.
That's what I said. That people who are different from you are still PEOPLE and deserve equal human dignity.

And I'm a Canadian atheist, and yet even I can recognise the 'Last Supper' or a parody of, just as I can recognise the symbolism of some guy stapled to a cross. I'm sorry, but while I don't take much interest in relgion, I reject the proposition that being an atheist means total ignorance about religion, or the religious symbols of the majority religion in my country.

I'm a British Atheist too. I don't seem to have a problem with religious symbolism, just with believing it.

Even though their flamboyance actually hurts the cause of homosexual rights, though?
Especially because of that. If their flamboyancy hurts the cause of homosexual rights, it's through none of their responsibility, but rather the fault lies with the majority's impression that it can demand conformism (and is justified in doing so). As long as the majority has that impression, my work is to drill them until they realize that no, they are not entitled in forcing everyone to conform.

If you want to be a goth, a punk, if you want blue hair or piercings, if you want to wear flamboyant clothing, if you have outrageous tatoos, or eccentric habits, or whatever else you can think of to be different, I'm gonna be on the first line to defend your right to be yourself without having to face prejudice, contempt, or hatred for it. And this, despite the fact that I'm personally pretty in line with what we call Average Joe.

I r british atheist. Most religious symbolism flies straight over my head.

And I'm a Canadian atheist, and yet even I can recognise the 'Last Supper' or a parody of, just as I can recognise the symbolism of some guy stapled to a cross. I'm sorry, but while I don't take much interest in relgion, I reject the proposition that being an atheist means total ignorance about religion, especially Christianity which is so widespread in both our countries...

Ugh, sorry but it reminds me of people who are so 'englightened' that they 'don't even see colour!'.

Screw the white hetero male and the damn horse he rode in on.

In the context of this discussion...word.

We're talking about human beings, citizens, who are being denied fundamental civil rights. And then somebody decides that the REAL issue is the poor, tender feelings of white heterosexual males.

Nope. Not buying that.

In the context of this discussion...word.

We're talking about human beings, citizens, who are being denied fundamental civil rights. And then somebody decides that the REAL issue is the poor, tender feelings of white heterosexual males.

Nope. Not buying that.

Of course; it's strictly based on the context.

Everyone's concerns and feelings are valid, but we can't stop progress just because someone is offended. If you find something offensive because it doesn't fit into the conformist frame, well, you can just bury your head in the sand because it's not going away just because your religion says it's an abomination.

No one person is exactly like another. We're different, or at least we should be and those differences should be celebrated and not suppressed in order to appease the majority who are content with being bland and conformist.

I'm an atheist Canadian and I like when people are different. I find people like me are boring because then I'm boring. If we weren't different life would be boring.

Especially because of that. If their flamboyancy hurts the cause of homosexual rights, it's through none of their responsibility, but rather the fault lies with the majority's impression that it can demand conformism (and is justified in doing so). As long as the majority has that impression, my work is to drill them until they realize that no, they are not entitled in forcing everyone to conform.
And the most efficient and effective method to achieve this is to acclimatize the hetero white male into accepting the more "normal" elements first, and shortly thereafter the more flamboyant elements will also gain acceptance.

If you want to be a goth, a punk, if you want blue hair or piercings, if you want to wear flamboyant clothing, if you have outrageous tatoos, or eccentric habits, or whatever else you can think of to be different, I'm gonna be on the first line to defend your right to be yourself without having to face prejudice, contempt, or hatred for it. And this, despite the fact that I'm personally pretty in line with what we call Average Joe.

As will I, but what I'm saying is that the most rapid and efficient way for a movement to gain success is not through emphasizing differences, but similarities. I'm not saying don't hold hands in public, don't have mild PDA in public, or anything like that. In fact, that's the sort of normal stuff people need to see to acclimatize them to change. To affect that change, though, there are methods that are more efficient and less efficient.

Screw the white hetero male and the damn horse he rode in on.

If people don't like this "scary" movement then let gays have the same rights, including the right to be married and miserable. To have the movement stop using methods that are loud then perhaps they should be afforded their rights. Nothing was achieved by being silent.

Then nothing is going to be accomplished, especially in a democratic society in which a movement is seeking to effect social change, especially a change of ideas.

You don't change minds by offending people's sensibilities by your behavior, you change them by offending their sensibilities about society's behavior.

And the most efficient and effective method to achieve this is to acclimatize the hetero white male into accepting the more "normal" elements first, and shortly thereafter the more flamboyant elements will also gain acceptance.



As will I, but what I'm saying is that the most rapid and efficient way for a movement to gain success is not through emphasizing differences, but similarities. I'm not saying don't hold hands in public, don't have mild PDA in public, or anything like that. In fact, that's the sort of normal stuff people need to see to acclimatize them to change. To affect that change, though, there are methods that are more efficient and less efficient.
Easy way =/= Best way

If by taking the longer route we can deconstruct enough of that damn arrogance about the majority's feelings having to be nursed before others can be considered real human beings, then that'll pave the way for whoever else might come after us, or better yet maybe prevent that sort of prejudice and contempt being developped for another minority in society.

Seriously, the white hetero male that you say needs to be acclimatized is the stupid portion of white hetero males. A sizeable number of white hetero males couldn't care less about homosexuality; most of those that had to be acclimatized already are by now. Those that remain are the bigots, and they don't deserve us not supporting those who don't want to conform just to protect their poor little feelings.

Seriously: human rights are not negociable. They just aren't. Do not try to sell me ideas like "Oh, but you have to compromise and feel some empathy for those who oppose them", it just won't work. No matter what minority we're talking of, I will not accept half-measures just to spare some bigots the discomfort of being offended. You give human rights first, and THEN you negociate about the consequences and educate people. You don't wait until the silent majority is comfortable, perpetuating injustice for years, on the pretence that society isn't ready.

Yeah, I'm radical like that.

Then nothing is going to be accomplished, especially in a democratic society in which a movement is seeking to effect social change, especially a change of ideas.

You don't change minds by offending people's sensibilities by your behavior, you change them by offending their sensibilities about society's behavior.

But you cannot offend their sensibilities about society's behaviour if they find that behaviour completely acceptable. They will still ignore you.

You don't change minds by offending people's sensibilities by your behavior,

Historically speaking, yes, you do.


you change them by offending their sensibilities about society's behavior.
And making yourself resemble the status quo as much as possible will not help with this.

And the most efficient and effective method to achieve this is to acclimatize the hetero white male into accepting the more "normal" elements first, and shortly thereafter the more flamboyant elements will also gain acceptance.

Well, first of all I don't agree that this is the "most efficient and effective method" to achieve what I'm aiming for. I don't think ANYTHING is accomplished by making gay people "act more straight" in order to appease homophobes. That just encourages the notion that only people who conform deserve equal regard as human beings. That's the opposite of what I'm trying to accomplish.

But second of all, even if it were easiest, it wouldn't necessarily be best. I'm not looking for band-aid solutions.


As will I, but what I'm saying is that the most rapid and efficient way for a movement to gain success is not through emphasizing differences, but similarities.

I don't see much evidence of this.

What I've seen is that the gay pride movement has succeeded specifically because so many gay people refuse to hide or minimize the way in which they are different. And guess what? People get used to it.


I'm not saying don't hold hands in public, don't have mild PDA in public, or anything like that. In fact, that's the sort of normal stuff people need to see to acclimatize them to change. To affect that change, though, there are methods that are more efficient and less efficient.
Meh. Sounds like you are just drawing your personal comfort zone in a slightly different place than the hard-line homophobes. I'm still not clear on why anybody (gay or straight) stands to benefit from coddling your feelings at the expense of their civil liberties.

Seriously: human rights are not negociable. They just aren't. Do not try to sell me ideas like "Oh, but you have to compromise and feel some empathy for those who oppose them", it just won't work. No matter what minority we're talking of, I will not accept half-measures just to spare some bigots the discomfort of being offended. You give human rights first, and THEN you negociate about the consequences and educate people. You don't wait until the silent majority is comfortable, perpetuating injustice for years, on the pretence that society isn't ready.

Yeah, I'm radical like that.
Amen.

I'm not prepared to tell gay people, "Just wait another generation or so for everybody to be comfortable with homosexuality. Then we'll give you equal legal rights."

Fuck that noise.

And I'm a Canadian atheist, and yet even I can recognise the 'Last Supper' or a parody of, just as I can recognise the symbolism of some guy stapled to a cross. I'm sorry, but while I don't take much interest in relgion, I reject the proposition that being an atheist means total ignorance about religion, especially Christianity which is so widespread in both our countries...

Ugh, sorry but it reminds me of people who are so 'englightened' that they 'don't even see colour!'.I must be ignorant if I do not immediately recognise religious symbolism? Is everyone who doesn't understand chess an idiot? Is everyone who has trouble speaking a certain language an idiot? Is anyone who ever gets lost an idiot?

Not all brains function in the same way, they recognise different patterns and situations before others.

And if you would deign to remember, what I originally said was that I wouldn't have recognised the mimicking of the Last Supper in the picture if Fass hadn't made it explicit that this picture had some religious symbolism. I did not say that I did not that I did not recognise the mimicking of the Last Supper until someone pointed out that that was what the poster was doing, as your arrogant little tirade implies.

So I am immensely sorry that I do not immediately see religious symbolism in everything I see. And I'm sorry that I have not consider religious symbolism with appropriate importance that you do.

The difference being the tactics employed by each group, though. Whereas King and the SCLC sought to appeal to the consciences of the silent majority of white folks, by creating a movement with which they could identify. He succeeded in saying "Look, we're just like you, not different in any way."

Too often, though, the gay pride movement has not taken that tack. Rather, certain events tend to highlight the differences between the participants in the movement and the rest of general society. Excessively flamboyant dress, perceived lack of seriousness, extremely flamboyant behavior, emphasis on sex acts themselves, etc. It doesn't endear the movement to Joe Sixpack, which makes success less likely.

Just like how the greatest gains for the civil rights movement were made before the Black separatist movement came to prominence, highlighting differences from society is what's most likely to hurt the gay rights movement.

Honestly, the most convincing thing the gay rights movement could do is to show normal, stable, functioning gay families. That's what's gonna convince the populace, not a dude in a bikini wearing peacock feathers attached to his but riding a float in San Fran.

Bottle and others have already responded to this better than I ever could.

The point I was making was that there were those that argued that MLK Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement were using too aggressive of tactics as well. The civil rights marches and sit-ins at white countertops were not attempts to show the world that blacks were "just like [whites]" or belonged "normal, stable, functioning [] families." They were to highlight the plight of blacks under segregation.

You are simply wrong about the history of black rights and gay rights.

The difference being the tactics employed by each group, though. Whereas King and the SCLC sought to appeal to the consciences of the silent majority of white folks, by creating a movement with which they could identify. He succeeded in saying "Look, we're just like you, not different in any way."

Too often, though, the gay pride movement has not taken that tack. Rather, certain events tend to highlight the differences between the participants in the movement and the rest of general society. Excessively flamboyant dress, perceived lack of seriousness, extremely flamboyant behavior, emphasis on sex acts themselves, etc. It doesn't endear the movement to Joe Sixpack, which makes success less likely.

Just like how the greatest gains for the civil rights movement were made before the Black separatist movement came to prominence, highlighting differences from society is what's most likely to hurt the gay rights movement.

Honestly, the most convincing thing the gay rights movement could do is to show normal, stable, functioning gay families. That's what's gonna convince the populace, not a dude in a bikini wearing peacock feathers attached to his but riding a float in San Fran.That's silly. The Gay Pride movement didn't even begin until the Stonewall Riots.

The difference being the tactics employed by each group, though. Whereas King and the SCLC sought to appeal to the consciences of the silent majority of white folks, by creating a movement with which they could identify. He succeeded in saying "Look, we're just like you, not different in any way."

No... he succeeded in garnering sympathy for the Civil Rights Movement by highlighting the oppression Blacks faced in the South.

It had nothing to do with any portrayal of Blacks as somehow "just like you." Except in the sense of basic human sympathy.

Too often, though, the gay pride movement has not taken that tack.

Because those elements of the gay pride movement to which you refer are, quite justifiably, concerned with defending the right to not be "just like you."

It doesn't endear the movement to Joe Sixpack,

Part of freedom is ensuring that we do not need to endear ourselves to close-minded bigots.

which makes success less likely.

Shunting off to the side anyone who doesn't neatly assimilate doesn't sound much like "success" to me... rather more of the same.

Just like how the greatest gains for the civil rights movement were made before the Black separatist movement came to prominence,

That is one angle from which you could look at it, yes.

On the other hand, the argument could be made that you have the causal relation reversed... the "Black separatist" movement came to prominence precisely because "the greatest gains of the civil rights movement" failed to accomplish as much as they should have.

Similarly, if the only result of the gay rights movement is that monogamous white male affluent same-sex couples who abide strictly by gender roles (with one obvious exception) and never show their sexuality in public manage to gain something approximating nominal equality, there is every reason to expect that lots of people are going to be left behind.

highlighting differences from society is what's most likely to hurt the gay rights movement.

Defending differences from society is precisely what is necessary for the gay rights movement to succeed.

Honestly, the most convincing thing the gay rights movement could do is to show normal, stable, functioning gay families.

Yeah, and they do that all the time.

Meanwhile, there are lots of people who aren't in, and don't want to be in, mainstream society's conception of "normal, stable, functioning" families who are left behind.

That's silly. The Gay Pride movement didn't even begin until the Stonewall Riots.

Mattachine Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society)
Daughters of Bilitis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_Bilitis)

More precisely, the Gay Pride Movement didn't really get off the ground until the Stonewall Riots... which, if anything, only makes your point stronger.

and shortly thereafter the more flamboyant elements will also gain acceptance.

I see no reason to make this assumption.

Indeed, the more likely result is, "What? Those queers want more?"

In fact, that's the sort of normal stuff people need to see to acclimatize them to change.

Yes, right. And so is all the rest. We see, in fact, that plenty of people do have problems even with this "normal stuff"... but better to engage in it anyway, to challenge that social prejudice and weaken it through exposure, than to be passive and lose both freedom and the potential to change things for the better.

"Normal", of course, is not a constant.

Some gay people like hot dogs.

I can see why some people are compliaing about the the poster the fellows are not wearing black tie how uncivilised

It's not like parodies of The Last Supper are uncommon (http://www.flounderart.com/Images/images_prints/print_Fast%20Supper.jpg)...

Shunting off to the side anyone who doesn't neatly assimilate doesn't sound much like "success" to me... rather more of the same.

Beautifully put.

This is precisely why I don't accept the "shut up and maybe you'll get your rights one day" approach. For one thing, it's never worked. Ever. For another thing, even if it did work it wouldn't accomplish the goals that we're working towards. So it's double-plus pointless.

Then nothing is going to be accomplished, especially in a democratic society in which a movement is seeking to effect social change, especially a change of ideas.

You don't change minds by offending people's sensibilities by your behavior, you change them by offending their sensibilities about society's behavior.

Have you ever heard of a dude called William Wilberforce? There was a film made about him not so long ago so you shouldn't have any reason not to have done.
He spent years offending people in order to get the slave trade abolished.

Yes, this was done by offending their sensibilities about their own behaviour, but first he has to offend them with his behaviour before they would even consider looking at their own.

Originally Posted by Skaladora
Seriously: human rights are not negociable. They just aren't. Do not try to sell me ideas like "Oh, but you have to compromise and feel some empathy for those who oppose them", it just won't work. No matter what minority we're talking of, I will not accept half-measures just to spare some bigots the discomfort of being offended. You give human rights first, and THEN you negociate about the consequences and educate people. You don't wait until the silent majority is comfortable, perpetuating injustice for years, on the pretence that society isn't ready.

Yeah, I'm radical like that.
Amen.

I'm not prepared to tell gay people, "Just wait another generation or so for everybody to be comfortable with homosexuality. Then we'll give you equal legal rights."

Fuck that noise.
Amen again.

There are few things* I despise more than the "go along to get along" attitude, which I consider one of the most perniciously toxic mindsets I've ever come across. It is nothing but conformism and oppression behind a fake-concerned smile.

The entire point of civil rights movements is to stop forcing people to hide their differences from others. Any argument that asks us to hide those differences in order to qualify for our rights is an argument against our rights.


(*Of course, the list of things I despise is shockingly long but impossible to prioritize because I despise so many things equally, i.e. with every fiber of my being. It gets so my enemy-viewpoints have to take turns.)

It's not like parodies of The Last Supper are uncommon (http://www.flounderart.com/Images/images_prints/print_Fast%20Supper.jpg)...

A better parody - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUGC-_vm0M0

I live in what some refer to as the gay capital of England, obviously having one of the largest gay pride festivals in the UK, and possibly Europe according to some people.

What do I think?

It's great! Everyone is happy, there's actually some good music (:eek:) and the general party atmosphere is good fun! I think it does a good job, it doesn't present homosexuals as overtly sexual and perverted, but just fun cheery people.