Why Do Straights Hate Gays?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Doozer61

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
20,218
Location
Setting up house on Scooter's Star
This is an editorial/opinion from the LA Times on Tuesday, March 20, 2007.


Why do straights hate gays?

An 72-year-old gay activist isn't hopeful about the future.
By Larry Kramer, LARRY KRAMER is the founder of the protest group ACT UP and the author of "The Tragedy of Today's Gays."

March 20, 2007


DEAR STRAIGHT PEOPLE,

Why do you hate gay people so much?

Gays are hated. Prove me wrong. Your top general just called us immoral. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is in charge of an estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian troops, some fighting for our country in Iraq. A right-wing political commentator, Ann Coulter, gets away with calling a straight presidential candidate a faggot. Even Garrison Keillor, of all people, is making really tacky jokes about gay parents in his column. This, I guess, does not qualify as hate except that it is so distasteful and dumb, often a first step on the way to hate. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama tried to duck the questions that Pace's bigotry raised, confirming what gay people know: that there is not one candidate running for public office anywhere who dares to come right out, unequivocally, and say decent, supportive things about us.

Gays should not vote for any of them. There is not a candidate or major public figure who would not sell gays down the river. We have seen this time after time, even from supposedly progressive politicians such as President Clinton with his "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and his support of the hideous Defense of Marriage Act. Of course, it's possible that being shunned by gays will make politicians more popular, but at least we will have our self-respect. To vote for them is to collude with them in their utter disdain for us.

Don't any of you wonder why heterosexuals treat gays so brutally year after year after year, as your people take away our manhood, our womanhood, our personhood? Why, even as we die you don't leave us alone. What we can leave our surviving lovers is taxed far more punitively than what you leave your (legal) surviving spouses. Why do you do this? My lover will be unable to afford to live in the house we have made for each other over our lifetime together. This does not happen to you. Taxation without representation is what led to the Revolutionary War. Gay people have paid all the taxes you have. But you have equality, and we don't.

And there's no sign that this situation will change anytime soon. President Bush will leave a legacy of hate for us that will take many decades to cleanse. He has packed virtually every court and every civil service position in the land with people who don't like us. So, even with the most tolerant of new presidents, gays will be unable to break free from this yoke of hate. Courts rule against gays with hateful regularity. And of course the Supreme Court is not going to give us our equality, and in the end, it is from the Supreme Court that such equality must come. If all of this is not hate, I do not know what hate is.

Our feeble gay movement confines most of its demands to marriage. But political candidates are not talking about — and we are not demanding that they talk about — equality. My lover and I don't want to get married just yet, but we sure want to be equal.

You must know that gays get beaten up all the time, all over the world. If someone beats you up because of who you are — your race or ethnic origin — that is considered a hate crime. But in most states, gays are not included in hate crime measures, and Congress has refused to include us in a federal act.

Homosexuality is a punishable crime in a zillion countries, as is any activism on behalf of it. Punishable means prison. Punishable means death. The U.S. government refused our requests that it protest after gay teenagers were hanged in Iran, but it protests many other foreign cruelties. Who cares if a faggot dies? Parts of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. are joining with the Nigerian archbishop, who believes gays should be put in prison. Episcopalians! Whoever thought we'd have to worry about Episcopalians?

Well, whoever thought we'd have to worry about Florida? A young gay man was just killed in Florida because of his sexual orientation. I get reports of gays slain in our country every week. Few of them make news. Fewer are prosecuted. Do you consider it acceptable that 20,000 Christian youths make an annual pilgrimage to San Francisco to pray for gay souls? This is not free speech. This is another version of hate. It is all one world of gay-hate. It always was.

Gays do not realize that the more we become visible, the more we come out of the closet, the more we are hated. Don't those of you straights who claim not to hate us have a responsibility to denounce the hate? Why is it socially acceptable to joke about "girlie men" or to discriminate against us legally with "constitutional" amendments banning gay marriage? Because we cannot marry, we can pass on only a fraction of our estates, we do not have equal parenting rights and we cannot live with a foreigner we love who does not have government permission to stay in this country. These are the equal protections that the Bill of Rights proclaims for all?

Why do you hate us so much that you will not permit us to legally love? I am almost 72, and I have been hated all my life, and I don't see much change coming.

I think your hate is evil.

What do we do to you that is so awful? Why do you feel compelled to come after us with such frightful energy? Does this somehow make you feel safer and legitimate? What possible harm comes to you if we marry, or are taxed just like you, or are protected from assault by laws that say it is morally wrong to assault people out of hatred? The reasons always offered are religious ones, but certainly they are not based on the love all religions proclaim.

And even if your objections to gays are religious, why do you have to legislate them so hatefully? Make no mistake: Forbidding gay people to love or marry is based on hate, pure and simple.

You may say you don't hate us, but the people you vote for do, so what's the difference? Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal. Which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you. You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you.
 
Doozer61 said:
Because we cannot marry, we can pass on only a fraction of our estates, we do not have equal parenting rights and we cannot live with a foreigner we love who does not have government permission to stay in this country. These are the equal protections that the Bill of Rights proclaims for all?

After what happened to my friend this week this particular inequality really hits home. :|

http://forum.interference.com/journal.php?s=&journalid=11620&action=view#more sad news from Mali; it's%20personal%20this%20time
 
Tony Dungy dosent like gay people (or I am sorry does not support them)

Speaking out
Dungy supports proposed gay-marriage ban in speech
Posted: Thursday March 22, 2007 6:46PM; Updated: Thursday March 22, 2007 6:56PM

Tony Dungy publicly stated his beliefs against gay marriages, while accepting a "Friend of Family" award on Tuesday.
AP


INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Tony Dungy is a deeply religious man who puts his faith first in his life, even above family and football. So his support of a proposed gay-marriage ban likely surprised few.

What was surprising is the Indianapolis Colts' quiet coach shared his position publicly, sparking discussion about the impact of the Super Bowl winner's comments.

Dungy caused a stir Tuesday when he accepted the "Friend of Family" award from the conservative Indiana Family Institute.

The coach told the audience he supported the group's efforts to amend the Indiana constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

"I appreciate the stance they're taking, and I embrace that stance," Dungy told the crowd of about 700 people.

Dungy said his comments should not be considered gay bashing.

"We're not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we're trying to promote the family -- family values the Lord's way," Dungy said.

Colts president Bill Polian was at NFL meetings in Phoenix on Thursday and was unavailable for comment.

"Coach Dungy's feelings on the importance of marriage and family are well known to the overwhelming majority of American sports fans," said Myra Borshoff Cook, a spokeswoman for Colts owner Jim Irsay. "He, of course, is free to speak to any group he wishes. The club does not take positions in political issues in which it is not directly involved."

Supporters of the proposed ban hailed the endorsement.

"That was sort of a double for us," said Curt Smith, president of the institute, which is associated with but independent of James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" group.

Smith said he was unaware Dungy, who received the award because of his pro-family ethic, not for his views on public policy, would address the issue.

The resolution's sponsor, Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Monticello, said Dungy's endorsement made the proposal more credible.

"I certainly appreciate him being able to step forward and speak out strongly in his beliefs," Hershman said. "I don't think that anybody should criticize him for exercising his First Amendment right to speak as a private citizen in support of some deeply held beliefs."

Some in the gay community disagreed.

Bil Browning, who runs bilerico.com, a blog that focuses on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues, wrote: "When the head coach publicly states that part of the Colts fan base should be second-class citizens, you can't expect those same fans to support the team."

Dan Funk, executive director of the Interfaith Coalition on Non-Discrimination, a network of 21 congregations, invited Dungy to meet with members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities.

"All types of families from across Indiana are Colts fans," he said. "We would like coach Dungy to meet with our families so he can better understand the negative impact (the resolution) will have on countless Hoosier families."

Dungy is not the first public figure to draw fire for anti-gay comments.

Former NBA star Tim Hardaway apologized twice after responding to a question about his reaction to a gay teammate by saying "I hate gay people." Actor Isaiah Washington, of the hit television show "Grey's Anatomy," sought counseling after using a gay slur when he referred to another cast member. Author-columnist Ann Coulter was chastised for repeating the slur when referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards during a speech to a conservative group.

The NFL sought to distance itself from the matter.

"Coach Dungy is speaking for himself and expressing his views, which he is fully entitled to do," league officials said in a statement. "No doubt there are people in our league that have a different view. We respect the right of employees to have and express their views and don't regulate the political or religious views of team or league employees."

David Morton, principal of the Indianapolis-based sports marketing group Sunrise Sports Group, doesn't believe Dungy will suffer any lasting backlash from his comments.

"Tony's position on this or any other political issue should be as one person's opinion and one person's opinion only," Morton said. "It's not as Tony Dungy, head coach of the Indianapolis Colts. It's not the Indianapolis Colts, because I doubt if he asked Bill Polian or (Colts owner) Jim Irsay or anyone else what they thought.

"He's never tried to take advantage of his position on the pulpit," Morton said. "He spoke from the heart, and honestly, and I don't think you can ask anyone to do anything else."

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Sounds like the title to a guy ready to disown a family member.

Not necessarily. I put my faith first and the result is a better relationship with my family. When I don't put it first, it suffers.
 
can we say that a refusal to grant equal rights to gay relationships is tantamount to hating gay people, even if we don't hate individual gay people?

kind of like a Jim Crowe-esque, Lester might be one of the good ones and he works hard, but i don't want him eating at the same lunch counter as me.
 
Irvine511 said:
can we say that a refusal to grant equal rights to gay relationships is tantamount to hating gay people, even if we don't hate individual gay people?

kind of like a Jim Crowe-esque, Lester might be one of the good ones and he works hard, but i don't want him eating at the same lunch counter as me.

Here's the thing with that though, most, I would think, who oppose gay marriage do so primarily because they don't feel homosexuality is moral. Those in support of gay marraige say it's not a moral decision, it's how gay people are born so it's just the way it is. If both sides had that standpoint, then you could liken it more to the struggle blacks face . . . to those who oppose gay marriage. Since those who oppose it consider it a moral issue, the whole black comparison doesn't work with them. . . when relating to them. To them, you're logic appears to be saying it's a moral decision to be black. Therefore, if people are basing their views on what they feel is a moral decision is it still hate, even if they don't hate an individual?

(I'm asking this purely from a philisophical perspective, not anything political)
 
Last edited:
coemgen said:


Here's the thing with that though, most, I would think, who oppose gay marriage do so primarily because they don't feel homosexuality is moral. Those in support of gay marraige say it's not a moral decision, it's how gay people are born so it's just the way it is. If both sides had that standpoint, then you could liken it more to the struggle blacks face . . . to those who oppose gay marriage. Since those who oppose it consider it a moral issue, the whole black comparison doesn't work with them. . . when relating to them. To them, you're logic appears to be saying it's a moral decision to be black. Therefore, if people are basing their views on what they feel is a moral decision is it still hate, even if they don't hate an individual?

(I'm asking this purley from a philisophical perspective, not anything political)


but where does the moral distinction come from? how is one form of love, always and everywhere, less moral than another?

i think that's the distinction. by saying that one group of people are qualified to certain rights, respect, and privileges and another group aren't, you're saying that, by definition, heterosexuality is at all times and all places better than homosexuality. so you could have the most dysfunctional 55-hour Britney Spears marriage and it would always, always be better than two lesbians who have been together for 35 years and adopted 3 kids. in order to justify this viewpoint, it seems that hate -- and what else do we call it? -- is necessary.

it's analgous to juding people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. you're saying that the opposite-sexed structure of a relationship is always more moral (just like white skin might always be "better") than a same-sexed structre of another relationship. the individuals in the relationship doesn't matter, the functioning of the relationship doesn't matter, the commitmen, love, respect, intimacy, whatever, don't matter. what matters first and foremost is the differing anatomical structure of the two partners involved in whatever relationship.
 
Irvine511 said:
can we say that a refusal to grant equal rights to gay relationships is tantamount to hating gay people, even if we don't hate individual gay people?

Your very question presents a whole series of terms that need defining: "equal rights", "gay relationships" (as opposed to what?), "hate"...etc. I think we need to define what we're talking about before we can say that anyone who disagrees with you hates you.

And anyway, isn't living in that kind of black and white world sort of like saying, "If you're not for us, you're against us"?
 
Irvine511 said:

you could have the most dysfunctional 55-hour Britney Spears marriage and it would always, always be better than two lesbians who have been together for 35 years and adopted 3 kids.

Raise your hand if you thought Britney's 56-hour marriage was a good idea in any way, shape or form.

These aren't absolutes we're dealing in, Irvine. Creating them makes a straw man argument which may reinforce your opinion, but isn't backed up by reality. I don't think the people who are in support of one-man/one-woman marriage generally support a laissez-faire attitude to sexuality.

I appreciate the passion that you bring to this conversation -- Larry's article is extremely deeply-felt -- but when it comes to this issue, there are deeply-felt issues on both sides that preclude a stark black and white perspective.
 
nathan1977 said:


Your very question presents a whole series of terms that need defining: "equal rights", "gay relationships" (as opposed to what?), "hate"...etc. I think we need to define what we're talking about before we can say that anyone who disagrees with you hates you.

And anyway, isn't living in that kind of black and white world sort of like saying, "If you're not for us, you're against us"?


i'm not sure what you need defining? i think we know what a gay relationship is, and i think we know what equal rights are in this situation. how do you understand a "gay relationship"? is it different from my understanding?

here's the distinction. it's not about "agreeing" or not with someone, by all means, reserve the right to hate gay people as people reserve the right to hate any other group (women, Jews, the left handed). the difference is the denial of a very specific set of rights based upon an immutable characteristic that harms no one and has a clear biological basis.

anyway, i'm not sure i agree or not, but i do think the LA Times Op-Ed is drawing a line in the sand. he is saying that if you think that gay relationships are by their definition different, and thus inferior, to straight relationships, then that is a hateful viewpoint.

oh, and since we've had so, so, so many threads on the topic of gay marriage, i think it would be best if we could tackle a new angle and get to the philosophy behind all this -- can we draw distinctions? do we draw distinctions? -- rather than the nuts and bolts of the marriage equality debate. i think the sources that we draw upon in order to make certain social distictions (and we all do this) are more interesting than ground that's been well covered in FYM before.

not that i started this thread, but as someone who's inevitably going to participate a lot, that's what i would love to see happen.

:)
 
nathan1977 said:


Raise your hand if you thought Britney's 56-hour marriage was a good idea in any way, shape or form.

These aren't absolutes we're dealing in, Irvine. Creating them makes a straw man argument which may reinforce your opinion, but isn't backed up by reality. I don't think the people who are in support of one-man/one-woman marriage generally support a laissez-faire attitude to sexuality.

I appreciate the passion that you bring to this conversation -- Larry's article is extremely deeply-felt -- but when it comes to this issue, there are deeply-felt issues on both sides that preclude a stark black and white perspective.


but you are dealing with absolutes.

she can get married for 56 hours, i can't get married for 56 years. why? because she's straight.

in some ways, it really is that simple.
 
Irvine511 said:

i think we know what a gay relationship is, and i think we know what equal rights are in this situation. how do you understand a "gay relationship"? is it different from my understanding?

Are we talking marriage? Are we talking co-habitation? Dating? Group co-habitation?

The very phrase "relationship" requires definition.
 
Irvine511 said:


but you are dealing with absolutes.

she can get married for 56 hours, i can't get married for 56 years. why? because she's straight.

I personally think the Britster should declare a moratorium on all "marriage prospects" for quite some time. But that's just me.
 
nathan1977 said:


Are we talking marriage? Are we talking co-habitation? Dating? Group co-habitation?

The very phrase "relationship" requires definition.


this seems quite semantical to me.

if i had said "relationship" in the context of a discussion about marriage, would you even question that it was about a man and a woman involved in a romantic relationship who were considering commiting their lives to one another through marriage?

when i talk about a "gay relationship," it's no different than a straight relationship.
 
Irvine511 said:

but where does the moral distinction come from? how is one form of love, always and everywhere, less moral than another? i think that's the distinction

Maybe so, but those who oppose gay marriage don't agree with this. That's my point. (BTW, to say it again, I'm not trying to put my viewpoint in this or get personal, I'm just trying to ask a genuine question.)


by saying that one group of people are qualified to certain rights, respect, and privileges and another group aren't, you're saying that, by definition, heterosexuality is at all times and all places better than homosexuality. so you could have the most dysfunctional 55-hour Britney Spears marriage and it would always, always be better than two lesbians who have been together for 35 years and adopted 3 kids. in order to justify this viewpoint, it seems that hate -- and what else do we call it? -- is necessary.

Again, I see where you're coming from. I do. What I'm getting at is do you see where the other side is coming from? Those who think it's a moral issue do believe it's not right, but they also believe a dysfunctional 55-hour Britney Spears marriage isn't either. That doesn't mean they hate either side. To disagree doesn't mean to hate. I'm on the fence about this issue. I really am. And I'll leave it at that. I'm talking here purely out of just general discussion, hopefully even neutral.


it's analgous to juding people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. you're saying that the opposite-sexed structure of a relationship is always more moral (just like white skin might always be "better") than a same-sexed structre of another relationship. the individuals in the relationship doesn't matter, the functioning of the relationship doesn't matter, the commitmen, love, respect, intimacy, whatever, don't matter. what matters first and foremost is the differing anatomical structure of the two partners involved in whatever relationship.

But, from the other perspective, those who oppose gay marriage think it is a matter of judging someone by their character, so to them, you can't use the skin color analogy. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not saying I fully agree with that, but I'm trying to see if you understand where the other side is coming from.

I think that's where some of the problems lie in the whole debate itself. Two different perspectives. The real debate, to me — and I'm saying this hopefully from an objective perspective again — isn't whether homosexuality is right or wrong morally, it's whether it's how gay people are wired or if it's something they learn or choose. I know both sides have their sources on this issue to back their stance up, but it's where the discussion needs to go if there's to be any constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you're throwing apples and oranges at each other. Do you see what I'm saying?
 
nathan1977 said:


I personally think the Britster should declare a moratorium on all "marriage prospects" for quite some time. But that's just me.



while i agree, this avoids the issue. why can she do whatever she wants, however she wants, and her relationship, in the eyes of some, is always going to be superior than mine (or Doozer's)? and the proof of the superiority is the conferrment of benefits and social respect one gets when one enters into a marriage.
 
I don't know about social respect, since that isn't mandated, but in law we have a pro-freedom and an anti-freedom position, regardless of how we percieve personal morality.
 
While I agree with the article that things still aren´t the way they should be, I think we´ve progressed some in the last couple of years.

I do have gay friends. I´m comfortable enough with them to give them a hard time about being gay as much as I give a hard time to straight friends about other things. I´ve actually held hands with a girl so that her parents would thing I was her date and not the girl next to her. :wink:

But I think what gay people should start doing is sending out a more human image. Whenever I think of a gay pride parade the first thing that comes to mind is a kind of freak show parade. These things just make a disservice to the gay community because it alienates you. I think that if gay people want to be taken seriously as normal citizens these things have got to stop.

Have a parade but show up in your working suits, in your uniforms. Show the homophobes that you are regular people and stop with the whole carnival weird performance gay pride parades!
 
Irvine511 said:




while i agree, this avoids the issue. why can she do whatever she wants, however she wants, and her relationship, in the eyes of some, is always going to be superior than mine (or Doozer's)? and the proof of the superiority is the conferrment of benefits and social respect one gets when one enters into a marriage.

I will say this from my own perspective — this country seriously needs to start taking marriage seriously and the divorce rate needs to go down. If gays are going to marry, I would hold them up to the same standard.

It's pathetic how easily people get divorced. I know there are instances where divorce is necessary, but frankly I think many Americans are simply weak and childish when it comes to marriage. And children are getting hit the hardest. And yes, as a Christian, I know we aren't doing very good here either.
 
coemgen said:
Maybe so, but those who oppose gay marriage don't agree with this. That's my point. (BTW, to say it again, I'm not trying to put my viewpoint in this or get personal, I'm just trying to ask a genuine question.)


no one is asking anyone to agree or disagree -- we can think that Jews, because of their refusal to view Christ as the Messiah, are going to hell. but we're not going to prevent them from worshipping. the same applies here. you can think being gay is gross or immoral all you want; when that becomes a problem is when you use that to deny someone a series of rights.



[q]Again, I see where you're coming from. I do. What I'm getting at is do you see where the other side is coming from? Those who think it's a moral issue do believe it's not right, but they also believe a dysfunctional 55-hour Britney Spears marriage isn't either. That doesn't mean they hate either side. To disagree doesn't mean to hate. I'm on the fence about this issue. I really am. And I'll leave it at that. I'm talking here purely out of just general discussion, hopefully even neutral.[/q]


but i don't think the term "agree" or "disagree" is even relevant here. by virtue of her heterosexuality, Birtney can marry whomever she wants, whenever she wants. he could smack her around; they could both be heroin addicts; she could keep dropping her babies; they could live on opposite sides of the globe; they could hate each other. but no matter what she does or how awful her relationship might be, it's heterosexuality makes it worthy of marriage.

so you and i can sit here and think she's terrible, but we can't deny her any rights because we might disagree with her choices.





[q]But, from the other perspective, those who oppose gay marriage think it is a matter of judging someone by their character, so to them, you can't use the skin color analogy. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not saying I fully agree with that, but I'm trying to see if you understand where the other side is coming from.[/q]


but we judge lots of people on their character -- we're judging poor Britt right now -- but we don't deny them rights because they are bad people. awful people get married and have awful marriages. but if you're awful and heterosexual, then it's okay. and you're saying that if you're homosexual, you're automatically awful.

hence, hate.


[q]I think that's where some of the problems lie in the whole debate itself. Two different perspectives. The real debate, to me — and I'm saying this hopefully from an objective perspective again — isn't whether homosexuality is right or wrong morally, it's whether it's how gay people are wired or if it's something they learn or choose. I know both sides have their sources on this issue to back their stance up, but it's where the discussion needs to go if there's to be any constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you're throwing apples and oranges at each other. Do you see what I'm saying? [/q]

i think this is where many people stand, and this is why the evangelicals (for lack of a better word) are so invested in "Straight Camp" and reparative therapy. for if a homosexual can "change," then it can be demonstrated to be at some point a choice, and therefore discrimination can be applied.

and that's a whole other discussion.

did you see South Park last week?
 
A_Wanderer said:
I don't know about social respect, since that isn't mandated, but in law we have a pro-freedom and an anti-freedom position, regardless of how we percieve personal morality.


but doesn't the word "marriage" imply some sort of respect? someone could have an awful marriage, but that wouuld be the fault of the individuals, not that the institution is flawed.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
But I think what gay people should start doing is sending out a more human image. Whenever I think of a gay pride parade the first thing that comes to mind is a kind of freak show parade. These things just make a disservice to the gay community because it alienates you. I think that if gay people want to be taken seriously as normal citizens these things have got to stop.

Have a parade but show up in your working suits, in your uniforms. Show the homophobes that you are regular people and stop with the whole carnival weird performance gay pride parades!



many gays (including this one) agree with you.

in some ways, making gay sexuality visible is important. it's lovely to have, say, gay characters in movies, but ever noticed how they're not allowed to be in love or to have sex? that's one of the reasons why "brokeback" was so important, the visual depiction of gay sexuality by two mainstream, dashing movie stars in an Oscar winning film.

i would also ad that there's a whole lot more to a gay pride parade than smooth boys gyrating in their skivvies -- there's lots of political work done, lots of community building, countless other stuff, but that doesn't get news coverage.

personally, i will usually go to a pride parade and have a look around, but the whole concept seems dated to me. from another era. this is not to say that important work wasn't done, it was, it just doesn't seem to address the current reality.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:


But I think what gay people should start doing is sending out a more human image. Whenever I think of a gay pride parade the first thing that comes to mind is a kind of freak show parade. These things just make a disservice to the gay community because it alienates you. I think that if gay people want to be taken seriously as normal citizens these things have got to stop.

Have a parade but show up in your working suits, in your uniforms. Show the homophobes that you are regular people and stop with the whole carnival weird performance gay pride parades!

So a few gay people who do this = gay people are not "human"? Do you honestly think those more "flamboyant" gay people represent the majority of gay people? So carnival type gay pride parades are a reason for straight people to hate gays? Well gee, logic follows that we straights give gay people plenty of reason to hate us, considering the ways in which some of us behave in public and parade our sexuality around.
 
Back
Top Bottom