Can you be both a "defender of human rights" and "opposed to gay rights"?

[ruggerson]

No way. And to pretend you can is a lie.

Gay rights ARE human rights.

[ruggerson]

1. Furthermore

You can't be opposed to the ordination and the equality of women and also be considered a "defender of human rights"

What you really are is a roadblock to human rights.

[morgan2]

83. being against the ordination of woman has nothing

to do with human rights. Organizations have every right to have positions for men and for women. Being able to be a priest is not a human right, its an institutional one. If you don't agree with the institution don't be part of it. No ones forced to be a Catholic.

[KnowerOfLogic]

111. There's a difference between being "a right" and being right;

Sure, the catholic church can set whatever rules it wants for its organization; doesn't make it right, or give it immunity from criticism.

[ananda]

2. Don't forget women..

The pope was anti-woman, too.

[ruggerson]

4. beat ya to it

:O8)

[MuseRider]

3. Nope.

The word human says it all.

[beam me up scottie]

5. What's the matter with you?

You're all damned to hell to burn for eternity, but it's nothing personal.

[ruggerson]

7. Heheh

ya know, this keeps burnin' me up (no pun intended). I keep seeing the guy described on TV as a "defender of human rights" (and on here too), yet no one makes the point that you can't be against equality for women and call gays "evil" and be a "defender of human rights."

There is something very wrong with this news media of ours.

[beam me up scottie]

It's not like you didn't

criticize him when he was alive, for christ's sake.
IMHO, you'd be a hypocrite if you shut up now.
As for the "new" media, remember the song "Dirty Laundry" by Don Henley?

[beam me up scottie]

14. stupid stupid stupid

mouse.:banghead:
dupe

[asjr]

6. These days human rights seems to be multiple choice.

[kweerwolf]

15. Wow! Great way of stating it ... and so true, too! n/t

[gollygee]

8. Brings new meaning to the phrase "Cafeteria Catholic"

Pick and choose which human rights you defend.

I agree.

[sandnsea]

9. Nah, could never happen

Our founding fathers certainly couldn't have written the bill of rights while being slaveholders at the same time, no way.

[lastliberalintexas]

18. Not really a good analogy

since the Bill of Rights Madison crafted was only intended to apply to *white male property owners*. It isn't as if the founding fathers thought Africans should be used for slaves, but that even as slaves, Africans should still have a right to petition the government.

[sandnsea]

27. That's some weird logic

Which probably fits more than you realize. The Church doesn't condemn gays, only gay sex.

[ruggerson]

28. Think about what you just typed

"The church doesn't condemn gays, only gay sex"

Why not:

"The church doesn't condemn straights, only straight sex"

"The church doesn't condemn left handed people, only those that use their left hand"

The concept is absurd.

[sandnsea]

42. weird logic

Is that not what I said? The other poster seemed to imply there was nothing illogical about slavery, the founding fathers, and the bill of rights. But there is. Just like the Church condemnding gay sex, but not being gay. Weird logic. That's what I said.

Kind of like people who say abortion is a terrible thing but don't understand why churches condemn it. Makes no sense to me. I'm pro-choice because I don't believe an egg and sperm magically become sacred one second after they're joined.

The world is full of ironies, which is why the Pope has been a defender of human rights, even though he was blind to the harm he caused gays.

[lastliberalintexas]

44. No, not at all

Your post implied that the founding fathers weren't necessarily racists even though slaveholders because they wrote the magnificent Bill of Rights. I pointed out that the rights were only guaranteed to people like them, and not to all of *humanity*. The fact that they believe some people should have guaranteed rights doesn't make them defenders of *human* rights, but merely Defenders of White Male Property Owners' Rights.

To advocate for the rights of *some* humans does not mean that one is an advocate for the rights of *all* humans.

[sandnsea]

48. Oh I did not

I said they wrote the bill of rights while being slaveholders, which obviously means they were racist. They managed to write one of the first documents to defend individual rights, and religious freedom, while leaving out a huge group of people. Which is exactly what the Pope did. So it is certainly possible to be a defender of human rights and blind to your own biases that leave other people undefended.

[lastliberalintexas]

54. Well, to be precise

It shows that they defended the rights of *some* people. Though I think of most of our founding fathers in fond terms and think they were far ahead of their times, I would never call them *human* rights activists.

I think the Pope did some good- do a search and you'll see that I've said that repeatedly. But that doesn't translate into "human rights defender" when he clearly left so many humans out of the equation.

[sandnsea]

59. Well I disagree

People who are far ahead of their times and took steps that laid the foundation for the entire concept of equality among every man and woman, can't be considered anything but human rights activists in my mind. Freeing people from the yoke of religion and kings has got to be one of the greatest achievements for human rights in history. Even though they left so many humans out of the equation due to ignorance at the time.

[ruggerson]

53. ok, so we're on the same page n/t

[GoneOffShore]

88. EVERY sperm is sacred!

Or didn't you see "the Meaning of Life"?

[BuyingThyme]

107. Why do so many adults require that we treat them like small children?

It's like listening to babies deny eating the chocolate while the chocolate drips from their faces.

Break the chains that prevent you from being intelligent. The chains are made of paper.

[jonnyblitz]

29. oh please.

I wouldn't even know where to begin with that foolishness. sigh.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

37. Are you Catholic?

the Church condemns the gay "lifestyle". I always wondered how gay Catholics could rationalize belonging to a Church that negates their very existence. It's not even a question of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" in the case of Gays.

[Zhade]

39. Thank you, Kathy.

Appreciate the words.

[sandnsea]

43. lifestyle, does that not include sex?

I'm pointing out that this is just as illogical as founding fathers having slaves and writing the bill of rights. It happens. Just like the Pope was a defender of human rights, but totally missed when it came to gays.

[Zhade]

51. To be intellectually honest, he was a defender of SOME human rights.

The ones he agreed with. Not exactly heroic to support just the rights you agree with - it's easy.

[lastliberalintexas]

56. Not exaclty heroic to defend

the "human" rights which are popular, either. While the Pope may well have done some good in his advocacy for certain people, he never ventured very far out on that limb, did he?

[sandnsea]

58. That makes no sense

Who stands up for things they disagree with? :crazy:

The hard part is standing up for things nobody else agrees with, but are right just the same. The Pope did that, in Poland and later in South America. He stood up against the Cuban embargo, both Iraq wars. He did alot, he wasn't perfect. Has a familiar ring to it.

[Zhade]

65. Oh, so the ACLU doesn't defend Nazis' right to march?

Well then, guess my premise was wrong.

:eyes:

Yes, he did a lot of good, and a lot of bad. No, he is not a defender of human rights, just a defender of the rights he agrees with.

[sandnsea]

77. they believe in free speech

That's what they're standing up for. Many people do not agree that Nazi's ought to have a right to free speech, and that's the hard part. Standing up for things nobody else agrees with.

[Djinn]

106. I do

so do plenty of other people - I vehemently disagree with David Irving but protested Australia's decision to refuse him a visa.

As for standing up against the Iraq war, did he really? OK he said it didn't fit under the Catholic definition of a "just war" but they didn't suggest people vote accordingly like they do with abortion. He didn't suggest Catholic soldiers refuse.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

57. gay is not a "lifestyle". Someone is BORN that way

so to condemn gays is to condemn who they are at the core.

How are the actions of the Founding Fathers analogous to that of the Pope?

[sandnsea]

Uh, dark colored people are born that way

Maybe you missed all the talk about savage heathens at the time.

I'm not agreeing with this, I'm posting this because facts matter. Specifically, "homosexual inclincation (though it might not be a choice)"

"Homosexual activity, as distinguished from homosexual orientation, is morally wrong," wrote Roman Catholic Bishop Francis Mugavero of Brooklyn in 1976, amplifying a rebuke of the practice issued from the Vatican in 1975. "Like heterosexual persons, homosexuals are called to give witness to chastity, avoiding with God's grace, behavior which is wrong for them, just as non-marital sexual relations are wrong for heterosexuals.

"Nonetheless," Mugavero continued, "because heterosexuals can usually look forward to marraige, and homosexuals, while their orientation continues, might not, the Christian community should provide them a special degree of pastoral understanding and care."

Although the letter was meant to be "advisory," there is little doubt that it reflects official Vatican opinion on the subject.

The Vatican's 1975 teaching said that only homosexual acts were wrong; the 1992 letter said that both homosexual inclination (though it might not be a choice) and homosexual acts "must be seen as an objective disorder." Those who are homosexually inclined "must not be led to believe that the living out of this orientation is a morally acceptable option. It is not."

http://www.st-francis-lutheran.org/930530az.html

[donco6]

110. So, it's OK to be gay, as long as you don't do anything . . . gay?

I don't get it.

[mitchtv]

52. I don't condemn Christians

just their beliefs

[merh]

101. What most people who condemn JPII for his gay rights stance

don't understand, is that for him, a priest, sexuality is a choice. He chose not to have sex, he chose to be celibate, so he saw sexuality as a choice. Thus, when you say he did not condemn gays, only gay sex, it makes sense.

[ruggerson]

102. So what do two people of the same gender do who fall in love?

Hold hands for fifty years?

It's mind bogglingly absurd. Priests and nuns are celibate because the Church has decided they cannot marry. All they have to do is leave the Priesthood or the Nunnery, and, bingo, they can marry.

Gays and lesbians? They have no choice at all.

[merh]

103. No, priests and nuns are celibate because they chose to be

celibate and not engage in sex. It is their individual choice. The priesthood, the convent, marriage are all sacraments in the catholic church.

Unwed catholics are not supposed to have sex before marriage. Married catholics are not supposed to get divorced. The catholic church's stance on these two issues does not mean that the church is discriminating against unwed, sexually active people or divorced catholics. It just means that these are tenets of the faith.

Gays and lesbians have a choice - they don't have to be Catholic. We are talking the head of religion. If you don't agree with the tenets, then don't become a catholic. Religion is a personal choice.

Relative to PJPII's accomplishments in the field of human rights, well he did have a heck of an impact throughout the world in improving conditions for millions. I won't waste my time setting them out for you because you see the only issues that matter are gay rights, abortion and women's rights. Since you believe he failed in those three categories and you refuse to even try to understand the complexity of his religion and his position as the leader of the chruch and his understanding of sexuality, then you are as guilty of hypocrisy as you allege he was. You refuse to try to understand.

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

BTW - what good does defaming and judging a dead man do? Doesn't it just turn off and insult those people who liked him?

:shrug:

[Djinn]

108. who's defaming him

has anyone posted anything that isn't/wasn't true? good ol' popey defamed PLENTY of people - that bit recently comparing abortions to the Holocaust for example - he's just thrown in a shitload of women in with Nazi's (who the Catholic Church ironically had no problem with back in the 1930's).

People's actions have consequences and theat doesn't cease just because the person does.

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

I do - I have no religious beliefs but I don't expect the rest of the world to live by that, be nice if the Vatican could have the same respect for people's choices.

[ruggerson]

114. Ummm... who has defamed him?

Point me to where I even remotely did.

And what you don't seem to grasp is that the Church INSTITUTIONALLY plays a role in pushing for CIVIL laws against gay people in THIS country.

It's quite often the "Catholic League" or Bishop Somebody or some arm of the Church that is throwing money and public support into these anti gay marriage state constitutional amendments. Or agitating to repeal civil rights laws for gay people.

Do you understand how this affects people's lives? DO YOU?

[merh]

118. Actually, you are very wrong, the chasm that exists between

the Vatican and the American Church does so because the majority of the Catholic leaders and members do not advocate the policies as you allege.

I understand, have understood for years, how the lack of compassion and understanding harms people of all races, sexes and creeds. You don't need to lecture me or scream at me.

You want changes, then become the leader that helps to bring about the changes like the great civil rights leaders of the past. But keep in mind that they did not advocate hate, they used wisdom, understanding and compassion to help promote their messages. Condemn the policies, don't hate the man. It is just a waste of your energy.

[ruggerson]

115. And you actually can sit there

with a straight face (no pun intended) and lecture to me about insulting people?

I have never advocated, either personally or institutionally, making ANY citizen less of a citizen with less civil rights than myself.

But when I object to an institution that does just that, to a whole group of citizens, you lecture me about insulting people? Insulting who? People who seek to destroy my life?

What is wrong with this picture?

[merh]

117. He never advocated harming

He said he opposed gay sex, not gay people.

He was talking as a religious leader. I am not saying I agree with him, I am just saying you are no better condemning him when you do not even try to understand why he might have made that decision.

All the whining and not a one that will become the leader of the movement to enlighten the ignorant. Where is MLK, where is Gandhi, then become that leader, but first recognize that they were effective because of love and understanding, not hate and condemnation.

Now I am lecturing!

[ruggerson]

119. I don't buy the distinction

If someone is left handed, and one says: Well I don't condemn left handed people, but I do condemn when they use their left hand to do anything, wouldn't you agree that is patently ridiculous?

I completely understand what you're saying about celibacy. But under church doctrine, if one is hetero, one has a choice (get married or stay celibate) if one is homo, one has no choice at all.

And it's flippant to say, well then don't be a Catholic. That would be well and good if the church didn't try to wield its influence in non-religious, civil law. But they do. As in my prior examples. The church actually agitates and organizes AGAINST civil rights laws for gay people. In the United States! So, if they insert themselves in the secular arena, as they do, they have to expect that people will vocally condemn them for it. If they simply want to keep it as church doctrine, fine. But if they want to make it the LAW of the US, then I have a real problem with that. And I have every right to actively oppose them.

And for the fifth time:

I am not condemning him as a human being. I am saying that as an institution, (and the Pope is an institution), he was not the heroic defender of "human rights" by a long shot that we keep having fed to us by the news media. He was a complex human being, like many of us, and he did some interesting and good things. But, on balance, in my humble opinion, defending human rights was not one of them.

As far as "whining", you don't have any way of knowing if I do or don't push actively in real life for those things in which I believe. Since I think you can sense that I'm pretty passionate about my beliefs, I leave it to your best guess as to whether I actively work for that belief system at places other than DU.

Peace.

[Solly Mack]

10. Sure can't. Not possible. Doesn't work that way.

Nope

[mmonk]

11. Not in the true sense of the word.

The same principle applies to the early US where the vote was only allowed to white men of property. A somewhat democracy but not a true democracy. It's the same with human rights. To be true, it can't be selective.

[johnaries]

12. NO. Not unless someone rules that Gays are not human.

Didn't they try that once with Slaves?

[beam me up scottie]

19. Really good point but I think

most of the states are currently working on legislation to deny them their rights.
They're trying to write it into their constitutions as we speak.

[johnaries]

32. You're right, they are. Including my home state.

Once these laws are challenged in the courts, though, the courts will have no choice but to rule them unConstitutional. That's why the neo-cons are attacking the court system.

That may also be their ultimate downfall. I hope.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Agreed.

But I'm way too scared to hope for anything other than the possibility that I can get a job lined up in Vermont where I'm from before these people come for me. Get thee to a blue state before it's too late.

[Selatius]

13. Nobody's perfect.

If there's one thing you learn about this world, it's that nobody's perfect, and I doubt I will be alive long enough to see the day where people live up to the words they preach about peace, justice, and equality because I will tell you I hear a lot of people invoke those words, but I see very few people actually practicing what they're preaching. It's sad to see, but this is the world I know.

His stance on issues was far more progressive than Bush by far, especially with war and peace and helping the poor, but again, he's not perfect, but for the good things he did, I salute him. The only thing we can do is either hope for better leaders (a fool's errand if you ask me) or we can simply stop letting others determine what is right or not right and use the God-given gift of thought and reason in order to determine for ourselves what is right through rational thought and contemplation, not self-interest.

[ruggerson]

16. I completely agree with you

I just think he forfeited the title "defender of human rights" with his stance on women and gays. Let's just say he was anti war and anti death penalty and promoted strict Catholic doctrine.

To say he was a "defender of human rights" is not only hyperbole it is not true.

[Zhade]

34. Not an ureasonable post...

...but he was not a defender of human rights, no matter how laudable some of his other stances were.

At best, one could say he was a defender of the human rights he agreed with - which is hardly being a true defender.

[Djinn]

109. helped the poor?

by sitting on a rabidly guarded fortune running into the billions?

[libhill]

17. Reminds me

Of a Ben Sergeant cartoon I saw a while back - two neighbors are in the yard talking, and one guy says to another: "I don't have a job, my wife and kids have no health insurance, and my brother is in Iraq - but at least I know that two gay people, who really love and care for each other, can't get married." And the other guy replies, 'Yeah, you really have to set your priorities".

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

22. My guess is that you are on the wrong side of history

people opposed interracial marriages by 85% to 15% when the courts did the right thing and legalized it.

Human rights transcend popular opinion of the day. My guess is that your granddaughters will wonder why the big deal was made about gay marriage fifty years earlier.

And, btw, who was talking about men living as women or vice versa?

[Solly Mack]

24. not just wrong the side of history either...

I'm just saying...

[libhill]

25. Right-

And read my post, I only referred to a cartoon I saw in the paper, which I believe was right on target- I didn't say squat about men living as women?????

[ruggerson]

23. Oh, and by the way

comparing gay people to child molestors and murderers on a progressive site is neither progressive nor warranted.

[Zhade]

35. Nor true, of course.

NT!

[lastliberalintexas]

26. A majority of Americans

also supported the invasion of Iraq. A majority of Southerners also favored segregationist/separate but (un)equal policies. A majority of Americans at one point supported the death penalty.

Saying that the majority are in favor of something certainly doesn't make it correct.

[Lex]

30. Exactly.

I was about to point out the very same thing.

[SharonAnn]

21. No! You can't.

[kweerwolf]

31. I assume we're talking about the Pope's position ...

So here are my thoughts:

The Church has an almost schizophrenic attitude toward gays. For instance, see this except from the Bishop of Los Angeles' "The Church's Ministry to Homosexuals" website (http://www.the-tidings.com/2003/0718/zavala.htm)

We learn from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, hereafter CCC, n. 2358).

While some may question the need for particular ministerial outreach to homosexual persons, the United States Catholic Bishops recognized this need in their pastoral reflection on the moral life, To Live in Christ Jesus, 1976. The Bishops write:

"Homosexuals, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship, and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community" (n. 52).

Or the site outlining "Pastoral Care of Homosexuals" (http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3500)

But the thing that I notice about those somewhat more liberalized teachings is that they talk about homosexual "persons." What really upsets the Church (and a lot of folks who at least outwardly support the idea of gay rights) is the idea of gay couples. Even among my straight friends I pick up on a sense of unease if I am with a partner and not just being around them as a "homosexual person" in the singular.

I think a lot of churches - not just the Catholic church - are threatened by the idea of gay marriage. We've come a long way in the rights of gays ... but when those gays exist as couples, it scares them. It seems like the Church and the Pope took a much harder line on gay rights once the issue of gay marriage began to be raised. Don't misunderstand ... the Church and society still has a long way to go toward embracing gay rights. But the idea that gays can form loving families is a threat to what they perceive as the way the universe is suppose to work.

It says a lot about society that we are more comfortable seeing two men holding weapons than holding hands and killing each other instead of kissing.

[Zhade]

38. Of course homosexuals are a threat to the Catholic church (or any church).

Homosexual couples don't procreate (never mind that many do, in fact, either give birth or adopt - when they are allowed to).

The goal of just about every Christian sect is to grow and extend its reach, with the ideal being that the sect's teachings replace all other faiths.

A lack of procreation prevents this growth. Why do you think the Catholic church is against birth control? Sure, the official reason is that it "prevents life" or whatever, but the underlying goal is to force female Catholics to pump out as many little Catholics as possible. (The fact that most Catholics disregard the teachings on BC is to their credit.)

Naturally, gay Catholic couples not procreating slows or diminishes the pool of RCC followers. That's why us GLBTers are frowned upon, IMHO.

Well, that and the icky gay sex.

[lastliberalintexas]

46. Not just Christians

One of the goals of most religions is to outnumber the others, and the easiest way to achieve that goal is for your own members to reproduce. There are some religions which do not worry about numbers, faithful and the monies from same- but they are few and far between.

[Zhade]

49. Being ex-Christian, I could only speak to Christianity.

But your point is noted, and I thank you for adding to mine. :)

[Zhade]

33. Absofuckinglutely NOT.

Here's another hint: you can't be against gay rights and remain a liberal, either. Hell, you can't even really be a small-d democrat, either, since the issue is about equality for all.

Gee, I wonder if that pisses off anyone on DU. If so, GOOD. You SHOULD be ashamed rather than pissed, though.

[BigBearJohn]

36. With all the ugly comments posted on this topic, it sure goes a long way

towards encouraging people of the world to not defend gay rights and
women's rights. You definitely have the right to express your
opinions and beliefs. No one begrudges you that. It's just the
manner in which you do it. If this is the best way you know how
of persuading people of this country to be on your side... to accept
you, to grant you equal rights, then you best re-think your stragegy.

If you just don't give a fuck, then that's a whole 'nuther story altogether.

I am gay. As a youth, I had no problem with my being gay
until I met other gays at a "gay liberation" parade. The gay floats
had every possible weirdness that could be presented. That might be fine for them, but I couldn't identify with leather bound "masters" or drag queens with overdone makeup. They're entitled to be happy and have equal rights, but they sure don't represent me as a gay man. Where are our gay role models? Are these them? If that truly is the case, I want no part of it. My brother watched a couple of episodes of "Queer as Folk" with me. He said, "John, I love you, but is that all that the gay life is about? Promiscuity?"

[Zhade]

40. Oh, cry me a fucking river.

The wonderful thing about the ideals of this country is that I don't have to win anyone's respect to get my rights. They are mine BY BIRTHRIGHT, and no church or believer gets to have a say in it (though many certainly try).

Do you advocate that abused women should be nice to their abusers, so maybe they'll stop?

Maybe you want to appease those religions that have ruled you to be less-than-human, but I'll stand up for my natural rights and dignity, thanks.

[BigBearJohn]

61. Don't be ridiculous

Nobody would be foolish to advocate women being nice to their abusers.
But that's not what I am talking about, and you know it.
You're just being indignant, that's all.
You don't have to kiss anybody's ass to get your rights.
But you don't have to be ugly either.
I'm not talking about appeasing anybody.
Look how easily you attack. If that's your style.
Go for it.

[ruggerson]

50. Gays are about as uniform as straights

What does the lesbian migrant farm worker in Cambodia have in common with the gay investment banker on Wall St who lives in Greenwich, CT?

Nada. Zip.

Which is why all this crap about the "gay lifestyle" is just that: crap.

I don't have much in common with the parade goers either. I don't like floats, I don't like bars, I don't like partying that much. I am in a relationship of 10 years + and am a pretty average guy who cares about my country.

But I will not accept the lies anymore about who I am and what my family is. I just won't. I will stand up and call out anyone who claims they are "pro human rights" while they are calling women subservient and unequal and calling gays "evil." If that doesn't persuade anyone, I could care less. If it changes a couple of minds, great. I'm not after tolerance. I don't need anyone to be tolerant of me. I am DEMANDING full equal rights and full acceptance. Period.

[BigBearJohn]

63. Thanks for clearing things up.

I just think there are better ways to do it.
Demanding things has done nothing for me except get me in trouble.
If you can be successful with your approach, more power to you.
I personally don't think it's effective.

[ruggerson]

71. I think demanding rights is the way you get them

in a pluralistic republic.

I don't think the civil rights movement in the sixties would have gotten nearly as far as fast without the Black Panthers.

The moderate voices are great, and they are often the institutional ones, which serve to broker legislative deals, etc.

But the people who simply won't stand for bigotry anymore are often the conscience and the engine behind a rights movement and the barometer of the speed at which it reaches its goals.

[BigBearJohn]

93. You make some good points.

[mondo joe]

55. Why does your brother get more of an impression about gay life from TV

rather than you?

[BigBearJohn]

64. Funny you should mention that, because he did make a comment

If gays were like you, John, I would have no problem with them.

I told him, "it takes all kinds... just like in the straight world."

[mondo joe]

69. That's an interesting comment. What is his problem with the gays who

are not like you?

[BigBearJohn]

94. He can't relate to them.

[mondo joe]

105. That strikes me as an odd thing to have a problem over.

I can't relate to a lot of people.

I h=just don't worry about them.

[jonnyblitz]

60. andrew sullivan is that you?

if you were straight would you have a problem being a member of the "heterosexual community" after going to mardi gras and seeing the girls flashing their boobs for the bead necklaces? would all those fancy costumes your fellow straights wear make your cringe?

i know straight people who sound more open towards drag queens and leather people than you sound.

you have some serious issues. sad.

[BigBearJohn]

66. Good for your straight friends. We all have our likes and dislikes.

There are groups in the heterosexual world I can't stand either.

[beam me up scottie]

74. I have a brother that justifies his intolerance to

women by telling me "Except for you, YOU'RE different"
So I guess that is supposed to give him a blank check to be sexist.
NOT with me it doesn't.
A bigot is a bigot is a bigot. And if you buy it when someone tells you that you're the exception to the rule, you're delusional.

[bettyellen]

79. exactly. everybody's equal except those people over there... i don't like

their looks. why can't they be more like me? does the bear understand the road he's going down with this dignity hogwash.

more often than not, it's those who exhibit feminine qualities that are marginalized and devalued.

[beam me up scottie]

82. True story:

My good friends Dave & Dennis attended a Gay Pride parade on a sunny spring day. Dennis, being the more flamboyant of the two, (not to mention a fucking riot) decided to march and was having a "gay" old time doing just that. Dave, being older and more sedate was watching from the sidewalk. A middle aged woman who was standing next to him made the comment,
"Well, can you believe THOSE people? Never in all my life have I seen such a spectacle and...blah blah blah"(not a direct quote but that was the gist of it).
Dave looked at her, pointed to the marchers and said
"Lady, I'm one of THEM"

I wasn't there, unfortunately, but he did do an excellent impression of what she looked like after he said it. It was priceless.

[BigBearJohn]

95. You certainly are quick to judge. No gray areas huh?

[beam me up scottie]

100. No.

I'm just not stupid enough to believe it when someone makes a bigoted comment to me about a particular group of people and follows it up with "oh, except for you, you're nothing like the rest of them".
Just take out the word that they use to describe a group (women, gays etc) and replace it with the word "black".
How tolerant does this sound?

"Oh, I would have no problem with blacks, if they were all like you"

[bettyellen]

62. why aren't you a gay role model youself? too busy looking down on

some activists because they look different? too femme for you to respect, huh?
so caring that society wants to deem you less than human is ugly?
i think disrespecting the people who are courageous enough to fight for your human rights is pretty damned ugly.
why do you buy into this shame based looksist bullshit?


added s es.
ha.

[jonnyblitz]

67. unfortunately that self-loathing attitude is common with some gays

nothing irritates me worse, the bigotry carries over into our own community. some people are just bitter because they can't get laid. :P

[BigBearJohn]

68. I like straights or gays who carry themselves with a modicum of dignity

[Kathy in Cambridge]

72. And I like gays and straights who don't judge others by their actions in a

parade. Have you seen a mardi gras parade? Decorum doesn't really apply to these situations. Who's to say some of these folks in a gay pride parade don't have jobs, families, and normal lives? Letting loose once a year is no crime. Did you ever go to Spring Break in college?

[BigBearJohn]

96. Ok, you have a point there.

[bettyellen]

78. a group of "bears" on a NYC street look as silly as any drag queens do....

looking like the brawny towel guy has dignity?

being a looks-ist conformist and devaluing feminine qualities denigrates a big chunk of what makes us diverse and human.
if you think there's any dignity in those values, i feel really sorry for you. mindless conformity yes, dignity? nope. there's too much bigotry in that line of thinking to use the word dignity.
try tight assed or judgemental.

[BigBearJohn]

98. Have a happy life.

[zanne]

81. And conservatives took over this country...

by being nice? It's too late for that.

[beam me up scottie]

84. Good point.

And I might add that black people and women most definitely did not win their civil rights by being quiet and well behaved.

Welcome to DU Zanne!:hi:

[BigBearJohn]

99. And how was it that Gandhi changed a whole country?

[KnowerOfLogic]

112. Sounds like excuses and rationalizations for prejudice. nt

[ladjf]

41. Don't you know that logical, objective thinking is ungodly and

unpatriotic? Please refrain from wasting our time with intelligent questions.

[Floogeldy]

45. From the UN's Declaration of Human Rights

"1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

Does a fair reading of this provision support gay marriage as a human right? I'm not sure.

[porphyrian]

47. If you're full of shit, yes. - n/t

[blogslut]

70. Heroes

Scratch any hero and you'll see the blood of a mere mortal.

What is a hero anyway? At some point, each and every one of us will do something heroic. Nevertheless, we're all still very very human.

The Pope was a man that did some great good but also did things that were not so good.

[beam me up scottie]

75. ISN' T the CHIMPEROR

an advocate for the human rights of certain individuals, but not others?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

76. The question is unclear

Do you mean "A defender of all human rights" or "a defender of some human rights"? Trivially, the answer is no in the first case and yes in the second.

If, as I presume, this is apropos of the late Pope, then I'd say that on balance his record on human rights was positive, but I do agree that his position on gay rights counts against him.

[NYC]

80. No, you cannot.

[randr]

85. Of course you can

This would make you a republican!

[RetroLounge]

86. You cannot.

RL

[Dutch]

87. Yes- amazingly enough, not all humans are gay.

For some reason, a feeling seems to have emerged on DU over the last few days that the only worthwhile measure of a persons worth is their attitude towards gay rights. Now, I agree it's one measure, but I cannot agree that a man who did a heck of a lot of good, bravely speaking out against global poverty, stalinism, and the Iraq war, can be dismissed because he took a religiously inspired position against gay equality- even though i strongly disagree with that stance. His defence of human rights was incomplete and imperfect- but to dismiss it entirely is just wilfully ignorant.

[GoneOffShore]

89. He also stood against

womens rights.
And that has been the thrust of the criticism here. Not just gay rights, but the rights of about 1/2 the people on the planet.

Yeah, he did some good, but he also set back the clock in the church.

Luckily he was no Torquemada (sp?).

[Zynx]

97. Abortion is not the only right women have.

Did he ever oppose their right to speech? Their right to vote? Their right to earn a living? Their right to freedom of assembly? Their right to think for themselves? No. He did not. Sure, I will concede he was backward on women in the church, but he was not some sexist pig.

[ruggerson]

91. Not all humans are African Americans either

So, I guess, under your logic, we can now safely say that if one supports slavery, one can still be considered to be a supporter of human rights as long as one is against global poverty, stalinism, and the Iraq war.

Additionally your comment seems to give credence to the notion that only gays care about gay rights. To the contrary, it is the concern of tens of millions of straight people, as well, as it should be. Straight people, who understand what is going with this issue, are arm in arm with their gay brothers and sisters, much like many whites were during the civil rights movement.

It's not just about gay people. It's about all of us.

[Djinn]

113. What exactly did he do to alleviate poverty?

I keep hearing about his work for the poor - yet the Vatican holds BILLIONS and keeps insisting women in third world countries have a hoard of children they can't afford?

How did he "bravely" speak out against the war by saying "it's not a just war" shit half the world's population said that - did he instruct Catholics not to support the Bush junta? to refuse to go to Iraq?

[seventythree]

116. exactly

[understandinglife]

90. NO. (nt)

www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Lindacooks]

92. No.

[TexasSissy]

104. Depends on what you mean by "gay rights," I guess. Rights to...

do what? The devil is in the details.

If by "gay rights" you mean "gay marriage," then yes, you can be a defender of human rights w/o defending the concept of gay marriage...or civil unions, for that matter.

The Dem. Party embraces civil unions, I think, but not gay marriage, stating it should be a states' rights issue. I think the Dem. Party is a human rights supporter (when it has balls, that is, which is not often lately).