Which of the following do you identify with, and why?

I strongly prefer the pink triangle over the rainbow flag…

Back in the Nazi era there was a time when the Nazis turned against gay men, which is ironic ’cause the SA was filled with us faggots and used to have big huge drunken orgies. But the SA got closed down and the SS came into ascendance.

About this same time being gay became a crime and they started sending gay men off to concentration camps. The pink triangle is what they used to put on the sleeves of gay men – just as Jews wore the yellow star of David.

You probably know all of that, but what you may not know is that guys with pink triangles were on the lowest rung of the concentration camps. They were worked harder, abused more, you name it. There are stories of gay men stealing yellow stars of David off dead Jews in order to improve their treatment.

The pink triangle is a badge of honor for us. It is a symbol of the hatred against us that we have appropriated and used for our own purposes. It’s there to remind us that the discrimination against us has long and dark roots.

The rainbow flag doesn’t have any of that history. I’ve met the guy who “invented” it – it’s a happy symbol of inclusion and equality – there’s no dark history behind it.

Thing is, the gay community isn’t all that inclusive (ask any gay black man), and we don’t have equality either. IMHO, our symbol should still be the pink triangle. We need to be reminded of the ways in which we still need to fight against those who hate us. And our struggle against inequality should make us see all in the LGBT community as our family, regardless of skin color, etc.

It’s gay pride month – which symbol will you use? It’s true, the rainbow flag makes great flags – triangular flags just don’t work that well. But when it comes to things like pins, badges and bumper stickers – pick a pink triangle and wear/use it with pride. And explain it’s history to people when it comes up in conversation…

I was reading Joe. My. God. this morning and he had a post on a Canadian pastor (Stephen Boissoin) who’s gotten fined for saying things against gays. He and his group (the fairly powerful and well-known Christian Coalition) were also barred from publishing negative comments about gays in the future.

Apparently he wrote a letter to the editor of a paper that got published and then a gay person got attacked in the same town shortly after it was published. His letter was linked to the gay bashing and violá, he was found guilt and ordered to pay something like $7,000 in damages – $5K to one person and $2K to someone else.

Here’s a quote from what he said:

Don’t allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The last bit is what everyone is complaining about – equating gays with pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps…

For starters, he chose three interesting groups to compare us to. An argument can be made that drugs and prostitution should be made legal. And saying that all forms of sex between adults and “children” under the age of 18 are criminal is a bit of an outdated notion as well. Children need to be protected, but laws need to be re-evaluated given the changing nature of children’s sexuality.

All three of those groups are “complicated”. He didn’t compare us to rapists or murderers or even embezzlers. He compared us to groups who have complicated sets of issues – much as we have complicated sets of issues (which, thankfully, are becoming less complicated).

And I’m sure I’d fit his definition of “morally depraved”, but that’s not how I think of myself at all. I’m just trying to have a fun sex life. He’s trying so hard to see things in black and white…

I’m not sure how I feel about this. Joe. My. God. thinks it’s a bad precedent, I’m not so sure. Thing is, reading the letter, I disagree with him, I think he’s alarmist, but he’s not calling for physical action against gay people – per se. I don’t know that I would have found him guilty.

But at the same time I have enormous respect for the Canadian legal system. They’re a truly multi-cultural society (at least in the major cities), and these are the laws they have passed to protect the equilibrium in that society and protect minority groups. If he had said something similar about some ethnic group and a member of that ethnic group had been attacked, then there probably would have been the same ruling.

We have to remember gay people are being killed. At the same time people should be able to discuss all sides of the issue. It’s a really difficult balance.

In this case I’d give lukewarm support for the verdict in that the legal system is the correct place for this to be decided. If it’s overturned on appeal – so be it…

I think it’s also important that we as Americans don’t impose our values and norms on other countries. Canada isn’t the United States – they have a different way of dealing with these types of things. It may be interesting for us to discuss, but we need to respect their process since it’s done in good faith and attempts to balance the needs of all groups in a multi-cultural environment.

And we should not forget that this one letter, even if it wasn’t dripping with blood, did apparently result in one of us getting attacked. That is the real lesson here – little things do make a difference and bigotry does lead to physical violence.

So since I had my leather and was on a bit of an IML high, I figured I’d try out “Code Night” at the NYC Eagle. So I pulled on my chaps (over jeans) and my new Wescos and my bar vest and went out with my boyfriend (who was was in leather pants, a black T, and combat boots).

I hadn’t really researched it and we managed to get there 15 minutes before it opened @ 10pm, so when it did open we were some of the first people there.

Now the big surprise was that “code night” didn’t really have a dress code. Well, it sorta had one in that there was one part of the bar you weren’t allowed in unless you were dressed right. But that’s just sorta lame. At one point these guys walked into the “restricted” area – one of them was wearing flop flops and a white t-shirt. The fact that he was even allowed in the front door is just wrong… I mean he was cute, but flip flops and a white t-shirt?

The evening made me miss the LURE. Wednesday nights at the LURE were wonderful – there was this great mix of traditional leathermen and East Village punks. Then Friday and Saturday at the LURE you couldn’t get in the front door unless you were dressed appropriately. No tennis shoes (forget flip flops!), no “tendy” anything… And it was really busy.. That was a leather bar. The Eagle isn’t. It’s just sad…

There were a few leathermen around and some guys who were pulling off fetish pretty well. Like the guy in a nothing but a jock strap and high-tops.

The sexual tension was a bit mediocre. There was a guy who was showing ass in the bathroom. And when we went up the back stairs we interrupted two guys who were fucking on the deck near the stairwell – and that was about it. A few guys making out, but that hardly counts. It was nothing like the sexual activity at the Chicago Eagle during IML.

Since I was mostly hanging out with my boyfriend, I only talked to one guy (a hot Italian from Long Island) who got a little weirded out by the fact that I had a boyfriend…

It was a quiet night all in all… I’ll go again sometime – the nice part was that it was that the crowd was manageable enough that I could have talked to guys if I had wanted to…

Still, the leather scene in NY is dead. That part’s really sad…

If I had had my way John Edwards would be the Democratic nominee, but he’s not. Of the two left standing I’ve always liked Obama a bit more than Hilary. Hilary is not a liberal, and I am. I used to think she was a liberal, but having had her for my Senator for a while now, she’s just not liberal – not at all. There’s a reason why she’s getting support from the blue collar / rural wing of the Democratic party…

That said I don’t feel like I really know Obama all that well – and I’m a little uncertain of him. But the concept of voting for McCain is beyond me – especially for a gay person. Think of it this way – when you vote for President you’re also voting for things like agency heads who set the tone of government agencies, and you’re voting for the Supreme Court. 8 years of Bush have resulted in a Supreme Court that’s far more antagonistic towards gay rights than if Gore had gotten in…

Michelangelo Signorile and I would disagree on a lot, but on the idea of a gay person voting for McCain we’re in complete agreement. If you’re such a racist that you can’t bear to vote for a black man… Just stay home in November – don’t actually vote for someone who is going to do you harm (McCain)…

If you come across others who are thinking of voting for McCain – challenge them. Point out that they’re voting against themselves, or if they’re not gay, then they’re voting against you. Don’t be afraid to make it personal. One of us is getting killed every 8 days in the United States. We don’t need to coddle bigots – they’re hateful and it hurts us in very real ways.

Read an interesting article on HIV transmission in a “post-AIDS” world – focusing on Britain. The writer (Elizabeth Pisani) goes through the scenarios pretty fully and then has a few observations…

First she says gays needs to “shift down a gear or two” on drugs-and-sex. At least that’s her hope. While I agree some gay guys need to shift down a gear on drugs, when it comes to the sex part I don’t think she completely gets what it means to be gay or be a guy, but her focus is prevention, so it seems reasonable to her…

As the “survivor” generation ages out of the bars and clubs, as same-sex partnerships become more mainstream, clubs and parties may become less central to gay life. They won’t disappear, any more than getting plastered and getting laid have disappeared from the lives of young heterosexuals. But a sense of social alienation is part of the glue that binds young gay people into a “scene” where risky sex, risky everything, is normal. If gay men felt less alienated – if we talked more about same-sex relations in our families and schools, if we had more openly gay people in our boardrooms and sports clubs – we’d reduce the power of that glue.

While it sounds good, I’m not sure it will work that way… On the drugs side of things, sure, the more gay people feel accepted the less drug use there will be since part of drug use is due to people feeling psychologically inadequate in some way due to society telling them their ‘not right’ – but even that may not have a major effect.

And I guess the more there are relationships, the less sex guys will have, but on that one I’m more skeptical. Gay relationships are less likely to be monogamous. Just take IML this past week – lots of guys were there without their boyfriends having lots of sex (and some with their boyfriends). Gay relationships may mean less sex, but they’re much further from monogamy than straight relationships.

One of the guys at IML was even in a long-term relationship and pretty much bug chasing – he wasn’t taking all loads, but pretty close, and he was somewhat excited about becoming poz. Even though he’s chasing he said his boyfriend will “think it was an accident” when he the guy tells him he’s poz. I don’t think the writer really gets these types of complexities…

Being gay and being straight are fundamentally different on many levels. Sure, some gay guys want to settle down and have kids like straight people. But they’re not typical, and I’m not sure they ever will be.

So I think things are a bit more complicated than the writer thinks… There may be some reduction in HIV as gay men are given full equality, but it’s a tenuous connection at best.

She did say one thing that’s completely true. She calls what we’re seeing in the western world as the “post-AIDS” era. She worries what happens when a “post-AIDS” mentality becomes prevalent in the third world…

Having worked in HIV for over a decade in developing countries, I shudder to think what will happen when the “post-Aids mentality” clashes with the imperfect health systems of poorer countries, where treatment can be intermittent and viral load bounces up and down. But in countries like Britain, the shift to a post-Aids world is manageable. The challenge for the gay community is to prevent the survivor generation’s attitude – “the plague is over, let’s party” – from becoming the norm for a world without Aids.

Again, interesting statement, but if she’s saying it’s the western gay community’s responsibility to prevent a “post-AIDS” mentality from spreading to developing countries then once again I have to disagree with her. Just as I think people have to take the responsibility for their own health, I think the developing world has to take responsibility for their own attitudes – to ensure they’re in line with their own ability to provide care.

Still, it is a bit sobering to think how quickly some countries could go down hill if the thinking we see in the western gay communities became the norm in developing countries. While the situation is “manageable” for us, it’s not in other countries.

Intolerance of intolerance is not the same as other forms of intolerance. It’s something we need to actively engage in. When someone’s a bigot it’s not OK. They’re not “entitled to their opinion” – their opinion breeds an environment where stuff like this is OK…

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh says he will ‘cut off the head’ of any homosexual caught in his country. Addressing supporters at the end of his meet the farmers tour Sunday, Jammeh also ordered any hotel or motel housing homosexuals to close down, adding that owners of such facilities would also be in trouble. He said the Gambia was a country of believers, indicating that no sinful and immoral act as homosexual would be tolerated in the country. He warned all homosexuals in the country to leave, noting that a legislation ‘stricter than those in Iran’ concerning the vice would be introduced soon. (from Towleroad)

And this tragic story…

Two Indian women whose families had tried to break up their relationship set themselves on fire in what police describe as an apparent suicide.

The charred bodies of Christy Jayanthi Malar, 38, and her partner identified only as Rukmani, 40, were discovered Saturday in the home of one of the women in the town of Sathangadu.

Police said it appeared the women died in an embrace.

Both women were in opposite-sex marriages in what some LGBT activists say is common among Indian gays who must fight laws against homosexuality and pressure from families. (from 365gay)

Thanks to Joe. My. God. for making me notice those stories.

Guys… Be proud of who you are, and make sure your elected leaders stand up against stuff like this.

Hint: Republicans don’t stand up for gay rights… If you’re a gay Republican you’ve got problems. Your argument that the Republicans are more fiscally responsible hasn’t been true for decades. Republicans are the party of hatred and most of it is aimed at gay people these days. So “Gay Republican” = “Self Hating Fag”…