I am currently living in Canada, about 2 hours driving distance from Toronto. Toronto held its 25th annual Gay pride parade just yesterday with gay men and women oiled and clad in fetish leather, strutting, kissing, and gyrating on their floats. One policeman's quote read along the lines of " We love and appreciate the sexual diversity in Toronto!". Another picture showed a woman and her three children attending the parade while her quote read " We've been attending the pride parade the last 6 years!". The picture showed the mother as she looked on in excitement while her young children looked confused and distraught as they gazed upon a half naked man tightly bound in leather, complete with a mouth gag and wrapped in chains. I being a Catholic, am against the concept of homosexuality, believing that sexual relations with the same sex is a mortal sin. I'm pretty sure some ignorant people are disillusioned into thinking that all Catholics wish to burn homosexuals at the stake, believing that they fear and hate them. This is untrue. We believe that they are human beings worthy of love and respect as any other human being. We just do not agree with their choice of lifestyle. The thing I found most offensive about the Gay parade was not the gay people themselves, but the obscene and gratuitousness that some of the gay people portrayed themselves in front of the general public that consisted not only of adults, but of young children as well. Pride for one's sexuality is one thing, but must one express their sexuality through inappropriate clothing ( or lack of clothing) and erotic gestures. One picture taken at the parade actually showed a semi-profile of a man wearing nothing but socks, hiking boots, and his hand cleverly shielding his privates. One of the main reasons that I do not agree with homosexual relations is that I believe that an individual cannot express love with the same sex as they can with that of the opposite. One of the main reasons that women and men possess complimentary organs is to pass on their genes and to have children and those of the same sex cannot do so, thus making it fundamentally wrong. When truly loving someone, you wish to be as close to that person as possible, you wish to give yourself wholly to that person, mind, body, and soul. You wish to have children with that person, watch your child grow, graduate, see them succeed, get married, have children themselves. But since gay couples cannot express their love to that extent, I believe that some gay relations do not thrive on unconditional love but instead, have substituted it with erotic love, or relations solely based on the individuals own pleasure. Since these relations focus on the individuals pleasure alone, this classifies their love as selfish. But as we all know, selfish love is not true love. I'm aware that it sounds that I believe all homosexuals are selfish, only seeking self sexual gain, and I realize it is wrong to generalize gays as a whole. I guess what I’m trying to say is that our society is decomposing, decomposing into a cesspool of violence, sex, and drugs. I don’t believe sex is evil, hell, I think sex is one of the greatest ways that two people can express one’s love for one another. But people are being disillusioned into believing that love is this passionate, warm, gushy thing that they inaccurately portray in the media. But true love is not this. True love is the willingness to lay down one’s life for another. Jesus Christ showed his love for humankind through his passion. I’m pretty sure He didn’t like being flogged, ridiculed, and nailed to a cross. I’m also pretty sure he didn’t feel any warm or gushy feelings for his fellow apostles. Jesus actually asks His Father in the garden that if possible, to remove this cup of suffering from him, but that it is His Father’s will which he wishes to accomplish, and not his own. True love is the willingness to suffer for the ones you love, to give up everything, even if this includes your own life.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I suspect a lot of the 'showy' gay pride acts are more of a reaction to homophobia than any desire to "force" a life-style on "the rest of us".
For example, I think that most straight Canadians who favour gay marriage probably don't really care a whole lot - it's more that they can't understand why other straight people are willing to deny gay couples to get married (I really don't mean to turn this into a debate about gay marriage - sorry).
Personally, I wouldn't speak of whether or not people, who I don't know, love each other truly.
Edited because I can't type!
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Yea you can't claim that someone who loves someone of the same sex doesn't want to have a child with the other person and watch them grow, etc. What about women who can't have babies for whatever reason but they still want to have a child with their husband? Can they not show their love as much as couples who have children via their own eggs and sperm?
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
all I've got to say about such a parade is that I think I'd be pretty much equally put out whether it consisted of homosexuals or heterosexuals...certain things just really do not need to be advertised like that
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I'm reminded of a fairly old Onion article (that's old enough you'd need to subscribe to view it), something along the lines of "Gay Pride Parade Sets Back Acceptance of Homosexuals 30 Years."
Gay pride parades do tend to showcase the more outlandish, fetishy, and bizarre aspects of gay habits. But really, plenty of heterosexuals have the same fetishes for leather, whip cream, saran-wrap, BDSM, special outfits, and whatever else. They just have fewer parades showcasing it. (I'm not going to try to make a percentage comparison on that, because I doubt the accuracy of any poll that asks people kinky sex questions.)
I'm all for gay pride, and am fine with people dressing as strange as they want to for the parade (think about the star wars premieres). But I don't think it should be an excuse for something that would normally be considered public indecency. If you can't walk around naked the rest of the year, you shouldn't for this one parade either, basically.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by ReikoDemosthenes:
certain things just really do not need to be advertised like that
Yeah! Back into the closet, all of you! (sarcastically)
(Edited for sarcasm emphasis)
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I actually largely agree with his point about the hyper sexuality of some in the parage. If you want to celebrate your crotch, do it on your own in your bedroom. I don't need to see that on the busiest street in the country. I'm just one of those people who says "get a room" when two people are macking on the street corner.
As for the rest of your post, I can respect your opinion, I suppose. Even if I completely disagree with it. I realize I'm playing the same "how much do they love each other?" game that you are, I'm just coming to a different conclusion. Based on the actions of the homosexual couples I've known and what they've told me I'm inclined to take their love for each other at face value.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: But I don't think it should be an excuse for something that would normally be considered public indecency. If you can't walk around naked the rest of the year, you shouldn't for this one parade either, basically.
Well, Canada (Ontario, specifically) has some interesting laws about public indecency. Though, I've been told, women don't run around naked much (there goes my vacation plan!)
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Dude, there totally needs to be a straight pride parade.
Oh wait, that's pretty much like spring break on every beach in America.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
See, if it's legal there, fine. Parents concerned about their children seeing nudity should petition for stricter public indecency laws. I don't think people walking around naked is bad, personally. I just don't think there should be an exception to the law (if there is a law banning nudity, etc) just because they're gay. Same as their shouldn't be a law excluding them from something because they're gay.
The only gay pride parade I've seen in person was in Munich, Germany. I was 18 on a HS trip. I can't say I was terribly traumatized, though plenty of the outfits were pretty indecent.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
There are laws forbidding nudity below the waist (one interesting law tidbit (in Nova Scotia anyway) is that there are no laws against public urination, although there are laws against indecent exposure. So if someone's taking a leak on your home you gotta run out and get a good look if you want to charge them with anything) and nudity above the waist is a no no if you're doing it for money.
But yeah, it's certainly perfectly legal. And it's not like parents don't know when and where the parade is going to be so it's certainly avoidable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've complained about Gay Pride parades before, mainly because I think they present entirely the wrong image and have been "sold" to the wrong market. We straights tend to think of Gay Pride parades as protests, exhibitions designed to foster acceptance of homosexuality -- and that's not entirely our fault, since there are lots of homosexuals out there who'd like to use the parades this way.
But the parades serve another function, one that makes marketing more difficult; they function as a sort of safety valve on the homosexual community. It's a chance to get crazy and flaunt the "immorality" that society keeps telling you that you harbor -- in public, no less, and surrounded by hundreds if not thousands of generally supportive people. (And the ones who aren't supportive are usually so obnoxious that, like the original poster, they wind up marginalizing themselves or turning themselves into figures of ridicule.)
These two impulses -- wild release and political advocacy -- are directly at odds with each other. I'd like to say that the first will decline as homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable, but I think we're seeing a backlash against homosexuality nowadays that may make this less likely than I would have predicted ten years ago.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I'm not sure I'd call it a backlash so much as flailing about in desperation. I'd bet that ten years ago, most of the people who are vocally against gay marriage (and similar issues), took the status quo for granted. Is it that big of a surprise that they're suddently so vocally against the gay movement now that a gay rights victory seems increasingly inevitable? I would be more surprised if it didn't happen.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by ReikoDemosthenes:
certain things just really do not need to be advertised like that
Yeah! Back into the closet, all of you! (sarcastically)
(Edited for sarcasm emphasis)
maybe you missed the part where I said "I'd be pretty much equally put out whether it consisted of homosexuals or heterosexuals" Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
My good friend Natasha and her girlfriend went out to San Fransico this past week for the Gay Pride Fest... WOW! The stories they told... they didn't want to come back. I wish I could have gone.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
GayPride. The name says it all really. Its a celebration. Its a chance to dress up and have fun and spend some time in the sun.
Yes, there are people who like to celebrate by dressing in leather. Others wear comfy shoes and wave their flags. Yet others push around their children in strollers (many of whom have been adopted and given a loving home they may never have had without same-sex couples.) Sure the guys with whips get all the attention but why act like there's something wrong with that? Maybe I'm not the only one who's sick of America's "we must cover our kids in bubblewrap" attitude towards sexuality, violence, diversity, language, etc. All of which, I must point out, are issues these kids will come in contact with one day.
When I was young my parents would dash around the house naked looking for clean towels. Most of the people I go to school with grew up attending Mardi Gras, where even in the family areas, a stray boob isn't an unusual sight. And yet, we're all well-adjusted, as much as any young adult can hope to be, and not a bunch deliquents.
[ June 28, 2005, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: Shanna ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yes, the big crazy gay pride parades are just like Mardi Gras. My girlfriend said the one in San Fransisco was exactly like Mardi Gras. A million people crammed into four blocks.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Ok.. can't stand it.. I need to reply.
quote:One of the main reasons that I do not agree with homosexual relations is that I believe that an individual cannot express love with the same sex as they can with that of the opposite.
LOL! Thanks for the insult.
quote: One of the main reasons that women and men possess complimentary organs is to pass on their genes and to have children and those of the same sex cannot do so, thus making it fundamentally wrong. When truly loving someone, you wish to be as close to that person as possible, you wish to give yourself wholly to that person, mind, body, and soul. You wish to have children with that person, watch your child grow, graduate, see them succeed, get married, have children themselves. But since gay couples cannot express their love to that extent,
Breeding is good to continue the race, but I don't think that not breeding is EVIL. There are SIX BILLION humans on Earth. Oh yes, non-breeding straight couples have no ability to love. Close your eyes and do it for England. You think gay folk don't want children?
quote: I believe that some gay relations do not thrive on unconditional love but instead, have substituted it with erotic love, or relations solely based on the individuals own pleasure. Since these relations focus on the individuals pleasure alone, this classifies their love as selfish. But as we all know, selfish love is not true love.
SOME people are like this. But those relationships don't survive too long. It's fun, fast, and intense...but unless there are other bonds they won't last. But often they do. MOST gay folk get together in your "normal" courting/dating way. And when you have a people cast out from the mainstream just because they love the same sex, when in EVERY other way they are the same as you, then why do you think a culture around the issue that cast them out of the mainstream would become so important? You insult us, cast us out for our love, and then expect us not to rally around the object of our expulsion as, in fact, a source of PRIDE.
Sex with a woman is repugnant and alien to me, but you don't hear me saying that true love between a man and woman is impossible.
These sexual filled parades as Tom says is an emergency vent. And they are also NOT ment to be a matchmaking event... it is to celebrate sex. That is not wrong. It's wrong when people start to think that sex is the only basis of a relationship... I agree that is a danger.
[ June 28, 2005, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well said, Telp. Nicely done. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>These sexual filled parades as Tom says is an emergency vent.
Still not acceptable or productive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And they are also NOT ment to be a matchmaking event... it is to celebrate sex."
I think it's worth asking whether this is really something that needs doing on a public street.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well said, Telp.
Gay people have been forced to hide their sexuality for ages. Pride parades are a chance to let ones hair down and have a good time. Plus, you fail to point out all of the Christain groups and politicians that ALSO march in the parade. It's not all half naked men and women dancing on floats... *Has been to the pride parade in NY several times and marched in both the NY Dyke March and the Boston Dyke March.
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
"And they are also NOT ment to be a matchmaking event... it is to celebrate sex. "
Wow, typically the gay agenda is to sell themselves about love and commitment and marriage, now the truth finally comes out. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Gay people have been forced to hide their sexuality for ages. Pride parades are a chance to let ones hair down and have a good time.
A lot of the behavior at the local gay pride parade simply doesn't fit this description, Syn. Or else, the participants' definition of a 'good time' is unhealthily skewed-- healthy sexuality does not include sadism or masochism.
The gay pride parades do more to hamper equal legal relationships for homosexuals than the whole Republican agenda. Because so few people in America are exposed to open homosexuals, they don't really understand what the community is about-- and then to see John Q. dressed in a leather kilt with a dog chain and black lipstick and a frat-boy paddle, and he's surrounded by a thousand other dressed (or not dressed) similarly. . .
It's like taking a video tape of Mardi Gras to Iran and saying, "See the hedonist American pig-dogs!" and holding it up as representative of all America.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So, the problem isn't with homosexuality per se, but public displays of immorality? Fair enough.
As long as people who object to Gay Pride parades also object just as strenuously to Mardi Gras, Carnival, Spring Break, Black College Reunion, Fantasy Fest, etc. And many do.
I submit, however, that societies have traditionally had a day of release, a safety valve, as far back as the Romans' Lupercalia. Closing off the safety valve might not be a good idea.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, Lupercalia was based on much older traditions that were considered ancient by the days of the Roman Republic.
And I think you'll find many people who will disagree about what healthy sexuality includes, Scott R -- there are many people who engage in consensual, safe sadism and masochism because that's what's sexually stimulating for them. Its not much different than acting out a fantasy situation.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Amen, fugu. The variation in human sexual behavior is incredibly broad, and as long as it's practiced in a safe and consensual manner, I dont' believe it can be called unhealthy.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Once upon a time, a Gay Pride parade was an earnest attempt for a marginalized and repressed part of society to step out in public and say, "Look, we're here, we're queer and we're people who deserve an equal place in society."
That was an important and brave step towards acceptance. And it made a difference. The public encountered in broad daylight something that had been kept in the dark. And they found out that there wasn't a monster under the bed. They got to see that these were the people you saw every day that were a part of their lives.
As such, this was a major step forward for civil rights. It was not a cry for more rights than straight people enjoyed, but a cry for equal footing in the community.
But let's face it, as homosexuality has reached what may be a peak of acceptance publicly, some folks have hijacked the parades' lofty ideals and turned it into something lacivious and confrontational.
Instead of saying, "We are a part of society" the parades so often take the tone of "Your society can't take what we are" or "Hey, does this offend you?!?" And some participants revel in not just pushing the envelope, but in honestly attempting to destroy the envelope.
Some participants in the parades actively work to go beyond the bounds that society allows for public displays of sexuality. They revel in the moment to dress or act in ways that would have any other person arrested for, if they did that in any other public arena.
And then, when those individuals get the attention in the media or the shocked reaction from the attending crowd, they erode at the acceptance so hard won over the past three decades.
It is, in a much smaller way, the effects that the most militant of Black Panthers actually worked against what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. sacrificed his life for. This time it is Buffy the Leather Clad Moustachio stepping on the legacy of Harvey Milk.
American acceptance of gay society hinges much more on the growing knowledge that a gay person shares so many things with their straight counterparts, with only sexual preference as the dividing line. Confrontational, in your face displays of fetishism (often staged) do just the opposite.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Where's that Onion article...
AAA! When did the onion go to asking $30 for their archives. Jeez.
Anyway, hilarious article saying "Gay Pride Parade Sets Back Movement Thirty Years."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>And I think you'll find many people who will disagree about what healthy sexuality includes, Scott R -- there are many people who engage in consensual, safe sadism and masochism because that's what's sexually stimulating for them.
I think that you're right about there being different sexual quirks; I think you're utterly wrong about sadism and masochism being emotionally safe.
But safety is subjective too. . .
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I really don't understand how Gay Pride parades hurt anyone. Are you forced to watch or be there? Are there any laws being broken? If not, then what's the problem?
If you want to outraged at the fact that someone out there is doing something that you morally disapprove of, then perhaps there are better things to focus on. Like child molesters or genocide in Africa and Sudan.
If you think the gay lifestyle is sinful, and you think Gay Pride parades are morally bankrupt, I'm not going to argue with you, because there's almost no chance that I'll convince you otherwise. But if they aren't hurting anyone or breaking any laws, then I think there are other, more important things to aim your outrage at.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I know people who are into it, and they certainly seem rather healthy on the whole.
Many are in long-term, loving relationships, such as marriage . . . check.
Many are productive members of society . . . check.
Many are perfectly normal (well, as normal as hatrackers, at least ) to interact with . . . check.
It may be your opinion that there's something damaging about sexual sadism and masochism (note that this does not mean general sadism and masochism, which are different things), but I'm not aware of anything backing that up, and my personal experience denies it.
To elaborate on that parenthetical, though: many people get off on things (involving consenting adults) that would be considered, outside of a consenting sexual relationship, unhealthy. This applies to nearly any fetish one can name. That one enjoys something as part of a sexual relationship does not mean one enjoys it outside that relationship, as should be readily apparent. S&M is just one of those sorts of things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you think the gay lifestyle is sinful, and you think Gay Pride parades are morally bankrupt...
I don't think the gay lifestyle is sinful. But I think elements of the "gay lifestyle" celebrated in a Gay Pride parade are indeed morally bankrupt, and account for a great deal of the increased depression and mortality among homosexuals in this country. That these elements are symptoms, I believe, of social oppression does not make them more acceptable.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I don't see how these two arguments match up:
"I think that the extreme behaviors at Gay Pride parades are politically counterproductive, and give a false and damaging idea about who homosexuals are and what they represent."
"Why are you getting all morally outraged?! It doesn't hurt you, so people should be allowed to do whatever they want!"
I don't think most of the critics of the parades in this thread are expressing moral outrage at all. They're expressing concern about the political effects of the parades. So arguing against their supposed outrage is only arguing beside the point.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, Janger was certainly expressing moral outrage, and he (she?) started the thread, after all.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The person who started the thread was very clearly against the gay lifestyle in general, and the "elements" of the gay lifestyle showcased in the typical Gay Pride parade. There have been other posters who have said things in a similar vein. My argument was addressed to those people - sorry if that wasn't clear.
Politically, I agree that the show of Gay Pride parades may not be best thing to further the gay rights movement.. However, I am not gay, nor am I a political strategist for gay right activists, so I don't feel that I ought to tell homosexuals that they should or should not be holding these parades. I have attended the SF Gay Pride parade, and I think it was a great activity for the gay community - it really seemed to bring the community together. I'd say, overall (not just politically) the Gay Pride parades still do more good than harm for the gay community. Others may disagree - that's just my opinion.
Tom: I disagree with you that the sexual sadism and masochism or BSMD (I believe that's what you're referring to) are either morally bankrupt OR that they hurt the gay community through "increased depression and mortality" when practiced in a safe manner. I believe that the majority of the psychiatric field agrees that sexual sadism and masochism or BSMD when practiced safely (with protection and full consent, always) does not lead to increased depression or mortality. They may be correlated: someone who hates themselves and is depressed may also be into masochism - but you have to be careful about the causation. And if they aren't hurting themselves or others, I still fail to see the moral problem.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Y'know, given the initial post (which is, as fugu pointed out full of moral outrage) I am pleasantly suprised with the discussion on this thread.
And I also think Chris was right on in this
quote: As long as people who object to Gay Pride parades also object just as strenuously to Mardi Gras, Carnival, Spring Break, Black College Reunion, Fantasy Fest, etc. And many do.
.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I've been to several Gay Pride parades both here in San Jose and the big one up in San Francisco.
Guys, it's not all men dressed up as showgirls. It's not all Dykes on Bikes. Mostly it's just normal people who want the same rights as everyone else.
The TV and Newspaper crews on the otherhand, has to find the most flamboyant and naked people they can find because that's what sells.
I agree. The freakyfreaks don't help the cause. But they're the ones who get on TV.
As to the original post in this thread... Don't feed the trolls.
Telp, your post was great except the part about pride being to celebrate sex. It's not. It's for equal rights. However, get a million les-bi-gays in the same city and it's kinda hard not to throw a party. I mean, how often do you get to be the majority? How often can it be that the hets are the ones who are "queer". (Once a year.)
Pix
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
[edit just to say I was writing as Pix was posting. Sorry to bore anyone where our points are the same. Good post Pix. ]
I dislike the extreme exibitionism of many participants in the Gay Pride Parade. One question I wonder about, though, is how many posters here have actually attended a Gay Pride Parade? There is much more to them than what has been mentioned here. In most of the parades I've attended, there are representatives (either floats or groups marching) of various gay groups that are often downright pedestrian. There's the Gay Men's Chorus, PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), usually representatives of the various gay-related clinics and health awareness groups, gay charities, increasing numbers of gay-friendly Christian congregations, usually a group of gay couples with signs announcing how long they've been in a committed relationship with each other, a gay motorcycle group, gay sports clubs, etc. There's usually even a gay marching band or two. Granted, the one in DC has a transexual majorette, but she's dressed just like any other majorette I've seen.
Yes, there are extremists, but they aren't the majority in any Gay Pride event I've attended. They do, however, tend to get the most media attention and thus create a skewed perception of the group as a whole. Unfortunately, contrary to many people's belief, gays don't control the media and thus can't keep newspapers and TV from focusing on the extremist. Another political problem for gays is that from the beginning the movement has tried to be all-inclusive. Since gays are demonstrating against marginalization (or celebrating freedom from past marginalization), it is politically very hard to keep certain more extreme groups from joining in. Additionally, much of the money to host these events comes from commercial sponsors, namely the local gay bars and some corporate sponsors. Floats that are sponsored by the bars tend to be the more risque ones, largely because they are trying to be shocking in order to stand out.
I agree that the extremist behavior is unproductive. I wish it were easier to convince such people that while the limits many outsiders try to impose on our community are unjust, that doesn't mean that there aren't limits somewhere. One part of the problem is that we as a community have allowed the far right to co-opt the ideas of decency, moderation, values, etc, and foolishly let them become negative concepts in the minds of many in our group.
On the other hand, as has been pointed out, there isn't much in a gay pride event that is any more shocking than what you'd see at Mardi Gras or Carnival, etc. I agree that if laws are being broken, people should be restricted, fined, jailed, whatever, as long as the law is applied equally across sexual-preference lines.
As for the rest of the original post: Well you're entitled to your opinion. I, myself, however, wouldn't presume to assume that you can't love like I can love. I find that attitude very close minded and un-empathetic, if not outright bigoted. I don't care how nicely your plumbing fits with your lover's, nor whether you want and can or can't have children. What makes your relationships a joy (or a terror) has very much to do with who you are as a person regardless of your gender or sexuality and much less to do with what parts you manage to stick where.
I love Chris with a passion that I have only felt with him. I love him deeply and satisfyingly. Sex is part of our relationship, but only a small part. I won't compare my love for him to anyone else's love for their significant other because such comparisons are meaningless. "My love is better than your love" sounds more like it belongs on a kindergarten playground than in a meaningful discussion among adults.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, my comments are no longer necessary. Ditto Pix and Karl and I'd like to say that the Mardi Gras's and Spring Breaks I've been to have been far raunchier, per capita, than the Gay Pride events. Although that could be a function of me being out to get some at the former two.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
It's reassuring to hear that from Karl and The Pixiest - I have been to (Australian) Gay Pride marches and experienced the same thing. That is, the flamboyant extremist edge being the .. uh, flamboyant extremist edge.
Given the comments, I thought maybe our pride marches were just more tame than the American ones.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Gay Pride (as has been repeated endlessly) has its extremes and those indulgences are no less than what you might see at any other large group of people celebrating, partying and having a good time.
I'm pretty sure I'm not going to see women flashing their breasts halfway down mainstreet in an attempt to get beads at Gay Pride.
And I don't object to Gay Pride nearly as much as, say, Freaknik because on the whole the activities are not nearly as wild and unpredictable and doesn't shut down entire sections of Atlanta without advance notice.
-Trevor
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It helps, i think, to know the context.
On the night of June 27th, 1969, New York Beverage Control Board agents and NYC police officers raided the the Stonewall Inn, a popular gay bar in New York City's Greenwich Village, to enforce an alcohol control law that was seldom enforced anywhere else in the city.
This wa a raid on a gay bar, however, which was just fine and dandy and apparently a regular civic duty at the time. In fact, this raid was the second such raid at the Stonewall Inn that week.
This time, though, lesbians and gay men spontaneously fought back against police harassment for the first time. The crowd inside and outside the bar erupted into violent resistance against the officers. More police reinforcements were called in as local gays and lesbians united in enraged confrontation.
Word spread quickly about the confrontation and large, outraged crowds gathered on ensuing nights to protest the mistreatment historically inflicted on the gay community. These protests came to be known as the Stonewall Rebellion, and the uprising was the catalyst for the modern political movement for gay and lesbian liberation - calling for gay pride and action to secure their basic civil rights. Gay Pride as a movement started there, and parades and festivals are held every year to commemorate it.
The original Gay Pride parades were defiant, celebrations of a harassed minority that wasn't going to take it anymore. That was 30 years ago.
Now they're more like street parties. Which is fine, it's the same thing that happened with St. Patrick's Day (originally a controversial and equally defiant event from the beleagured Irish and now a national drinking holiday), only supporters insist on saying it's a political movement. Maybe for some it is, but for most it's a day of fun. As Dan Savage, "Savage Love" columnist, observed, it's gone from "You're gay, and you should be proud of yourself for surviving the bull****, overcoming the obstacles, and emerging as a reasonably healthy adult" to "You're gay! Be proud! Buy a butt plug!" (He also, while defending the right to do so, commented on the ridiculousness of a 50-year-old man wearing only chaps )
As a day of fun and celebration, Gay Pride Day is no better or worse than the other, similar ones elsewhere. As a political statement, it's not doing anybody any good. I'd say drop the politics and just have fun.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't like the parades at all, but I don't like Mardi Gras or Girls Gone Wild videos either.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The gay pride parades do more to hamper equal legal relationships for homosexuals than the whole Republican agenda.
quote: "I think that the extreme behaviors at Gay Pride parades are politically counterproductive, and give a false and damaging idea about who homosexuals are and what they represent."
The argument that people should tailor their behavior for rights is distasteful to me, and will practically hurt society more than just letting people do their own thing, short of harming someone else. Should perverted Christians hide their religious festivals where they do weird things? The snake handlers, the flagellators, the cross carriers, the writhers on the floor--should they hide their behavior because it's deviant for fear of censure?
The idea that, well, as long as we censure all displays of flesh equally,everything is fair is, I'm sure, attractive to many people on this board. However, so-called obscene displays of flesh aren't really the issue, and I think it behooves us to remember that.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Storm, when I fight to obtain respect from the Christian community for my religious beliefs, I get really annoyed at Mormons or Mormon-themed fringe groups who well-meaningly and defiantly promote a version of my religion that casts us in an inaccurate and negative light.
I think it's pretty reasonable to get uncomfortable when the fringe elements of other movements do the same thing.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pup,
There is a difference between fearing for your political rights and wanting respect. If people started talking about not letting Mormons be Mormon in public or not practice their religion because of the behavior of fringe groups, or otherwise limiting their rights strictly because they 'look weird', you would, I assume, be outraged both at the idea that people shouldn't be left alone to practice their own religion and at the sloppy thinking being engaged in by anyone who made that statement.
So, while it is reasonable to be annoyed at people who make your group look bad, it's also quite reasonable to be annoyed at people who engage in bad logic and assume that the extremists speak, or represent, everyone, or that they should tailor their behavior just because some people find it weird. This is a stance you have taken several times on this board when talking about religion, is it not?
Posted by Janger (Member # 4719) on :
I sincerly apologize for my inappropriate, unintelligent, and near-sighted comments. I realize I have offended a number of people with my post, but that was not the purpose of what I was trying to get across. I realized how obnoxious I sounded after posting and reviewing what I had written. Saying that homosexuals are selfish and incapable of love was truly wrong. Furthermore, saying that homosexual relations thrive on eroticism instead of true love was a really, really stupid thing to say. What I was originally trying to get at was the point of anyone, gays or straights, dressing and acting appropriately in public where there are so many youth present. I am not saying nudity and sex is evil. I believe that sex and the human body is truly a beautiful thing, but there are places and times when these things are appropriate and inappropriate. Though a naked person seems pretty harmless, I'm pretty sure most of you would feel uncomfortable if you saw a naked man on hamlessly at a park where you and your child plays. Despite this being a harmless form of expression, it is simply wrong.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Storm, there were times when my people were every bit as hated and mistreated as any homosexual group has been in this nation's history. Political freedom is one step that I think BOTH of us have already made. We're a little further ahead, but we still face issues like this one in which simply valuing and expressing our history and faith is treated as an offense by other people. Like they have an inalienable right to pretend Mormons don't exist, and we violate that right by even speaking to them.
There are abuses that go on in some Mormon-themed polygamous fringe groups that people are RIGHT to be disturbed by. Similarly, the promotion of reckless promiscuity that goes on in some parts of a Gay Pride parade deserves the harsh glare it receives from some onlookers. Though the expression of both of these ideas should be legal, the evaluation of them by onlookers should also be legal. In other words, you have the right to say whatever you want, but I have the right to think it's obnoxious or even harmful, especially if, as in the cases above, I'm completely justified
If I have a benign message that reasonable people should accept, then I'll try to achieve that acceptance through persuasion and positive example. It makes it much more difficult to accomplish that, though, if the waters are being muddied by so-called "allies" of mine who present an image that earns legitimate scorn.
[ June 28, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Okay, I think this might be the best way to sum up my position.
I think that my religion should be tolerated and respected because we are benign and beneficial to society. I consider this an objective fact, and people who disagree with me about this are actually wrong. You don't have to accept that our faith is true, but I do expect people to recognize a generally stable and benevolent society when they see one.
I think that if my religion WERE a harmful thing, I would be wrong (in the sense of being incorrect) to run out and express the worst version of it, wave it in people's faces, and say, "You have to accept this just the way it is, and if you don't, you're a horrible person, and there's something wrong with you!"
I don't even present my benign, beneficial beliefs this way, first of all. And second of all, people are NOT wrong to reject things that they perceive as harmful. Sometimes they are wrong in their evaluation of which things are harmful and which things aren't. But they still have a right to be discerning about it. If humans WEREN'T discerning that way, our history would be even more a series of bad decisions than it already is.
I don't think people should tolerate the behavior of NAMBLA members. I don't think they should tolerate the behavior of the Ku Klux Klan. These groups' expressions should be legal, but people should reject them and argue against them at every opportunity. Onlookers are right to think ill of these people's actions and philosophies.
Simlarly, people are right to think ill of the obnoxious fringe members of a group, even if the core of that group is actually benign. And it is annoying when the fringe people are so loud and visible that the benign folks are tarnished by the legitimate outrage of onlookers.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
So, in my opinion, the right way to earn public acceptance is NOT to say, "I don't care that you think my actions are harmful! You have to deal with them anyway, because I'm here, and I'm not going away! HA HA HA!"
The right way is to compassionately demonstrate that your customs are NOT harmful, and earn people's acceptance by persuading them to agree with you. If we train people to turn OFF their discernment and accept things blindly just because of some ephemeral value that says "we should be accepting", we're essentially morally lobotomizing our society.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. They seem to basically support what I was saying. I don't disagree with them, generally, just as I don't think you disagree with me.
Specifically, I just wanted to point out that this statement
quote: You don't have to accept that our faith is true, but I do expect people to recognize a generally stable and benevolent society when they see one.
is idealistic and assumes that everyone is working off the same set of values. Obviously, if people were 'reasonable', a lot of the troubles that Mormons, Jews, Catholics, Atheists, blacks, etc, have gone through in the past wouldn't have happened.
So,
quote: I think that if my religion WERE a harmful thing, I would be wrong (in the sense of being incorrect) to run out and express the worst version of it, wave it in people's faces, and say, "You have to accept this just the way it is, and if you don't, you're a horrible person, and there's something wrong with you!"
given that people work off different sets of values and are not equally reasonable, it's not logical to think that people engaging in a behavior believe they are expressing the 'worst'. If they felt what they were doing was wrong, they wouldn't be doing it.
Any public display of belief/behavior by a group is, inherently, meant to affirm that group's belief that their beliefs are correct. They wouldn't be engaging in that behavior/belief otherwise.
Every group that engages in a public display of belief believes that those who don't agree with them are wrong. In every group there are probably those who think that those who don't agree with them are 'horrible'. edit: However, it would be a mistake to assume that the sole reason a group was engaging in that behavior was to piss people off.
[ June 28, 2005, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Just chiming in to say that I pretty much echo kat - I don't like the gay pride parades and I don't like mardi gras or spring break spectacles either.
And I wanted to say to janger, very nice apology.
quote:I realized how obnoxious I sounded after posting and reviewing what I had written.
We've all done it. The important thing is you did realize it was obnoxious.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: [quote] So, in my opinion, the right way to earn public acceptance is NOT to say, "I don't care that you think my actions are harmful! You have to deal with them anyway, because I'm here, and I'm not going away! HA HA HA!"
Every group says this.
quote: The right way is to compassionately demonstrate that your customs are NOT harmful, and earn people's acceptance by persuading them to agree with you.
This goes back to people being different.
quote: If we train people to turn OFF their discernment and accept things blindly just because of some ephemeral value that says "we should be accepting", we're essentially morally lobotomizing our society.
No one in this thread has said that people should accept things blindly "because of some ephemeral value that says "we should be accepting". Neither I nor anyone else has said you can't speak out against the so-called extremists in the gay-pride parade.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's a good point to compare Mardi Gras and other such debauchery to some of the raunchier Gay Pride celebrations. If you want to get rid of one, you have to get rid of them all or it isn't fair.
If the homosexual community wants to police itself, it should get on it. If they have no problem with it, the rest of us should probably leave it alone. For one day a year in NO, parents know to keep there kids home because of Mardi Gras. If a gay pride parade has been taking place in a major city for 20 years, the parents should know better and to keep the kids at home if there is something that shouldn't be seen.
If you venture away from home when you know something you don't want to see is out there, you really only have yourself to blame. Personally, I don't really think these public displays are necessary, and they do more to hurt than support their own cause, but if that is what they want, it's theirs to have. I've seen some stuff almost as bad as Mardi Gras at Fourth of July fireworks around the suburbs of Detroit (though not often).
I stay home every year during Halloween and turn off all my lights. I hate Halloween, but I'm not suggesting we get rid of it, even though it's bad for the public good by dispensing sugary treats to a population of children that REALLY doesn't need any more junk food.
It's one day a year, it's here to stay.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Re: extremists not helping
Some years ago legendary racer Dale Earnhardt crashed during a race here and died. His autopsy pictures, which are public record in Florida, were placed (or were about to be placed, this is from memory) on a web site run by a local man who wants people to realize how dangerous racing is and publishes autopsy photos of dead racers to make his point.
Teresa Earnhardt moved to stop his publication of those photos, claiming it was an invasion of privacy and an intrusion into the lives of her family. The legislature, uncharacteristically quickly, passed a law taking autopsy photos out of the public record. Several newspapers (and the guy with the website) sued.
I think it was (and is) a shoddy law, passed on emotion instead of reason. I think it puts too many barriers in the process, makes it harder for investigations and medical training and, in the worst case scenario, makes it easy for corrupt judges to block damaging evidence forever. A better method would have been to make distribution of such photos illegal so that anyone who wanted or needed to could go and look at them but couldn't put them online or publish them without permission from the family.
Anyway. During the appeals, the guy with the website was right up front every day. Where the newspapers and other interested parties tried to show that there were good and vital reasons why such photos shouldn't be blocked, this guy was right there, a living, breathing reminder that should the law be overturned he'd have her husband's bloody corpse online within a day.
The appeals failed. Couldn't tell you exactly why, but I'm convinced this guy's presence was a major contributor. He represented the very worst that this law would allow, and he apparently didn't realize or care that he was killing his own cause.
Free speech advocates hate it when Larry Flynt offers his highly visible support. Gay rights advocates clench their teeth when the media insists on showing the hairy guy in the thong. Feminists spent decades trying to live down Andrea Dworkin. The extremists of a group harm the group far more than they help, I think, because then attention focuses on them instead of the more moderate issues.
Posted by Jeffers0n (Member # 7876) on :
I am gay but I have never attended a pride parade because to me they seem to only highlight the sexual aspects of homosexuality. I think that the gay community is only hurting itself with these parades becasue it is sending across the wrong message. It helps to promote the image that gays are overly sexual and promiscuous which is the image that many of us have fought to correct.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Speaking of laws regarding photo access - a rapist wanted to have access to the photos taken of a victim during the criminal investigation.
And the photos were deemed part of the public record, so he had every legal right to access them.
For some reason, I think this happened in Florida.
-Trevor
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Wouldn't doubt it. Florida has some of the most open public records laws in the country, and every year special interest groups try to run more bills through the legislature to limit them for their own benefit.
I'm automatically suspicious of any group who wants public records restricted for my own good.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:given that people work off different sets of values and are not equally reasonable, it's not logical to think that people engaging in a behavior believe they are expressing the 'worst'. If they felt what they were doing was wrong, they wouldn't be doing it.
Well, yes, of course people have different values and everyone thinks they're right. But I happen to think that some people who believe they are right (NAMBLA and the KKK among them) are actually NOT right, and rightfully earn the scorn they receive. And (referring to the example I used) were I to represent a group like that, even though I would THINK that I was right, I would deserve similar reactions.
The process of discussion, ideally, should allow people to develop similar or shared values upon which they can build a compromise. So far, in many of our ongoing debates, the only value anyone seems to agree on is, "Physically hurting human beings is bad," and so that has become the unofficial standard of which behaviors should be accepted and which should not. "Is it hurting anyone? No? Then it's cool."
I think people should be allowed to be more discerning than this, and to make judgments based on a more comprehensive set of values. But values are not immutable and eternal. It is possible to persuade people to value things that they once dismissed as unimportant. But you achieve this by persuasion, not by deliberately offending the values you are trying to change.
[ June 28, 2005, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Welcome Jeffers0n.
I'd like to reiterate the distinction between the Gay Pride parade itself and the participants therein. The extreme behavior being discussed here is but a small portion of the parade itself so to condemn the whole event because of a few is short-sighted and reactionary.
The truth is, it's very difficult to draw the line. Who exactly would you exclude? Sure most here would single out the hairy 40 year old in chaps and a thong. What about the drag queens? Many people find them perverse, but they are often very beautiful and usually better dressed and more covered than your average 40 year old woman at the mall. Should all fetish-wear be banned or just the stuff that transgresses indecent exposure laws?
Someone mentioned Dykes-on-Bikes. Should they be banned? Why? Because they aren't pretty women in dresses? Because they challenge someone else's narrow definition of femininity?
What about the really outrageous members of the community that aren't in the official parade, but are there as spectators? Should we ask them to stay home? Who will write up the dress code? If they were asked to stay home, do you think they would?
quote:So, in my opinion, the right way to earn public acceptance is NOT to say, "I don't care that you think my actions are harmful! You have to deal with them anyway, because I'm here, and I'm not going away! HA HA HA!"
The right way is to compassionately demonstrate that your customs are NOT harmful, and earn people's acceptance by persuading them to agree with you. If we train people to turn OFF their discernment and accept things blindly just because of some ephemeral value that says "we should be accepting", we're essentially morally lobotomizing our society.
I agree with you and feel that I have been acting accordingly. The big problem is that when we get right down to specifics I'm probably a lot more accepting (in a considered way) than many on this board and I don't think that means I've been morally lobotomized.
In terms of community solidarity, perhaps this is an internal issue. To the degree that I sympathize with those in the gay community whose behavior I may not condone, I may feel some duty to actually do something to persuade them to tone down their method of delivery so their message (if any) can be heard. However, how many of you Christians on the board have done anything to tone down Reverand Phelps? Don't you have as much responsibility to police his actions in the name of your God as I do to police the leather daddies acting in the name of the Gay political agenda?
At any rate, comparisons to Nambla and the KKK are rather extreme, dontchathink?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Karl, I hope you're not thinking that I was directly identifying a Gay Pride parade with NAMBLA and the KKK. I was simply using examples of organizations that I knew no one here would dispute are wrong in their philosophies, yet have the legal right to express them. Since I connected them no more strongly to the Gay Pride movement than I did to my own religion, I figured no one would misread my intentions and be offended. Maybe I was wrong?
I'm also not saying that the degree to which someone accepts other cultures indicates the degree to which they've been morally lobotomized My only point was, if we stop allowing people to be discerning in their reactions altogether, that is the euqivalent of a moral lobotomy. For example, while you are more open and tolerant towards alternate sexual lifestyles, I'm betting that you have a stronger negative reaction to anti-gay conservative groups than, say, Janger. You are clearly a discerning observer of these groups. You're just operating from a different set of values or premises than someone else might be.
And I hope you've seen from me that I also oppose the extremists within Christian society (many of whom oppose me right back) who seem more interested in hurting and excluding people than finding workable compromises. You and I are actually on the same side, on the grand scale, even if we sometimes find ourselves in different camps ...
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Geoff, I think we mostly are on the same side. Perhaps my distaste with the Nambla/KKK examples is that the discussion seemed to be forming like this:
"Boy you gays need to tone yourselves down or you should expect people to not take you seriously"
"Well the rowdy crowd are a minority, what can ya do?"
"Well, so are Nambla and the KKK, but I speak out against them and their ideas whenever the subject comes up."
Now I realize that your example was more of an aside than it was in the core discussion of the Gay Pride parade issue. However, when this is your closing paragraph:
quote: Simlarly, people are right to think ill of the obnoxious fringe members of a group, even if the core of that group is actually benign. And it is annoying when the fringe people are so loud and visible that the benign folks are tarnished by the legitimate outrage of onlookers.
somehow I still feel the need to point out that there is a world of difference between someone distastefully dressed and someone promoting pedophilia. I agree with that paragraph and see how it pertains to the discussion at hand. But being the apparent conclusion of the post in which it appears, it read like you were making the comparison.
quote: I'm betting that you have a stronger negative reaction to anti-gay conservative groups than, say, Janger
Probably. But that doesn't mean that I can't try to see beyond my own prejudices and understand where the other side is coming from.
quote: The process of discussion, ideally, should allow people to develop similar or shared values upon which they can build a compromise.
That is true, but in the terms of this discussion, I think this is an internal issue. That is, I think the "people" who need to discuss and develop shared values is the gay community itself. The "problem" of extremists exists in every large group, and is especially pronounced when the group is very loosely defined. But it has to be dealt with from within. Criticism from outside is just as likely to make the group circle the wagons as it is to persuade them to police themselves.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Bill Cosby's comments are a perfect example.
-Trevor
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The process of discussion, ideally, should allow people to develop similar or shared values upon which they can build a compromise.
Sometimes, Geoff. Just because one group has a problem with the beliefs and behavior of another group is *not* sufficient reason in and of itself for the other group to change their behavior, or seek compromise, as you seem to believe. Would you ask churches to compromise their ideals and beliefs just to accommodate non-believers?
quote: So far, in many of our ongoing debates, the only value anyone seems to agree on is, "Physically hurting human beings is bad," and so that has become the unofficial standard of which behaviors should be accepted and which should not. "Is it hurting anyone? No? Then it's cool."
I think people should be allowed to be more discerning than this, and to make judgments based on a more comprehensive set of values.
Again, no one is stopping you from putting forth another set of values. No one is suggesting that you should shut up.
And, of course, I reject the idea that the idea that corporal harm should kind of be the value upon which we base social censure isn't 'discerning'.
quote: But values are not immutable and eternal. It is possible to persuade people to value things that they once dismissed as unimportant. But you achieve this by persuasion, not by deliberately offending the values you are trying to change.
Normalization often doesn't work through persuasion. You and KoM share the belief that logic is a mighty force that always works and that is always an accessible tool to change people's minds and which they should use to deal with reality. I can just see trying to reason with someone that their belief that men kissing is icky isn't true. "Really, sir, it's the most natural thing in the world because of X, Y, and Z." Ha. It almost certainly wouldn't work. People often believe what they believe not because of logic but because of how they perceive the story of the world and their place in it. In order to persuade someone that something that they believe is 'bad' is 'good', something that went against that person's picture of who they are, what was 'normal', I would have to change who they were. Ratiocination alone is usually not going to do this because the person has never seen anything to persuade him that his beliefs are wrong, and even then, that person will only change his mind if their conception of reality and who they are in it is such that it allows that change. Sometimes you just have to show people. This is where doing extreme shite in public comes in.
I look at it like food. Why does one person like some foods and another person hate those same foods? I can talk to someone until I'm blue in the face about how great beer is, but if they juar find the taste of beer really revolting, they ain't buyin' what I'm selling. Likewise, their taste in what is good or bad often isn't going to change through discussion, but maybe I can at least show them that not all beer drinkers are, as they imagine, drunkards and wife beaters. Maybe just by drinking beer in front of that person I can help them see that their perception of reality is false.
You and others seem to believe that showing 'extreme' behaviors only leads to those behaviors being further reviled, yet this is often, dare I say usually, not the case. What often happens is that the more people see certain behaviors being done by regular people, see that these people are just like them and that nothing bad happens when they do those behavior, the more those behaviors are normalized. So, I think if something is to be normalized, you almost have to do it in public, regardless of what other people think.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Humans are irrational, illogical creatures driven by impulse, desire and instinct.
I can provide logical argument after logical argument about why God doesn't exist and the inconsistencies of each belief system.
Yet people believe. Not because they can avail themselves to a higher logic, but because they believe this to be true.
As to the natural issues of normalization, I think Sax is right - people are creatures of habit and something must happen to dislodge the hamster from his wheel.
-Trevor
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I want to thank Janger for her (?) apology. I meant to do that several posts ago, but I got sidetracked. Welcome to the forum.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I am reminded of a book called After the Dance, often quoted by people on the right, written by a pair of gay men who talk about how gays should try to blend into the mainstream more, pretend to be "normal" and then slowly bring out their differences. I disagree. I think that people have the right, within reason to be themselves. I despise Fred Phelps and his ilk, and as long as they stop doing moronic things like picketing funerals (it's one thing if they wanted to do general picketing, but, to picket the funeral of a pair of dead soldiers, what were they thinking? Have they no morals or sense at all?) they can believe what they want.
I'm confused by normality. Isn't it obvious that not every gay person likes to wear chains and drag people around by leashes?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
A very wise woman I know had an interesting take on provocative attire. If it is legal for one, it's legal for all. So, the hairy guy in the thong has just as much right as the bronze Adonis striding on the beach. No matter how much the one might offend the sensibilities and the other inspire...
So, I'm in agreement that if a place decides to place limits on the attire worn (or not worn) by people at gay pride events, it will have to set rules for all events.
I'm glad in this thread that we're not debating institutionalize intolerance. At least I think we're not. The point is that if someone is a citizen in good standing, they have all the rights and freedoms of every other citizen. Period.
I've seen, for the most part, people agreeing with this sentiment as well.
So...the real question in my mind is whether there need to be changes to public decency laws or whether the infrequent events that are more likely to offend a greater portion of the population serve some purpose that is also in the public's best interest.
Here, I think I depart from the general run of opinions here. I don't believe, for instance, that the world should be reshaped so that every place at all times is suitable for viewing by children. I don't think it should be zoned that way. I think, in fact, that such an attempt is doomed to failure because the definition of what is "suitable" is not the same for everyone and so we'd have to pick a line that could not be crossed.
That line would be too extreme for most people anyway.
So, local norms are probably just as good a way of handling this as any law ever could be. Seriously, there's probably never going to be a roudy parade in most of the towns I've lived in over the past few years. Oh sure, someone might TRY to put one together, but the locals just didn't bite. Or if the thing did happen, it was sort of a bust (pardon the LACK of a pun) compared to similar events in other places.
The most roudy thing they get in most of these places is some drunken revelry by stupid college kids after their team scores a touchdown in the World Series (or whatever...)
Anyway, back to my point. The idea of passing laws to restrict what is basically an event that pushes the social envelope a bit (or a bit too far for some), is, I believe, a very bad idea for us as a society. Sure, it'd give a bit of comfort to those who are made uncomfortable by the debauchery. But it also makes repression (including sexual repression) the norm. And I think we in America have suffered enough from immature attitudes about things like the sight of a breast (Janet Jackson, the statues in the Justice Department Hall, stupid laws that say a woman can't go topless in the same places a man can). Having a day off from such nonsense is instructive for us in a fairly harmless way, if you think about it. The people who just don't want to think about it can stay indoors, or go away for a day. The ones who need to blow off a little steam get to do it once and it's done.
These bacchanals have served just such a purpose for hundreds of years (if not thousands). It is a tradition that has survived for reasons that are worth thinking about.
IMHO.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: Storm, there were times when my people were every bit as hated and mistreated as any homosexual group has been in this nation's history. - puppy
"my people" - so what do you consider the rest of the non Mormon americans?
<T>
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
SBS: I think you're being deliberately inflammatory for no good reason. Clearly he was talking about the historical experience of Mormons and it is a historic fact that the oppression occurred at the hands of other Americans.
Unless you're asking something different and I'm just not seeing it, I think you're just being argumentative for no good reason.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I'm not arguing at all. I'm asking.
I'm the idiot without a group of people. All Earthlings are "my people", so the concept of having a specific group of people as "my people" is strange to me, leaving me to wonder, who are what are the people who aren't in the "my people", he's a straight God loving Christian man, I'm a stright God loving Christian man, If I am not part of his "my people" what am I?
I am not down playing the horrible traumas that Latter Day Saints had to endure and overcome to continue to Live a Faith they freely deserve to live.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: Clearly he was talking about the historical experience of Mormons and it is a historic fact that the oppression occurred at the hands of other Americans.
Wasn't most of the LDS oppression commited by Christians?
My blood runs like 95% Norwegian and I do believe the Norse Religion was also attempted to be stamped out by Christians.
It seems to be a pattern.
Now the homosexual community is having to endure a modern crusade against them.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Thanks Janger for your apology.
quote: What I was originally trying to get at was the point of anyone, gays or straights, dressing and acting appropriately in public where there are so many youth present.
I can dig that.
And in other news, KarlEd is my hero. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Thor, I think it's possible for someone to identify with their own culture or ethnic group without implicitly slighting everyone outside that group. You know me well enough to know that I'm not one of the narrow-minded, my-way-is-the-only-right-way ethnocentrists that you often meet on the grand old internet Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:For one day a year in NO, parents know to keep there kids home because of Mardi Gras.
Not to detract from this wonderful conversation, I just wanted to correct something real quick.
Mardi Gras is a family event. Whenever I go parades I usually spend a good twenty minutes trying to find a place to stand that has the fewest kids since they're insane competition for throws. Kids in costumes and on top of ladders attend parades from the beginning of the season to the absolute last parade. They're not so much in the more packed areas with bars but go down St. Charles or visit parades on the outskirts and you'll be over-run with kids. And amongst these kids will be some drunken old men and women and the occasional tourist who thinks its appropriate to flash at all parades. Since alcohol is a big part of life in Louisiana, most kids know how to handle the drunks and parents teach their kids a good loathing of tourists so most ignore anyone who isn't a local.
So yeah, just had to defend my holiday. Continue the discussion please.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I can't speak for New Orleans and Mardi Gras, but in Brazil at Carnival many Christian families make plans to leave the larger cities and vacation at farms or other retreats specifically to avoid the "evils" of the event. The LDS down there organize many family activities at the local meetinghouses to provide an alternative to the parades and 3-day long parties.
I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't at least a few Christian families in NO who treat Mardi Gras the same way. It's probably not the general poplulace, but I think Lyrhawn's point stands. Those who do want to avoid such things as Mardi Gras, Carnival, Gay Pride, Southern Decadence, etc, generally know to make other plans during those times. If they're offended by the spectacle, they really have no one to blame but themselves.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: If they're offended by the spectacle, they really have no one to blame but themselves.
So if I'm a mother with small kids, it's my fault that if I have to get out and walk somewhere on that day with my kids, they see someone flashing their breasts?
I'm sorry, but while I myself would do just this, KarlEd - keep my kids home, I don't think it's the fault of the parents. If we have come to understand and expect certain of dress in the normal, everyday public life, then when the rules change and those standards are drastically changed, why is it the fault of the person whose doing what they always do, like taking a walk?
And let's not get into the discussion of whether or not a glance of a woman's breast would be "harmful" to a kid, that's not the point. Personally, I would tell my kids "That woman's acting silly and not behaving like she should," and emphasize the behavior, not the nudity because there's nothing inherently wrong with nudity, it's just the situation when and where the nudity occurs. The fact is there are certain standards of decency every community has. We should not be making exceptions for certain people at certain times, if it's not considered decent to walk down the street in chains and a thong on a normal Sunday afternoon, it shouldn't be allowed just because it's a parade day. And that goes for male/female/straight/gay people alike.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd have to disagree, Belle, for pretty much the same reasons that Bob very eloquently put forth. I've got no problem with planned, scheduled, easy-to-avoid days of release and partying for those who enjoy it, and I think they can serve as a valuable social pressure valve.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Belle, If the behavior is legal and has been accepted by the community for years, and everyone knows about it, then yes, you assume full responsibility for what your children might see if you take them there.
quote: if it's not considered decent to walk down the street in chains and a thong on a normal Sunday afternoon, it shouldn't be allowed just because it's a parade day.
That's a matter of opinion. It's illegal to carry an open alcoholic beverage on the street, too, but there are exceptions made for that during festival times as well. Same with dancing in the street. I think "making out" in public is in poor taste and should be avoided, but during the block party at Gay Pride, while I still don't "make out", I will hold Chris closer and might kiss him less chastely that I might on the same street any other time of the year. I'm sure there are people who would be offended by that behavior anywhere it occurred at any time. Those people should stay away from East Eager and Charles streets during Gay Pride weekend.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think any of the egregious public behavior discussed should be illegal. I do, however, reserve the right to think very, very poorly of those who engage in it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The fact is there are certain standards of decency every community has. We should not be making exceptions for certain people at certain times, if it's not considered decent to walk down the street in chains and a thong on a normal Sunday afternoon, it shouldn't be allowed just because it's a parade day. And that goes for male/female/straight/gay people alike.
If your point is correct, then the 'community' has said they don't mind the gay pride parades.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: You know me well enough to know that I'm not one of the narrow-minded, my-way-is-the-only-right-way ethnocentrists that you often meet on the grand old internet
Yes, Puppy. You are an EXCELLENT ambassador for your people, so much so that I do feel like one of "your people", even though I'm not Mormon, I do consider us good brothers of Christ.
If I want a dose of the narrow minded my way is the only way, I'll read world watch. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Ooh, that was cold Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
On the topic of normalization, one must remember that normalization can be taken too far.
For examples (and these are extreme ones, but real ones). There was a day in the colonial Americas where there were no slaves held by the colonials and slavery had not been practiced in Europe for centuries (serfdom yes, but slavery no). Then someone decided to reinstitute slavery of the Native Americans.
I'm sure some of the new settlers balked at this, at least at first. But it became the practice. And then someone brought the first shipload of slaves from Africa. And that became the norm, it wasn't a shocking sight.
Something that had been phased out of Western society re-emerged and became accepted and pursued. Eventually it became something that people were willing to die for to protect.
As I said, this is an extreme example, but it does show how something distasteful (and in this case unequivocably wrong) can be normalized, or mainstreamed.
The other side of the coin would be the Civil Rights movement in the US during the 1960s, 70s and even today. Racism, something inherent in the xenophobic species of mankind, is being broken down as relations between racial and ethnic groups are being normalized in our melting pot society. Normalization definitely for the good, at least in my opinion.
The problem is, how do you determine what should and shouldn't be normalized. Normalization requires a breaking of the status quo, obviously, but how does one determine the breaking point?
Once upon a time, the Village People challenged the status quo and their affected stereotypes have pretty much been normalized. Everyone dances when YMCA comes on the loud speakers at any event. But Marilyn Manson doesn't inspire the same goodwill from the public.
How do we, as a society, separate the wheat from the chaff? Or do we just let it all out there and let society accept what it will and let the rest die off naturally or fade into obscurity?
U2 or Madonna? Once upon a time, U2 was just a punk band from Ireland that took a political stance in their music. Nowadays, world leaders have meetings with the group's lead singer... when he speaks the world listens. Once upon a time, Madonna was the hottest star in the world, she had the eye and ear of so many people. Her shock value kept our attention. And then, well, she faded away into hot air and marginalization.
Sorry for rambling, but perhaps normalization is beyond the control of any group. Society will drift as it will.
Posted by Janger (Member # 4719) on :
quote: My blood runs like 95% Norwegian and I do believe the Norse Religion was also attempted to be stamped out by Christians.
It seems to be a pattern.
I agree that Christians do have a frequent history of violence through crusades due to its twisted views of truth and reality. But the Christian are also victims to hostility and violence as well. I believe they're called "martyrs". People who through sheer force of will and tenacity, held steadfast to their beliefs, despite torture. Who am I to say that Christianity is right and who is right to say that a particular religion is wrong. All we have to go by is our beliefs, whether it be Christians saying there is an omniscient, omnipotent God, or atheists that declare the opposite. But the message that I am receiving through that quote is that you marginalize all Christians as bloodthirsty conquerors, wanting to run a totalitarian religion system. But I feel this to be as ignorant as I claiming what I did in my original post. The fault with most religions is its conquest for truth. Sure, we've all made mistakes claiming what truth is and is not, and religion and its religious groups are no different. Inevitably, we are all just pawn in the search for a fundamental truth, be it through religion, government, individuals, or fanatical groups. Pope John Paul II apologized for all the mistakes that the Catholic Church had made in the past, through its maxims and endeavors. Like most people, the church is known to make mistakes. What do you expect from humans who are infinitely limited compared to God. Maybe God is telling us the right thing but we, through our limited conscience, are interpreting it all wrong. Personally, I don't believe violence should be ever tolerated. I don't think the Muslims have the right to take "justice" into their own hands all in the name of God. But maybe it's necessary to advance our search for truth. I also don't believe that the world can rely solely on reason. Reason alone leads to superficial truths. Like the late Pope John Paul II said, a human being consists of more than just flesh and blood. We call all attest to that because he have all experienced love, hate, hope, and desolation to varying degrees. Thus, it is foolish to depend on reason alone, but faith must also come into the mix. For more info, look up the Pope's article on Faith and Reason. "What is Truth?". Who knows for sure? Maybe through humanity's physical and spiritual divergent evolution, our different paths will all come together to find this ultimate truth. But then again, maybe it's a false hope on humanity's part. Maybe it doesn't even exist...
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
There was a huge gay pride parade in downtown Jerusalem today, and they closed off the entire downtown area.
I just thought I'd mention. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
(sarcastically)![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Breeding is good to continue the race, but I don't think that not breeding is EVIL. There are SIX BILLION humans on Earth. Oh yes, non-breeding straight couples have no ability to love. Close your eyes and do it for England. You think gay folk don't want children? ![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) to interact with . . . check.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)