posted
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.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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!)
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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"Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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. Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>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. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, Janger was certainly expressing moral outrage, and he (she?) started the thread, after all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.)
posted
[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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the parades at all, but I don't like Mardi Gras or Girls Gone Wild videos either.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.
