Pride NYC

[raublekick]

Someone throw something in here for me an Mike to disagree on, cus I feel really weird right now.

[Baboinga]

What it boils down to seems to be this. You guys think that gays shouldn't act flamboyantly gay in public.

I can't even argue against that, it's ridiculous. If there is a small amount of the population who are douchey in their representation of the whole, who the fuck cares. Similar to those idiots who get more excited of the image of a band instead of seeing or enjoying the bands music, there are gay people who are so excited about representing the most flamboyant end of the bell curve of gay society, that they go a little overboard. That is their right. If that's how they choose to present themselves, power to them. Same to the idiots with the music. It's not my place to say how they should enjoy music or how they should dress.

A lot of the people in pride parades that you don't see on the news are just walking with maybe a rainbow painted on an arm and holding the hand of their partner, marching in support of the idea of the pride parade. After the parade there are usually events where you have the oppertunity to learn about gay friendly events in your area and stuff like that. There isn't a gay clubhouse where we all meet and decide stuff, so it's good to have an oppertunity to meet people who are similar to you. Of course there are going to be idiots dressed up certain ways and making the general population look silly, but who cares, it would happen anyway. Sort of the, I will never support that, but I support the right to do it.

Mike: Of course you don't have to advertise who you sleep with. It's fucking obvious because it's the norm. Black people don't have to wear pride pins because they're BLACK and you can see it. They're a MINORITY. You sleep with women. Of course you don't have to have a pride parade because you're in the majority and you don't get discriminated against because of that. If you want to have a parade expressing your pride in enjoying Vagina, fuck it, I'll join you. But gays are in the minority and deserve the right to at the very least show their numbers in a public setting, so that Joe McDuff of Rural wherevertown can actually be shown that gay people exist. And don't give me the shit that everyone knows gay people exist, they don't. When I came out to my parents, my Mom confessed that she thought it was the sort of thing that happened on TV, and she'd never honestly encountered someone who was openly gay.

It is an important event so that people can watch the news and say "Oh, wow. Look at that, there's a bunch of gay people in our town." It's for gay people to congregate and not be afraid of the paradigms that exist in a lot of the rural places and unite in a cause of being a recognized population that shouldn't be ignored. If gay people want rights such as marriage, they (we) should be showing that we are a significant portion of the population that can't be overlooked.

It's nothing at all like the KKK. The KKK deserve no recognition for what they are or what they do. Look at it more this way, think of a group of cancer survivors who get together for meetings as a part of recouperation and healing and adjusting back to their regular lives, or even perhaps if they're still going through treatments or whatever. Now, these people have a right to be recognized, if, for example, they were lobbying for money in Cancer research. They would want their numbers to be known. Freedom is a right that we have in America and Canada, and if they wanted to have a parade of some sort, why shouldn't they be able to be? Cancer victims are another minority that would get less attention if people didn't actively campaign for money for more cancer research or for individuals with cancer to get money to pay for treatments or WHATEVER.

The point is, they're a part of the population that deserves to be recognized, and just because of some of the outfits offend your delicate sensibilities you think that they don't deserve a parade.

wtf is so offensive about this?
http://www.prideedmonton.org/2004%20...photos/CSF.jpg
http://www.prideedmonton.org/2004%20...tos/lambda.jpg
http://www.prideedmonton.org/2004%20...ephotos/LC.jpg

Source: http://www.prideedmonton.org/2004-Parade%20route.htm

[Plain Old Jane]

I got in from the parade last night around frikkin 9pm, the fair was tubular. Btw, I didnt see that guy but two other guys, hair old, and in lingerie, I hugged one, it was hawt. haha, everyone laughed and had a good time, especially the (dare I say) guys in drag. I think thats a good thing, while there are proportionally more visible forms of fuck-upedness among queer folks, I bet you could find just as much among straight people. From the straight people who are unassuming business suit wearing people in the day, but at night are very very naughty boys who need to be punished. *brandishes whip*

Or the 40 year old men who have a penchant for 20 year old (or even earlier, fucking freaks) and insist when being intimate being called "daddy." Thats far more terrifying and potentially damaging to both people, but you never see it.

How about that maybe-gay guy in the parade that from the front was holding hands with a girl and cheering and was covered in ropes which I found interesting at first, but when he passed us, you could see a FUCK of a lot of whip marks on his back. very unassuming, and rightous fun if you ask me.

Also, I saw the orthodox jewish gay float, which was playing jewish music and everyone was dancing, it was grand.

I think that there are plenty worse things to do than have a gay pride parade. Straight people and black people have affirmation all the time from simply the way they talk, to weddings, to the million man march, to kwanza (whoever the fuck celebrates that.) and valentines day. or just go to the movies, you wont see ANY queer romances. (theres one or two indie ones.)
But my affirmation just happens to be a parade in which a HUGE HAIRY gay guy with "Bear Pride" written all over him slapping a "BRIDE To Be" sticker on me.

I have to say, I was slightly annoyed when I saw the crossdressers, if only cuz I was like, "This? This is whose represnting me?" Fuck it, next year, I'm getting my own float. And this is why theres a parade to make visible the big ole spectrum of gender and orientation, so when joe average meets big gay al at a frat party, he wont immidiate think hes a freak and stab him. (like this fucker, Lil Macho who christine might have heard of, did once when I met him. Not to me, he relayed the story to me.) Even as little visibility as queer people are allowed, its a step in the right direction. It lets people know they exist are people, and folks'll get pissed if they hurt or maim them just as anyone would be for a straight person.

"I think that Gay Pride Parades do nothing but show that they are not "real people.""

Go to one and then say that.

the ONLY person who didnt have a great time and a sore throat by the end of that parade was this asshole on a bike going to everyone and saying: "Gay people are the reason that the twin towers came down. Any idiot can see that. Thank you." and then walking off to accost someone else. THATS damaging, THAT is annoying, THAT is hateful and is what the parade is all about discouraging. Also, two little kids pushed me out of my spot at the front, how about an excuse me, little brats...

I also saw a car with two old men and a plaque towards the back showing that they've been together 60 years and were married in canada. (im not sure if that means they were married for 60 years.)

[Mr Biglesworth]

thank you jep, that's awesome. I love the energy of the whole thing.
Btw I've been following the fate of same-sex marriage legislation and up to now it's been uncertain, as the Conservatives had a few aces up their sleeve to stop or at least delay its passage. But as of last thursday it's all but guaranteed to be passed very shortly. gOh Canada

[Cid]

Straight, white guy pride parade/million man march in Akron next week. Who's in???

[GT2000]

Ok.

[Baboinga]

fyi gay marriage isn't legal in all of canada, it's only legal in one or two provinces. And not my redneck province, our premier states SPECIFICALLY that he would fight the law heatedly to make sure that Alberta doesn't get gay marriage.

[Mike]

I typed a long post in response to Baboinga's reply up there, but realized it was mostly useless ... picking apart various things and making points off of accidental fallacies in the post (I had particular fun with the cancer thing)... But anyway, it was all useless and would have led to just more and more posts about the same thing.

My general point is that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same thing, in that they involve individuals being sexually attracted to individuals... and there is no difference. If it is not made a public affair, then nobody will ever be judged by that sexuality--at least, today. I think that we've made great strides in moving society towards an ideal of sameness between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because they're at root the same thing... And so I have contention with people who seek to actively separate the two... both the heterosexuals who paint unfair pictures of homosexuals, and then the homosexuals who paint unfair pictures of homosexuals. I then take issue with those homosexuals painting unfair pictures who then turn around and demand blindes and equality in society ... the very society that they are actively seeking to see them as something different from everybody else.

I also have a really big problem with who determines who or why somebody is part of a minority. Minorities tend to be more "who can cry the loudest" as opposed to people who are actually minorities and who are actually discriminated against.

[heX]

omg you are all fighting like a bunch of fags



edit: you fucking fags disgussed me. i hate your limp wrists, your little fag lips.. and your faggy... tight... hard asses...

[Mr Biglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mike

Minorities tend to be more "who can cry the loudest" as opposed to people who are actually minorities and who are actually discriminated against.

Liberals and Conservatives must be the biggest minorities around then!

[Baboinga]

Originally Posted by Mike

If it is not made a public affair, then nobody will ever be judged by that sexuality--at least, today.

What the fuck? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
I've been trying to be polite in my responses thus far, but really, I can't even respond to this legibly, because your entire post is bullshit. There is a huge amount of discrimination against gays throughout Canada and the US. If gays didn't have parades, it wouldn't be "Oh, I met a gay guy at work today, what a nice fella" it would be "I met one of those sick fucking AIDS bearers at work, I hope he doesn't talk to me by the watercooler."
It is necessary to have parades and such to show the population, as I said before. You can't just pretend that discrimination doesn't exist because you'd rather there not be a gay pride parade. You're an idiot. Seriously.

I think that we've made great strides in moving society towards an ideal of sameness between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because they're at root the same thing...

Gays can't even get married. Why? Because it's "against" christianity, seems to be the unspoken truth, and christianity is so engulfed in our politics and societal structure that for some reason people continue to support the idea of not letting gays marry or adopt children because of this archaic state. The church is supposed to be separated from the state, but it's not. ATHEISTS can get married, but gays can't? WTF is that? And in a lot of places (mostly rurall, where they have little exposure to gays) the majority opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because marriage is some sacred thing that they think their religion invented, which is bullshit anyway. The union between two people came waaaaaaaaay before Catholics made it into what they did.
Whatever, the point is, that gays are actively discriminated against, and we have taken strides, sure, but we are FAR from having homosexuals being accepted as actively as heterosexuals. The idea of having a heterosexual pride parade is stupid BECAUSE every fucking day for straight people is a pride parade. People openly walk down the street hand in hand, on posters, in advertisements, commercials, books, magazines, everything is straight this and straight that. The cliche story is "boy meets girl" or "adam and eve" or whatever else you want to see it as. When is the last time you saw a mainstream movie that's main characters involve a gay or lesbian couple? I can barely think of any ever. Oh, Kissing Jessica Stein, but she turned out straight in the end. That's a GREAT message.

Anyway, the point is, straight people don't deserve a parade for being straight, because they don't live in a society that stifles their sexuality.

the very society that they are actively seeking to see them as something different from everybody else.

............................
Gay people have sex with the same gender, and they have their own culture. It's something to be proud of. As a society we should celebrate our similarities and our differences. It's like Quebec in Canada, some people think they should just fall in line and stop bitching about losing their culture and being so bitchy about everything. I don't mind that Quebec is like that, because they're the only province left that actively stays bilingual. I'd rather them have their own culture and the rest of Canada have our culture and each learn from each other, than force them to be more like the rest of Canada which way Anglo.

[heX]

Originally Posted by Baboinga

Gays can't even get married. Why? Because it's "against" christianity, seems to be the unspoken truth, and christianity is so engulfed in our politics and societal structure that for some reason people continue to support the idea of not letting gays marry or adopt children because of this archaic state.

Originally Posted by Baboinga

The union between two people came waaaaaaaaay before Catholics made it into what they did

Christians or catholics? two different things you can call yourself Christian but not catholic.

new thought:

id love to see one example of a union of a man and a woman that takes place before two believers in God did it.

if you are a Christian you believe in the creation of the world with Adam and Eve. If you're not a Christian looking at history there has always been a belief in a god, the oldest recorded documents showing the Jewish church who believed in a sacred union of a man and a woman referred to as a marriage. marriage was formed by the church like it or not. do i think people just hooked up with out being married back then, well yeah. was that refereed to as a holy union of two people? well no. as far as what we call marriage today, it came down right through the Jewish church. it is a tradition from the church that is believed to be a commandment of God. so if you don't believe in God then why would you wanna follow his commandments? you are letting yourself be manipulated by the church if you feel it is that important to be married.

Is it a matter of expectance by the rest of the world? You want everyone to validate your feelings for your girl/boy as being equal to there feelings for there wife/husband? Thats fine but marriage is something that comes from the church. The problem here is that the state is interfering with the church. The church, not the state is what kept records and preformed marriages. Looking at the history of the world it is fairly a new thing that the state is the one in charge of marriages. For example i have a family tree dated back to the 1700s starting 3 generations into Germany directly to me that my family has been working on for a while. the records of marriage are not found in the German governments vaults, but in the Lutheran church's books. Marriage is the creation of the church from a atheists point of view, and a creation of God from a Christians point of view. If you are gay and consider yourself Christian and feel you should be married then this would be a completely different argument. As far as Atheists being married goes, that also came around after marriage was taken over by the state in the church they would not preform marriages unless the two people would at least fake there beliefs. By todays standards of what marriage is, fuck it let gay people get married no one even takes marriage seriously for what it was intended.


edit: not to play my best friends are gay card.. but my best friend at work is gay, i have nothing but respect for him and love hanging out with him. even was about to go to the gay pride parade with him.

[Plain Old Jane]

marriage, before it was called that, was an advent of sultans and prussian princes who kept a menagerie of women that wouldnt sleep with anyone else, as a matter of protection against disease that spread easily through the hetero and homo sexual peasents as there was no marriage. (fun factoid: the rulers also HIRED castrato men to guard their palaces. No sex, but room, board, and respect (maybe) maybe that was a big deal back then.)

Marriage was made out of nessesity before public sex education was invented, out of fear, not for love or anything. And with the spread of aids through the homosexual community, that kind of protection is just what homosexual people need right now.

Its not strictly christian, it wasnt made by believers or god, its not only between a man and a woman, its now a bond of love, and you can better fucking believe there was horny have mores before there was the advent of god, morals, and whats in the good book.

hex, that thin line between church and state is ALSO a new thing, so just because there arent records doesnt mean thats how it has ALWAYS been.

in conclusion, Marriage was never an advent of god or the church, just of horny (hetero and homo sexual) males who were in charge and didnt want their royal dick to fall off with the syph.

[heX]

Originally Posted by Plain Old Jane

marriage, before it was called that, was an advent of sultans and prussian princes who kept a menagerie of women that wouldnt sleep with anyone else, as a matter of protection against disease that spread easily through the hetero and homo sexual peasents as there was no marriage. (fun factoid: the rulers also HIRED castrato men to guard their palaces. No sex, but room, board, and respect (maybe) maybe that was a big deal back then.)

Marriage was made out of nessesity before public sex education was invented, out of fear, not for love or anything. And with the spread of aids through the homosexual community, that kind of protection is just what homosexual people need right now.

Its not strictly christian, it wasnt made by believers or god, its not only between a man and a woman, its now a bond of love, and you can better fucking believe there was horny have mores before there was the advent of god, morals, and whats in the good book.

hex, that thin line between church and state is ALSO a new thing, so just because there arent records doesnt mean thats how it has ALWAYS been.

in conclusion, Marriage was never an advent of god or the church, just of horny (hetero and homo sexual) males who were in charge and didnt want their royal dick to fall off with the syph.

omg your talking out of your ass jep. tell you what you show me the first doccumented marriage you can find that wasnt done by the spiritual leaders of the time and ill show you where you made something up or didnt do enough research.

"Marriage was made out of nessesity before public sex education was invented, out of fear, not for love or anything. And with the spread of aids through the homosexual community, that kind of protection is just what homosexual people need right now. "

since aids didnt come around untill after the vaccine for polio was developed are you implying marraige came after that? furthermore what are you even basing thats what marriage was intended for? you are just saying what seems to make sense in your head nothing that you know to be fact.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Baboinga

What the fuck? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.
I've been trying to be polite in my responses thus far, but really, I can't even respond to this legibly, because your entire post is bullshit. There is a huge amount of discrimination against gays throughout Canada and the US. If gays didn't have parades, it wouldn't be "Oh, I met a gay guy at work today, what a nice fella" it would be "I met one of those sick fucking AIDS bearers at work, I hope he doesn't talk to me by the watercooler."
It is necessary to have parades and such to show the population, as I said before. You can't just pretend that discrimination doesn't exist because you'd rather there not be a gay pride parade. You're an idiot. Seriously.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I'm glad that you can make a comment saying that without Gay Pride parades people would say "I met one of those sick fucking AIDs bearers..." and then call me the idiot. Please, you just made a comparison between being Gay and having Cancer. Maybe you didn't notice this but Cancer is a DISEASE. Now, would you like to make the argument that being a homosexual is a disease? You were so blatantly off balance with that argument that I let it die because it was so weak. You're comparing being a homosexual to having a life threatening illness. Sorry, but last I checked, when you find people of the same sex attractive, it doesn't kill you. Maybe I don't understand homosexuality. Or maybe you're making an argument that if you like somebody of the same sex, then you get a terminal illness, like AIDs. Sorry, but I'm not going to pass that judgement. Repeating your point that it is "necessary to have parades to show that Gay people exist" does not make it right. Everybody knows that Gay people exist, except for apparently, your mother. THough, I suppose that your mother is an accurate model for the millions of people that live in North America. That's a rather boistrous assumption, don't you think? "My mother didn't believe that she would know a gay person, therefore the 296 Million people in America and 32 million people in Canada (actually, 31,999,999 ... because you, I suppose, know that gay people exist) must think the exact same way as this one woman." See, the world has changed... and it has not changed because Gay people have had parades. IF that were the case then nobody would accept any minority unless they have a parade. I am polish, I have never been to a Polish parade. Poles are an ethnic minority in this country, I am generally accepted as a Polish person. The same goes for pretty much every group in the country.

Most Americans could really give two shits about what two people do in their house, especially in the last 15 years. THe courts have ruled that nobody really gives a shit about what two people do in their house; law makers have made laws that nobody really gives a shit about what two people do in their house... Pretty much nobody gives a fucking shit about what people do in their house. A person having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex IS homosexuality... by definition, by interpretation. VERY few people care about one person having a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. QUID PRO QUO VERY FEW people care about homosexuals. However, those who do care don't care about homosexuals, they care about pricks who over step the bounds of what they can do in public, or what is generally acceptable in public. These people who overstep the bounds are not "what is Homosexuality." Homosexuality is the definition provided ... NOT individual people wearing thongs and riding rollerskates. When parades for Homosexuals are known more by the people in clown suits dancing with half naked men ... The Parades CHANGE from being something celebrating homosexuality to being something that celebrates a ridiculous carelessness for social decency.

(I'm going to speak on behalf of the United States, because I'm from the US, not Canada, and I'm not going to defend Canada.)

Gays can't even get married. Why? Because it's "against" christianity, seems to be the unspoken truth, and christianity is so engulfed in our politics and societal structure that for some reason people continue to support the idea of not letting gays marry or adopt children because of this archaic state.

Wait a second .. Gays can't adopt children!? Holy shit, that's news... especially considering that I have three cousins who were adopted by two homosexual women more than 20 years ago. And they also have friends who have adopted children ... whom I happen to know on very personal relationships. They do exist. I guess I'm going to have to call DSS and the police on them for actively breaking the law ... Or maybe you're just misinformed. Probably the latter.

The church is supposed to be separated from the state, but it's not. ATHEISTS can get married, but gays can't? WTF is that? And in a lot of places (mostly rurall, where they have little exposure to gays) the majority opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry because marriage is some sacred thing that they think their religion invented, which is bullshit anyway. The union between two people came waaaaaaaaay before Catholics made it into what they did.

Your knowledge of constitutional law, basic politics, and Christianity is lacking. Find the clause in the US Constitution that says that the Church is supposed to be separated from the state. You're not going to find it. Why? Because it isn't there. Regarding religion, the courts consider the establishment clause and the free exercize clause.. neither of which explicitly call for a separation of CHurch and state, because those who wrote the Constitution KNEW that politicians were people and that they had religious convictions that inform their philosophy ... just like how you have convictions that inform your philosophy (and how I have convictions that inform my philosophy. Like your idea that the state is somehow archaic, that there is an explicit separation in the Constitution, and that homosexuality is a flamboyant, flagrant, and boistrous display of social indecency ... all convictions that inform your philosophy).

The sentence that begins "The majority opinion is that..." is the clearest example that you have absolutely no idea what is going on in the world and what other people think. I guess the only way to begin a response to that sort of point is, "No." Christians and Catholics do not think that they invented marriage. WHat is the most obvious example of this? The book that generally governs the moral choices of CHristians and Catholics is the Bible. The Bible has a collection of pages called "THe Old Testament." The Old Testament is a collection of predominantly Jewish texts about Jewish people, many of whom got married. Now, there would be quite the incongruency for Christians to claim that they invented marriage when marriage is mentioned ad nauseam in a collection of chapters about people who are not Christians. Rather than making up what you think Christians, Catholics, and those against Gay Marriage believe ... and then justifying your opinion on that make-believe universe, why don't you justify your beliefs on what people actually believe. WHat most will tell you isn't that marriage is something made up by Christians or Catholics, or even Jews, but rather, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman... per definition. This has been the case in American culture for about 400 years, it was informed by Western philosophy, which also shares some roots in Western religion (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism; predominantly). So the "majority" who are opposed to Gay marriage do not think that way because it discriminates against homosexuals, because it doesn't. It'd be like a rock with absolutely no aerodynamics wanting to fly by its own power. Nature is not discriminating against that rock; nature has defined flying and defined what that rock is. PEOPLE have defined marriage and what marriage is.. and homosexuals want to do something that is NOT marriage. If Marriage is the union between and man and a woman, and homosexuals do not want to have a union with a man or a woman, then they do not want marriage... they want something else. And it is entirely up to their chosing how they want to handle that, what they want to call it, and what the definition of it is. Hence, marriage is not a right. You mentioned Atheists being able to get married, and this proves my point. Well, it proves two points. One of them is that you're basing your justifications off of misinterpretations of what other people believe ... and then accosting them for your own misunderstanding. Secondly, it proves that Christians and Catholics don't believe that marriage was invented by their religion and for the sole use of their religion ... or else, they would not allow Atheists to get married.

If you want to talk about rights--then I am probably in complete agreement with you. I thought, 10 years ago, when I began to venture into politics, culture, and society, that homosexuals should be granted the same rights as heterosexuals, and within the last 10 years, this has happened... to the point that nearly all medical facilities recognize a legitimate homosexual partner, nearly all insurrance companies recognize homosexual partners, and most states will grant the same the same opportunities to homosexuals partners, pending application. I bolded "legitimate" because just like heterosexuals, a medical facility can use their discression when allowing people to visit patients... and this is because there are so many people, both homosexual and heterosexual, with flanderous, dangerous sex lives. They turn people away as actively with heterosexuals as they do homosexuals, and even married spouses.

(cont)

[Mike]

==THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE PREVIOS POST==

Originally Posted by Baboinga

Whatever, the point is, that gays are actively discriminated against, and we have taken strides, sure, but we are FAR from having homosexuals being accepted as actively as heterosexuals. The idea of having a heterosexual pride parade is stupid BECAUSE every fucking day for straight people is a pride parade. People openly walk down the street hand in hand, on posters, in advertisements, commercials, books, magazines, everything is straight this and straight that. The cliche story is "boy meets girl" or "adam and eve" or whatever else you want to see it as. When is the last time you saw a mainstream movie that's main characters involve a gay or lesbian couple? I can barely think of any ever. Oh, Kissing Jessica Stein, but she turned out straight in the end. That's a GREAT message.

Well, I guess you can ignore all of my mention that I am not in favor of a heterosexual pride parade... but really, that's irrelevent. The reason "everything" is "Straight this" and "straight that" is because the majority of the population is heterosexual, so if you want your advertising to appeal to the majority of people, you market it towards them. Advertisings generally show adults or people over the age of 16 in their advertisements ... should this all change? Should we show babies and three year olds using iPods, instead of people in their 20's? When somebody is driving a car in a commercial, should that person be a 9 year old, instead of an adult? NO, because the majority of car drivers are adults and the majority of people using iPods are in their later teens, 20s, and 30s... Just like the majority of people in America are heterosexual. Take for instance a commercial about Diamonds ... like the DeBeer's commercials... they show a black and white background with what is obviously a man and a woman sharing that diamond. Is this an active display of heterosexuality? No. Did the producers of that commercial purposely put a man and a woman in the ad? YES! Because heterosexual men are their primary target audience... the majority of their sales are to heterosexual men, so it only makes sense to advertise with heterosexual men in mind. This is not pushing the Heterosexual agenda, it is smart advertising.

Television and movies, however, are quite different. THe homosexuals are usually the most active characters ... for some reason, people can make careers out of being homosexual and being on TV. This doesn't bother me, because it's marketed well. One of the most popular shows in America is "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," I don't really watch it, but I think it's a funny show and the hosts are pretty crazy, and it is entertaining. Ellen DeGeneres has a talk show because she is a Lesbian... Now, it also happens that the show is a pretty good show, but there would be no interest if she wasn't a lesbian. Proof of this is that you can find 100s of other shows, throughout history, that have had leading female roles... when those shows have ended, the female roles rarely have had their own television talk shows. Nearly every new sitcom on network television tried to work the "Gay angle" into their stories, because homosexuality in television sells and it makes interest. People like to watch those shows. And the shows that have elements of homosexuality in them have those elements emphasized... those characters and story lines are typified by their homosexuality. You'd be hard pressed to find a Gay character in a television show where the essence of what that character is, is not a Homosexual man. However, I can go through every show and list the heterosexual characters where their sexuality, throughout every episode and every season, is barely mentioned.

Anyway, the point is, straight people don't deserve a parade for being straight, because they don't live in a society that stifles their sexuality.

I have mentioned already that I was never in favor of a straight parade. You're thinking that I am so that you can base your argument on this idea. I'm not. Your argument is baseless.

Like I said above, nobody could care less about the sexuality of any random person. People can do whatever they want in their homes when it comes to sexuality. Even outside of the home, people aren't as stifling as you may think. It is not uncommon to see two men walking down the street holding hands, or two women who are involved sitting in a park together. With the exception of obtuse old people, nobody has a problem with that. If I saw two men making out in a park, I'd probably have a problem with that, but that's also because I'd have a problem seeing a man and a woman make out in a park... It's neither the time nor the place for either.

Sexuality is not the clothes you wear, the way you talk, or the way you present yourself. It is your sexual attraction. Very few people care about anybody else's sexual attraction enough to actively seek to discriminate against them.

...........................
Gay people have sex with the same gender, and they have their own culture. It's something to be proud of. As a society we should celebrate our similarities and our differences. It's like Quebec in Canada, some people think they should just fall in line and stop bitching about losing their culture and being so bitchy about everything. I don't mind that Quebec is like that, because they're the only province left that actively stays bilingual. I'd rather them have their own culture and the rest of Canada have our culture and each learn from each other, than force them to be more like the rest of Canada which way Anglo.

"Gay people have sex with the same gender." That's a stupid sentence. It is impossible to have sex with a gender because, as anybody who has ever taken any course on sociology knows, gender is not in the essence of an individual, where as sexuality is. My sex is that I am male... I happen to assume the gender roles of a male (for a number of reasons). I could have sex with somebody who takes the same gender roles as I do, and that does not make me a homosexual. There are many women who have, for whatever reason, assumed the gender roles of a man ... or "do male gender"... if I, as a male, had sex with a female who had assumed the gender roles of a man, I would not be committing an act of homosexuality.

"It's something to be proud of. As a society we should celebrate our similarities and our differences."

This is just a difference of opinion between you and I. I do not see my sexual preference as something to be necessarily proud of because in and of itself, it doesn't exist. While it can be good to celebrate similarities and differences, with that celebration comes resentment ... If I celebrate how great a basktball player I am (though I am not), somebody who is not a great basketball player may resent me celebrating it. Me celebrating does not change the type of basketball player I am, and the type of basketball player I am does not cause resentment. The active celebration causes resentment.

Now, as you began this post, you mentioned that you were trying to be polite. Frankly, I don't care if you're polite or impolite, but I'd rather you have a concernl to facts, the philosophy of others, and of the issue at hand. If you want to say that you can have intercourse with a gender; If you want to use Christianity and Catholicism as the same thing; If you want to say that Homosexuals cannot adopt children; If you want to think that the separation of Church and State is explicit in the Constitution; And if you want to believe that marketing to heterosexuals is anything more than smart business ... Then you can. You'll be wrong. You'll look stupid. But you can.

You'll also free to call me an idiot, but maybe if you studied some of the things you're talking about, you'd rethink that word choice.

[Mike]

BTW -- Hex and I may agree on ends, but we probably do not agree on means. Don't take his arguments for mine.