[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.