Printable View
This is really only true in Toronto, but I figured I would wish it to everyone here anyway! The Gay Pride parade was today in Toronto and I just got back from it. It was a blast, I can't believe how many people were there for it. It was a lot of fun and I think I might make it a yearly routine.
pride parades always seem weird to me. while I appreciate the sentiment and reasons behind it, they now just seem like excuses for people to get drunk and act out cliches.Quote:
Originally Posted by mouseman004
On that note, I completely agree, and I don't like how sexually charged the crowd tends to be sometimes. There is no need for men or women to go out wearing next to nothing just to promote the fact they are proud of who they are. I saw a lot more old man butt than I ever needed to. That being said, watching the parade and seeing the different groups marching was really cool. Teachers unions with signs that say "We love our LGBT students", cop cars with pride flags, military vehicles, university professors. The amount of support that was there made it a really cool environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
Pride was last weekend in Chicago. I enjoy the celebrations. I love the shock factor, especially for those that are anti-gay. It's nice to see people out in public being proud of what they are, and not being bashed for it.
at this point though, how much of a shock factor is it? How are you putting anything forward when you're in chaps and have a rainbow dildo on your head and a sign that calls you a unicock? When things started yes, but now? You want shock factor for those folks, you have gay families walking. You have "normal" people walking holding hands and kissing. You don't have people walking around like mr slave.Quote:
Originally Posted by linsee
Well, where I live it still is shocking to some people. Very shocking. And, where do I see the Unicock?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
it's interesting, but down here people wearing crazy shit and acting clichés are more like an amusement for the rest of the folks who see em. they just laugh, while still thinking of them as freaks. it's not shocking but i dont think it does any special good to the LGBT crowd.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
where you live maybe, but the people who are attending a gay pride parade in Chicago, I have a hard time believing.Quote:
Originally Posted by linsee
Let's assume that it is very shocking. What's the point of it then? I know what the point of it was, but that time and era have passed. All it's doing at this point is reinforcing stereotypes and giving homophobes examples to point to.
Yeah but the whole point of pride parades is to not care what homophobes decide to point to. Maybe they reinforce stereotypes just because it is a weekend where they can without having to worry about the possible societal repercussions. Pride weeks are an outlet for things that can't normally be expressed 358 days of the year. If some dude decides that he wants to be a unicock for the weekend, that is his prerogative and the point of the parades is that now he CAN be that unicock (I realise it is a ridiculous example, but an example nonetheless). I don't personally buy into the extreme sexual nature of the week or things like wearing nothing but a jock strap, but they really aren't hurting anyone, so if that is how someone decides they want to express themselves for that one weekend of the year all the power to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
at this point in time, I put forth that they are actually hurting their cause and themselves as a community in the process. At this point, where gay acceptance is higher than ever and increasing over time in Canada and the US, all this does is reinforce that they are a fringe element rather than your neighbors, teachers, dr's, etc. The concept of being a spectacle because you're gay is counter-intuitive to any kind of positive social agenda. It was done in the past because most people had to hide being gay for fear of losing jobs, social status, etc. This just isn't the case any more.Quote:
Originally Posted by mouseman004
There is a certain amount of resistance (as there always had been) within the LGBTQ community to remain outside of heteronormative culture and thus be antagonistic towards its norms. This is the reason why there was a lot of queer criticism against the idea of "gay marriage."Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
I think it's a stretch to call it a lot since the overwhelming majority of statements have been very much in favor of the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by xGriffox
If you don't float around queer circles of news or discourse I can understand why it would seem minimal due to a lack of mainstream media paying attention to it. There really is a lively debate over the issue that is still going on.
and it's still a very small amount and not representative of a very large amount. The vast majority of folks are very much in favor for it, trying to paint it any other way, isn't really accurate. most people want the option even if they never intend to marry themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by xGriffox
But this inherently assumes that the intended outcome is to be something that isn't a fringe social element. Not all of those within the LGBT community want to be looked at simply as your neighbor. The goal isn't to hide the fact you might be someone's queer neighbor who is different from everybody else, but instead for those differences to be noticed AND accepted. There is a big difference between wanting equal rights and wanting to become assimilated into mainstream culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
Besides, they have fetish and sex shows all the time with costumes and actions that are a lot more extreme than what we see at pride parades, and nobody really judges people who attend those when they are outside of the show, so why should pride parades be any different? If somebody wants to be a unicock at a pride parade, that should have no bearing on their lives outside of the parade. If that is how my Dr. decides to get down outside of office hours, all the power to him!
It's an issue over the term "gay marriage" and the politics involved in the push for the term "marriage" itself over that of "Civil Union." I know that you never waver in your beliefs on any subject no matter what is said on it so I will suggest a book for you to read if you are at all interested in the topic and wish to understand the politics that surround it.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Equali...0095087&sr=1-3
If you don't, then let's just agree to disagree.
Personally i can't see why people would want to stick with the word marriage. The reason it isn't attributed to homosexual couples is often sited as being for its connotations to religion, sure thats a bit of a grey area. I don't think its as much about wanting to use the term "marriage" as its about ensuring there is not any segregation for couples based on their sexual preference. I am more for civil partnerships for everyone not just homosexual couples, i would like to see definite segregation from any religious connotations for all, if you ask me it should (and is) be heterosexual couples wanting homosexual couples are being granted. Solidarity!!Quote:
Originally Posted by xGriffox
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...il-partnership
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ships-marriage
The root of this whole issue is the church really, and whilst i am not against the term gay marriage i do wonder if the term is really what they want. I should imagine its the desire to be seen equal which means if they don't really want the marriage term and they want equality then its down to heterosexual couples to make more distance from the church and its influence over a term that is used in most of our lives. But then i guess it comes down to the marriage term after all as people like to use that term to describe their relationship and heterosexual couples are able to marry and pretty much ignore religious connotation and that religious connotation has dwindled greatly to the point that there is next to no difference between civil partnerships and marriages.
So i see it all as the church kicking up a big fuss and thinking they are more important than they are and trying to own a word, i see the government at fault for pandering to this in a way that gives the church more weight than it realistically should have although i can see the logical reasons for doing so. The church is a bit of a spoilt brat really. But anyway, for me the term isn't to important...i would root for equality and for the church to get a clue.
for the vast majority, that is in fact the stated intended outcome though.Quote:
Originally Posted by mouseman004
the problem with your example is that fetish and sex shows are private and behind closed doors. they aren't on the street marching for fetish acceptance. They aren't having sex shows on the corner. It muddies the message of acceptance and shifts focus away from what the vast majority wants. You can't effectively have two disparate conversations at the same time without one having a negative effect on the other. .
that's just bullshit semantics then and not actually being against the concept of gay unions/marriage. It's just arguing over what to call it.Quote:
Originally Posted by xGriffox
The folks that I know that are against it, are against it completely because of the fear that institutionalized monogamy would have a negative impact on the open and fluid sexuality that some prefer in the gay community.