Gay Pride - Embarrassing or Empowering?

efb

philologos wrote: »

People are entitled to whatever opinion they like on the subject as to the morality of same-sex sexual activity / family units etc. I still don't get how the pride parade is constructive to society at large. How does it argue for your position?

It gives us a voice, Im not repeated what I said earlier read the thread.

It all began at Stonewall.

rocco.

I have friends who are gay, they are really looking forward to it! Let them enjoy it! No harm being done..

philologos

efb wrote: »

It gives us a voice, Im not repeated what I said earlier read the thread.

It all began at Stonewall.

That's a fair point I think. It does give LGBT people a voice but what is that voice saying taking into account some of the responses given on this thread. That's what I get confused at, what is that voice saying to me as an individual during Pride Week.

Edit: Surely if this is being funded by Dublin City Corporation presumably with tax €'s I can expect some benefit from it? That's fair right?

efb

philologos wrote: »

That's a fair point I think. It does give LGBT people a voice but what is that voice saying taking into account some of the responses given on this thread. That's what I get confused at, what is that voice saying to me as an individual during Pride Week.

Im sure whatever the voice said you would still find it morally reprehensible.

But to me it says, we are here and we deserve the same rights as everyone else.

philologos

efb wrote: »

Im sure whatever the voice said you would still find it morally reprehensible.

I find which morally reprehensible? Pride Week or?

efb wrote: »

But to me it says, we are here and we deserve the same rights as everyone else.

OK. I can understand that much I think. I'm not sure if in terms of the family unit that LGBT relationships should be regarded as the same as relationships that can provide a mother and a father to a child. That said however I do welcome LGBT voices to the discussion on that.

I don't think the Pride Parade in particular achieves what you think it does, but perhaps I'm just wrong.

efb

philologos wrote: »

That's a fair point I think. It does give LGBT people a voice but what is that voice saying taking into account some of the responses given on this thread. That's what I get confused at, what is that voice saying to me as an individual during Pride Week.

Edit: Surely if this is being funded by Dublin City Corporation presumably with tax €'s I can expect some benefit from it? That's fair right?

Feel morally superior those marching perhaps?

philologos

efb wrote: »

Feel morally superior those marching perhaps?

Let's retrace this a little. Who feels morally superior to whom?

MagicSean

efb wrote: »

Feel morally superior those marching perhaps?

What have morals got to do with it? The whole thing is one big contradiction. On the one hand you have the fact that a person has no choice in their sexuality while on the other you have people taking pride in something which would indicate it's something they chose.

efb

philologos wrote: »

People are entitled to whatever opinion they like on the subject as to the morality of same-sex sexual activity / family units etc. I still don't get how the pride parade is constructive to society at large. How does it argue for your position?

You, your benefit would be you feeling that same sex sexual relationships are morally deviant and that would make you iyo morally superior.

efb

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

What have morals got to do with it? The whole thing is one big contradiction. On the one hand you have the fact that a person has no choice in their sexuality while on the other you have people taking pride in something which would indicate it's something they chose.

I was addressing philogos point on what benefit he may get from pride. He may get to feel morally superior. I dont feel superior to anyone, I do believe I am, and we all are equal.

philologos

efb wrote: »

You, your benefit would be you feeling that same sex sexual relationships are morally deviant and that would make you iyo morally superior.

Not at all. My personal beliefs would suggest that every person has done wrong. I'm no different, I'm no better and I'm no worse than anyone else. My personal beliefs would suggest that sexual relationships of any form are to be kept in a marriage between a man and a woman. As for anyone who happens to disagree, that's what they do. I don't feel I'm any better for this. In fact it would go very very clearly against my beliefs if I did.

I think you and anyone else in a free society have the right to make your views clear in whatever way that you like. I just question as to how the Pride March does this.

efb wrote: »

I was addressing philogos point on what benefit he may get from pride. He may get to feel morally superior. I dont feel superior to anyone, I do believe I am, and we all are equal.

As I've said already nor do I. It would go strongly against my beliefs if I did.

efb

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. My personal beliefs would suggest that every person has done wrong. I'm no different, I'm no better and I'm no worse than anyone else. My personal beliefs would suggest that sexual relationships of any form are to be kept in a marriage between a man and a woman. As for anyone who happens to disagree, that's what they do. I don't feel I'm any better for this. In fact it would go very very clearly against my beliefs if I did.

I think you and anyone else in a free society have the right to make your views clear in whatever way that you like. I just question as to how the Pride March does this.



As I've said already nor do I. It would go strongly against my beliefs if I did.

Again, it gives people a voice, and allows them to celebrate a large part of who they are. Have a Happy Pride!!!

philologos

efb wrote: »

Again, it gives people a voice, and allows them to celebrate a large part of who they are. Have a Happy Pride!!!

I guess it depends on who you are. I don't see sexuality as some massive part of my identity. I just know that I'm attracted to certain people and not attracted to others. I've been really confused over that concept for quite a while as have a few other posters here. I guess it will always remain an enigma to me.

efb

philologos wrote: »

I guess it depends on who you are. I don't see sexuality as some massive part of my identity. I just know that I'm attracted to certain people and not attracted to others. I've been really confused over that concept for quite a while as have a few other posters here. I guess it will always remain an enigma to me.

Human beings are sexual beings, and our sexuality needs expression.

And people see people's sexuality as a way of denying them rights so even those opposed acknowledge its a big part of a person's identity.

philologos

efb wrote: »

Human beings are sexual beings, and our sexuality needs expression.

In public as in becoming manifest in identity or in private? I can see the case for the latter but not in the former. That's one thing I don't understand about it. I don't feel that sexuality should be paraded but that it is a personal matter between a person and their partner. In my interpretation in a stable marriage, in others understandings I guess outside of such a marriage.

efb wrote: »

And people see people's sexuality as a way of denying them rights so even those opposed acknowledge its a big part of a person's identity.

In this case I'm referring to myself. In my life, I am a heterosexual. However, I don't need to publicise this or display it to the world or to identify as a heterosexual. There are other things in my life that I identify with much more strongly.

bayern282

People who know they're straight don't give a rats that Gays exist.

I've always been inclined to think that you shouldn't lump certain sectors of society together too readily, it's well documented that not all gay people get on and there's various sub-sectors,scenes and political views within their 'community' if you can call it that. They're all individuals at the end of the day, some I've liked and got on with, others I'm not so fussed about, but that;s just people for you, myriad, multi-faceted, and fascinating.

efb

New York State passes Gay Marriage Equality!! Streets are overflowing in New York City's Greenwich Village by the Stonewall Inn with celebrations!!

Another reason to celebrate today!

Resi12

man.about.town wrote: »

why cant we have a straight pride parade???

Straight people demanding special representation can go whistle for it. Are you kidding me? Representations of straightness are all over the place. Straight people never have to demand to be recognised and are never erased or misrepresented due to their sexuality.

Take you ableist privilege denying arse out of this space and think about what a piss poor excuse for a human being you are behaving like.

efb

Can you be my doctor? Can you hitch me up? I just wanna make u wet!

Happy Pride!!!

unterglayben

I don't mind what they do. i had a half hour added on to my bus journey due to a traffic diversion caused by the parade. could have done without that.

loike

unterglayben wrote: »

I don't mind what they do. i had a half hour added on to my bus journey due to a traffic diversion caused by the parade. could have done without that.

just pretend there was a crash that caused it

LighterGuy

its all about context.

gay people marching or having a parade to try and make more people accept homosexuality .... no harm. can be seen as good.

gay people marching or having a parade and say, gay men walking the streets with thongs, basically nude etc? .... = wrong. Thats not trying to change things, thats ramming things down your throat.

CuLT

In this thread: heteronormative white people expressing incredulity at something which deviates from heteronormative white behaviour.

All you are required to be is tolerant. It's not a big ask. When you start laying down rules about stuff that doesn't concern you, you are inventing reasons to hate.

It's actually not ok to "personally believe" that sexual relationships between consenting partners is "wrong" - it's harmful to our society. It divides us for no good reason.

If you're going to have arbitrary rules about things, make them against things which cause human suffering, or are destroying our world for future generations. Don't make them about who other people choose to love.

CuLT

LighterGuy wrote: »

gay people marching or having a parade and say, gay men walking the streets with thongs, basically nude etc? .... = wrong. Thats not trying to change things, thats ramming things down your throat.

You were born naked. So what if someone wants to wear a thong and dance one day a year? The only thing that is causing you grief is in your head.

Kimia

I don't get why people are saying they are confused by the 'pride' bit just because a gay person doesn't choose their sexuality.

Being born a certain way and having no choice in the matter while simultaneously being told (or society believing) that it's wrong or 'weird' or whatever makes it all the more important for a gay person to be able to feel proud of themselves and how they were born. That there's not something 'wrong' with them, that it's ok and acceptable and not something to be ashamed of.

I think it's great. Be proud of who you are, of how you were made.. What's wrong with that?

Links234

CuLT wrote: »

In this thread: heteronormative white people expressing incredulity at something which deviates from heteronormative white behaviour.

All you are required to be is tolerant. It's not a big ask. When you start laying down rules about stuff that doesn't concern you, you are inventing reasons to hate.

It's actually not ok to "personally believe" that sexual relationships between consenting partners is "wrong" - it's harmful to our society. It divides us for no good reason.

If you're going to have arbitrary rules about things, make them against things which cause human suffering, or are destroying our world for future generations. Don't make them about who other people choose to love.

I could just hug you ^_^

thebullkf

Dudess wrote: »

Saying the same percentage of hetero people experience the same difficulties as that of gay people is disingenuous rubbish.

who said that

thebullkf

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Right ok - so you haven't got bullied because you are straight - fair enough

but bullied by expressing an identifyable trait.... is thisd not similar

to say as some here have "you can always change your hair" is lazy and weak.

The incidences of parasuicide and suicidal thoughts as well as mental health problems have been proven to be very high amongst LGBT people

Suicide is the the biggest killer of young irish men in this country.

most of them aren't gay

- It happens - I know one guy who badly beaten up by his father when he came out.

i know a guy who got beaten up for playing soccer , and giving up gaa.

his da's a prick. your mates da's a prick. sexuality is just an excuse

- Lack of access to any form of legal recognition of relationships is a major way of deeming them unworthy

you mean like single dads;)

Well that's great for you that you haven't come across it - again it happens - the workplace, the schoolyard and the home are often unsafe place for LGBT people - In particular they can be places of violence (not just physical but cultural and material as well)

the op recognised it happens......

and all of what you mentioned is also true for hetero people... whts your point?

are incidences of workplace bullying higher against LGBT??

Well that might be true and that's great but they might also not discuss these things in depth with you

and..?

Lack of legal recognition for relationships, parenting, acquired gender, allowing religious based employers to be exempt from equality legislation

you can't legislate for everyone...tide is turning though.

So basically you are saying that you fear targets attacks because you are part of a heterosexual couple and you fear being beaten up because you are with your opposite sex partner

so basically you're misconstruing words to lend weight to your arguement (as you've done before)...

Frankly no - I see that you are in the privileged position of being cisgender and heterosexual and that you are unable to comprehend anything outside of that privileged life experience

frankly your last comment there is disingenuous and insulting imo.

if someone other than aimed that commment @ a poster the banhammer would be out.

how very presumptious of you:rolleyes:

Sir Gallagher

I find people saying "Where's the straight pride parade?" odd. If you want a straight pride parade think of a reason why you should have one other than as a reaction to the gay pride parade. If you manage to think of a decent reason and find some like minded people get up off your hole and organise it.

"Where's the straight pride parade?", jesus wept what an utterly childish and silly thing to say. Reminds me of the shower in the U.S who wonder why they can't have "White pride" marches.

LighterGuy

CuLT wrote: »

You were born naked. So what if someone wants to wear a thong and dance one day a year? The only thing that is causing you grief is in your head.

Ok,
lets reverse roles.
Someone ELSE creates a parade. Non sexuality say. Can be about anything. They have women walking down o'connell street one staurday afternoon. Wearing lace bikinis.

Do you think the gardai wouldnt stop that?
Do you think you wouldnt have people against that?
Do you think that parade would be seen as not a bother to people? and "no grief" as you put it?

if you can answer "no" to all 3 i will eat my own hat and say i'm wrong. But you can you honestly?

Sir Gallagher

LighterGuy wrote: »

Ok,
lets reverse roles.
Someone ELSE creates a parade. Non sexuality say. Can be about anything. They have women walking down o'connell street one staurday afternoon. Wearing lace bikinis.

Do you think the gardai wouldnt stop that?
Do you think you wouldnt have people against that?
Do you think that parade would be seen as not a bother to people? and "no grief" as you put it?

if you can answer "no" to all 3 i will eat my own hat and say i'm wrong. But you can you honestly?

Happens every day on Grafton st. with Georgia Salpa and the likes doing photoshoots advertising something. Nobody seems to mind.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

LighterGuy wrote: »

Ok,
lets reverse roles.
Someone ELSE creates a parade. Non sexuality say. Can be about anything. They have women walking down o'connell street one staurday afternoon. Wearing lace bikinis.

Do you think the gardai wouldnt stop that?
Do you think you wouldnt have people against that?
Do you think that parade would be seen as not a bother to people? and "no grief" as you put it?

if you can answer "no" to all 3 i will eat my own hat and say i'm wrong. But you can you honestly?

So you're against parades on general then?

aligator_am

CuLT wrote: »

In this thread: heteronormative white people expressing incredulity at something which deviates from heteronormative white behaviour.

All you are required to be is tolerant. It's not a big ask. When you start laying down rules about stuff that doesn't concern you, you are inventing reasons to hate.

It's actually not ok to "personally believe" that sexual relationships between consenting partners is "wrong" - it's harmful to our society. It divides us for no good reason.

If you're going to have arbitrary rules about things, make them against things which cause human suffering, or are destroying our world for future generations. Don't make them about who other people choose to love.

Please explain why it's not OK to have a personal belief? folk are entitled to personally believe something, whether that's believing in God, not liking snooker or not approving of what gay people do.

I don't think the people who don't agree with you should push it in your face, people are different, that's what makes the human race so interesting, leave people be, even if they don't agree with you.

CuLT

aligator_am wrote: »

Please explain why it's not OK to have a personal belief? folk are entitled to personally believe something, whether that's believing in God, not liking snooker or not approving of what gay people do.

I don't think the people who don't agree with you should push it in your face, people are different, that's what makes the human race so interesting, leave people be, even if they don't agree with you.

As I explained, it's not ok because it is an arbitrary, illogical, and ultimately harmful decision to not treat another human being with the same basic respect and courtesy as you give others.

It creates the opportunity for you to treat them as less than human.

Obviously you can believe whatever you like, but that doesn't mean you should.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

aligator_am wrote: »

Please explain why it's not OK to have a personal belief? folk are entitled to personally believe something, whether that's believing in God, not liking snooker or not approving of what gay people do.

I don't think the people who don't agree with you should push it in your face, people are different, that's what makes the human race so interesting, leave people be, even if they don't agree with you.

There's a big diffrence between lot liking something and disapproving of it. I don't like anal sex with other men and I don't like snooker. But I don't think that me not liking means that other people should not participate.

philologos

I think people are confusing toleration with approving of everything that people do. Toleration is precisely the opposite. It is about agreeing to disagree with those who live differently.

People are perfectly entitled to disagree with others on sexual ethics and this isn't being intolerant. Some may think that sexuality should be kept within a marriage between a man and a woman, others may think that it's OK otherwise. Neither position is intolerant. It's simply a disagreement.

Personally I don't find sexuality outside of a marriage to be morally acceptable. That's my opinion and it's simply not intolerant if one takes the traditional definition of tolerance:

The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with: "religious tolerance".

aligator_am

CuLT wrote: »

As I explained, it's not ok because it is an arbitrary, illogical, and ultimately harmful decision to not treat another human being with the same basic respect and courtesy as you give others.

It creates the opportunity for you to treat them as less than human.

Obviously you can believe whatever you like, but that doesn't mean you should.

But aren't people entitled to their beliefs, so long as they're not pushing them on you?

I've no problem with gay folk, they're wired differently to me but that doesn't make them bad or wrong, and I think people who don't have the same attitude as me are entitled to their beliefs and ways, so long are they aren't being pricks about it and being obnoxious.

Son Of A Vidic

I can't see how Gay Pride can be empowering, but I also don't find it embarrassing. I personally have no time for anyone's sexual orientation flaunted in my face.

So your gay, well get over yourself then. I feel if someone is gay so what? Whether your hetro, gay or whatever that's the way you are and it's no big deal. So why then make a big deal of it?

MagicSean

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I can't see how Gay Pride can be empowering, but I also don't find it embarrassing. I personally have no time for anyone's sexual orientation flaunted in my face.

So your gay, well get over yourself then. I feel if someone is gay so what? Whether your hetro, gay or whatever that's the way you are and it's no big deal. So why then make a big deal of it?

My thoughts exactly. I feel the same on racial issues. Surely the Gay Pride or Million Man March only serve to further seperate a group from everyone else and draw attention to the differences which they themselves want to be ignored.

aligator_am

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I can't see how Gay Pride can be empowering, but I also don't find it embarrassing. I personally have no time for anyone's sexual orientation flaunted in my face.

So your gay, well get over yourself then. I feel if someone is gay so what? Whether your hetro, gay or whatever that's the way you are and it's no big deal. So why then make a big deal of it?

I agree with you, but I think gay folk are expressing themselves because they can now, imagine they tried this back in the 1800's, they'd be burned at the stake!

Let them be, gay people should have all the same rights as anyone else, if they wanna have a march every year then let them, they're doing no harm, let people enjoy themselves, ya know?

CuLT

philologos wrote: »

Personally I don't find sexuality outside of a marriage to be morally acceptable. That's my opinion and it's simply not intolerant if one takes the traditional definition of tolerance:

Being gay is not an opinion or a behaviour; it is a part of who that person is. It cannot be changed by argument or debate. you cannot convince someone they are not gay, any more than I can convince you that you're not white or straight.

Let's reimagine your post by dropping in something controversial:

I think people are confusing toleration with approving of everything that people do. Toleration is precisely the opposite. It is about agreeing to disagree with those who live differently.

People are perfectly entitled to disagree with others on apartheid and this isn't being intolerant. Some may think that political office should be kept only by white folks, others may think that it's OK otherwise. Neither position is intolerant. It's simply a disagreement.

Personally I don't find allowing black people into political office to be morally acceptable. That's my opinion and it's simply not intolerant if one takes the traditional definition of tolerance

Do you see how absurd that sounds?

philologos

CuLT wrote: »

Being gay is not an opinion or a behaviour; it is a part of who that person is. It cannot be changed by argument or debate. you cannot convince someone they are not gay, any more than I can convince you that you're not white or straight.

We don't know whether or not sexual orientation is biologically determined. As such I'm not going to presume either way.

Nobody is saying that being attracted to person X or Y irrespective of gender is wrong. What one is saying at least in the Abrahamic sense is that they believe that the place of sexual relations is within a marriage. They have the right to hold to that ethical opinion. This doesn't mean that they expect everyone else of necessity to live as they do. It just means that they find it wrong to act otherwise.

CuLT wrote: »

Do you see how absurd that sounds?

It's only absurd when we assume biological determinism. Even if ones sexuality is biologically determined, how one acts on that is entirely different.

My point was this. It isn't intolerant for anyone to hold an opinion that sexuality should be expressed within a marriage. It would be intolerant to aim to ban all forms of sexual expression that didn't fit this definition. Tolerance is understanding that other people are free to live in a way that you disagree with. That's all. Anything else is a disingenuous distortion of what tolerance actually means.

By the by you also twisted my post. I'm not saying that sexuality is confined to certain people. I'm saying that according to my own beliefs there is a situation where it is appropriate to express it. That as I understand it is in marriage.

efb

Is sex in a Gay Marraige OK to you?

philologos

efb wrote: »

Is sex in a Gay Marraige OK to you?

I personally would understand marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Others are naturally entitled to disagree.

Calibos

We don't know whether or not sexual orientation is biologically determined

So you are open to the possibility that there are legions of adolescent males and females all over the world who will open themselves up to all kinds of prejudice and abuse by homophobes but decided to be gay regardless because of something they saw on telly or because they wanted to be a rebel ....

....but are not open to the possibility that LBG adolescents are just like you or me when we hit about 10 and started to fancy girls through no concious choice, themselves just instinctually/biologically started being attracted to members of the same sex??

Good Grief!! :rolleyes:

philologos

Calibos wrote: »

So you are open to the possibility that there are legions of adolescent males and females all over the world who will open themselves up to all kinds of prejudice and abuse by homophobes but decided to be gay regardless because of something they saw on telly or because they wanted to be a rebel ....

I'm open to the conclusions that will be presented as time progresses. I don't assume anything about the nature of sexual orientation.

Calibos wrote: »

....but are not open to the possibility that LBG adolescents just like you or me when we hit about 10 and started to fancy girls through no concious choice, themselves just instinctually/biologically started being attracted to members of the same sex??

Congratulations for claiming I said something I didn't say! It might be useful if you focused on what I did say though.

CuLT

philologos wrote: »

We don't know whether or not sexual orientation is biologically determined. As such I'm not going to presume either way.

Nobody is saying that being attracted to person X or Y irrespective of gender is wrong. What one is saying at least in the Abrahamic sense is that they believe that the place of sexual relations is within a marriage. They have the right to hold to that ethical opinion. This doesn't mean that they expect everyone else of necessity to live as they do. It just means that they find it wrong to act otherwise.

I genuinely think your belief system is harmful to the future (and present) of human society, and I hope it loses its strength as new generations reexamine the actions of their forebears with a critical eye.

philologos wrote: »

I personally would understand marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Others are naturally entitled to disagree.

Allow me to elucidate: marriage is a legal as well as a religious construct.

Make it purely legal, purely religious or abolish it altogether. This state of affairs where part of our country is marginalized for something as harmless and basic as sexual orientation cannot be allowed to continue.

dlofnep

If God is infallible, then he made gay people. Sexuality is not a choice, unless you're bisexual.

Bodhidharma

I honestly don't really care. Everyone is entitled to express themselves BUT I would prefer if it were done in as least an offensive manner as possible. Some of the outfits (feather boas and so on) are a bit extravagent but I have no problems with that, some of the more overtly sexual outfits (assless chaps etc) are a bit much considering it happens when children are in sight (I know that the people who wear them are a minority).

Sexualisation of young people (under 12 we'll say) is a problem (be it gay or straight) in my opinion as it takes away from a carefree childhood which everyone is entitled to.

If I had my way I would have a parade celebrating people being nice to each other for one day, regardless of sexual orientation.

philologos

CuLT wrote: »

I genuinely think your belief system is harmful to the future (and present) of human society, and I hope it loses its strength as new generations reexamine the actions of their forebears with a critical eye.

You're entitled to this view. I'm questioning the conflation of tolerance and agreeing with everything that people happen to do. One does not mean the other.

CuLT wrote: »

Allow me to elucidate: marriage is a legal as well as a religious construct.

I agree but ultimately individuals are free to hold their own views concerning marriage. The views I currently hold suggest that marriage is between a man and a woman. This isn't to say anything about other forms of relationships other than that they aren't marriage at least as far as I regard it.

CuLT wrote: »

Make it purely legal, purely religious or abolish it altogether. This state of affairs where part of our country is marginalized for something as harmless and basic as sexual orientation cannot be allowed to continue.

Legal is legal. Opinion is opinion. Sometimes people have opinions about the legal. I don't believe people are marginalised by saying that marriage is something and civil partnership is something else. If the people decide to change the definition of marriage that's up to the democratic will of the people.

dfolnep: All I have claimed is that we don't know whether or not sexuality is biologically determined.