# Toronto Chosen!



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...based upon the presumption that this is no longer a political issue, at least in this country, i would like to say that i am thrilled and extremely proud that toronto has been chosen to host world pride. huge congratulations to my gay brothers and sisters!

:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Not that theres anything wrong with it...........but I just don't understand the need to publicly celebrate your sexual preference. 

I would much rather see a Canadian Pride parade. :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Not that theres anything wrong with it...........but I just don't understand the need to publicly celebrate your sexual preference.
> 
> I would much rather see a Canadian Pride parade. :smilie_flagge17:


It's here in Stoney Creek! Every year we have a Canada Flag Day parade.

We get very little help from the politicians and the parade has to scrape deeper for money every year. It's not quite as large a parade as it used to be because of this.

Despite all that, we're still loud and proud!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## YJMUJRSRV (Jul 17, 2007)

ne1roc said:


> Not that theres anything wrong with it...........but I just don't understand the need to publicly celebrate your sexual preference.
> 
> I would much rather see a Canadian Pride parade. :smilie_flagge17:


I agree 100%. I dont care what anyone does with consenting others. But why the need to march it in front of me? I already accept it, why rub my nose in it?

Only reason I can think of is to create tension where there is currently peace then complain about being a victom.


----------



## ThePass (Aug 10, 2007)

Hosting that event in T.O will bring much needed $$ into the area, and surrounding communities too......which is always a good thing.

I'm not gay, have never been to a Pride event, nor ever will so in essence it dosen't bother me at all. Have your parade, I don't care. What I don't like to see is grown men prancing about half naked in chaps or in some cases ~ fully nude. That is just plain wrong. I saw the pics in the Toronto Sun from the last event. Yuck. If I did that, I'd get thrown in jail for public nudity. My excuse for "being straight" wouldn't hold up, lol.


----------



## vds5000 (Apr 14, 2008)

*I will use any excuse in the book to post this pic...*

It's really them, and they were really bad. The choreography was terrible - almost as if they were blind and drunk. Plus, they were doing covers that they had no business doing.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...pick up just about any magazine, newspaper or book, check out just about any billboard, television commercial or romantic movie and you will see heterosexuals celebrating their sexuality.

and you won't hear or read of any gays whining about having their noses rubbed in it.

nor do we judge ALL heterosexuals by the antics of the FEW.

really, guys, no one should have to explain any of this to you.

what this is really about is treating our fellow brothers and sisters as equals...

-dh


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

It always amazes me.

Is there any reason ever to hold any kind of parade at all ever?

I have not ever seen or heard of a parade worth being done. Period. They are all a colossal was of time and transit aggravation. Not to mention noisy, smelly, and they leave behind a tone of litter on the ground.

I mean really:

Christmas Parades? So sorry Jews, not for you guys and no, no Hanaka parades either please, Muslims sorry, no Ramadan. Yes, we are religiously inclusive, just only for Christians (HEY yes, we do also have an Easter Parade for you Christians... er, do other faiths even have more than one holiday?)

Rose Parade? :| Its a flower and a smelly one at that. Not to be confused with Rose Bowl Parade, which is all about overdressed smelly men.

Thanks Giving Parade? Geee.... talk about rubbing noses in something.

There are parades to dogs, to cats, to out of tune drummers and people that can GASP twirl batons. To flowers, to football, to welcome soldiers home, to sing South American music. Parades to show off a cities new down town, to show off a companies new product, to demand Justus for _insert flavour here_. Then there are parades that don't even dare call themselves parades, they call themselves "runs". Give me the runs thinking about it. Runs for the Cure to _insert flavour here_, runs for _insert charity here_, runs around THE BAY, who's bay? WHO CARES!!

ZOMG, gay people want a parade, zomg what is the world of parades coming to and just what IS going to be next  an Oprah Parade: March of the O's?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...good points, all.

still, i think if i had been discriminated against, not to mention beaten up, tortured and often slaughterd for several thousand years, and was finally achieving some semblance of basic human rights, equality and mainstream acceptance, i'd want a parade.

-dh




keeperofthegood said:


> It always amazes me.
> 
> Is there any reason ever to hold any kind of parade at all ever?
> 
> ...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> ...just what IS going to be next  an Oprah Parade: March of the O's?


...an oprah parade?

i'd definitely be up for that.

-dh


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Seeing that Toronto has the largest population of any city in Canada, statistically it follows that its also the gayest city in Canada. That makes it the best choice for these things. Im just not sure how they never got the Olympics.........


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i just wish they'd all go back to the closet and stay there.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I want a guitar parade...

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

...oh yeah, there's one in my house every day.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> i just wish they'd all go back to the closet and stay there.



...that's sad, but you're not alone.

which is even sadder...

-dh


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> i just wish they'd all go back to the closet and stay there.


So we'll see you at the parade then ? :smile:


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

david henman said:


> what this is really about is treating our fellow brothers and sisters as equals...
> 
> -dh



Why do we have to celebrate our differences to prove that we are equal?


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

I am glad that we, Canada in general and Toronto in particular, are considered open and accepting enough for the celebration to held here. While we definitely have issues to overcome it is a definite indication of what we are and what we are made of.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2009)

david henman said:


> ...good points, all.
> 
> still, i think if i had been discriminated against, not to mention beaten up, tortured and often slaughterd for several thousand years, and was finally achieving some semblance of basic human rights, equality and mainstream acceptance, i'd want a parade.


David, you beat me to it: if I had lived in fear of persecution for so long I'd want to kick up my heels when the day came where I could actually be me without having to worry so much.

Besides: it's always a very, very, _very_ good party the Gay Pride weekend in Toronto. And who doesn't like a good party?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> Why do we have to celebrate our differences to prove that we are equal?


...we don't.

the celebration is (more) about the _achievement_ of equality.

hard fought, hard won and well deserved.

and definitely worth celebrating.

-dh


----------



## puckhead (Sep 8, 2008)

my wedding anniversary happens to fall in Pride Week, so I've always thought it's kind of neat that its coincidentally so festive around my and my wife's celebration.
plus, the parade and stuff make it kind of hard for me to forget my anniversary :smile:


on the grander scale, i think it's great that Toronto (or Canada for that matter) can stand at the forefront of civil right movements, whether it be hosting international events for gays and lesbians, legalizing same-sex marriages, or whatever. As a nation, I'd rather be at leading edge in acceptance than the alternative.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...we don't.
> 
> the celebration is about the _achievement_ of equality.
> 
> ...


Well put. I was struggling for a good choice words. We have had an influx of couples buying houses in the last few years. Regardless of preferences these new couples all seem to well educated, interesting, and pleasant people. They have been welcomed into the community with open arms and we are talking SMALL town ( and all that involves). I just bet some of that willingness to accept has a lot to do with the fact the parade has helped bring attention to the issues involved. 

These new resident's are welcome change from some of the straight white trash that float through here sometimes.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

iaresee said:


> David, you beat me to it: if I had lived in fear of persecution for so long I'd want to kick up my heels when the day came where I could actually be me without having to worry so much.
> Besides: it's always a very, very, _very_ good party the Gay Pride weekend in Toronto. And who doesn't like a good party?



...nonetheless, the media will post photos of the few who take it a little too far, and folks who should know better will perceive that as _representative_ of the many.

-dh


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Any celebration of *good* is worthy in my mind. Let there be pride as long as there are those who are intolerant and need an education.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Mooh said:


> Any celebration of *good* is worthy in my mind. Let there be pride as long as there are those who are intolerant and need an education.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


I think Morgan Freeman's take on Black history month applies to the Gay Pride concept.

Morgan Freeman says the concept of a month dedicated to black history is "ridiculous."

Freeman notes there is no "white history month," and says the only way to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

ne1roc said:


> I think Morgan Freeman's take on Black history month applies to the Gay Pride concept.
> 
> Morgan Freeman says the concept of a month dedicated to black history is "ridiculous."
> 
> Freeman notes there is no "white history month," and says the only way to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."


I don't agree. The education must continue in order to oppose bigotry, racism, and all other forms of intolerance. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> I think Morgan Freeman's take on Black history month applies to the Gay Pride concept.
> Morgan Freeman says the concept of a month dedicated to black history is "ridiculous."
> Freeman notes there is no "white history month," and says the only way to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."



...ah, if only it were that easy, eh?

ironically, its only when we _start_ talking that things like change, progress and enlightened attitudes becomes achievable.

-dh


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

Seeing as no one else made the joke...



Accept2 said:


> Seeing that Toronto has the largest population of any city in Canada, statistically it follows that its also the gayest city in Canada. That makes it the best choice for these things. Im just not sure how they never got the Olympics.........


Perhaps you answered your own question there...

On a serious note, I'm a civil libertarian and a defender of human rights. I applaud the gay pride parade becasue it is a celebration of freedom and the exercise thereof. I don't watch it because men in assless chap are not my idea of eye candy.

Any group that is law abiding should be allowed to hold a parade to celebrate their past, their accomplishments or their religion (or lack thereof). Education and exposure are the only cures for ignorance and hate. If you don't like it don't watch.

matt


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Congrats to all. I find it extremely difficult to give a hoot. From what I have read the 2009 parade was given $400,000 from the fed, $300,000 from Ontario and $1,000,000 from Toronto. estimates on this one are in the $10,000,000 range. When it's over there will still be people begging and starving in the streets.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Congrats to all. I find it extremely difficult to give a hoot. From what I have read the 2009 parade was given $400,000 from the fed, $300,000 from Ontario and $1,000,000 from Toronto. estimates on this one are in the $10,000,000 range. When it's over there will still be people begging and starving in the streets.


Your tax dollars! Something everyone can disagree about!


----------



## Big White Tele (Feb 10, 2007)

...........kksjur


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Mooh said:


> Any celebration of *good* is worthy in my mind. Let there be pride as long as there are those who are intolerant and need an education.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


i call b.s. on that statement, and in fact, on this entire thread. why should folks who disagree be labled as "intolerant" "sad" "in need of an education"? 
gays complain that straight people force their values on them and claim it's wrong, but then if we don't accept them, then we are labled as intolerant. 
they want to force their morals down my throat, and that of others, including children. sounds like a double standard to me. 

whether any of you want to admit it openly or not, gays are sexual deviants. 
why else would they refer to normal people as "straight"? 
straight, as in _without deviation_. and before any of you want to trot out that lame excuse that animals do it, so that makes it natural, they do not do it for pleasure, they are doing it to express dominance. it's not sexual behavior. and before any of you want to toss the word homophobe, lets get that one out of the way right now. it's a word manufactured in an attempt to lend legitamacy to a practice clearly outside of societal norms. it seeks to label those who don't accept homosexuals as having a syndrome which does not exist. and while i'm dispelling myths, lets get another one out of the way.
those who are gay weren't born that way. it's a choice they made to live that lifestyle. 
*so if your gay, keep it to yourself. i don't want to hear about it any less than i want to hear about someone having a go with their wife . that especially isn't why i came to this forum. sex of any kind isn't something for public discussion. it's a private thing.*
the only reason that rediculous parade gets any attention at all is because the pictures of all those cross dressing weirdos sell newspapers to people who like to gawk at them as some sort of freak show.


----------



## puckhead (Sep 8, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> whether any of you want to admit it openly or not, gays are sexual deviants.
> why else would they refer to normal people as "straight"?
> straight, as in _without deviation_.


dontcha think us straight folks defined that? 

(in before the lock?)


----------



## zdogma (Mar 21, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> i call b.s. on that statement, and in fact, on this entire thread. why should folks who disagree be labled as "intolerant" "sad" "in need of an education"?
> gays complain that straight people force their values on them and claim it's wrong, but then if we don't accept them, then we are labled as intolerant.
> they want to force their morals down my throat, and that of others, including children. sounds like a double standard to me.
> 
> ...


kksjur

I think someone is in need of an education...

(also in before the lock!)


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

zdogma said:


> kksjur
> 
> I think someone is in need of an education...
> 
> (also in before the lock!)


Ya think? LOL!

In the spirit of tolerance and understanding though, I hope we all feel better after the rant. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> those who are gay weren't born that way.


Yes, they are. Genetics research has even found the genes responsible. There are also maternal hormones involved.

Ask yourself this question, did you choose to be heterosexual? Did it even occur to you to do practice sex differently than you do?

I doubt it...

matt


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> i don't want to hear about it any less than i want to hear about someone having a go with their wife . that especially isn't why i came to this forum. sex of any kind isn't something for public discussion. it's a private thing.


Well, it seems to me that you don't have to open the thread if you don't want to hear about it. Your post discusses it more than others so apparently public discussion doesn't bother you so much, or it's not such a private thing after all. 

Yup, I'm waiting for the lockdown.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## bagpipe (Sep 19, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> .


Wow - I'm stunned. I can almost hear the banjo in the background.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

bagpipe said:


> Wow - I'm stunned. I can almost hear the banjo in the background.


...my father is, or was, a card carrying member of the "don't call me homophobic just because i hate gays" club, until i was able to make him understand that it is logically and inherently impossible to choose one's sexuality. unless you are, by nature, bisexual, you cannot choose which gender you are attracted to.

don't believe me? then try it. try choosing to be attracted to your same sex.
i'm betting my life you cannot look at a guy and get sexually aroused.

we used to believe the earth was flat. we used to believe that people who are "different" were witches. we used to believe that blacks and women were inferior to white males. we used to believe it was cool to drive drunk, or to physically and sexually abuse our wives and children. people in some third world countries STILL believe many of these things.

here in canada, with access to information, education, knowledge and wisdom, there is no longer any excuse for gay bashing.

this should be time for celebrating, not expressing hatred toward our gay brothers and sisters. 

-dh


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Cheezy, your entitled to your opinions of course, but why does it have to be delivered with such anger?


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

The thing that bothers me most about this thread is that if you don't like the idea of the parade, you are labeled anti-gay and uneducated? These labels are completely unfair, and it is stuff like this that brings out the anger,which ultimately leads to locking this thread, which until Cheezyrider's post, was quite civil.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

ne1roc said:


> The thing that bothers me most about this thread is that if you don't like the idea of the parade, you are labeled anti-gay and uneducated? These labels are completely unfair, and it is stuff like this that brings out the anger,which ultimately leads to locking this thread, which until Cheezyrider's post, was quite civil.



With all due respect Cheezy's post goes well beyond "not liking the *idea* of the parade". I'd also say his views would be the same regardless of any kind of parade. I agree that any notion that this parade is a huge waste of money and resources, that could be better spent on the cities most needy, is often met with labelling and name-calling. However, that this gives rise to the kind of angry rant Mr. Rider treated us to, is a load of crap.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

To be fair, there is a distinction. I never said one was uneducated (or needed to be educated) if they didn't like the idea of the parade, just that as long as there is intolerance, pride (or awareness ideas of other kinds I suppose) is good. Further, I didn't label anyone.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

All views have to be respected. Not everyone will agree on them. That particular post hurts, he is talking about my son and I love him very much, more than life itself. I also know that he is a fine person and he was that way since the day he was born. I have learned over the years to change my views, for the better I feel. But I also still and always will feel that parading oneself is just opening up yourself as a target.

I let this thread go fully expecting it to go this way. But the world is what it is. You guys decide whether it stays open or not. Choose your words carefully. It can be a debate like any other, be civil.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

..."sexual deviants"? "freaks"? "weirdos"? 

how is this kind of labelling anything less than intolerant and homophobic.

not to mention hateful...

also, my friend, if you have proof that gays have the ability, unlike the rest of us, to _choose_ their sexuality, there a number of porfessionals in the fields of science and biology who would like to see it.

respectfully...

-dh




cheezyridr said:


> i call b.s. on that statement, and in fact, on this entire thread. why should folks who disagree be labled as "intolerant" "sad" "in need of an education"?
> gays complain that straight people force their values on them and claim it's wrong, but then if we don't accept them, then we are labled as intolerant.
> they want to force their morals down my throat, and that of others, including children. sounds like a double standard to me.
> 
> ...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The historical "de-normalization" of same-sex attraction has led over time to an approach adopted by an understandably marginalized community - the gay and lesbian community - which displays its rejection of society's rejection of _them_ by exaggerating gender roles as a sort of comment. For my part, if someone feels more like themselves when dressed as the opposite sex, fine. If they are more comfortable behaving in ways that are more typical of the opposite gender, fine. It's a big world, and I'm a big boy. However, I'm not comfortable with folks who try to be feminine in ways I would not tolerate from a woman, or masculine in ways I would not tolerate in a man. I understand fully what prompts it, and I empathize. It's just not helping matters...not nearly as much as same-sex couples getting married and settling down as being "regular folks" (like many I know and work alongside), and _diminishing_ the perceived gap between those who are GLBT and those who are not, rather than _exaggerating _it.

What rankles the heterosexual community is the "spectacle" aspect of Gay Pride parades, and the extent to which it extols promiscuity (or at least appears to). Indeed, what doesn't get talked about often enough is the historical and tacit association in the public's mind between same-sex attraction and promiscuity. Of course much like the bizarre mentality that sustained apartheid for so many years ("Well of course we can't just _let_ the blacks run their own country; look how uneducated they are!"), it is entirely understandable that when settling down with one's high school or college sweetheart is simply impossible and illegal for someone attracted to the same sex, that promiscuity or serial monogamy is all the more likely; i.e., the gay community became what the heterosexual establishment _forced _them to be, not what they were biologically _destined_ to be.

That being said, the drag queens and cowboys in buttless chaps make a statement that goes beyond "I'm comfortable in who I am" and starts to verge on "I'm glad I'm not you, because I love to PAAAAAAARRRR-tay!!". Let 100,00 GLBT people walk the full length of Yonge St., arm in arm, dressed in their work clothes, with placards that say "I'm proud to be someone who loves, and has someone to love". I'd be there to applaud. When the comfort with self transforms into comfort with the rather perverse roles that the homosexual community has been goaded into adopting, and THAT becomes the centrepiece of any parade or display, that's when I say "Nah".

I'd feel exactly the same way for any parade or demonstration of my own group that I felt exploited or showcased stereotypes.

I don't know. Does wanting a different *kind* of parade make one intolerant?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i'm curious to know how, not to mention why, you can cherry-pick isolated examples from the homosexual community, and from the gay pride parades, and pass them off as "representative" of the entire community, and of the celebrations as a whole.

it seem disingenuous, to me.

-dh




mhammer said:


> The historical "de-normalization" of same-sex attraction has led over time to an approach adopted by an understandably marginalized community - the gay and lesbian community - which displays its rejection of society's rejection of _them_ by exaggerating gender roles as a sort of comment. So, if someone feels more like themselves when dressed as the opposite sex, fine. If they are more comfortable behaving in ways that are more typical of the opposite gender, fine. It's a big world, and I'm a big boy. I'm not comfortable with folks who try to be feminine in ways I would not tolerate from a woman, or masculine in ways I would not tolerate in a man. I understand fully what prompts it, and I empathize. It's just not helping matters...not nearly as much as same-sex couples getting married and settling down and being "regular folks" (like many I know and work alongside).
> 
> What rankles the heterosexual community is the "spectacle" aspect of Gay Pride parades, and the extent to which it extols promiscuity (or at least appears to). Indeed, what doesn't get talked about often enough is the historical and tacit association in the public's mind between same-sex attraction and promiscuity. Of course much like the bizarre mentality that sustained apartheid for so many years ("Well of course we can't just _let_ the blacks run their own country; look how uneducated they are!"), it is entirely understandable that when settling down with one's high school or college sweetheart is simply impossible and illegal for someone attracted to the same sex, that promiscuity or serial monogamy is all the more likely; i.e., the gay community became what the heterosexual establishment _forced _them to be, not what they were biologically _destined_ to be.
> 
> ...


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

mhammer said:


> The historical "de-normalization" of same-sex attraction has led over time to an approach adopted by an understandably marginalized community - the gay and lesbian community - which displays its rejection of society's rejection of _them_ by exaggerating gender roles as a sort of comment. So, if someone feels more like themselves when dressed as the opposite sex, fine. If they are more comfortable behaving in ways that are more typical of the opposite gender, fine. It's a big world, and I'm a big boy. I'm not comfortable with folks who try to be feminine in ways I would not tolerate from a woman, or masculine in ways I would not tolerate in a man. I understand fully what prompts it, and I empathize. It's just not helping matters...not nearly as much as same-sex couples getting married and settling down and being "regular folks" (like many I know and work alongside).
> 
> What rankles the heterosexual community is the "spectacle" aspect of Gay Pride parades, and the extent to which it extols promiscuity (or at least appears to). Indeed, what doesn't get talked about often enough is the historical and tacit association in the public's mind between same-sex attraction and promiscuity. Of course much like the bizarre mentality that sustained apartheid for so many years ("Well of course we can't just _let_ the blacks run their own country; look how uneducated they are!"), it is entirely understandable that when settling down with one's high school or college sweetheart is simply impossible and illegal for someone attracted to the same sex, that promiscuity or serial monogamy is all the more likely; i.e., the gay community became what the heterosexual establishment _forced _them to be, not what they were biologically _destined_ to be.
> 
> ...


Said in words that I am incapable of coming up with. I agree 100%. That being said. I am almost positive that with a community here of over 5000 members that there is more than one gay person here. They are human beings, entitled to enjoy life the same as the rest of us. I know, from personal experience the anguish, shame and feelings a gay person can and does go through. When someone who loves you thinks that you will hate them if they were to know the "truth". When thinking it would be better to kill yourself rather than have someone in your family be ashamed of you. It was I that was ashamed, but of myself, not my son. I would give anything to be the kind of person he is. Way more caring and giving than I will ever be. Actually ten times the person I am, and I am very proud of that.

He was actually shocked that I told him that knowing this made absolutely no difference whatsover in how much I love him. Is that bizarre? Here you have a boy, who at that time was maybe 20 years old contemplating death rather than tell his Father who he is? I also know where hammer is coming from. The smart ones just lead their lives as normally as possible. They do not seek nor need attention. There will always be people IMO that don't like it. Keep your head up and walk on by. You are a human being no different than them. Their shit stinks too. :wave:


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i'm curious to know how, not to mention why, you can cherry-pick isolated examples from the homosexual community, and from the gay pride parades, and pass them off as "representative" of the entire community, and of the celebrations as a whole.
> 
> it seem disingenuous, to me.
> 
> -dh


He's not cherry picking from the whole community, he pointing out what I and probably many others don't like this parade. I don't believe it represents the *true* gay community, who truly are normal people like you and me, just have a different sexual preference.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ne1roc said:


> He's not cherry picking from the whole community, he pointing out what I and probably many others don't like this parade. I don't believe it represents the *true* gay community, who truly are normal people like you and me, just have a different sexual preference.


...exactly. they are not representative and, more to the point, not MEANT to be representative, in the same way that so-called "real men" are not in any way representative of the male gender.

personally, however, i don't have a problem with them. i think they add a lot of colour, spice and flavour to the parade, and are absolutely part of the community. 

which begs the question: why go out of our way to point them out, denigrate them, discriminate against them? again, is this not yet another "minority" issue? we can only accept gays as long as they look and act like "us"...?

-dh


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...i'm curious to know how, not to mention why, you can cherry-pick isolated examples from the homosexual community, and from the gay pride parades, and pass them off as "representative" of the entire community, and of the celebrations as a whole.
> 
> it seem disingenuous, to me.
> 
> -dh


Oh I would agree that this community is no more or less heterogenous than any other, whether it's sailors, bookbinders, communists, redheads, Episcopalians, or Strat players. I'm just trying to explain how it comes to be that even people who are accepting, welcoming, cognitively supple, or whatever descriptor you want, can look in the paper and sigh to themselves "Oh jeez, are they gonna do that on MY street?".

The picture that I saw accompanying an article on the parade had someone of undetermined sex basically dressed as a Vegas showgirl. How that represents the millions and millions who teach our kids, plough our driveways in the winter, do our photocopying, plan our transit and water systems, develop public health policy to keep everyone safe, serve the aboriginal community, provide us with a rock solid backbeat in our band, check to make sure that the crappy apples and wilted lettuce are removed from the stock, cut our hair once in a while, and do a zillion other perfectly normal things, is beyond me. I, for one, would deeply appreciate it if the photographers who cover such events would point their cameras in the direction of the multitudes who ARE perfectly "regular" folks, and steer clear of the exaggerations that do not represent the majority. It would do everyone a tremendous service for both those who are consistently misprepresented, as well as those who are only familiar with the misrepresentations.

Perhaps if I attended such a parade, it would become evident to me that such isolated instances are indeed isolated. But I gotta tell you, I wouldn't attend a parade for my own group either, so I guess I'm never gonna find out how isolated such individuals truly are. Which is all the more reason for me to need the press to adopt a different approach when covering such events.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

mhammer said:


> The historical "de-normalization" of same-sex attraction has led over time to an approach adopted by an understandably marginalized community - the gay and lesbian community - which displays its rejection of society's rejection of _them_ by exaggerating gender roles as a sort of comment. For my part, if someone feels more like themselves when dressed as the opposite sex, fine. If they are more comfortable behaving in ways that are more typical of the opposite gender, fine. It's a big world, and I'm a big boy. However, I'm not comfortable with folks who try to be feminine in ways I would not tolerate from a woman, or masculine in ways I would not tolerate in a man. I understand fully what prompts it, and I empathize. It's just not helping matters...not nearly as much as same-sex couples getting married and settling down as being "regular folks" (like many I know and work alongside), and _diminishing_ the perceived gap between those who are GLBT and those who are not, rather than _exaggerating _it.
> 
> What rankles the heterosexual community is the "spectacle" aspect of Gay Pride parades, and the extent to which it extols promiscuity (or at least appears to). Indeed, what doesn't get talked about often enough is the historical and tacit association in the public's mind between same-sex attraction and promiscuity. Of course much like the bizarre mentality that sustained apartheid for so many years ("Well of course we can't just _let_ the blacks run their own country; look how uneducated they are!"), it is entirely understandable that when settling down with one's high school or college sweetheart is simply impossible and illegal for someone attracted to the same sex, that promiscuity or serial monogamy is all the more likely; i.e., the gay community became what the heterosexual establishment _forced _them to be, not what they were biologically _destined_ to be.
> 
> ...



9kkhhd BUT, where else is it easy to get a pair of lesbians open for a third?

Like Mt Everest, "because it is there" is the only reason to hold a parade, the only reason to go to a parade, the only reason to be in a parade. Unlike things like eating and breathing, the presence of absence of a parade does not determine if by morning you are alive or dead. Like the stage hand oh a hot night in Budapest "she was a good enough reason for a party".

kqoct BUT I do hate parades; noisy, messy, smelly, traffic jammy things they are!

LOL and my mrs. LOVED the idea of March of the O's too!



mhammer said:


> Oh I would agree that this community is no more or less heterogenous than any other, whether it's sailors, bookbinders, communists, redheads, Episcopalians, or Strat players. I'm just trying to explain how it comes to be that even people who are accepting, welcoming, cognitively supple, or whatever descriptor you want, can look in the paper and sigh to themselves "Oh jeez, are they gonna do that on MY street?".
> 
> The picture that I saw accompanying an article on the parade had someone of undetermined sex basically dressed as a Vegas showgirl. How that represents the millions and millions who teach our kids, plough our driveways in the winter, do our photocopying, plan our transit and water systems, develop public health policy to keep everyone safe, serve the aboriginal community, provide us with a rock solid backbeat in our band, check to make sure that the crappy apples and wilted lettuce are removed from the stock, cut our hair once in a while, and do a zillion other perfectly normal things, is beyond me. I, for one, would deeply appreciate it if the photographers who cover such events would point their cameras in the direction of the multitudes who ARE perfectly "regular" folks, and steer clear of the exaggerations that do not represent the majority. It would do everyone a tremendous service for both those who are consistently misprepresented, as well as those who are only familiar with the misrepresentations.



kqoct wait, you were reading on http://www.caribana.com/


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

david henman said:


> ...exactly. they are not representative and, more to the point, not MEANT to be representative, in the same way that so-called "real men" are not in any way representative of the male gender.
> 
> personally, however, i don't have a problem with them. i think they add a lot of colour, spice and flavour to the parade, and are absolutely part of the community.
> 
> ...


I think you are answering your own question, Dave. Why go out of our way to point them out? Exactly. We all know what the media is like. They are going to put the prancing fairy on the front page of the news. That's not the majority of the gay community, so why do it? Why should they not act just like "us"? They are the same as us. They have the same feelings, aspirations, goals, loves and hates as all the rest of us. They are simply human beings. Leave them alone and let them live. Drawing attention to oneself in a flamboyant way is not going to serve you. IMO there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to prance around and intentionally cause someone to say or think "this dude/gal is gay" Who the hell cares? I don't. The same as they probably don't give a hoot what we do behind closed doors.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...pick up just about any magazine, newspaper or book, check out just about any billboard, television commercial or romantic movie and you will see heterosexuals celebrating their sexuality.
> 
> and you won't hear or read of any gays whining about having their noses rubbed in it.
> 
> ...


Magazines, newspapers and movies are all choice. You choose to buy it. Gays prancing around naked in public streets is something that strips us of our choice.
And if there is billboards displaying lewd sex whether heterosexual or gay would be wrong.If gays want true equality then they should have the same number of pride parades as heterosexuals have.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> If gays want true equality then they should have the same number of pride parades as heterosexuals have.


Whenever a group has a history of being discriminated against, gestures towards equality almost necessarily have to have narrative quality about them that "comments" on the past. In other words, when you're catching up, being "equal" does not mean just all of a sudden acting like everyone else and pretending history never happened.

Not unless I misunderstood you, and what you meant was that heterosexuals have "pride parades" and the GLBT community is every bit as entitled to have them as the heterosexual community is.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Whenever a group has a history of being discriminated against, gestures towards equality almost necessarily have to have narrative quality about them that "comments" on the past. In other words, when you're catching up, being "equal" does not mean just all of a sudden acting like everyone else and pretending history never happened.
> 
> Not unless I misunderstood you, and what you meant was that heterosexuals have "pride parades" and the GLBT community is every bit as entitled to have them as the heterosexual community is.


I just don't understand the need for it to be so public. Can this not be celebrated more in private? 
Those of us that believe in Christmas in the traditional way are being made to change our greetings publicly (happy holidays or seasons greetings) Christmas trees are dissapearing from government offices. We are being forced to celebrating Christmas the way we want only in our own homes. And you know what? I'm ok with that. I don't need to publicly display my beleif in Christ's birth and will be careful that I don't offend someone. But I will be offended if some gay pride parade came to my town with naked or half naked men prancing around celebrating man on man sex. 
How is it politically correct to tolerate that but not tolerate my beliefs?


----------



## Morbo (Aug 26, 2009)

I see those parades as a double-edged sword in a way. The bad consequence would be that the most flamboyant in the parade would create the prejudiced view that gays are, well, flamboyant and/or effeminate. I wouldn't say it's a big risk, most people who would get that impression would have to be a bit homophobic to start with. The useful thing is that it serves as a powerful reminder that gays exist, in good numbers, and the parade makes the strong argument to anyone, politicians included, that you can't ignore this part of the population. It also serves to build the gay community a bit, I'd say, an event to unite people and maybe tell people "in the closet" or ashamed of their homosexuality that they're not alone.

But I find parades annoying, and among my friends and family who are gay, I know that not many of them would want to participate in such an event. They like to keep most of their sexuality in the bedroom, but I guess they'd parade for their rights as couples and anything related to their love.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> I just don't understand the need for it to be so public. Can this not be celebrated more in private?


I have this cockamamie theory that there are limits to tolerable disclosure in human affairs. I guess some people call it TMI.

Imagine you are at a bus-stop, and strike up a conversation with the other person waiting for the bus in the cold. You might find out they need to get downtown to meet someone for a job interview. Okay. They've been out of work for 3 months. Still okay. It's hard being out of work. Still fine. Lately, they've been very depressed about the fact that they don't have a job and just can't seem to get out of bed and......

....WHOOOOOAAAAA there fella. Hold up at second base. We have reached the limit of acceptable disclosure.

Same bus-stop, two days later. Other person says they need to buy some flowers, and asks if there is a flower shop nearby. Okay. Tells you it's their anniversary. Fine. You ask if they have anything special planned, and the person says they're heading off to a B&B. Very nice. And when they get there, there's this vinyl outfit he bought the wife for the occasion and.....

....WHOOOOOAAAAA there fella. Hold up at second base. We have reached the limit of acceptable disclosure by moving too far into the intimate and away from the socially banal.

One of the "problems" with the variants of non-heterosexuality, is that once you know someone is not heterosexual, it feels like something intimate has been disclosed. It hasn't really,but it feels like it has, and if its more than what is acceptable, it feels icky, the same way that someone telling you about their depression, or their hemmorhoids, or their explosive diarrhea crosses the boundaries. And it's not JUST the possibility that it may be gross to you. I mentioned depression. I imagine most people would be very sympathetic to those who are depressed, yet uncomfortable with someone discussing their suicidal thoughts or ugly divorce/custody battle, or their personal history of abuse. The specific criteria and incidents may vary form person to person, but there are limits to what we treat as personal disclosures that we are comfortable with. If there was some form of agreement that we would mutually share our hard-luck stories or deepest secrets, maybe, but out of the blue and unilaterally, no.

Many years ago, back when singer Anita Bryant was touting the virtues of Florida orange juice, she got on an anti-gay bandwagon. And I remember one interview of hers I read when she said that when she heard how men made love she simply couldn't get the image out of her mind, and it repulsed her. And there you have it in a nutshell. You find out someone is gay, and the first thing that comes to mind is not whether they prefer wax paper or plastic wrap when packing sandwiches for lunch but what parts of other humans they stick in their mouths and.......whooooaaaaa, camel, I said WHHHHOOOOOAAAA. You've crossed that line again.

So, even when people do not summon up biblical arguments for why those not in a monogamous heterosexual marriage are going straight to damnation, it is still possible for them to just feel uncomfortable in the presence of a large gathering of non-heterosexual persons because it's like being in the same room with a bunch of people telling you something far too intimate about themselves. And of course, if its a parade, intermittently peppered with buttless chapped guys, then it starts to feel like a crowd of people all saying "Guess what *I* did today!", and you don't really want to hear that about _anybody_, gay or straight.

People get creeped out by pride parades for some very normal reasons. To my mind, that only emphasizes the work to be done in reshaping the social image of the GLBT community such that their sexuality is one of the last things that comes to mind...pretty much the same way we normally treat each other here. I may wonder what you do for a living, or what sort of music you play, and maybe even about your political affiliations, but I never think about what you do when the lights go out...and I never want to know either.:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Curmudgeon chiming in. Have all the gaw damned parades you want, 11 times a week if that's what floats yer boat and the authorities are on board. JUST DON'T SPEND MY FREAKIN TAX DOLLARS DOING IT oh too late grrrrr

Yes, this applies to all parades not just the pride.

That said and in related news, I do believe that by limiting things like (for example) Christmas celebrations (including, you guessed it, parades), we are dishonouring our country's past/what and who built it to where we are today, and that we are worse off for it. I don't care if you're Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu, this isn't a slap in your face. If you feel insulted, look away - yes it really is that easy. Tradition is part of human culture for a reason, it has value imho.

/end curmudgeon


----------



## Big White Tele (Feb 10, 2007)

Ive gotta say thanks to mhammer, crossing the line......very well said!


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

kqoct


MY LIGHTS GO OUT AND






​




I go to sleep ​


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2009)

^^^ Yea, but now I'm _imagining_ so many other things.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

iaresee said:


> ^^^ Yea, but now I'm _imagining_ so many other things.


Been married a long time. I go to bed and ... dream of stupid guitar projects.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Drawing attention to oneself in a flamboyant way is not going to serve you. IMO there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to prance around and intentionally cause someone to say or think "this dude/gal is gay".


...do you seriously think that is what gay pride is all about?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> With all due respect Cheezy's post goes well beyond "not liking the *idea* of the parade". I'd also say his views would be the same regardless of any kind of parade.


...lets ask mr cheezy:

well, mister cheezy, how do you feel about the santa claus parade? the grey cup parade? the stanley cup parade? soccer parades? ethnic parades? military parades? the st paddy's day parade?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> If gays want true equality then they should have the same number of pride parades as heterosexuals have.



...trust me on this, my friend: when the day comes that heterosexuals have had to suffer thousands of years of degradation, witch hunts, heterosexual-bashing, butchering, castration, torture, slaughter, "heterosexual" jokes, blatant discrimination, name-calling, flagrant insults etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc, _there will be heterosexual parades_.

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> I just don't understand the need for it to be so public. Can this not be celebrated more in private?
> Those of us that believe in Christmas in the traditional way are being made to change our greetings publicly (happy holidays or seasons greetings) Christmas trees are dissapearing from government offices. We are being forced to celebrating Christmas the way we want only in our own homes. And you know what? I'm ok with that. I don't need to publicly display my beleif in Christ's birth and will be careful that I don't offend someone. But I will be offended if some gay pride parade came to my town with naked or half naked men prancing around celebrating man on man sex.
> How is it politically correct to tolerate that but not tolerate my beliefs?


...this is bs. only in extremely rare intances are people being "forced" to move christmas trees. even rush limbaugh was obliged to admit that the so-called war on christmas was totally bogus.

for those who have never attended one, the gay pride parade is not about "naked or half naked men prancing around celebrating man on man sex".
unless, of course, you work for the media.

you don't understand the need for parades to be "so public"?

how else?

should the st paddy's day parade be relegated to someone's back yard?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...mhammer, we have been bludgeoning gays for thousands of years, and you think their number one priority should be accomodating us?

that is genuine irony.

i stll cannot get my head around the fact that we "granted" women the freedom to vote.

-dh




mhammer said:


> I have this cockamamie theory that there are limits to tolerable disclosure in human affairs. I guess some people call it TMI.
> 
> Imagine you are at a bus-stop, and strike up a conversation with the other person waiting for the bus in the cold. You might find out they need to get downtown to meet someone for a job interview. Okay. They've been out of work for 3 months. Still okay. It's hard being out of work. Still fine. Lately, they've been very depressed about the fact that they don't have a job and just can't seem to get out of bed and......
> 
> ...


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Mthinks David, you only started this thread to have somthing to argue about no?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Starbuck said:


> Mthinks David, you only started this thread to have somthing to argue about no?


...yeah, its a slow week and, what the heck, i don't really care about social issues or human rights but an argument, now that's something worth getting excited about.

and thank you, starbuck, for taking us down the path of personal attacks.

why pay any attention to the message when its so much easier to attack the messenger, yes?

-dh


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...trust me on this, my friend: when the day comes that heterosexuals have had to suffer thousands of years of degradation, witch hunts, heterosexual-bashing, butchering, castration, torture, slaughter, "heterosexual" jokes, blatant discrimination, name-calling, flagrant insults etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc, _there will be heterosexual parades_.
> 
> -dh


Oh my God, give me a break. Tell the gays to stand in line for their wine and cheese party. 
I am Native ancestry and I could stand on the blockades with the my brethren displaying the hooliganism tactics that they think will further our cause in keeping and maintaining land ownership but I've got a life to lead.
Then there's the blacks seeking reparation. I could go on and on. We seem to now live in a day and age of me, me, me. I won't go in to the brutal life of parental abuse, and years of federal lock up I've had to suffer. I don't wine. I move on learn from my mistakes and try to lead as productive of a life that I can. Every single one of us has something we could cry about. But it seems you get a large enough group that can call themselves a minority and they think there cries should be heard above all others. 
I've seen the silly media footage on these stupid gay parades. I hardly think that this lascivious display of freakism has anything to do with years of oppression.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...yeah, its a slow week and, what the heck, i don't really care about social issues or human rights but an argument, now that's something worth getting excited about.
> 
> and thank you, starbuck, for taking us down the path of personal attacks.
> 
> ...


I don't think it was a personal attack from starbuck but an astute observation. I mean, you do seem to regularly position your self at the extreme end of a discussion. When you think about it, it doesn't take a lot of insight to see the potential for arguments.
You are one of those guys that take an extreme view and when someone disagrees with you (remember the gun) you cry foul and personal attack and run off in the corner in a huff.


----------



## Jeff Flowerday (Jan 23, 2006)

This thread is going nowhere productive.


Locked!


----------

