I’m confused about what you think your point is. Is it that both gay pride parades and mardi gras celebrations are not always family friendly events? Because that’s a pretty simplistic point.
CitizenPained writes:
> Yeah, unfortunately you don’t get to control how it goes.
I don’t remotely care whether I control the development of opinions of this or any other issue. I learned long ago that I don’t control anything. I find discussions of opinions on the SDMB boring and meanspirited. I don’t intend to insert myself into any discussion where someone will tell me how worthless I am for expressing my opinions.
Probably both. Ever heard of the “Republican bubble”? They’ve created their very own media system that tells them what they want to hear over and over. Their own TV programs, radio shows, news, books and online forums where nothing but the right wing line is allowed. Except for the occasional rare left winger who is only allowed as long as he is inarticulate or stupid, and cut off the moment he sounds like he might make a convincing argument. They’ve created their own fantasy and wrapped themselves in it.
What’s objectionable about that picture? Is it the blatant disregard for helmet laws?
Of course- but unfairly or not, it’s certainly true that some gay stereotypes set back mainstream acceptance of homosexuality.
I don’t think the point CP is trying to make is that gay men should stop riding motorcycles in their skivvies in parades, just that some people can’t square the notion that “gay people are just like everyone else” with gay stereotypes.
It’s the same reason racists can’t accept that black people are just like everyone else; they see elements of black culture, like hip-hop, and are predisposed to accept those elements as proof that black people are different. It doesn’t signify to them that rappers aren’t doing anything that punk and metal bands haven’t done already*.
*Except rapper feuds, which are kind of new level-of-violence wise.
I think the point of gay pride parades aren’t to send the message “gay people are just like everyone else”, but rather to show closeted gay people that there is a community of accepting, openly gay people that they can join if they wish. While this is probably less important now then it once was, back when most gays were at least partially closeted, it was a pretty important first step towards gaining acceptance. After all, its pretty hard to get the public to accept a community of people who themselves are largely in hiding.
You have no idea how little I care about Joe Q. Homophobic’s opinion.
The point of Gay Pride parades and such isn’t to put on a show for the straights. It’s for gay people to be proud of who they are. And that has certainly had a net positive result over the forty-plus years they’ve been having the celebrations. Even without that, though, I don’t really believe that pictures like the one you posted are counter-productive. At some point, the gay rights movement is going to run into people’s “ick factor.” Either that or we just stay in the closet for all eternity. Some people are going to get freaked out about two shirtless guys on a motorcycle. But after forty years of Gay Pride parades, that number has certainly gone down. Perhaps we’re actually doing something right here?
ETA: Yeah, what Simplico and Inner Stickler said while I was writing, as well.
I’d go one further, and say that it’s those “sexhsual infedelz” (to use CitizenPained’s oh-so-memorable turn of phrase) that have been the primary drivers of the gay rights movement since its inception. It wasn’t investment bankers and soccer moms who were rioting at Stonewall in '69. It was drag queens and transsexuals.
Moreover, the heart of the gay rights movement has always been the ideal that we should be able to live our lives how we want, and not be discriminated against for it. That ideal applies to everyone who identifies as queer, not just the ones who can pass for middle class heterosexuals. A gay rights movement that doesn’t include the leather daddies, bull dykes, screaming marys, and every other “stereotype” that gets CitizenPained’s panties in a bunch isn’t a true gay rights movement, and if not throwing them under a bus means the movement is slowed down by a decade or so, that’s a price well worth paying.
Indeed, if anything, throwing segments of the GLBT movement under the bus will only slow us down as their boas will get caught in the axles. But seriously, we’d just get split into two groups, the straightseeming and the visibly gay and even if the straightseeming got full rights, we’d have to get right back on the trail to march for the visibles.
I think a more interesting question is whether heterosexual marriage should still be given special privileges. From my point of view, special privileges for married couples is just a way to disadvantage single people. I think that people that are actually raising children should be given some breaks, since children are our future citizens, but I know so many married couples that don’t have children and demonstrate no intention of having children and are taking advantage of a loophole in the system.
As far as I concerned we should just get rid of the married and married filing separately columns off the tax return and increase the deduction for dependents.
The nice about this approach is that treats homosexuals and heterosexuals equally and doesn’t decrease the revenue to the US government.
And you aren’t inciting anti-religious hatred by deeming religion to be a “disease”? :rolleyes:
At any rate morality is not determined by poll numbers.
Good point. Now, Qin, having jumped into that: What’s it determined by?
True/absolute morality, I believe, can only be determined by God. However an utilitarian morality can be fashioned by sane and intelligent people although it is subject to change and relative.
However, God does not talk to humans. So you are trusting a human’s interpretation of what God wants.
So aside from the whole problem of God not existing, you’re still accepting a religious leader’s take on what God thinks is holy. Doesn’t that suggest that there is no absolute morality?
I accept what the Bible says.
I accept what the poll says.
Seriously, do you think any of those sane and intelligent people answered the poll? If so, then morality does in fact come from polls.
It’s not just about tax breaks: marriage exists, independent of whether or not the government recognizes it (which is really why I think we should talk about RECOGNIZING gay marriage, not legalizing it) and the legal system needs to be able to discriminate between two people who are living together and having sex and two people who are married. I lived with my now husband before I married him. At that point, I didn’t want him deciding what to do if I was incapacitated, I didn’t want him to get my stuff if I died, I didn’t want to be a legal unit. I wanted my parents to decide that stuff because they were my closest family. After a while, I wanted my boyfriend to take that role, so I married him. Without access to marriage, how could the legal system distinguish that change?
It’s ammo for the other side. When you want to legislate something like marriage - which is a building block of any society - you aren’t going to allow marriages that are potentially harmful. Twelve year olds and fifty year olds getting married is one of them. So yeah, I’m pretty sure that if you pair gay pride + same-sex marriage, you get an unhappy union.
Same-sex marriage doesn’t hurt society. But a highly sexualized culture can. (Sorry, I’m speaking as a mother and as a teacher of too many students who have babies.)
You said it yourself - Mardi Gras is not a family friendly event. Neither are Gay Pride events. So doesn’t that give off the wrong impression here? Gay pride is run by gay people, and if that is the expression of their culture…hey, must not be family friendly.
I’ve always had an aversion to such events…but maybe it’s because I’m not into bondage and the condom & lube advertisements and jokes seemed of poor taste.
shrug I think of sex as a personal thing, so you won’t catch me at a Mardi Gras half-naked, either.
The stereotype of gays (especially men) is what I kept running into when i was part of a group that lobbied for same-sex marriage in Iowa. (at first, it was a matter of making sure there wouldn’t be a constitutional amendment, then it was supporting of a court case.) The legislators would say,* well, I’m sorry, my religion just won’t let me vote for that…and not even civil unions, because I mean, I don’t condone a culture based around sex and AIDS. Those aren’t my values.*
sigh