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’s the sexshual infidelz that become the target for the opposition. And you don’t have to be homophobic to be uncomfortable with an image of Mimi’s makeup meets Rainbow Brite.
This isn’t a world where all cultures are treated equally. I don’t condone a culture of hate and violence and I don’t condone radical Islam. Does that make me an islamophobe? Doubt it.
Yeah, and I don’t know if same sex marriage was on that agenda at the time. I was a member of the Stonewall Democrats and we kept our pants on.
Hah. I’m judgmental. I discriminate. I don’t condone gang life, or the sex trade, or drug rings. I don’t condone twelve year olds thinking it’s OK to give blow jobs. I don’t like it that teenage girls have an eating disorder problem.
I reject that you (or anyone) can do whatever you want and it’s my fault if I reject it.
Let’s just say that HRC has helped your cause more than San Francisco’s Gay Pride fests.
Your drag queen, S&M, motorcycle dykes in chains group is what? A minority within the minority? What is that doing for people who actually want more than an in your face I’m gay and I’m proud look at my assless chaps parade?
Gay Pride fests have not helped the cause for same sex marriage.
I’m aware of that. I’m talking about PR. Yes, have your gay pride. Do the shirtless drag queens and whatever. (I posted a pretty safe pic, since I don’t know how to do spoilers…you know what’s out there)
Go. Conquer. But now that you’re in a position (or whomever) to actually accomplish something - the near end goal here - why disregard the obvious observation about what gay pride days does for the movement?
No, but when you’re comparing what two consenting adults of the same gender do, to pedophiles, drug dealers, and terrorists, you certainly appear to be some kind of -phobe.
You know what? Have fun citizen with your weird ideas about pride parades. If you’re only going to be supportive if everyone wears polos and doesn’t drink neoncolored drinks than I think we’ll be fine without you.
Neither Mardi Gras nor Gay Pride parades are family-friendly events. The impression that gives me is that gays are a lot like straights, since events organized by gays have the same level of family-friendliness as events organized by straights.
The point is that if the government doesn’t recognize any special status for people that are “married”, then marriage ceases to be subject for legislation or litigation. The exact nature of a ‘marriage’ is simply spelled out in the contact. If you want to take out a contact for mutual support for each other and your children, but don’t want to mingle your assets or have them make end of life decisions for you, then just draw up the contract that way, instead if the one size fits all approach that a marriage contract today. If you look at the history of marriage, the marriage happened in church, but the exact nature of the marriage was negotiated by the attorney’s of their respective families and the state wasn’t in the loop.
If the state isn’t in the loop, then the number and gender of the people in a ‘marriage’ isn’t a matter of government fiat, as long as all the parties are of legal age and otherwise considered responsible (I don’t remember what the legal term is).
If you think that a marriage is between one man and one woman, then join a religion that agrees with you and have their priest, preacher, rabbi whatever perform a marriage ceremony and have a contract to match.
If you would like some details, I’d suggest reading some of Robert Heinlein’s novels like, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. Some of the “marriage” contracts in “Beyond This Horizon”, didn’t seem like much more the going steady.
Since you’re going by this standard, though, what two passages claim to summarize the Law and the Prophets? What is their application to this debate, if any?
I have to wonder if Boston is some sort of outlier here. Because when I’ve been to Gay Pride here, I didn’t find it terribly family-unfriendly. There really isn’t any more skin visible than you see at the beach, a small leather contingent, and a few total wierdos. Not really anything that kids can’t handle, even if certainly not everyone’s going to feel comfortable bringing theirs. So I’m not really sure what else is “out there”.
You say it’s obvious that Pride events harm the movement, but what’s the evidence? They’ve been holding the parades since 1970, and in that time open homosexuality has become vastly more accepted in the mainstream. I don’t know how one could actually prove what’s responsible for it, but I see it as Gay Pride events having been a resounding success in slowly changing society’s attitudes.
The people who really get outraged at the (IMHO) occasional PG-13 content at a Pride parade are homophobes. Yeah, they can show some pictures and get a rise out of people who get a little wierded out by that. But the other 364 days of the year, gay people in all walks of life are more open about who they are, and people start to get used to seeing two guys holding hands, or a coworker discussing her girlfriend. And it’s worked in part because the gay rights movement hasn’t been saying “we’re here, we’re not really all that queer, and if you don’t like it, we’re willing to tone it down.”
sigh I am talking about the marriage movement, not the “We’re here, we’re queer, deal with it. Hey, let’s be a stereotype and rock it. Fuck em.”
I wasn’t aware that gays were even trying to push for marriage in the 60s and 70s.
Gay Pride in Denver is pretty Zen. One that I went to in Iowa had big adverts for lube and condoms and other things. But this isn’t something I’d be caught anywhere near. (Er…Warning!)
When had a, er, person, in high school & college, I rather resented being put into a group - a group that was basically ‘anything not straight’ * just* because I wasn’t dating a male. Sorry. I guess I’m more of the HRC and Banana Republic type. I loves me some drag queen bingo on Monday Nights, but I’m not going to walk behind some guy in assless chaps in a parade. :dubious: I’m good where I’m at.
That’s very talented of me. Do you have an actual response or when you said pride parades hurt the movement did you really mean pride parades offend your sensibilities? One shouldn’t generalize unnecessarily or make baseless claims.
I don’t think the poll is a big deal: it’s been obvious for most of this decade that this was where things were going eventually. I don’t expect the Supreme Court court to overrule anti-gay marriage laws any time soon, but the public has definitely noticed that gay marriage is not the end of the world. It’s going on in a couple of states for years now, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is gone, Obama dropped his support for the Defense of Marriage Act without any particularly strident hue and cry, and maybe most importantly, young people (who are going to vote sooner or later) generally don’t have a problem with gays. There’s no reversing this.
CitizenPained, there’s no point in catering to “the opposition” as you see it. You’re talking about decades-old stereotypes about gays. Pride parades today aren’t a factor in forming or perpetuating those stereotypes. For a long while now, the gay rights movement has been focused on pretty traditional stuff like marriage and military service. And given the fact that all the trends strongly favor gay rights in the long term, there’s no point in worrying about how a parade looks to a few people.
Right, and if you’d note the OP of this thread, it’s pointing out that acceptance for gay marriage has apparently passed the tipping point. If pride parades are keeping the gay rights movement back, the effect does not appear to be particularly severe.
You’ve said this several times, but I’m not clear what the significance of it is.
And a lot of people wouldn’t be caught any where near this. That doesn’t make what they’re doing wrong, or shameful, or something to be suppressed or shunned. Yeah, one could make the argument that the more gay people act like middle class heterosexuals, the quicker we’d be accepted. So what? The whole point of the gay rights movement is that we should be accepted for who we are, not what society wants us to be. Otherwise, we might as well all move back into the closet and call it a day.
I don’t have a clue what this is supposed to mean.
Some of us were.
We got the Minnesota Democratic Party (DFL) to pass a resolution in favor of gay marriage at the State Convention in 1972, 39 years ago next month. Probably the first state political party in the USA (maybe even the world) to come out in favor of gay marriage!
Somewhat related question: I’ve read about some gay pundits/activists/writers/whoever who say that gay people shouldn’t want to be married or have marriage rights, that it’s “heteronormative,” with some (apparently; I haven’t read the arguments directly) actually advocating promiscuity.
I don’t expect this to be a mainstream opinion within the gay community, or else this wouldn’t be an issue to begin with, but was it ever? How seriously are such arguments taken?
