No, I think next time I’ll just ignore your blather.
Also, why do I have the word projection rattling around in my head?
Are you going to explain why I shouldn’t knock them, or what this has to do with anything? My ability to give a damn is fading.
It’s not just me that has no idea what’s going on in this thread, right? As near as I can tell, the progress has been something like this:
OP: Hey, a majority of people support gay marriage now!
CitizenPained: PERVERTS! PERVERTS! PERVERTS!
I’m not missing a step, here, am I? I’m not seeing any intermediary stage where her posts make some sort of contextual sense.
If I’m getting this right, CP supports gay marriage but finds some Pride-style behaviors objectionable, either herself or extrapolating what the thought of others who may be undecided may be. She therefore encourages restraint. And in support of this adduces some of the past errors since corrected which may be believed by gay marriage opponents to still be valid.
Though toward the end of her presenting her arguments, I found it really hard to distinguish the difference between her POV and that of a homophobe. But although I don’t agree, I can with effort see the point I think she’s trying to make.
===
Qin? My questions to you were not rhetorical; I would like answers. (I realize you may not yet have had time to peruse the board today – but please answer when you can.)
There are homophobes who will always believe the worst of gays. The gay pride parades are a non-issue. Without them, the homophobes will point to some other boogeyman. There is no reasoning with them. Thus, its false to claim that your argument is close to reality. The reality is these homophobes need no reason to hate gays. By trying to cater to the lowest common denominator, you are playing right into their hands. Do you really think that if the parades stop, these homophobes will simply cease their hatred? No, they’ll find something else, or make one up. In the meantime, gays who enjoy this kind of stuff would be marginalized within their own community. That doesn’t make for a very convincing argument
Anecdote: Here in California, when they had the big Prop 8 vote a little while back, there was a scare ad I remember seeing over and over in the last few weeks of the campaign. Some lesbian teacher somewhere had invited her class to celebrate her marriage at her wedding. The homophobes took a screengrab of one girl’s face from a video in the middle of the celebration where her expression wasn’t one of joy and happiness and portrayed it as horror. One fucking frame. You could freeze a person faces during a lunch at different points and get a whole range of looks. And here we’re supposed to believe that this little girl, horrified at her teacher’s lesbianism, willingly attended her wedding and was caught on tape being terrified? The fuck are you catering to these shitheads for?
I would not have a problem if they decided to just go ahead and have intercourse in a gay pride parade. Neither should anyone. Sex is not something to be ashamed of
It’s not a binary, though. The population isn’t just made up of “homophobes who look for reasons to hate gays” and “people who are ok with everything.” Some of the more in your face stuff at gay pride parades probably do turn some people off who otherwise wouldn’t be.
You don’t have to be a jerk to be a homophobe. Some people really do sincerely believe that fetishes, multiple sex partners, voyeurism, etc., is part of gay life. They aren’t jerks. They just haven’t seen much else.
Just because I point out a viewpoint that isn’t the majority of gay Dopers doesn’t make me a homophobe. I am just saying this as someone who heard this stuff again and again and again and again during three years of working in politics.
And I still hear it. I see it. Flip on Fox News. Maybe it doesn’t matter in the big cities, but the big cities aren’t the whole of the electorate. I can only think of five states where you can legally get married…one may change that within a few years…and maybe 15 or more where it’s specifically against the law, either by legislature or amendment.
Why do Pride events always have to revolve around sex? (Mardi Gras, too, as someone pointed out, so is it any surprise that Mardi Gras Sydney is gay day?)
shrug No projectionism. Just reporting my anecdotal evidence that other people echo. I was also opposed to people calling out whatshisname gay guy from Project Runway for saying something was a tranny of a mess…have to look that one up. Transvestites have nothing to do with gay men.
See, now, that was my impression, too. That’s why the whole thing came out of nowhere, because nothing in the thread was about, “How can we win the fight on gay marriage?” or, “Why do these stereotypes persist?” It was, “Hey, things are looking good on the gay marriage front,” and whammo! Out of left field, all of a sudden it’s “These sexual degenerates are ruining everything!” And, most inexplicable of all, a picture of two guys without shirts sharing a motorcycle. It’s literally nothing more racy than you’d see in a Marlboro ad - okay, two Marlboro ads - and this is her leading example of the deviancy of gay pride events?
It was one of the moments where I start thinking, “Did I receive a blow to the head recently, and not remember it?” Because that’s a thing that can happen, with a blow to the head. So I’m relieved to hear it’s not just me that’s confused by this, because the deductible on my health insurance is pretty steep.
They don’t. At least, according to you:
If you find some events and parades distasteful, fine. But it sounds like you are letting your disgust overwhelm your perspective, and your argument that gay pride parades are hurting anybody is a non-starter.
Bullshit.
Most people’s exposure to gay life is the guy who makes their latte, or their teacher, or their friend or their sibling. That’s why attitudes are changing, those people came out of the closet. Guess what, gay pride parades helped them do that, it’s part of the process that you are ignoring with your bizarre “what about the homophobes?” emotional appeal.
Why does life always have to revolve around sex?
I’ve seen pictures of students celebrating spring break that are worse than anything you posted in this thread. Does that mean the world is ending because the next generation are sexual degenerates (whatever that is)? Or maybe, just maybe, it is an isolated example of people celebrating life and having some fun.
I think that if you look at my anecdote up there, the homophobes can turn anything, even a happy occasion such as a wedding, into some frightening scare-tactic. It’s completely useless to pander to them. What if it works and the gays all parade around dressed in suits and polos? People will think that’s what gay is, accept them, and then what will they do when confronted with the reality that part of gay culture includes chaps and leather? They would try to divide the gays and turn them against each other. “Normal” gays versus the “degenerate” gays. I think it’s better just to let it all out at once and if it pushes acceptance back a few years, that’s the price that has to be paid to be inclusive to everyone
I didn’t mean to imply that you were a homophobe, only that you want to cater to them.
I don’t worry about what Fox News says. They will say the worst of gays that’s true and make up lies to make them seem even worse. Even if all gays were Log Cabin Republicans, they’d still not be invited to the debates or have any airtime for their causes.
I’m not aware of Fox News being particularly homophobic. And as far as trends, go, I’m reminded that Anne Coulter- didn’t say reinvent herself as gay-friendly (but still a worthless jerk) a few years ago?
Marilyn Manson is not representative of the majority of white people, or in fact even the majority of Heavy Rock fans. Neither is Johnothan Davis.
Flava Flav is not representative of the majority of black people, or in fact even the majority of rap fans. Neither is Jay Z.
Perez Hilton is not the representative of the majority of gay people. Neither is Ant. They seem like they might be, because they are in the public so much. Like it or not, the poll numbers indicate a growing acceptance of homosexuality. This means that, in time, Perez Hilton and Ant and others like them will cease to be “gay” figures, and just be “bloggers” or “unfunny comedians”.
Pride, as symbolized by some of the pics shown in this thread, are part of that. Pride is a way of saying “This, this is part of who we are, this is part of where we come from, and is part of us”. In time, as people come to recognize what is and isn’t part of the mainstream of gay culture, then those parades will probably tone down. For now, they are a valve, of sorts. A way for even your closeted gym teacher to put on a dress and some make up and get out there and BE GAY even if it’s just for a day. An opportunity for your mechanic, living celibate because he is afraid to lose his job, to get out there, dance a little bit and BE GAY with no fear, and no stigma. And yes, it’s a chance for your leather daddy to wear what he probably wears on a regular basis to wear that exact outfit, and be himself… but that also means he’s BEING GAY, and that there is nothing wrong with that.
It’s important to note that that leather daddy might be ok with BEING GAY and being himself now, but 20 years ago, he may have been killed for doing it. And someday, hopefully soon, so will the gym coach, and the mechanic, and everyone else will be able to just be themselves, with no fear.
I’m not gay. But I will fight for their rights, to marry, to love, to throw a parade with a man wearing chaps and a dildo, and to live in peace and dignity.
Being human is a spectrum.
Well, I’ve read some recent polls where (depending on how the poll is worded) up to 80% of Americans approve of marijuana being prescribed as a medication. I’ve also seen polls showing either just under or just over half of all Americans favor decriminalizing marijuana. /hijack
Did I miss something?
You are against Pride because of all those damn homos who are getting teenage girls pregnant, just like they got you pregnant? Are you sure about that?
Obviously people who were married under the old system would retain their status under the new system, except that a spousal state would no longer be recognized by the government. Their mutual contractual obligations under the marriage laws would still be in force until death or divorce.
You do bring up an interesting point in that even if the federal government no long recognized a state of marriage, that would not effect state laws unless a constitutional amendment was passed abolishing marriage.
Not as such; they’re partisan. If dropping hints, and slanting coverage, serves to get the Republican base riled up, that’s what Ailes will have them do.
With them ejaculating everywhere it’s only a matter of time before some unsuspecting girl sits in a puddle of goo.
I agree. In context of this thread, I don’t see why they would start going in that direction now when they really haven’t in the past.
A couple of other polls out:
[
[