Generally speaking, when someone posts a link to something, saying, “This is an example of what I’m talking about,” people expect the link to be an example of what that person was talking about. I understand not wanting to link directly to sexually explicit images on the boards, particularly if you’re posting from work, but it seems to me the obvious solution there would be to not post a link to anything, rather than posting a link to something that’s vaguely kind-sorta similar but not really what you’re talking about. Because that can be kind of confusing for people trying to read your posts.
Similarly, if you don’t want to give people the impression that you think gay people are some sort of sexual deviants, quoting extensively from the DSM IV’s definition of sexual deviancy may not be the route to go.
I do thank you, however, for acknowledging my exceptional classiness.
The original point was about gay pride parades - which later evolved into whether or not they were exhibiting sexual debauchery. I said that while the majority of Americans are OK with same-sex marriage, that is not representative when you consider geography. California is a good example, where San Francisco and LA don’t care but northern California might.
Isn’t it like 21 states that have anti same-sex marriage laws now?
If people equate gays with pride parades and think of pride parades when you think of gays, and pride parades aren’t something many would take children to, it’s probably no wonder that people get all weirded out about same-sex marriage. I mean, if two leather daddies are making a show of walking down Madison Avenue with whips and chains and grabbing their dicks, people are going to question their parenting capabilities.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business. When it’s on the freaking street, it’s ridiculous. I clarified the photo and then added in text what I was referring to.
What I never understood is how (some) liberals (as I am a liberal, but not in this category) can be O.K. with the sexualization of gays but object to Barbie dolls, cosmetic surgery, and fashion magazines.
I’m not going to take my son to see this, this, this and I’m sure I’m not welcome in Toronto. (Not for worktime. ;))
Wouldn’t take him to Mardi Gras, either, but Mardi Gras is about dressing up and (in North America) showing some boobies. The Vatican has nothing to do Mardi Gras in Rio and you don’t see the Pope embracing Irish Catholic stereotypes on St. Patty’s Day for a reason.
I was pointing out that stereotypes of gay people that pride parades can project are the kinds of things depicted in psychology journals. So if the DSM IV (or proposed V) says that ‘exhibitionism’ is a disorder, well, why perpetuate the myth that gays are exhibitionists who want to flash their penises at unsuspecting passerby?
It’s quite deviant.
I also want to correct myself: I was using Pride Fest and Pride Parade synonymously, and I shouldn’t do that. Pride Fests are different - one in Cedar Rapids I went to was mostly sponsored by condom and lube companies but no one was walking around in their underwear and tassles. I probably wouldn’t take my son to that, either, since 1.) it’s an awkward conversation and 2.) why perpetuate that myth? and 3.) it’s inappropriate.
The Denver Pride Fest is (from what I can tell) tame compared to some other celebrations. The ‘pride’ events I attend are either 1.) political rallies or 2.) adult events, like the 303 Magazine’s PrideFest fashion show. I also attend things sponsored by glbt groups, like the Red Ball.
I used to be part of the Stonewall Democrats caucus and I most certainly did not see anyone endorsing the right to wear assless chaps or tassels in public for our platform.
When people expose themselves, it’s often meant to incite someone sexually. So of course some heterosexuals are not going to like it. I wonder: if Pride Parades were all about half naked dudes, would they be as popular? Something about the (cute) lesbians all up in each other’s boobies probably helps…well, maybe not, since these guys didn’t appreciate the tone.
Cross-dressers are a tiny portion of gays, but pride parades showcase men dressed as women (often scantily) and men barely dressed.
Homosexuals have been judged by their behavior, not some religious or ethnic characteristic. I can’t imagine this will change anytime soon.
Forty five, technically. Which is five fewer than there were ten years ago. But I think we can stipulate that there aren’t a lot of states with legal gay marriage. I don’t think you’re introducing new data when you bring that up, so I think you can stop doing that now.
They’ll get used to it. That’s the point. Yes, people stereotype gays. The solution to that isn’t to shoe horn the entire queer community into a friendlier stereotype. Not all gays are comfortable middle class yuppies. Gay pride isn’t about reaching out, it’s about reaching in. It’s about showing that there are gay people from every walk of life, every background. It’s about letting people know that no matter how weird and bizarre and lonely and utterly outcast you feel, there are bigger freaks out there than you, and they have fucking parades.
Yeah, there’s probably lots of middle Americans out there who see something like this and think it re-enforces every negative stereotype about gays. But his teenage son who’s been secretly trying on his sister’s makeup sees the same thing, and thinks, “If there’s some place out there that will accept that person, there’s got to be one that’ll accept me, too.” That’s the point of gay pride. Gay marriage is important, gay rights in general are important. But you can’t do much with either if you’re dead. Gay pride saves lives. That’s why it’s important.
That was a pretty wishy-washy clarification. I still can’t figure out if you think the bikers are okay or not, or what they’re doing that’s objectionable. Does this also set back gay rights? It’s certainly playing into a stereotype, and one that’s pretty unpopular with mainstream America. But it’s not overtly sex-driven. So, should she lose some weight and put on some make-up, to help Joe Average feel more comfortable, or is she one of the people we fight for? What about drag queens? What about transgendered? I honestly don’t know where you stand on that stuff, and it’s pretty important, because if you’re only in the fight for gays who wouldn’t look out of place in a J. Crew catalog, you’re ultimately more of an obstacle than an ally.
If your objection is solely to explicit sexual conduct in public, fine, argue about that, but don’t tie it to the gay pride movement, because your problem isn’t with gay pride, it’s with explicit sexual conduct in public, and gay pride is about the smallest slice of that pie imaginable. When you couch it in terms of gay rights, you’re insisting that gays be accountable to a higher standard than the rest of society, and that’s not what gay rights is about.
I, myself, have often wondered how some people can drive cars, but still dislike cheese. So I feel your confusion on this issue.
You know, interesting fact: there isn’t a single other poster on this entire board who gives a flying fuck where you take your kid. “Where CitizenPained can take her kid,” is not the universal determinant of social acceptability.
This paragraph really doesn’t make much sense, not in the least because Pope Benedict the XVI isn’t Irish.
You seem to have two things going on in this sentence, but you’re presenting them as if they’re the same thing. On one level, you seem to be arguing that people think that pride parades are symbols of mental illness. But showing up at a pride parade wearing a cock ring and a smile isn’t the same thing as a clinical diagnosis of exhibitionism. So, if people see that, and think, “Gays are mentally ill!” the problem isn’t the gay people, the problem is that people are ignorant, and the correct response to ignorance is education, not acquiescence. 50 years ago, most people thought homosexuality itself was a mental illness. We didn’t fix that by not being homosexual.
The other half of this statement is the same thing you said earlier, about gays re-enforcing negative stereotypes. The problem with including it here is that it has nothing to do with the DSM IV. That argument functions exactly the same, regardless of whether the DSM has an entry on exhibitionism or not.
And since the rest of your post is more interminable musing on what sort of places you would or would not take your kid, I’m going to skip to your most recent post.
…which evidently was a mistake, as it’s completely incoherent.
:smack: Thanks. Okay, sub out ‘SF’ for ‘Orange County’ or ‘north of San Francisco’ or any area that isn’t dominated by Democrats. But I hope my point was made.
Actually, Vermont had civil unions in 2000. So, technically you are incorrect.
I’m talking about states that have laws specifically making same-sex marriage illegal and not recognized. Laws that were created in response to same-sex marriage in other states. So you can be married in MA but not married in Ohio.
:smack: Do you really not see my point?
Or is this just an attempt to talk in circles so I give up?
Since when does “not a middle class yuppie” mean “leather daddy”?
There are gay people who are child molesters. It’s not the majority, or even strongly prevalent, but does this mean the gay community accepts that shit?
I’m not sure what a middle American is.
Yeah, that’s great, but cross-dressing does not = gay.
Cite?
No, really. wtf
No, it just perpetuates the stereotype that* gay men are like girls who love shit up their asses *and lesbians have penis envy.
Objectionable or just in poor taste? I don’t see why the pride parade in Denver is full of men with their shirts off. I don’t really think walking around downtown with your shirt off is really in good taste, but maybe I’m just a prude, cause I grew up in a place where you took your shirt off on the farm and put it on when you went to the general store.
Stop putting words into my mouth.
The straight ones or the gay ones?
Cross-dressing does not bar you from marrying.
Again, I wish you’d stop putting words in my mouth.
Partially.
you mean tie it to pride parades? the ones that exhibit sexual conduct in public?
Now I don’t even know if you are talking about something like HRC, GLAAD, or pride parades!
They are not all the same thing. Just because I believe gays should have equal rights - including the freedom to marry - it does not mean that I have to *condone everything * that has ‘pride’ labeled on it.
Who is the ‘pride’ movement to reject Banana Republic lesbians? Mm? LGBT is supposed to include bisexuals, but we all know how lesbians view bisexual women, especially the purty ones. Not gay enough.
I most certainly am not. Last I checked, I can’t walk down the streets of most American cities looking like a low-class stripper in my thong and booby tassels.
Somehow I am not surprised at your confusion.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Get a grip on yourself. To give an example that clarifies my position is hardly something for you to pick at, nor is what you defines the universal determinant of social acceptability.
If you can’t stick to the points, just give it up instead of making a mess of the thread.
Let me help you:
Leather Daddies have nothing to do with most gay people’s lives. Hell, being a leather daddy has nothing do do with same-sex marriage.
Likewise, drinking a beer at the pub has nothing to do with being a good Catholic.
It is not fixed. A good portion of people still think that, and there are some who think that being gay in itself is not a mental illness, but but being a gay exhibitionist is representative of some psychological upset.
Instead of me saying just, ‘this is a sexual conduct disorder’, I also referenced DSM. You know? So my post is not my cite?
HEY, NEWSFLASH! Don’t ask what someone thinks or ask them to clarify and then reject their response. :rolleyes:
Everyone is judged on their behavior. Right now I’m judging you as someone who can’t debate properly or one who lost the debate won’t give it up.
Can I use some of your tactics? Can I assert that you think sexual predators are O.K. and rapists are fine and we should accept them?
Because while that sounds like a Fox News talking point, it is exactly what you are doing. “This person is not straight so he/she should be aligned with this other person is not straight. Always. Because everything goes when it comes to sex - I mean, um, the Pride Parade.”
**
Do you think that Pride Parades are representative of gays? **
Yes, I see your point. I’m saying that it’s not the staggering insight you seem to think it is. We know that gay marriage is illegal through out most of the country. You don’t need to keep bringing it up.
I’m not creating a false dichotomy between “middle class yuppie” and “leather daddy,” I’m pointing out that you seem to be advocating a dichotomy between “middle class yuppie” and “sick freaks who should be ashamed of themselves.”
See? This is exactly what I’m talking about. Are you actually confused by the moral difference between a guy in leather pants, and somebody who fucks children? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’d genuinely like an answer, because reading your posts in this thread, I don’t have a single clue if that’s the case or not.
So what? How does that invalidate my argument?
So… bull dykes are unacceptable, then? Same as leather daddies?
I’m not putting words in your mouth, I’m asking you a question. How can I be ascribing a position to you by asking you what your position is? Do you understand how that doesn’t make any sense at all?
What difference does it make? Do guys walking around in dresses make it harder for gay people to get married, and if yes, is that a reason for them to stop wearing dresses?
And again, I’m not putting words in your mouth, I’m asking you a question.
Who’s rejecting them? I’m not. My entire argument is that pride should not - indeed, cannot afford to - reject anyone. You’re the one dumping on anyone who doesn’t fit your own extraordinarily narrow definition of acceptable public behavior.
You can during a Mardi Gras parade, which is effectively what we’re talking about when we talk about gay pride parades. And yes, I know you don’t approve of those, either, but that just goes back to my point about dealing with your issues with public displays of sexuality on their own terms, instead of trying to poach the moral high ground out from under the gay rights movement.
Then why the fuck did you ever bring it up in the first place? Oh, right, because there are ignorant morons in the country who don’t know any better, and you think they should be setting the standard for how gay people should act in public. And if we’d listened to advice like that forty years ago, there never would have been a gay rights movement in the first place!
Here’s an idea: next time someone asks you to clarify something, try clarify the thing they’re actually asking about.
No, I’d prefer if you didn’t do that, because I do NOT think sexual predators are OK, and that I do NOT think rapists are fine, and that I don’t think either of them are acceptable.
You will note that, by stating my beliefs on the subject clearly and unequivocally, that I have eschewed your own tactic of stating my opinions so elliptically and ambiguously that no one can figure out what the fuck I’m talking about.
Where, at any point in this thread, have I used your sexuality as a part of my argument? Where have I even referenced your sexuality, other than these two sentences right here?
I think they are representative of the gay people who attend gay pride parades. And I don’t have a problem with that. They’re as much a part of the gay community as… well, whatever the hell it is you’re trying to advocate.
I went to church once, does that make me the poster child for church-goers? Because that seems to be the equivalency you are advocating in this thread. Your own sexual hang ups are not representative of anyone else and certainly not representative of every other American.
You keep claiming that naive or ignorant people will see images of pride parades and that is the only way they will ever be able to think of gay people, yet you have not proven that in any way, shape, or form. Most people do actually know someone who is gay and that’s how they learn about the very scary gay culture whose image you are so concerned about. The guy who comes every summer to stay for a month in the cabin two doors over kicks my butt at Trivial Pursuit and we stop and chat about do-it-yourself renovations and wine when we cross paths. He belongs to gay advocacy groups, but marching in pride parades does not define him, at least not for me and since no one else here has ever mentioned it I’m guessing not for them either. He’s a brother, a friend, a neighbour, etc., just like any other man, gay or straight.
Gay people have sex. Get over it. Hell, codifying a committed sexual relationship is why a lot of people get married, so it shouldn’t come as a huge shock that gay people would like to get married (which happens to be the actual topic of this thread). It’s unfair to expect anyone to pander to your sexual hang ups, straight or gay or from Mars. It’s unrealistic to expect any one to change their behaviour because bigots might judge them; bigots don’t need a reason to hate in the first place, their hate is driven by fear of the other and they can make up their own irrational scenarios, they don’t need your help. Any exposure to gays will help break down that fear, including the pride parades you don’t seem to like. As you’ve finally admitted in this thread, they are not all the same.
You keep misrepresenting everything I say. There’s no point. Act like a moron in public. I don’t care. But don’t whine in a few weeks when the media makes a point of it.
But the media doesn’t make a big deal out of gay pride parades. And you still haven’t supported your whole argument that it hurts acceptance of gays - and let’s face it, you can’t support that argument because the gay rights movement is picking up steam (apparently) in spite of the pride parades. So what’s the point?
That’s what’s baffling. We can’t say that Gay Pride has stopped gay acceptance, since gay acceptance is up. We can’t say that it has stopped acceptance of same-sex marriage, since acceptance for SSM is up. We don’t know if it has sped or slowed the acceptance of these things, but it hasn’t stopped it.
And it’s what people want to do and may provide benefits to others witnessing it.
If the gay acceptance movement had stalled or reversed, it might make more sense then to take a look around and see if there were something that might be harming the movement. Even so, I’d be loath to say, “Let’s hide and be ashamed of who we are lest bigots and morons think worse of us.” I want gay acceptance to be for the way gay people are, not the way that makes straights feel best. And the way gay people are includes in some cases some things that fit into some stereotype. Them’s the breaks for honesty and, yes, pride.
The gay movement may have picked up steam, but so has the anti-gay movement. I think I was in sixth grade when I first heard the concept of same-sex marriage (re: Hawaii).
I don’t think I’m a bigot because I reject pride parades. The pride parades of the sixties is not the pride parade of today.
I don’t know how I can support the argument anymore than someone else can support the argument that it helps or saves lives. I clearly stated it was my opinion.
If the opposite position were true - gay pride parades have helped and saved lives - why did it take fifty years?
Realistically speaking, how did gays gain rights under the law?
I think this is simply not true. The ‘anti-gay’ movement used to just be accepted as fact - at one point pretty much everyone who was not gay would have considered homosexuality to be sexual deviancy, sinful, criminal, etc. It was just an accepted fact of life.
These days those people are in the minority. How is that considered the anti-gay movement picking up steam?
No, I say it’s just the shrill, vocal minority becoming all the more desperate and throwing up as much noise as the possibly can to try and slow down the inevitable. It’s not picking up steam, it’s going through it’s death throes.
It’s not a vocal minority when the population votes in favor of writing discrimination into their state constitutions.
If you want to talk evidence, look at voting patterns.
If you want to compare: There’s a reason why NARAL and NOW still panic about abortion even though it’s been de-criminalized by the Supreme Court. Anti-abortion laws come up every year. Roe apparently doesn’t exist in South Dakota.
edit: I also reject the idea that everyone who wasn’t gay was homophobic in the sixties.
Yes, some on the anti-gay side are being more outspoken and more horrible. That’s because they are losing and desperate. More and more often, when someone says something dumb, say about Glee or the like, the response of the average American is laughter at the dumbass, not pearl clutching. We’re getting there as a nation, and I think it took a combination of regular gay folk being out and visible and yes the more flamboyant gay folk being loud and proud showing that guess what? The world doesn’t end.
So you don’t think you have to support your opinion? Why?
Why did what take 50 years? 50 years ago, I don’t think a whole lot of gays were thinking about making marriage legal. They were concerned with fostering some pride in their community, asserting that they had nothing to be ashamed of, and stopping the more immediate and aggressive forms of discrimination they were facing. That’s largely been accomplished, so the goals have changed.
Over a long period of time, they and their supporters convinced a large swath of the public that gay people are people pretty much just like themselves, that they deserve the same kind of treatment and rights and protections that straight people enjoy. I’ve never needed a pride parade for any group I identify with (in fact I don’t like identifying with groups at all), but throughout history, a lot of groups have decided that if they want to improve their situation, one of the first things they need to do is create some pride in their community and in the things that make it unique. It seems like that has worked just fine for gays in the U.S.
I dunno, how long did it take to outlaw slavery or for women to get the vote? Change takes time and codifying that change into laws is a slow process. The US does seem to lag the rest of the first world on human rights, but they get there eventually.
50 years ago they were marrying people of the opposite sex to cover up their sexuality so they wouldn’t end up fired or dead.
It’s not a vocal minority of people who voted, however (sadly) not everyone votes. In particular older people (who tend to oppose SSM) vote more frequently then younger people (who tend to support it). The poll in the OP indicates that most people support SSM, do you think a similar poll 50 years ago would have shown the same? 20 years ago?
I also never said EVERYONE who was not homosexual was homophobic, simply that it was the prevailing attitude held by the majority of people at the time. In the 50’s, for example, every single state in the US had laws against sodomy and there was no widespread protest or denouncement of them, and even as late as 1986 the supreme court ruled that nothing in the constitution prohibited such laws.
I understand what you are saying: the need for solidarity when moving forward in matters of politics. But what I was arguing is that image is inextricably linked to social change. It always has been. NAACP got somewhere because they went the legal route, and their arguments were based on Constitutional principles. This isn’t to say that Birmingham wasn’t helpful - it was incredibly helpful, as whites got to see black kids getting the beat-down in peaceful protest - but NAACP realized that sympathy for black kids wasn’t going to extend to their schooling. I’m not rejecting Malcolm X or Black Panthers, either - they mobilized people - but what I am talking about in this very thread is what works when advocating for social change that’s based on some legal precedent.
If conservatives have aimed at the judges and state constitutions, the courts become bound. Judicial activism is ruling without firm basis in law aka ‘legislating from the bench.’ Most of the time, when conservatives make that claim about judges, it isn’t true. (Of course, they are surprisingly quiet when conservative activism happens on the bench. )
So for Massachusetts, no judicial activism was in play, but for another state like Ohio, judges can’t overrule their state constitutions. That’s 28 states! If glbt represent roughly 10 per cent of the population (and it’s evenly distributed), that means 10 per cent of citizens in 28 states were just told their constitutions needed to be amended to ‘protect’ the other 90 per cent.
For every state that has a new law written in to their constitutions, we lose - especially if that state previously allowed same-sex marriage, like California. Iowa has been battling amendments since at least 2002 and three judges that ruled on the same sex marriage case were not retained thanks to anti-gay advocates. They got a fuckin’ pink sliip. Sure, people in Polk, Linn & Johnson counties may be cool with it, but that’s not the other 96 counties in Iowa, and it’s not every judicial district that will be friendly to you. Same-sex marriage and gay pride parades don’t extend to school boards and city councils, either. Iowa doesn’t have a majority in the legislature or a Democratic governor anymore. Luckily, passing a constitutional amendment requires a much stronger hold on the legislature.
There are plenty of people who don’t care if gays are in relationships but wonder about same-sex marriage. Yeah, this stuff comes in steps. I get it. But the OP was about marriage and that is the biggest step for the country to take. Hawaii triggered DOMA and a state constitutional amendment, Vermont and Massachusetts triggered anti-marriage initiatives and California triggered Prop 8.
When concerning social change, every action is going to generate a damning reaction. It’s important to remember that social change means you’re fighting against another force that’s pushing back at you.
The SCOTUS replacement judge debate has been about ‘abortion’ forever. But don’t fool yourself: conservatives are worried about same-sex marriage as well.
You don’t see Planned Parenthood walking down the streets showing pictures of unwed teenage mothers and hookers needing abortions, or Latino groups dressed up as Che and Cheech & Chong asking for a immigration revolution. It was Betty freaking Freidan of all people (talk about middle class yuppie) who put forth feminism is good for families as the best argument.
Progressivism always comes down to that: families and children.
I know I sound harsh on SD most times, but I really do try to be practical and factual. It’s not flowery or idealistic and I’m a bit of a realist - but it doesn’t make me a jerk, a homophobe, or a prude.
As far as moral scruples go (since I was accused of being on a moral high horse), I thought it was just standard decency to not expose your dick in public. Pretty sure you can’t go to the nearest schoolyard and do that.
