Gay Pride - Embarrassing or Empowering?

CuLT

philologos wrote: »

Personally I don't find sexuality outside of a marriage to be morally acceptable. That's my opinion and it's simply not intolerant if one takes the traditional definition of tolerance:

Being gay is not an opinion or a behaviour; it is a part of who that person is. It cannot be changed by argument or debate. you cannot convince someone they are not gay, any more than I can convince you that you're not white or straight.

Let's reimagine your post by dropping in something controversial:

I think people are confusing toleration with approving of everything that people do. Toleration is precisely the opposite. It is about agreeing to disagree with those who live differently.

People are perfectly entitled to disagree with others on apartheid and this isn't being intolerant. Some may think that political office should be kept only by white folks, others may think that it's OK otherwise. Neither position is intolerant. It's simply a disagreement.

Personally I don't find allowing black people into political office to be morally acceptable. That's my opinion and it's simply not intolerant if one takes the traditional definition of tolerance

Do you see how absurd that sounds?

philologos

CuLT wrote: »

Being gay is not an opinion or a behaviour; it is a part of who that person is. It cannot be changed by argument or debate. you cannot convince someone they are not gay, any more than I can convince you that you're not white or straight.

We don't know whether or not sexual orientation is biologically determined. As such I'm not going to presume either way.

Nobody is saying that being attracted to person X or Y irrespective of gender is wrong. What one is saying at least in the Abrahamic sense is that they believe that the place of sexual relations is within a marriage. They have the right to hold to that ethical opinion. This doesn't mean that they expect everyone else of necessity to live as they do. It just means that they find it wrong to act otherwise.

CuLT wrote: »

Do you see how absurd that sounds?

It's only absurd when we assume biological determinism. Even if ones sexuality is biologically determined, how one acts on that is entirely different.

My point was this. It isn't intolerant for anyone to hold an opinion that sexuality should be expressed within a marriage. It would be intolerant to aim to ban all forms of sexual expression that didn't fit this definition. Tolerance is understanding that other people are free to live in a way that you disagree with. That's all. Anything else is a disingenuous distortion of what tolerance actually means.

By the by you also twisted my post. I'm not saying that sexuality is confined to certain people. I'm saying that according to my own beliefs there is a situation where it is appropriate to express it. That as I understand it is in marriage.

efb

Is sex in a Gay Marraige OK to you?

philologos

efb wrote: »

Is sex in a Gay Marraige OK to you?

I personally would understand marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Others are naturally entitled to disagree.

Calibos

We don't know whether or not sexual orientation is biologically determined

So you are open to the possibility that there are legions of adolescent males and females all over the world who will open themselves up to all kinds of prejudice and abuse by homophobes but decided to be gay regardless because of something they saw on telly or because they wanted to be a rebel ....

....but are not open to the possibility that LBG adolescents are just like you or me when we hit about 10 and started to fancy girls through no concious choice, themselves just instinctually/biologically started being attracted to members of the same sex??

Good Grief!! :rolleyes:

philologos

Calibos wrote: »

So you are open to the possibility that there are legions of adolescent males and females all over the world who will open themselves up to all kinds of prejudice and abuse by homophobes but decided to be gay regardless because of something they saw on telly or because they wanted to be a rebel ....

I'm open to the conclusions that will be presented as time progresses. I don't assume anything about the nature of sexual orientation.

Calibos wrote: »

....but are not open to the possibility that LBG adolescents just like you or me when we hit about 10 and started to fancy girls through no concious choice, themselves just instinctually/biologically started being attracted to members of the same sex??

Congratulations for claiming I said something I didn't say! It might be useful if you focused on what I did say though.

CuLT

philologos wrote: »

We don't know whether or not sexual orientation is biologically determined. As such I'm not going to presume either way.

Nobody is saying that being attracted to person X or Y irrespective of gender is wrong. What one is saying at least in the Abrahamic sense is that they believe that the place of sexual relations is within a marriage. They have the right to hold to that ethical opinion. This doesn't mean that they expect everyone else of necessity to live as they do. It just means that they find it wrong to act otherwise.

I genuinely think your belief system is harmful to the future (and present) of human society, and I hope it loses its strength as new generations reexamine the actions of their forebears with a critical eye.

philologos wrote: »

I personally would understand marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Others are naturally entitled to disagree.

Allow me to elucidate: marriage is a legal as well as a religious construct.

Make it purely legal, purely religious or abolish it altogether. This state of affairs where part of our country is marginalized for something as harmless and basic as sexual orientation cannot be allowed to continue.

dlofnep

If God is infallible, then he made gay people. Sexuality is not a choice, unless you're bisexual.

Bodhidharma

I honestly don't really care. Everyone is entitled to express themselves BUT I would prefer if it were done in as least an offensive manner as possible. Some of the outfits (feather boas and so on) are a bit extravagent but I have no problems with that, some of the more overtly sexual outfits (assless chaps etc) are a bit much considering it happens when children are in sight (I know that the people who wear them are a minority).

Sexualisation of young people (under 12 we'll say) is a problem (be it gay or straight) in my opinion as it takes away from a carefree childhood which everyone is entitled to.

If I had my way I would have a parade celebrating people being nice to each other for one day, regardless of sexual orientation.

philologos

CuLT wrote: »

I genuinely think your belief system is harmful to the future (and present) of human society, and I hope it loses its strength as new generations reexamine the actions of their forebears with a critical eye.

You're entitled to this view. I'm questioning the conflation of tolerance and agreeing with everything that people happen to do. One does not mean the other.

CuLT wrote: »

Allow me to elucidate: marriage is a legal as well as a religious construct.

I agree but ultimately individuals are free to hold their own views concerning marriage. The views I currently hold suggest that marriage is between a man and a woman. This isn't to say anything about other forms of relationships other than that they aren't marriage at least as far as I regard it.

CuLT wrote: »

Make it purely legal, purely religious or abolish it altogether. This state of affairs where part of our country is marginalized for something as harmless and basic as sexual orientation cannot be allowed to continue.

Legal is legal. Opinion is opinion. Sometimes people have opinions about the legal. I don't believe people are marginalised by saying that marriage is something and civil partnership is something else. If the people decide to change the definition of marriage that's up to the democratic will of the people.

dfolnep: All I have claimed is that we don't know whether or not sexuality is biologically determined.

Spread

dlofnep wrote: »

If God is infallible, then he made gay people. Sexuality is not a choice, unless you're bisexual.

And what if you DO fancy both boys and girls? Surely just as "normal" as fancying a person of your own sex. I think we need a BImarch

MagicSean

CuLT wrote: »

I genuinely think your belief system is harmful to the future (and present) of human society, and I hope it loses its strength as new generations reexamine the actions of their forebears with a critical eye.


Allow me to elucidate: marriage is a legal as well as a religious construct.

Make it purely legal, purely religious or abolish it altogether. This state of affairs where part of our country is marginalized for something as harmless and basic as sexual orientation cannot be allowed to continue.

I don't think anyone can be sure that homosexuality is genetic anymore than they can be sure violence is genetic. I believe it is as likely to be a product of environment as much as genetics and until someone actually isolates the "gay gene" or the "psycho gene" nobody can know for sure.

Either way I still don't see why making a big deal out of it is necessary or in any way helpful. If you want a parade go ahead but why not call it a freedom parade and open it up to more then just one group in society. I cant understand the contradictory notion of segregating yourself in order to be accepted.

dlofnep wrote: »

If God is infallible, then he made gay people. Sexuality is not a choice, unless you're bisexual.

I think you are confusing the choice part. A bisexual has choice of partners but not a choice of sexuality.

Spread

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

..................................................................................................................



I think you are confusing the choice part. A bisexual has choice of partners but not a choice of sexuality.

So now we have the BIs being discriminated against - just like homosexuals years ago!

rainbow kirby

Spread wrote: »

I think we need a BImarch

That's already included in a Pride march.

efb

Spread wrote: »

And what if you DO fancy both boys and girls? Surely just as "normal" as fancying a person of your own sex. I think we need a BImarch

are they being bi-smerched???

voz es

efb wrote: »

There you are talking about fathers' rights moreso than straight persons rights. And I do believe fathers rights are being denied in this country and would support their claim to them

Ones sexual orientation is not a deal breaker when it comes to fatherhood indeed, i was highlighting a situation where a straight person is treated as a second class citizen in the country.

Forest Master

The only people I know who go to this are straight. They're mostly hipsters & go because it's ironic or fashionable or they're fag hags or similar...

Any gay people I know are embarrassed by it for the exact reason outlined in Post 3.

voz es

rochey84 wrote: »

What you're talking about there is totally different, the "gay agenda" as it being known as is to achieve the equal status in terms of Marriage and Adoption. A father's right to custody of a child should a relationship break up is also a gay issue should we ever get the right to adopt a child!

Rochey the sentance was ''When straight people are treated like second class citizens then maybe there will be a straight pride parade'' I didnt take that out of context. I just highlighted an instance where this is the case.

Listen fight for you think is right, if you believe in it and you think its worth fighting for well thats your cause then.

I'll put in my two cents and say this having two hetrosexual parents didnt stop gay people being gay and I dont think having homosexual parents will make it any less likely that a kid will grow up straight.

patar

I think it's stupid and really counter-productive. For one day a year people dress up and live up to the queer stereotype. This only serves to alienate certain people in the straight community. People who aim for equality and equity in this society for all citizens feel that their attempts are stymied by ''Pride''. Replace the silly Village people and Celine Dion crap and turn it into an annual day for equality in Ireland.

grenache

I've no problem with normal gay folk, one of my friends is lesbian. But I definitely think events such as Gay Pride do more damage than good to the cause of gay activists. It's so OTT. Why do they feel the need to over-sexualise the whole event? Semi naked men acting like camp pornstars is not at all endearing.

paddy147

To quote an old auzzie beer ad

"What a bunch of pufters"..........:D

LighterGuy

grenache wrote: »

I've no problem with normal gay folk, one of my friends is lesbian. But I definitely think events such as Gay Pride do more damage than good to the cause of gay activists. It's so OTT. Why do they feel the need to over-sexualise the whole event? Semi naked men acting like camp pornstars is not at all endearing.

+1000

But see, this is what I hate. More people accept homosexuality in 2011 than ever. I myself have no issue with a person being gay. Most people dont!
But, thats not enough, suddenly if you have an issue with someone flaunting something as opposed to embracing it, I, or anyone else is "wrong" ... "a homophobe" .. "pig headed" :rolleyes:

One thing I hate in this world is you cant say anything negitive about anything gay without being accused of "hating gays" :rolleyes:

orestes

Bisexual, sado-masochist, half irish half English, immigrant, and ginger.

I want my own fukking parade

Plautus

LighterGuy wrote: »

+1000

But see, this is what I hate. More people accept homosexuality in 2011 than ever. I myself have no issue with a person being gay. Most people dont!
But, thats not enough, suddenly if you have an issue with someone flaunting something as opposed to embracing it, I, or anyone else is "wrong" ... "a homophobe" .. "pig headed" :rolleyes:

One thing I hate in this world is you cant say anything negitive about anything gay without being accused of "hating gays" :rolleyes:

Heterosexual white male in 'I'm the oppressed one' shocker.

It is true that society has become more tolerant of homosexuality, but the law has not progressed in tandem. The difficulties that gay couples continue to encounter with adopting children and marrying each other in this jurisdiction ... seem obvious. Civil partnership legislation was silent on the children within those relationships, amongst other flaws it has in being separate and thus inherently unequal.

Homophobic bullying is also very much alive and well.

And it has been charged that Pride is counter-productive because it proliferates stereotyping and thus bullying. But I never recalled any great soul-searching about the terrible damage Paddy's Day frivolities were doing to 'Ireland's reputation'; or to fuel anti-Irish racism.

I suggest the reason for this is that a person who might generalise about all Irish people as 'disgusting drunks', based on the spectacle of guys puking up beer on March 17th, would be a racist we'd have no trouble in verbally bollocking about their ****e generalisation.

The point is that you alone have the ultimate discretion not to stereotype or treat someone differently just because their voice is high-pitched or they wear lots of glitter. I'd love all of you who think it is so 'counter-productive' to instance who you think is being alienated by all of this. Because it sounds more like you who doesn't like it, and not some lost-cause biddy who clutches her rosary and wouldn't be comfortable with any display of homosexuality no matter how low-key it was.

Being equal does not mean that difference isn't permitted! Gay people are different, obviously, and they're not a hive mind and they have many sub-cultures and modes of expression.

Equality is nothing if you can't 'flaunt' who you are. And that's such a loaded word: 'flaunted'. As if there was some coercion going on here. This is one occasion in the whole year for a significant national minority. Boo-hoo. They're there and you don't even have to look twice at the parade. Deal with it.

I want my own fukking parade

I really can't understand where this anger about a group of people exercising freedom of association originates from. Go start your own group, who's stopping you. Gay people? Are you afraid your group might not attract the same kind of attendance figures?

Cavehill Red

You asked who's alienated by it?
Well, I am.
I've got more than a few gay friends. Some of them attend Pride for the camaraderie and craic, more don't out of embarrassment.
I find the parade to be an over-sexualised pandering to stereotypes that does little or nothing to advance the cause of gay equality while simultaneously making not only the likes of the biddy with her rosary, but also people like me and some of my gay friends feel put off by this representation of gay culture.
I don't find it glamorous or flamboyant. I don't think it's an act of bravery or demonstrates pride (a concept I struggle with anyway - why be proud of your sexuality? I understand not being ashamed of it, but does that require a parade?)
It comes across as a massive bout of attention-seeking to me and leaves me cold.
No doubt I'll be called a homophobe for saying so, now.

Plautus

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You asked who's alienated by it?
Well, I am.
I've got more than a few gay friends. Some of them attend Pride for the camaraderie and craic, more don't out of embarrassment.
I find the parade to be an over-sexualised pandering to stereotypes that does little or nothing to advance the cause of gay equality while simultaneously making not only the likes of the biddy with her rosary, but also people like me and some of my gay friends feel put off by this representation of gay culture.
I don't find it glamorous or flamboyant. I don't think it's an act of bravery or demonstrates pride (a concept I struggle with anyway - why be proud of your sexuality? I understand not being ashamed of it, but does that require a parade?)
It comes across as a massive bout of attention-seeking to me and leaves me cold.
No doubt I'll be called a homophobe for saying so, now.

There's no need for the straw-man. I'm not going to give you what you want and call you a homophobe. Especially when you don't seem to be.

I just think that these attitudes are a little incoherent. First of all, Pride is not just about the canvass and political action - it is also a social event. And we're not begrudging people social events organised around a shared experience or mutual understanding; are we? Nationality and sport, and the excesses they can prompt, are never described as being 'flaunted' and I think it's unfair that gay events always have to be reduced to serving a higher purpose beyond enjoyment - or else they're not valid.

At the same time not everything is ass-less chaps. There are plenty of people in that parade who are trying to make a point with dignity. But please, ignore them, and the many photographs you'll find of them waving flags, wearing sloganised t-shirts or holding placards. You can't be selective and choose to see only the bits that have Brenda Power frothing. Broaden your perspective. Have you attended a parade?

And yes, some people do find the costumes flamboyant and glamorous. Sorry that you don't - that's taste for you. There are plenty of scantily clad ladies and gentlemen with boas and feathers at the Rio de Janeiro Carnival. Are you worried about that experience and how 'overly-sexualised' it is? It seems like a double standard to me to bitterly complain that Pride is like this and yet we find such complainants nowhere in abundance about Mardi Gras or Weiberfastnacht or Paddy's Day ... or anything else that's more normative.

'Massive bout of attention seeking'? Really? You certainly can choose to give the parade attention - and some are seeking attention for a particular cause; a few might be looking for attention to be directed at their costume - but you may as well pathologise anyone who turns up to any public event and dresses up then. We had Corpus Christi down in Cork on Sunday. They took up a whole section of Patrick Street and knelt down on the ground saying prayers. Attention-seekers, right?

Cavehill Red

The many people seeking to 'make a point with dignity' surely find that dignity soon vanishes when the lads in the chapless pants dance alongside?
Yes, we all love to socialise. But I don't get to hold my parties on O'Connell Street in the middle of the day.
Buried in my back catalogue of complaints on this site is a fairly vociferous diatribe against the Paddy's Day excesses, incidentally. I'm not being selective here, and hence I will pass on your straw man argument also.
But this thread is about Gay Pride in Dublin, and you asked who finds it alienating. I do. You don't seem to accept the reasons I gave, claiming to find them 'incoherent'.
I think they're perfectly coherent.
There is no logic in feeling proud of one's sexuality. There are other, better ways to pursue those remaining issues affecting the gay community that you wish to highlight. And the format of the socialising is so embarrassing that many gay people themselves avoid the event.

Plautus

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The many people seeking to 'make a point with dignity' surely find that dignity soon vanishes when the lads in the chapless pants dance alongside?
Yes, we all love to socialise. But I don't get to hold my parties on O'Connell Street in the middle of the day.
Buried in my back catalogue of complaints on this site is a fairly vociferous diatribe against the Paddy's Day excesses, incidentally. I'm not being selective here, and hence I will pass on your straw man argument also.
But this thread is about Gay Pride in Dublin, and you asked who finds it alienating. I do. You don't seem to accept the reasons I gave, claiming to find them 'incoherent'.
I think they're perfectly coherent.
There is no logic in feeling proud of one's sexuality. There are other, better ways to pursue those remaining issues affecting the gay community that you wish to highlight. And the format of the socialising is so embarrassing that many gay people themselves avoid the event.

They're legible, and grammatical, but your views aren't coherent in terms of hanging together logically.

Yes, you do get to hold your parties in O'Connell Street, if you can gather enough people and get a permit and liaise with the authorities. Or were all those throngs of people that showed up for the Irish Soccer/Rugby Team or for Paddy's day a figment of my imagination? Is this another sop gays are being let away with - only they get to have a parade?

My point about Paddy's day is that this kind of tortuous debate is not conducted with nearly the same tedious frequency in relation to that day's parades and drinking. People might complain about it but they don't use the revelry as an argument to invalidate the entire event. This seems to be what's going on here.

surely find that dignity soon vanishes when the lads in the chapless pants dance alongside?

No, they don't seem to be lacking dignity: http://www.flickr.com/photos/infomatique/5871699322/

Again, have you ever seen one yourself?

Finally, about 'Pride': you're right to detect that the root of the word's usage is in not being ashamed (and the antonym of that is 'pride'). And so very few participants in the parade believe they're better than you or have 'achieved' something by being gay. It's more that they're expressing themselves. And, indeed, they're not ashamed. Gasp.

Cavehill Red

Plautus wrote: »

They're legible, and grammatical, but your views aren't coherent in terms of hanging together logically.

Yes, you do get to hold your parties in O'Connell Street, if you can gather enough people and get a permit and liaise with the authorities. Or were all those throngs of people that showed up for the Irish Soccer/Rugby Team or for Paddy's day a figment of my imagination? Is this another gays are being let away with - only they get to have a parade?

My point about Paddy's day is that this kind of tortuous debate is not conducted with nearly the same tedious frequency in relation to that day's parades and drinking. People might complain about it but they don't use the revelry as an argument to invalidate the entire event. This seems to be what's going on here.

Actually, there's plenty of debate about Paddy's day every year. I'm sure a quick rummage in the archive or the search function will assist you in familiarising yourself with those debates, which run along somewhat similar lines (ie: only a bit of fun Vs completely undignified and makes a mess of the town).

Plautus wrote: »

No, they don't seem to be lacking dignity: http://www.flickr.com/photos/infomatique/5871699322/

We must be looking at different photos.

Plautus wrote: »

Again, have you ever seen one yourself?

No, I live in a cave/under a rock/the thirteenth century. [delete according to your prejudice.]

Plautus wrote: »

Finally, about 'Pride': you're right to detect that the root of the word's usage is in not being ashamed (and the antonym of that is 'pride'). And so very few participants in the parade believe they're better than you or have 'achieved' something by being gay. It's more that they're expressing themselves. And, indeed, they're not ashamed. Gasp.

And how they express themselves is so cringeworthy that it alienates me and many of my gay friends. Which answers your initial question, I believe.

orestes

Plautus wrote: »

I really can't understand where this anger about a group of people exercising freedom of association originates from. Go start your own group, who's stopping you. Gay people? Are you afraid your group might not attract the same kind of attendance figures?

Ohh ffs!

Long version:

All of the information in the first sentence of my post is true, but I think you missed the point of the post.

The second sentence was intended to defuse the aggression regarding sexuality, nationalism and the ginger problem by connecting absurd combinations of variously vicious discrimination. Its all the same **** though.

Someone asked earlier in thread when we will stop defining ourselves by our sexuality. How many people in this thread have said they have gay friends. How about just tyinking of them as friends?

We don't define ourselves by it, YOU define us by it.

THAT'S the point of Pride.

Short version:

sardonic