Gay Pride Makes No Sense

[Havet]

just as white pride, tall pride or ginger pride makes no sense.

If homosexuality is something someone is born with (ie: there is no choice), then so is every other feature we have, and it makes no sense to be proud of being tall, of having a predisposition to cancer or any other condition.

If homosexuality is, on the other hand, a choice, why should someone be proud of its sexual choices, and not of something more meaningful? And when i say someone shouldnt be proud of sexual choices, it goes for both ways. It also makes no sense for some heterosexual man or woman to be proud of how many people he or she has managed to 'penetrate'... (theoretically, one could be proud of the skills involved of convincing someone to have sex with you, but that might be a little off-topic)

Am I the only one who thinks this way? does this line of reasoning also makes sense to any of you?

Also, just because i think gay pride doesn't make sense, it doesn't mean i think homosexuality is wrong, or that gay rights should not exist. of course its not wrong, and of course they should have the same rights as all human beings.

[Franz Fanonipants]

you're right

i prefer gay shame (http://www.gayshamesf.org/)

[Dimmu]

I do not see the gay "pride" parades as show of pride.

Most people who parade are demanding equal rights and no discrimination. After all homosexuals are discriminated against only because of their sexual preference..

[Die Rote Fahne]

just as white pride, tall pride or ginger pride makes no sense.

If homosexuality is something someone is born with (ie: there is no choice), then so is every other feature we have, and it makes no sense to be proud of being tall, of having a predisposition to cancer or any other condition.

If homosexuality is, on the other hand, a choice, why should someone be proud of its sexual choices, and not of something more meaningful? And when i say someone shouldnt be proud of sexual choices, it goes for both ways. It also makes no sense for some heterosexual man or woman to be proud of how many people he or she has managed to 'penetrate'... (theoretically, one could be proud of the skills involved of convincing someone to have sex with you, but that might be a little off-topic)

Am I the only one who thinks this way? does this line of reasoning also makes sense to any of you?

Also, just because i think gay pride doesn't make sense, it doesn't mean i think homosexuality is wrong, or that gay rights should not exist. of course its not wrong, and of course they should have the same rights as all human beings.
The point of it isn't to be "i'm so happy im gay" or "I'm gay and better", but to say "i'm more than okay with who I am, and it's time you became more than okay with it too!"

White pride is just arrogance that suggests there is a threat to the white race. The mentality isn't "you should be okay with us being white" it's "we are white, and we wont apologize! We're better!"

Point, everyone is okay with white people being white, because they've held the power in American society for hundreds of years.

It's about power imbalance, and equality, as opposed to biblical pride.

[Queercommie Girl]

(Addressing the OP)

You are completely missing the point of Pride. You are just like those people who think Black nationalism is a reactionary racist ideology.

But then in the concrete sense it's all about fighting for equal rights, whatever you call it doesn't really matter anyway. "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet".

[hatzel]

As far as I'm aware, the original use of the word 'pride' had more to do with the previously widespread (and, unfortunately, still present in some quarters) idea that homosexuality is something to be 'ashamed' of. In that context, pride is meant only to convey the complete rejection of shame. Hopefully we are progressing towards a time when the use of the word 'pride' may become somehow inappropriate, but this is reliant on one no longer being expected to feel shame for ones sexuality. I don't think that gay pride exists outside of the context of the expectation of gay shame. But maybe I should add more to this post, as the expectation of shame isn't the only factor that contributes to all this.

[W1N5T0N]

In my opinion, gay pride is not about saying: Your straight and therefore worthless. Its because gay people have continually been harassed and still are being harassed that they feel they should stand up for themselves! Its about saying: Look, im confident about who i am so dont even try bashing me, because that will not diminish my pride! It's taking a stand against the fact that in our modern society, the level of tolerance is still quite low to gay people. If everyone was really that tolerant, i doubt people would go around saying they are gay because no one would care! it would just be accepeted. But the fact that people are always being attacked and intimidated for being gay gives a poor report of the level of tolerance in our society. People are uniting under the slogan "gay pride" to stem against the tide of shitty right wing discrimination! What else can they do? Say: you hate me because i am gay, and im cool with that? Your not gonna give me my rights? See it as a different type of struggle, inter-class struggle against discrimination, raising awareness and fighting for equality. Because being gay transcends race, nationality and the whole other stuff.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Gay pride taken literally would be just as illogical as white pride, or any other form of pride.

However like a lot of political terms, "gay pride" usually does not stand for such a thing in the literal sense of the words, but as an expression of some form of sentiment that "there isn't anything wrong with being gay." or "gays shouldn't be victimised for their sexuality" or something similar.

Of course, I think, partly encouraged by the literal meaning of the words, there is a not insignificant amount of people who believe in gay pride, or black pride or whatever, who to an extent interpret these terms literally and support that. They feel that because blacks or gays are discriminated against, they should actually be proud of being gay or black, in order to "balance out" the oppression, or that such sentiments are acceptable because those groups are generally oppressed, which I feel is a mistake.

[Book O'Dead]

Also, just because i think gay pride doesn't make sense, it doesn't mean i think homosexuality is wrong, or that gay rights should not exist. of course its not wrong, and of course they should have the same rights as all human beings.

Aww, SHADDAP!

[Demogorgon]

It doesn't mean pride in the sense of it being an achievement, it means pride in the sense of the opposite of shame. It is a statement that homosexuality is not shameful and that gay people can feel pride in themselves. I have to say that I have no particular attraction to gay pride myself, in more tolerant parts of the world they are just street parties now. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but hardly my thing. There is little that could be described as political about them in Scotland now for instance (apart from all the straight politicians who always show up to show themselves as gay friendly) so its original goal has probably been achieved. But if people want to have fun and enjoy themselves, I am not so grouchy that I am going to complain about that!

[Havet]

I do not see the gay "pride" parades as show of pride.

Most people who parade are demanding equal rights and no discrimination. After all homosexuals are discriminated against only because of their sexual preference..

So why call them gay pride parade and not gay rights parade?

[Havet]

It doesn't mean pride in the sense of it being an achievement, it means pride in the sense of the opposite of shame. It is a statement that homosexuality is not shameful and that gay people can feel pride in themselves. I have to say that I have no particular attraction to gay pride myself, in more tolerant parts of the world they are just street parties now. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but hardly my thing. There is little that could be described as political about them in Scotland now for instance (apart from all the straight politicians who always show up to show themselves as gay friendly) so its original goal has probably been achieved. But if people want to have fun and enjoy themselves, I am not so grouchy that I am going to complain about that!

So since theyre not using the world 'pride' literally, why not say: 'im happy about being gay!' instead of 'im proud of being gay!' ?

[danyboy27]

just as white pride, tall pride or ginger pride makes no sense.

If homosexuality is something someone is born with (ie: there is no choice), then so is every other feature we have, and it makes no sense to be proud of being tall, of having a predisposition to cancer or any other condition.

If homosexuality is, on the other hand, a choice, why should someone be proud of its sexual choices, and not of something more meaningful? And when i say someone shouldnt be proud of sexual choices, it goes for both ways. It also makes no sense for some heterosexual man or woman to be proud of how many people he or she has managed to 'penetrate'... (theoretically, one could be proud of the skills involved of convincing someone to have sex with you, but that might be a little off-topic)

Am I the only one who thinks this way? does this line of reasoning also makes sense to any of you?

Also, just because i think gay pride doesn't make sense, it doesn't mean i think homosexuality is wrong, or that gay rights should not exist. of course its not wrong, and of course they should have the same rights as all human beings.

Its not so much about being proud of being gay, but about being proud to be able to get over the social prejudice and stigmata linked to being gay.


Personally i think gay pride is a bit of a misnomer, should be called the gay affirmative action.

[jake williams]

So since theyre not using the world 'pride' literally, why not say: 'im happy about being gay!' instead of 'im proud of being gay!' ?
Gay pride makes a lot of sense if you're willing to acknowledge that the concept of "gay pride" came out of a specific, real-world history of a political movement for gay liberation. In a world with no oppression, generalized full equality and no history, I would absolutely agree with you. Such a world would have virtually nothing in common with our own.

[PhoenixAsh]

Is this the thread where we are eventually going to argue that all homosexual men are mysogenistic bastards? (and...o yes...this gem was once actually used by someone I, sadly, know in their little anti-gay rant)

Why the hell does it matter if they call it gay-pride? Why shouldn't they be proud of themselves? Essentially I have no problem with groups in the face of oppression being proud of something they are against the norm which is pressed upon them. There is an essential and qualitative difference between belonging to an oppressive majority which superimposes their "whatever"-"identity" as the superior way of life on society and culture expressing their pride....because the statement "I am white and I am proud" is a statement not made in a vacuum but in the context of white dominance over others....it becomes a statement of exclusion. The same goes for hetrosexuality.

[tachosomoza]

When a minority, whether they be gay, European Ethnic, or a person of "color", shows pride, they are demonstrating their belief that, after eons of discrimination and oppression, that they are finally self aware enough to realize that they have the right to live on this Earth and be treated equally. When a majority group shows "pride", they are demonstrating reaction and their desire to maintain the oppressive status quo for minorities.

[Kamil]

"Pride" is better for mass mobilization than "affirmative action" or something else. Its a concept that everyone can understand and rally around, it has more broad appeal.
As a member of the LGBTQ community, after living a life told to feel ashamed about who you are, to claim the opposite, to openly proclaim PRIDE, is an act of defiance. That feeling of defiance is personally liberating and effecvtive in getting people involved.

But never once did anyone I've ever marched with, or I myself, ever feel that it had a chauvenistic vibe or anything. We never felt better than anyone else, and I dont think anyone ever thought that was the message or the point.

Altho as per the OP, I understand what your saying. The post makes sense, and in a communist society, we wont need gay "pride" or black nationalism, because people will just be people. But untill then, we need it as a tool, as a weapon. Because homophobia and racism still exist.

I have people in my own family who think that homosexuality is the supreme vice of humanity, my mother beat the shit out of me when I was a wee fella for being "effeminate". And to finally say: I DONT GIVE A FUCK IM PROUD, gave me a taste of what the Revolution is.

Sorry if this post got a little cheesy but what the hell

[Ocean Seal]

Gay pride is necessary because homosexuals are constantly jeered against, mocked, or even violently assaulted. People need to know that they should be proud of their sexual orientation regardless of what anyone says. Take this as an example. Have you ever heard the mainstream media say that whites are defective or that they behave the wrong way? How often to do you things about gays being cured, or that homosexuality is morally wrong, decadent, or anything of the such. How often do you hear of gay marriage as an "assault on the family". You occasionally even get people saying that gays should be imprisoned or killed. Do you ever hear that white people are ruining marriage? No. Then you understand why gay pride is necessary.

[Delenda Carthago]

I agree. All these gay gangs smashing straight people just because of their sexuality, throwing gay pride logos all over the place. Just like the white pride gangs, its the same thing. Somebody needs to put an end to this.

[Havet]

I agree. All these gay gangs smashing straight people just because of their sexuality, throwing gay pride logos all over the place. Just like the white pride gangs, its the same thing. Somebody needs to put an end to this.

http://i.imgur.com/HkyI4.png

[Ocean Seal]

Havet, I fully guarantee he was "fucking kidding" you.

[tachosomoza]

http://i.imgur.com/HkyI4.png

Nope, there's really gay gangs who deal drugs to make money to attack straight couples' weddings in organized groups, armed with SMGs, hand grenades, pepper spray, and automatic pistols. Of course, the commynist controlled media won't allow that to be disclosed. :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

I agree. All these gay gangs smashing straight people just because of their sexuality, throwing gay pride logos all over the place. Just like the white pride gangs, its the same thing. Somebody needs to put an end to this.

ˆˆ :thumbup: This post is pure brilliance....and illustrates perfectly what has been argued in the thread in just one small paragraph!

[Valdemar]

I agree with Havet (topic creator) although,
Even if I'm Leftist, i have my own opinion toward parades.

Regarding "Pride-Parades" as those so called protesters are nonsense, they spark more outrage, rage, with their sexual performance's on stage and with outgoing fashion during daylight. They do more damage with it then good, and i don't know if they are realizing that.
From RightWinger perspective, they hate homosexuals because they think its some kind of "fashion" being homosexual, some agree that homos. are born, but born homosexuals are minority in their opinion, in their opinion more of them chose to be so, (i think that they secretly know-think that every man has a little bit of girl inside him, so that every man likes man deep deep down somewhere) so parades and mass media coverage increased likelihood of being homosexual. In their logic also means that "pride parades" and any other means of mass media appearance (we all know its powers, they are aware of it too) will boost homosexuality, so nation population=>birth rate will be decreased and so nation power-manpower will decrease. Therefore its nation in danger, and they feel obligated to stop any "pride parades" and smash some skulls.
I understand them, if i put myself in their shoes (look from their perspective). And we as leftis should understand that, and not go ballistic when they crack some skulls ("ooo they are psychos etc".) no they are not, they have their own Ideology, and we have Our own ideology in contrast with Capitalist (in Che words) who does not know any boundaries (nor political or ideological), and their only interest is Money. Nationalist have their own Right-Wing goals (strong nation and etc.) and we have our own, Internationalist point of view and goal.
My point is, that We must not blindly stand in homosexual defense and say, we support "pride parade" just because Right Wingers hate LGBT.

I, and i hope We leftist support homosexual fight for their equal rights in society and acceptance, but they should change their strategy, because this strategy does not bring them any closer to the equal rights, more like less rights and less acceptance (because sexual performances)...
Instead they should vote for Leftis parties which offer laws in benefit of homosexual. :D
But there is one tiny problem, they are humans like any of us, and they see think differently, and there are humans-homosexuals who are nationals or national socialist (i know one) and there are majority of homosexuals who are because of different factors Liberal Capitalist and don't agree with Socialism and Planned economy or Communism, they believe in Libera and almighty free market economy.
So lets be frank, why should we care if someone cracks their skull ? (DURING PRIDE PARADE)*

//off topic: Havet why (were) are you restricted, whats your crime ? My is sexism...

back on topic:

/* Please rep me if you like and agree with my post or derep me if you like or don't like my post
-I'm not homphobe, I'm not afraid nor i don't hate homosexuals, i respect them as human beings and support them for their fight for Equal Rights, but i don't support Parades!!!
-My intention was not to offend, if you think that i did offend you, please accept my apologize, even if i think there was no such sentence.
-Almighty Admin, if I offended you on personal level, and your opinion is that I'm indeed homophobe (like you were offended in my 2nd post and i got restricted due sexism) please forgive my ignorance, We live in capitalist society, which influences our life really a lot. */

[danyboy27]

Well, the OP had his answer, and the OP agree that there is a reason why gay pride make sense.
Case closed.
lets lock this thread and do something more productive!

[danyboy27]

i think valdemar your reason of being restricted are now irelevant, you wont survive the last post you made. We ban people demonstrating homophobia here.

[Valdemar]

i think valdemar your reason of being restricted are now irelevant, you wont survive the last post you made. We ban people demonstrating homophobia here.

Did you read it all ? You kidding me ? Where was i Homophob ? You serious ?

[danyboy27]

Did you read it all ? You kidding me ? Where was i Homophob ? You serious ?


here:
[QUOTE=Valdemar;2151648]
Regarding "Pride-Parades" as those so called protesters are nonsense, they spark more outrage, rage, with their sexual performance's on stage and with outgoing fashion during daylight. They do more damage with it then good, and i don't know if they are realizing that.
/QUOTE]

[Valdemar]

here:
[QUOTE=Valdemar;2151648]
Regarding "Pride-Parades" as those so called protesters are nonsense, they spark more outrage, rage, with their sexual performance's on stage and with outgoing fashion during daylight. They do more damage with it then good, and i don't know if they are realizing that.
/QUOTE]

What is homophobic ? They spark rage among population who are not used to such things daily, isn't that true ? Sexual performances, they kiss and spank and do threesome on stage, i see problem if straight people would do that and show pride like that (do i hate now straitgt people too ?). Public is outraged and thefore against laws which give equality LGBT community, so its counter productive.

Who is OP ? And i have give reason why does not make sense, so thread, so it seems is not closed.
I think i've offended you on personal level because of my dissagreement with you about parade, in my opinion is counter productive and not bringing any social changes, in contrast they make it worse.

[bcbm]

Regarding "Pride-Parades" as those so called protesters are nonsense, they spark more outrage, rage, with their sexual performance's on stage and with outgoing fashion during daylight.

good, people who are outraged by displays of human sexuality and dignity deserve it.


Therefore its nation in danger, and they feel obligated to stop any "pride parades" and smash some skulls.
I understand them, if i put myself in their shoes (look from their perspective). And we as leftis should understand that, and not go ballistic when they crack some skulls ("ooo they are psychos etc".) no they are not, they have their own Ideologyexcept its a crap ideology and they are bashing the fucking skulls of people who are fighting for dignity as human beings. as leftists i don't think its rocket science where we stand. certainly not with people who want to defend their nation and bash fucking people in the street. jesus christ


I, and i hope We leftist support homosexual fight for their equal rights in society and acceptance, but they should change their strategy, because this strategy does not bring them any closer to the equal rights, more like less rights and less acceptance (because sexual performances)...
Instead they should vote for Leftis parties which offer laws in benefit of homosexual. :Dyeah you really sound like someone with an authoritative grasp on what strategies people should adopt


So lets be frank, why should we care if someone cracks their skull ? (DURING PRIDE PARADE)* youre fucked up bro

[tachosomoza]

Valdemar's style gives me a headache.

[PhoenixAsh]

I agree with Havet (topic creator) although,
Even if I'm Leftist, i have my own opinion toward parades.

Regarding "Pride-Parades" as those so called protesters are nonsense, they spark more outrage, rage, with their sexual performance's on stage and with outgoing fashion during daylight. They do more damage with it then good, and i don't know if they are realizing that.

Some of the displays I don't like. But I don't like them either when done by hetrosexuals. Unfortunately THAT is the norm and one which is being pushed down our thoats by the media in this country and by corperate and merketing sexualisation of society. So if hetrosexuals are allowed to do that with little or no outrage I do not see any reason why gay people should not be allowed to do exactly the same.

The reason people get pissed off though is, in general, not the outrage o ver openly sexualised behaviour. But openly sexualised behaviour by gay people. And that is a clear indication why such parades and shows are needed.

We are bombarded daily with music video's glorifying hetrosexual sexual behaviour. Women are supposed to act like the willing sex objects and men need to be macho studs. We are daily being shown thousands upon thousands of images with women wearing very revealing clothing and men behaving like entitled pricks who need to get as much pussy to count.

We have commercials, image advertisings, magazines and the whole range of programs about sex, containing sex and explicitly or implicitly glorifying hetro sex. Not to mention the whole scala of religious nuts who condemn anything and everything that is not hetro sexual on a daily basis.

Outrage over some pride parade is silly, its bordering hysterics and it is, above all, hypocritical to the core...

You may be right that some of the display is perhaps over a line. But your conclusion about that is false....its an illustration of everything I said above.



From RightWinger perspective, they hate homosexuals because they think its some kind of "fashion" being homosexual, some agree that homos. are born, but born homosexuals are minority in their opinion, in their opinion more of them chose to be so, (i think that they secretly know-think that every man has a little bit of girl inside him, so that every man likes man deep deep down somewhere) so parades and mass media coverage increased likelihood of being homosexual. In their logic also means that "pride parades" and any other means of mass media appearance (we all know its powers, they are aware of it too) will boost homosexuality, so nation population=>birth rate will be decreased and so nation power-manpower will decrease. Therefore its nation in danger, and they feel obligated to stop any "pride parades" and smash some skulls.



I understand them, if i put myself in their shoes (look from their perspective). And we as leftis should understand that, and not go ballistic when they crack some skulls ("ooo they are psychos etc".) no they are not, they have their own Ideology, and we have Our own ideology in contrast with Capitalist (in Che words) who does not know any boundaries (nor political or ideological), and their only interest is Money. Nationalist have their own Right-Wing goals (strong nation and etc.) and we have our own, Internationalist point of view and goal.

WHAT.THE.FUCK??? Are you serious?

Because one of our goals is stopping these fucktards from bashing and cracking "some skulls" because of their insane biggotry. I do understand them....and that understanding says they need to be fought tooth and nail before they get the upper hand in society.


My point is, that We must not blindly stand in homosexual defense and say, we support "pride parade" just because Right Wingers hate LGBT.


We support pride parades because we are supporting a gender free society. And we protect that from fucktard who want to press people into specific gender roles, who want to hurt people because they do not belong to that specific gender role and because they are an oppressed group of people.


I, and i hope We leftist support homosexual fight for their equal rights in society and acceptance, but they should change their strategy, because this strategy does not bring them any closer to the equal rights, more like less rights and less acceptance (because sexual performances)...
Instead they should vote for Leftis parties which offer laws in benefit of homosexual. :D

riiight. And...what if they are not socialist? I think they should be...but I don't think the struggle ends with socialist gay rights. Nor do I think socialist parties necessarilly hav gay rights in high standards. Some countries even socialists frown upon gays. That needs to be battles just as much.



But there is one tiny problem, they are humans like any of us, and they see think differently, and there are humans-homosexuals who are nationals or national socialist (i know one) and there are majority of homosexuals who are because of different factors Liberal Capitalist and don't agree with Socialism and Planned economy or Communism, they believe in Libera and almighty free market economy.
So lets be frank, why should we care if someone cracks their skull ?

Yes we should care if it is because they are gay. Even a gay nazi has the right to be gay....and should not be discriminated against or beaten for being gay. Its not a support which states we only support gay people of the right political ideology. We support gay peoples rights period.

And then who ever is left a NAZI...we kick their ass. NOT because they are gay or hetrosexual....but because they are NAZI.

Get the difference?


-I'm not homphobe, I'm not afraid nor i don't hate homosexuals, i respect them as human beings and support them for their fight for Equal Rights, but i don't support Parades!!!
-My intention was not to offend, if you think that i did offend you, please accept my apologize, even if i think there was no such sentence.
-Almighty Admin, if I offended you on personal level, and your opinion is that I'm indeed homophobe (like you were offended in my 2nd post and i got restricted due sexism) please forgive my ignorance, We live in capitalist society, which influences our life really a lot. */

I don't think you are a homophobe....I think you are thoroughly misguided and draw the wrong conclusions.

[bcbm]

What is homophobic ? They spark rage among population who are not used to such things daily, isn't that true ? Sexual performances, they kiss and spank and do threesome on stage, i see problem if straight people would do that and show pride like that (do i hate now straitgt people too ?). Public is outraged and thefore against laws which give equality LGBT community, so its counter productive.

minority populations standing up for their humanity have always sparked outrage whether it is a gay pride parade or black kids attending a white school or women trying to vote. unfortunately many of our species are offended by equality and dignity for all, but this is even more reason to rub their faces in it and fight until they are forced to get over it

[danyboy27]

[QUOTE=danyboy25;2151652]here:


What is homophobic ? They spark rage among population who are not used to such things daily, isn't that true ? Sexual performances, they kiss and spank and do threesome on stage, i see problem if straight people would do that and show pride like that (do i hate now straitgt people too ?). Public is outraged and thefore against laws which give equality LGBT community, so its counter productive.

Who is OP ? And i have give reason why does not make sense, so thread, so it seems is not closed.
I think i've offended you on personal level because of my dissagreement with you about parade, in my opinion is counter productive and not bringing any social changes, in contrast they make it worse.

people are not enraged by it, you on the other hand, might be.

[Decolonize The Left]

I agree with Havet (topic creator) although,
Even if I'm Leftist, i have my own opinion toward parades.

Before I comment on the rest of this, I'd you to note that you're talking about "parades." That's right - parades. Not militias, not armies, not warfare, not starvation... parades.


Regarding "Pride-Parades" as those so called protesters are nonsense, they spark more outrage, rage, with their sexual performance's on stage and with outgoing fashion during daylight. They do more damage with it then good, and i don't know if they are realizing that.

You are not the final arbiter of who does more damage than good - in fact, you are far from it. Furthermore, your generalization of the LGBTQ community and patronizing tone ("i don't know if they are realizing that") is very sad.

The fact of the matter is that gay pride parades are merely the celebratory public arm of a long and extensive campaign to achieve equal rights. These parades help garner money for the cause and raise awareness - whether or not this awareness is support, it is still awareness.


From RightWinger perspective, they hate homosexuals because they think its some kind of "fashion" being homosexual, some agree that homos. are born, but born homosexuals are minority in their opinion, in their opinion more of them chose to be so, (i think that they secretly know-think that every man has a little bit of girl inside him, so that every man likes man deep deep down somewhere) so parades and mass media coverage increased likelihood of being homosexual. In their logic also means that "pride parades" and any other means of mass media appearance (we all know its powers, they are aware of it too) will boost homosexuality, so nation population=>birth rate will be decreased and so nation power-manpower will decrease. Therefore its nation in danger, and they feel obligated to stop any "pride parades" and smash some skulls.
I understand them, if i put myself in their shoes (look from their perspective). And we as leftis should understand that, and not go ballistic when they crack some skulls ("ooo they are psychos etc".) no they are not, they have their own Ideology, and we have Our own ideology in contrast with Capitalist (in Che words) who does not know any boundaries (nor political or ideological), and their only interest is Money. Nationalist have their own Right-Wing goals (strong nation and etc.) and we have our own, Internationalist point of view and goal.

No offense, but you clearly have absolutely no idea why right-wingers hate homosexuality.

In the first place, gay pride parades serve to "out" the gay community into the public sphere of attention. This is done because the primary tactic of socio-political normalizing is to marginalize and exclude minority groups from the public sphere of attention. By having a big parade with naked people and balloons, it makes it very difficult to be silenced.

In the second place, right-wingers don't hate homosexuals for whatever weird reason you discovered through your own warped analysis of what you see. All this talk about "man-power" whatever reminds me of Dr. Strangelove. That was a satire, and your above quote reads like one as well.
Right-wingers are homophobic. In short, they are afraid of homosexuals because homosexuality challenges the normal dogma of heterosexuality - a dogma which they believe themselves to be an upstanding part of. This fear is not to be coddled due to suggestive political advances which could be made by pretending that certain people don't feel the way they do about the same sex.


My point is, that We must not blindly stand in homosexual defense and say, we support "pride parade" just because Right Wingers hate LGBT.

We don't. We support the LGBTQ community in whatever they choose to do in their efforts to achieve equal rights and representation.


I, and i hope We leftist support homosexual fight for their equal rights in society and acceptance, but they should change their strategy, because this strategy does not bring them any closer to the equal rights, more like less rights and less acceptance (because sexual performances)...
Instead they should vote for Leftis parties which offer laws in benefit of homosexual. :D

Why don't you stop telling the LGBTQ community what you think they should do? Don't you think that, maybe, they have a better understanding of the challenges which face them?


But there is one tiny problem, they are humans like any of us, and they see think differently, and there are humans-homosexuals who are nationals or national socialist (i know one) and there are majority of homosexuals who are because of different factors Liberal Capitalist and don't agree with Socialism and Planned economy or Communism, they believe in Libera and almighty free market economy.
So lets be frank, why should we care if someone cracks their skull ? (DURING PRIDE PARADE)*

What?

Are you saying that it's cool to beat up gay people who aren't leftists?


-I'm not homphobe, I'm not afraid nor i don't hate homosexuals, i respect them as human beings and support them for their fight for Equal Rights, but i don't support Parades!!!

No, you aren't an outright homophobe but you do have quite a bit of latent homophobia in you (like many of us do). It would do you some good to address it because then you won't feel it necessary to get upset about parades.

- August

[W1N5T0N]

AttackGr...Either you are trolling or you live in a very strange world XD

[Property Is Robbery]

I, and i hope We leftist support homosexual fight for their equal rights in society and acceptance, but they should change their strategy, because this strategy does not bring them any closer to the equal rights
First of all you sound like the fucking HRC. Second, You're not a leftist and luckily you will likely soon be banned.

[Decolonize The Left]

AttackGr...Either you are trolling or you live in a very strange world XD

If AttackGr is a troll then s/he is a dinosaur troll with laser beams for eyes and trucks which shoot out of his/her troll hands to bestow his/her amazing troll goods upon our forum.

- August

[Spawn of Stalin]

they spark more outrage, rage, with their sexual performance's on stage and with outgoing fashion during daylight
You should be banned, and I'm not just talking about being banned from revleft

[Valdemar]

Hold your horses guys, don't charge me so soon, calm down and let your mind speak :)
I just want to point out that My post (Introduction) was replayed only by few members (thanks for Warm Welcome) third post about European Union was not replayed for days, but now, when suddenly someone does not agree on so called "Pride Parade" whole hell breaks lose...

There are so many of you now, and so many wrong conclusions about my post... :( But sadly i'm only one Valdemar, therefore i can't anwser you all.
With some of your arguments i agree, and they don't collide with my opinion-arguments, some of your arguments are totally wrong understood. But because i'm not "SuperMan"-i don't have any super natural abbilites

I'll anwser only to few of them:
hindsight20/20 I never said that gay nazi should does not have right to be gay, or anything, I just wanted to point out, that even Nationalits other enemies of LGBT movments are homosexuals... So even NS do not care basicly if somene is homosexual as long he keeps for himself and does not promote it (parades).
I'm not misguided, I only think that parades are not good thing for LGBT community.
Someone said I don't know why Right-Wingers hate homosexuals, in fact i realy do, believe me when i say that. I just said the one and most important thing and not all other traditional religion and other factors or some psychological bs.
Like i said, i support their efforts and their fight, but i don't agree that parade does good things to LGBT!
Also I think, that population would not be supportive of heterosexual parade either.
Someone said that i would support beating non-leftis for fun or somethnig, no i would not, i support revolution and not unnecessary violence.
Someone said that is always outraged when minority standing for humanity...I agree, but i don't agree that parades are right way to do it. And i totaly don't agree that rubbing on their faces will help it.
Some guy with american flag said that i'm enraged...i'm enraged when i see public expresion sexuality of any kind...homo or hetero....

Like i said, I'm only Valdemar, and I can't quote you all...
Now I will ask you one question, which some of us pointed already out=>
WHY DO YOU THINK PARADES ARE GOOD FOR LGBTQ ?

For those who do not get it, due different circumstances:
My only problem with it is that it IS NOT GOOD FOR LGBTQ! That their energy (which is enormous) should be transferred in-to CLASS STRUGLE where their problems would be SOLVED and they would not have to RISK PUBLIC VIOLENCE.
Our goal is revolution, our goal is socialism where ALL humans will have equal rights, and such Pride Parades would not (should not) occur.

-------
*
You should be banned, and I'm not just talking about being banned from revleft
Why ? reason ? Its easy to scream from crowd "BURN IT, I WANT TO SEE HER/HIM BURN", do you have any reason ?
I actually agree with you on other political topics...
*
First of all you sound like the fucking HRC. Second, You're not a leftist and luckily you will likely soon be banned.
Why on earth I'm NOT LEFTIST!? And again mob calling "BURN, BURN..." You said i'm not Leftist, well mate, you can't even hear someone who supporting homosexual struggle and not supporting "Pride Parade", you are worse then RIGHT WINGERS!
similar analogy

[tachosomoza]

You should be banned, and I'm not just talking about being banned from revleft

Maybe you should call up your namesake and ask him what to do. :laugh:

[ZrianKobani]

Gay Pride these days is a tragedy; what used to be a tribute to Stonewall and a rally for our rights has become an excuse to get drunk, dress crazy, and call anyone who feels uncomfortable a homophobe. I've been once, never again.

[genstrike]

Also I think, that population would not be supportive of heterosexual parade either.

First off, because of straight privilege, every day is straight pride day. Just listen to the radio. How many songs do you hear that are directly or indirectly about fucking? Now, how many of them are about non-heteronormative fucking (No, Katy Perry's "I kissed a girl" doesn't count)?

Also, a straight pride parade would be boring as fuck.

[Aspiring Humanist]

White pride = promotion of white privilege
Gay pride = promotion of human rights
deal wit it

[ZrianKobani]

White pride = promotion of white privilege
Gay pride = promotion of human rights
deal wit it
But shouldn't pride be reserved for accomplishments? Being born an American and being born gay weren't hard, they just happened. Learning to do a kick-flip, that required a heck of a lot more effort and I'm way more proud of it.

[agnixie]

But shouldn't pride be reserved for accomplishments? Being born an American and being born gay weren't hard, they just happened. Learning to do a kick-flip, that required a heck of a lot more effort and I'm way more proud of it.

Cool story, bro. There are still fights, still small victories to celebrate, and there are people who actually do shit about it on top of learning acrobatics. Oh, and I'd say being able to go out and dress crazy in the streets without getting arrested for it is one hell of a victory, too.

[-marx-]

(To OP)

For me personally it's not about any pride whatsoever. It's just about not giving a fuck what you or anyone else thinks of my sexual actions. Its a show of rebellion against homophobia like "yeah, you think there's something wrong with us? FUCK YOU AND YOUR OPINION!".

[ZrianKobani]

(To OP)

For me personally it's not about any pride whatsoever. It's just about not giving a fuck what you or anyone else thinks of my sexual actions. Its a show of rebellion against homophobia like "yeah, you think there's something wrong with us? FUCK YOU AND YOUR OPINION!".
But if we don't care then there's really no point in giving the finger to those who are against us. Better to just ignore them and rob them the joy of having something to point at as proof of our so-called "deficiencies".

[ZrianKobani]

Oh, and I'd say being able to go out and dress crazy in the streets without getting arrested for it is one hell of a victory, too. I wasn't aware fashion was a part of human rights.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I think 'gay pride' is about equality and the demand for equal rights under the law, while also being proud of whom they are instead of feeling like they are some 'freak of nature' whose natural inclinations separate them from the rest of society and that they need to be 'cured.' It's no different than women feeling proud or empowered or black pride and black empowerment. After centuries and decades of being oppressed people generally like to shake that shit off and feel good about themselves and who they are and have a certain sense of pride in themselves. Why white, heterosexual, etc. people can't get this confuses me. Neither gay pride, black pride, etc. could be compared to what is commonly known as the 'white pride' movement, which is usually just some PC way of saying 'white power.'

[danyboy27]

I dont think nobody would be outraged of an heterosexual parade.

[Tim Finnegan]

But shouldn't pride be reserved for accomplishments? Being born an American and being born gay weren't hard, they just happened. Learning to do a kick-flip, that required a heck of a lot more effort and I'm way more proud of it.
Pretty sure that coming out of the closet is usually harder than learning to do a kick-flip.

[JustMovement]

Beyond the obviously paramount political aspects, am I the only one that enjoys a good parade? I think they are fun (OK in places where you can have them safely and without thousands of fascists attacking you). Also I dont think celebrating ones sexuality is wrong and I would hope that they would continue after any revolution and not just stopped because the "objective" is complete.

[Hebrew Hammer]

I dont think nobody would be outraged of an heterosexual parade.

Mardi gras?

[Sir Comradical]

Don't be silly. If you're gay and you grow up in a homophobic society, chances are you're at greater risk of suffering depression and committing suicide. In this context there's nothing wrong with gay pride.

[danyboy27]

Mardi gras?


haha that pretty much how i would see it.

[Principia Ethica]

I'm a bit apprehensive about posting this because I'm new and I'm not quite sure of the "dynamics" here. . .and I also fear that I'm risking getting "restricted." But here goes.

I do not believe the OP is right. . .in any sort of way. But I see people calling for him to get banned and I honestly think that it would be a lost opportunity to maybe show him how he is misguided. I don't get a homophobe vibe from him. I see his view as WAY misguided but I think in his mind he is being "helpful."

Just like in the black civil rights era, (black) people were divided on how they should proceed as well. Civil disobedience? By any means necessary?

I think what he is trying to say is that they should go about trying to get their equal status by working within the framework of heterosexual society and not upsetting or offending them (Which I do not agree with him.)

I think he needs to be shown that an oppressed group has the right to determine which path they should take to gain equality. Not just banning him and leaving him without any sort of enlightenment and a bitter taste in his mouth.

[ZrianKobani]

Pretty sure that coming out of the closet is usually harder than learning to do a kick-flip. That it is: it's nerve-racking; you never know how the person you're telling will take it; and once they know, you can never take it back.

That said, I wasn't talking about coming out.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

xDgmjL6z2jY

[ZrianKobani]

I think he needs to be shown that an oppressed group has the right to determine which path they should take to gain equality. Not just banning him and leaving him without any sort of enlightenment and a bitter taste in his mouth.

Even if that path isn't working? The LGBT mainstream has allied itself with the Democrats too much and neglected what's vital: political and economic control on the community level.

The OP makes a very good point in his concern that we're alienating our straight counterparts, I believe that we are; they don't respect us and until they do, we'll never be seen as or treated as equals.

Quoting Malcolm X,

As long as you're running around here wearing the white man's name, bragging about you one of the Joneses, or one of the Browns, or one of the Smiths, or as long as you're running around here bragging about your part in this so called American democracy, then you will always be looked down upon as a chump by the white man, you'll never be given recognition nor respect, your problem will continue to go unsolved, and you will still be in the same rut or ditch a 1000 yrs from now.

We need respect and recognition and only then will we have our rights.

[Principia Ethica]

If the GLBT community decides that they want to host black tie events for their cause, I'll attend those to show my support. If they want to stick to doing the AIDs walk then having a parade, my dogs and I will still show up for the walk in our rainbow gear (the organizers in Atlanta are good about having plenty of water for all of us!) and having a beer whilst enjoying the parade :)

[#FF0000]

But shouldn't pride be reserved for accomplishments? Being born an American and being born gay weren't hard, they just happened. Learning to do a kick-flip, that required a heck of a lot more effort and I'm way more proud of it.

From the very first page of the thread:


It doesn't mean pride in the sense of it being an achievement, it means pride in the sense of the opposite of shame. It is a statement that homosexuality is not shameful and that gay people can feel pride in themselves. I have to say that I have no particular attraction to gay pride myself, in more tolerant parts of the world they are just street parties now. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but hardly my thing. There is little that could be described as political about them in Scotland now for instance (apart from all the straight politicians who always show up to show themselves as gay friendly) so its original goal has probably been achieved. But if people want to have fun and enjoy themselves, I am not so grouchy that I am going to complain about that!


Read threads, everyone. Please.

[Revy]

Gay pride is like black pride. Minorities reserve the right to be proud given their past and present oppression. On the other hand, as we always see, things like "straight pride" and "white pride" are bigoted reactions based on hate. The oppressed feel the need to be proud to assert their own equality. The dominant groups react by masking hate as "pride" .

[Napoleon Winston]

The ride thing is more saying "Im proud of who I am, I'm not ashamed".
Pride is a good thing, it's when you start thinking your better than others that it becomes a problem.

[Napoleon Winston]

Gay pride is like black pride. Minorities reserve the right to be proud given their past and present oppression. On the other hand, as we always see, things like "straight pride" and "white pride" are bigoted reactions based on hate. The oppressed feel the need to be proud to assert their own equality. The dominant groups react by masking hate as "pride" .

That's stupid, you can't just say group X can be proud and group Y can't.
I agree, most "white pride" bullshit is just racism, but saying things like blacks can be proud whites can't is retarded.

[agnixie]

I wasn't aware fashion was a part of human rights.

I know trans people who lived at a time where they'd basically be arrested if a shit cop saw their papers because in theory that counted as crossdressing, which in this country was still illegal until the Trudeau administration.

[#FF0000]

That's stupid, you can't just say group X can be proud and group Y can't.
I agree, most "white pride" bullshit is just racism, but saying things like blacks can be proud whites can't is retarded.

I think there's a difference between being a big fan of being Irish or German or French or Italian. That sort of thing I think is totally acceptable and I think most people feel the same way.

But "white pride" is different because whiteness really isn't about race or culture so much as it is about a privileged status.

[black magick hustla]

minority populations standing up for their humanity have always sparked outrage whether it is a gay pride parade or black kids attending a white school or women trying to vote. unfortunately many of our species are offended by equality and dignity for all, but this is even more reason to rub their faces in it and fight until they are forced to get over it

this is true but i think its important to make a difference between that and people who are hella invested in cultural politics which becomes more of a caricature:

"This is what the 'politics of recognition' that arises from the postmodernist / poststructuralist sensibility boils down to - a call to accept the authority of cultural theorists as articulators of the voices of populations who are presumed by the theory to be incapable of speaking clearly for themselves in public, explicit ways." - Adolph Reed

[Havet]

But I see people calling for him to get banned

I'm the OP, who is calling to get me banned?


I think what he is trying to say is that they should go about trying to get their equal status by working within the framework of heterosexual society and not upsetting or offending them (Which I do not agree with him.)

Of course that won't work. But im not saying gay pride parades make no sense because they 'offend' someone. I couldnt care less who gets ofended by them. Im just saying gay pride parades are using the term 'pride' in the not most correct way, given that i think homosexual people should not be proud of being homosexual (which isnt an accomplishment).

Homosexual people should be HAPPY of being homosexual and PROUD of the rights they have earned through their struggle. But, I ask, what sense does it make to have every year making a parade where they show they are either proud of their sexuality or proud of their rights? The fact that its a parade automatically distinguishes from other social issues, by making it stand out of the ordinary. There is no black pride parade (that I know of), and it doesn't make sense to relegate the whole history of 'black' people to a month (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s). What DO makes sense, is to stop calling them 'black', just as it makes sense to stop calling homosexual people homosexual. Their sexuality is irrelevant, and should be treated with the fairness every other human attribute gets.

[-marx-]

Pretty sure that coming out of the closet is usually harder than learning to do a kick-flip.
The first time I told someone I was like "what a fucking weight off my chest!" It was liberating and I had never felt so free. It was hard, very hard, as you risk ridicule and being disowned by everyone/anyone in your life. Not everyone in my life knows so I still feel oppressed somewhat. I just don't have the courage to tell my family as they are a bit bigoted and homophobic. All my friends know and I don't hide it from anyone except my immediate family. It's just easier on me this way.

[PhoenixAsh]

I just want to point out that My post (Introduction) was replayed only by few members (thanks for Warm Welcome) third post about European Union was not replayed for days, but now, when suddenly someone does not agree on so called "Pride Parade" whole hell breaks lose...

Its not so much that you are against gay pride parades...its how you word them and the arguments you use.




hindsight20/20 I never said that gay nazi should does not have right to be gay, or anything, I just wanted to point out, that even Nationalits other enemies of LGBT movments are homosexuals... So even NS do not care basicly if somene is homosexual as long he keeps for himself and does not promote it (parades).

The problem is that they have to hide their sexuality while hetrosexuals do not need to do so and its accepted for them to display, and behave according to their sexual desires and preferences.

Even gay nazi's who are homosexual or lesbian deal with intolerance and violence towards them for being not hetro....and that is equally wrong no matter if they support the LGBT movement or not.

Also be aware that a lot of homosexuals and lesbians are not so tolerant towards transgender people. Biggotry is not something which is limited to white hetrosexual rightwingers.

But everybody has the right to be. Everybody has the right to display their own sexuality just as much as other sexual preferences and in this case specifically should have the exact same rights and be in the exact same position to be just as discrete or indiscrete as hetrosexuals, and can get away with, without fear of reprisal or violence because of their sexual preference.



I'm not misguided, I only think that parades are not good thing for LGBT community.

Yes...you are misguided because not only do you think it harms the LGBT movement but you ascribe this harm to the very biggotted notion in society towards them as it being an exclusive behaviour of the LGBT movement and do not interpret this counter reaction correctly. It doesn't stem from their display of affection or sexuality but from the biggotry. As I said....the reaction is caused because they are homosexual and lesbian or transgender....not because of their behaviour. In other words...it has nothing to do with the parade...but because of their sexual preference.

What you do not uderstand is that oppressed groups need to have an equal excessive and readical counter notion to balance the playing field. Gay pride...over time will lead to a general acception through desensitising. This is because we are increasingly exposed to the radical side of it. And frequent expression makes things normal.

It has worked the same way with feminism...it has worked the same way with radical black nationalism...and it has been and always will be a method to balance the playing field which works.



Also I think, that population would not be supportive of heterosexual parade either.

And that uis where you are wrong. They are and they accept this notion on a daily basis. Maybe they do not like the display...but its the display will be more accepted because the whole society is biassed towards hetrosexuality.

This display of hetrosexuality does not require a parade because its a daily truth....and being daily displayed by induviduals who have little fear of being beaten up for it or being shunned.

[Decolonize The Left]

Of course that won't work. But im not saying gay pride parades make no sense because they 'offend' someone. I couldnt care less who gets ofended by them. Im just saying gay pride parades are using the term 'pride' in the not most correct way, given that i think homosexual people should not be proud of being homosexual (which isnt an accomplishment).

What are you trying to say here? Are you trying to use Carlin's line that pride is reserved for accomplishment in the context of homosexuality in our society?
If so, Demo rightly noted earlier in this thread that pride is being used here as the opposite of shame. Shame is what minority groups are taught to feel for not being the norm. So a pride parade is a counter-movement against repressive normalizing society.

Homosexual people should be HAPPY of being homosexual and PROUD of the rights they have earned through their struggle.
They are. And they don't need you to tell them to be happy or proud.

But, I ask, what sense does it make to have every year making a parade where they show they are either proud of their sexuality or proud of their rights?
How dense are you?

The parade is to raise awareness and money for their fight.

Does that make sense? When you have a parade people donate money, buy things, come and talk to you, accept pamphlets and propaganda... it's what happens at a parade...

The fact that its a parade automatically distinguishes from other social issues, by making it stand out of the ordinary.

It is distinguished from other social issues.

No one is saying that all black people are gay are they? Gay people are gay. That's why it's distinct from being a Latino migrant worker, or a woman, or a homeless person, or a prisoner...

There is no black pride parade (that I know of), and it doesn't make sense to relegate the whole history of 'black' people to a month (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s).
Well the fact that there is a black history month should already tell you that the mainstream white culture has superficially accepted black people and is attempting to normalize their culture by 'acknowledging their struggle.' There's no gay history month...

What DO makes sense, is to stop calling them 'black', just as it makes sense to stop calling homosexual people homosexual. Their sexuality is irrelevant, and should be treated with the fairness every other human attribute gets.

Lol.

Ok Havet. Why don't you go out into the big world and adopt this policy for yourself (which you obviously don't - you're just talking out of your ass on an internet forum).

Havet: Well hello fellow nondescript human being?
Black person: Get the fuck out of my way crazy dude.
Havet: Crazy? Me? No. I simply refuse to acknowledge superficial differences within my fellow species mates.
Black person: Yeah whatever. I need to get by you now.
Havet: No seriously. I don't even think you're black. I only see you as a material human being who's labor is being appropriated by the capitalist class.
Black person: What the fuck are you talking about?

*Black person punches Havet in the face for being an idiot. Havet wonders how this non-black person could be so angry at him for simply explaining the real world.*

- August

[Havet]

What are you trying to say here? Are you trying to use Carlin's line that pride is reserved for accomplishment in the context of homosexuality in our society?
If so, Demo rightly noted earlier in this thread that pride is being used here as the opposite of shame. Shame is what minority groups are taught to feel for not being the norm. So a pride parade is a counter-movement against repressive normalizing society.

So I assume you will be against pride parades once homosexual people are viewed equally in all sectors of society?

BTW, pride is not the opposite of shame. The opposite of shame depends on each situation. In our case:

"shame is opposite to honor or respect as a social relations depending on whether others give approval or disapproval."

Pride should be reserved for accomplishments. And yes, i'm using Carlin's line because it makes sense.


The parade is to raise awareness and money for their fight.

Does that make sense? When you have a parade people donate money, buy things, come and talk to you, accept pamphlets and propaganda... it's what happens at a parade...

Yes, that makes sense


It is distinguished from other social issues.

No one is saying that all black people are gay are they? Gay people are gay. That's why it's distinct from being a Latino migrant worker, or a woman, or a homeless person, or a prisoner...

youre perventing the intention of my words


Well the fact that there is a black history month should already tell you that the mainstream white culture has superficially accepted black people and is attempting to normalize their culture by 'acknowledging their struggle.' There's no gay history month...

It doesnt make sense to have a black history month, just as it wont make sense to have a gay history month. Black or gay history month is AMERICAN history, and should be treated equally.


Ok Havet. Why don't you go out into the big world and adopt this policy for yourself (which you obviously don't - you're just talking out of your ass on an internet forum).

Havet: Well hello fellow nondescript human being?
Black person: Get the fuck out of my way crazy dude.
Havet: Crazy? Me? No. I simply refuse to acknowledge superficial differences within my fellow species mates.
Black person: Yeah whatever. I need to get by you now.
Havet: No seriously. I don't even think you're black. I only see you as a material human being who's labor is being appropriated by the capitalist class.
Black person: What the fuck are you talking about?

*Black person punches Havet in the face for being an idiot. Havet wonders how this non-black person could be so angry at him for simply explaining the real world.*

So you invented this scenario instead of doing what...?

What would any of what i said earlier make you think that i would approach someone like that? just because i promote equality doesnt mean im going to call people 'nondescript fellow human being'. People have names, you know...

[ComradeMan]

.... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Does gay pride actually represent the LGBT community? I sometimes get the feeling that it is almost a self-inflicted parody of the "scene". I do know some LGBT people who are not big fans...

Having said that, well- if you don't like, don't go! No one is forcing you. To compare Gay Pride to a White Pride march is being silly...

[Proukunin]

Our society is based upon the traditional man and woman family. Gay pride is nothing like white pride or black pride. It does not center itself on being inferior to straight people. It just uses that pride to promote their wanting of equality among both gay and straight people alike.

[Queercommie Girl]

Does gay pride actually represent the LGBT community? I sometimes get the feeling that it is almost a self-inflicted parody of the "scene". I do know some LGBT people who are not big fans...


That's an over-exaggeration. Certainly commercialisation is a problem, but even today the Pride events still can't be completely written-off.

And of course there is a huge difference between the over-commercialised Pride marches in the West and Pride events in parts of the world where LGBT people are much more explicitly discriminated against (e.g. in Russia), so I certainly wouldn't brush all of it with the same stroke.

Another thing is that I would focus on economic and political critique rather than aesthetic critique. One can certainly say that over-commercialisation is a parody of the original serious civil rights activism of the LGBT movement, but I really don't see anything wrong in any of the artistic styles associated with Pride in themselves. To accuse people of being a "parody" simply because they don't wear mainstream clothing would be quite stupid, it's like accusing Slut Walk of making a parody of the feminist movement just because of the clothes people wore there.

Personally, I never really make any aesthetic critique of anything, so I don't really care what people wear or don't wear at all.

That said, more radical LGBT groups in the UK have criticised the mainstream movement on various issues, such as being implicitly transphobic to some extent and not caring enough about trans issues, and the fact that the movement is generally dominated by middle class "straight-acting" gay men.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

That's an over-exaggeration. Certainly commercialisation is a problem, but even today the Pride events still can't be completely written-off.

And of course there is a huge difference between the over-commercialised Pride marches in the West and Pride events in parts of the world where LGBT people are much more explicitly discriminated against (e.g. in Russia), so I certainly wouldn't brush all of it with the same stroke.

Another thing is that I would focus on economic and political critique rather than aesthetic critique. One can certainly say that over-commercialisation is a parody of the original serious civil rights activism of the LGBT movement, but I really don't see anything wrong in any of the artistic styles associated with Pride in themselves. To accuse people of being a "parody" simply because they don't wear mainstream clothing would be quite stupid, it's like accusing Slut Walk of making a parody of the feminist movement just because of the clothes people wore there.

Personally, I never really make any aesthetic critique of anything, so I don't really care what people wear or don't wear at all.

That said, more radical LGBT groups in the UK have criticised the mainstream movement on various issues, such as being implicitly transphobic to some extent and not caring enough about trans issues, and the fact that the movement is generally dominated by middle class "straight-acting" gay men.

Why are you so quick to dismiss a bunch of gay folks acting like sterotypical gays as an "aesthetic concern?" Its obviously more than that and I can't imagine you summarising a street party where, for example, hetro women went out and displayed their pride by riding kitchen and bedroom themed floats.

I mean, i'm not saying your totally wrong in saying the aesthetics aren't that important, but I've met plenty of gay people who find the whole "gay pride" thing absurd. What they want is to be accepted as a normal part of society who happen to be attracted to men rather than women. They don't want the crap that comes with it. While to be sure, a lot about gay pride is to do with fighting the oppression gays suffer, I think there is a good case for saying some of it appears to be centered around creating some kinda distinct gay subculture with its own special behaviours and norms which is seperate or opposed in some way to the rest of society. Perhaps thats an inevitable result of the opposition they face trying to be treated like normal people who happen to have differnet sexual tastes, just like black nationalism would seem to be a wrong headed reaction to white oppression. But since the eventual goal is "interegration" with society on the basis of equality, there is a lot to critise about the idea of some kinda big ass separate "gay culture."

[Decolonize The Left]

So I assume you will be against pride parades once homosexual people are viewed equally in all sectors of society?

Nope. Anyone can parade as far as I'm concerned. Except Nazis. But I'll let them know myself.


BTW, pride is not the opposite of shame. The opposite of shame depends on each situation. In our case:

"shame is opposite to honor or respect as a social relations depending on whether others give approval or disapproval."

Pride should be reserved for accomplishments. And yes, i'm using Carlin's line because it makes sense.

No, it doesn't make sense.

You're getting hung up on the word "pride." Let's call it 'Gay Awareness Parade.' Are you still upset about people having a good time?


It doesnt make sense to have a black history month, just as it wont make sense to have a gay history month. Black or gay history month is AMERICAN history, and should be treated equally.

But this is illogical.

Because if gay history and black history are AMERICAN history.
Then AMERICAN history is WORLD history.
And WORLD history is HUMAN history.
So why call it anything at all?


So you invented this scenario instead of doing what...?

I invented a scenario to show you how dumb your idea was. My scenario was obviously too intelligent for you...


What would any of what i said earlier make you think that i would approach someone like that? just because i promote equality doesnt mean im going to call people 'nondescript fellow human being'. People have names, you know...

Yes... they do have names... they also have races... and sexualities... and they are often defined by these characteristics... often by their own choosing...

- August

[Queercommie Girl]

Why are you so quick to dismiss a bunch of gay folks acting like sterotypical gays as an "aesthetic concern?" Its obviously more than that and I can't imagine you summarising a street party where, for example, hetro women went out and displayed their pride by riding kitchen and bedroom themed floats.


Your comparison doesn't make sense. I think a better parallel to draw would be with something like Slut Walk.

I dismiss such aesthetic critique because frankly I oppose socially imposed gender boundaries. I don't see there is anything wrong with men wearing "women's clothing" or "in drag" for instance. I don't even see them as exclusively "gay". Straight men could do it too.

And there seems to be somewhat of a double standard here anyway since women who act "butch" don't receive anywhere near as much criticism as men who act "camp" or "femme".

I'm a trans-girl and I appreciate "femme" styles in the aesthetic sense. I oppose people who want to criticise "femme" styles in the intrinsic sense, as opposed to generally opposing commercialisation, which I would agree with.



but I've met plenty of gay people who find the whole "gay pride" thing absurd. What they want is to be accepted as a normal part of society who happen to be attracted to men rather than women.
Define "normal". Also, the LGBT movement has never just been about sexuality. It is also about gender identity. If you look at the history of the LGBT liberation movement in the West, trans people have always played a major role in it. This is unfortunately something some LGB people who want to be "better accepted" by the "hetero mainstream" tend to neglect.

I just don't consider men who wear high heels and make-up to be "abnormal", let's say. Doesn't mean I don't see the point in specific and particular forms of critique against certain expressions in the over-commercialised queer scene at all, but I think one should rebel against the rigid clothing and style boundaries "mainstream society" has placed on people, rather than just accepting it as the "norm".



They don't want the crap that comes with it.
You mean, "crap" like transgenderism? :rolleyes:



While to be sure, a lot about gay pride is to do with fighting the oppression gays suffer, I think there is a good case for saying some of it appears to be centered around creating some kinda distinct gay subculture with its own special behaviours and norms which is seperate or opposed in some way to the rest of society.
But I don't see any intrinsic problems with creating "sub-cultures" at all. I'm essentially a cultural anarchist (even though politically I'm a Leninist) and I think the idea that in a socialist society we should have some kind of overall "centralised culture" is completely absurd.



Perhaps thats an inevitable result of the opposition they face trying to be treated like normal people who happen to have differnet sexual tastes, just like black nationalism would seem to be a wrong headed reaction to white oppression. But since the eventual goal is "interegration" with society on the basis of equality, there is a lot to critise about the idea of some kinda big ass separate "gay culture."I would say in terms of black rights it isn't just about "integration" in the sense of assimilating into "white culture" actually, as if "normal white culture" is intrinsically superior to black "sub-culture". I would say the same thing regarding the LGBT movement.

[ZrianKobani]

What about Gay Shame? I've read about it but I don't think it has any presence in the LGBT community that I know of.

[Havet]

Nope. Anyone can parade as far as I'm concerned. Except Nazis. But I'll let them know myself.

Well, you made it sound like they were only legitimate in 'being proud and being in a parade' because they were still in a minority position, and they could keep that attitude until their position was one of equality. Apologies in advance if i misunderstood what you said.


You're getting hung up on the word "pride." Let's call it 'Gay Awareness Parade.' Are you still upset about people having a good time?

That is a good alternative for a name. Im not upset about people having a good time. I just didnt understood how it made sense to be proud of someones sexual orientation


Because if gay history and black history are AMERICAN history.
Then AMERICAN history is WORLD history.
And WORLD history is HUMAN history.
So why call it anything at all?

Finally you understand!


Yes... they do have names... they also have races... and sexualities... and they are often defined by these characteristics... often by their own choosing...

Calling someone by their own name doesnt mean ignoring their race or sexuality, even if it defines that person, it makes no sense to focus on a certain characteristic. I thought you were smart enough to understand that.

[Havet]

you're right

i prefer gay shame (http://www.gayshamesf.org/)

BTW, false dichotomy is false

[Decolonize The Left]

Well, you made it sound like they were only legitimate in 'being proud and being in a parade' because they were still in a minority position, and they could keep that attitude until their position was one of equality. Apologies in advance if i misunderstood what you said.

No. I was saying that the notion of having a parade to raise awareness is only substantially useful from a minority position.
After all, the majority doesn't need to raise awareness because it is already the norm...


That is a good alternative for a name. Im not upset about people having a good time. I just didnt understood how it made sense to be proud of someones sexual orientation

Someone says your t-shirt is stupid because it has a pair of otters on it.
They say it's childish and you belong in third grade.
They say you should get a better shirt, one with some weird graphics on it which mean nothing but it has the name of some random band so it's cool.
They say you won't be cool unless you get a new t-shirt.

But you don't get a new shirt. You wear your otter shirt with pride because you like otters and fuck that douche who doesn't.

Why are you proud of your shirt? You didn't make it... you just bought it... so why be proud?
You're proud because of the context in which you wear the shirt.

Same goes for being proud of sexual orientation. In the context of normative heterosexuality it is reasonable to be proud of one's alternative sexual preferences.


Finally you understand!

No. You don't understand.

While what I (sarcastically) posted above is true, it's completely meaningless in the real world. In the real world we differentiate between things because it's practically functional. We don't live in the abstract and disassociated world of philosophy.


Calling someone by their own name doesnt mean ignoring their race or sexuality, even if it defines that person, it makes no sense to focus on a certain characteristic. I thought you were smart enough to understand that.

I obviously am smart enough to understand that. I've proved this already.

The point here is that calling someone "by their name" is the same thing as calling someone "by their race, sexuality, etc..." because they are all linguistic tools applied to a given physical phenomenon.
The only difference is that a "name" is given to a distinct human being while a characteristic is given to a trait of said human being.

The whole point here is that the context of a name is what gives the name meaning. Your name "John" doesn't mean shit outside of the context of our society in which we refer to people by words and your parents who decided that that's the vocal and tonal inflection by which they would refer to you and later you would refer to yourself.

- August

[ComradeMan]

Surely from a leftist point of view someone's orientation, like their colour, should be as about as important as which flavour of ice-cream they like.

I see humans. Nothing else-- or at least I try.

[Decolonize The Left]

Surely from a leftist point of view someone's orientation, like their colour, should be as about as important as which flavour of ice-cream they like.

I see humans. Nothing else-- or at least I try.

Sure you do... do you poop rainbows as well?

- August

[-marx-]

My Dad's a bit homophobic and although I don't tell him I'm gay/bi I do defend LGBT people in his presence. He once bought some lunch from this store and came out telling Mum "I think that guy who made my lunch is gay!". Mum didn't pay much attention. However once I was told about this I said "was it a bad sandwich?" he said "No", I said "What's the problem then?" He didn't know what to say because in his heart he knew the sexual orientation of the guy who made his lunch means jack shit!

I proceeded to tell him that, statistically, he has been served in stores by gay guys and girls literally thousands of times in his life and it never effected him negatively so who gives a fuck what people do in their life. "Stop being a bigoted ****!" I said.
:cool:

[Die Rote Fahne]

My Dad's a bit homophobic and although I don't tell him I'm gay/bi I do defend LGBT people in his presence. He once bought some lunch from this store and came out telling Mum "I think that guy who made my lunch is gay!". Mum didn't pay much attention. However once I was told about this I said "was it a bad sandwich?" he said "No", I said "What's the problem then?" He didn't know what to say because in his heart he knew the sexual orientation of the guy who made his lunch means jack shit!

I proceeded to tell him that, statistically, he has been served in stores by gay guys and girls literally thousands of times in his life and it never effected him negatively so who gives a fuck what people do in their life. "Stop being a bigoted ****!" I said.
:cool:

On a similar note, my mother and I were watching the news, I can't remember the item, but it resulted in her saying Canada should deport all Muslims.

I lost it and called her a fucking racist, and some other things, and she got mad at me for swearing....

I was like 15/16 haha... My family isn't homophobic, one of my brothers is, but my mother used to be an Islamophobe.

[Lanky Wanker]

It also makes no sense for some heterosexual man or woman to be proud of how many people he or she has managed to 'penetrate'... (theoretically, one could be proud of the skills involved of convincing someone to have sex with you, but that might be a little off-topic)


LOL, am I the only who laughed at this?

[ComradeMan]

Sure you do... do you poop rainbows as well?

- August

You're being just as cynical as the cappies who have that whole "this is how things just are" type mentality. Unless individuals make individual efforts there will never be a radical shift in culture or mentality.

[CynicalIdealist]

I don't think pride ever makes sense, except for in the context of actual accomplishments. See: -OnWnwwxNPA

However, gay pride parades are really more about being happy to be gay as opposed to "proud" per se. American pride, white pride, etc. are far more dangerous and have much graver implications than gays not feeling ashamed about being gay. So to answer the OP, while I take slight issue with the use of the word "pride" here, I really couldn't care less about it, and it's not my place to get mad at something that doesn't affect me personally.

[La Comédie Noire]

You have to understand gay pride is a very life affirming thing. Do you know what it's like to be isolated and alienated from people just because of the way you feel? The idea that you are one of many can be a very inspiring feeling. You are saying "I am a human being and deserve to be treated like one. I refuse to be ashamed any longer."

I mean mainstream gay pride may not be radical, but it has saved a lot of gay teens from suicide.

[Comrade Lou]

Taking pride in being who you are, as a member of an oppressed minority group, is not wrong. It doesn't mean you think less of the people who do not belong to your minority group. That's the difference between gay pride and hetero pride, just as there's a difference between black pride and white pride. A group that has always been oppressed might need to feel pride to feel that they're equally worth as the norm.
While a group that has always oppressed other groups has no reason to feel pride, (as said previously, white pride is basically the same thing as "white power"), oppressed groups do have a good reason to feel pride. The pride comes from being able to accept and be happy about who you are, and from the struggle you have gone through to be accepted for who you are.


You have to understand gay pride is a very life affirming thing. Do you know what it's like to be isolated and alienated from people just because of the way you feel? The idea that you are one of many can be a very inspiring feeling. You are saying "I am a human being and deserve to be treated like one. I refuse to be ashamed any longer."

I mean mainstream gay pride may not be radical, but it has saved a lot of gay teens from suicide.

What La Comédie Noire writes is very true. LGBTQ people, and especially young people, need to meet and talk to other LGBTQ people. Many feel very alone, and different. And meeting others will make you feel like you're not anymore, you're just another person and your sexuality doesn't matter, it doesn't change who you are.
It was through the Gay Pride movement that I first came in contact with other LGBTQ people, and it was then that I was first open with my sexuality.
Yes, many people, straight or LGBTQ, don't like the Gay Pride at all. But no one is forcing them to take part in it. It's a very important thing for very many people, so why criticize it?

[#FF0000]

You're being just as cynical as the cappies who have that whole "this is how things just are" type mentality. Unless individuals make individual efforts there will never be a radical shift in culture or mentality.

which can't happen if people just say "lol i don't see color or anything...... cant we all just b humans lol <3"

[Queercommie Girl]

which can't happen if people just say "lol i don't see color or anything...... cant we all just b humans lol <3"

It's funny they criticise what they call "identity politics" for being "bourgeois-liberal", because this very attitude here precisely derives from bourgeois liberal naivety rather than realistic proletarian militancy.

You might as well say "I don't see class or anything, can't we all just be human lol"...

[ComradeMan]

It's funny they criticise what they call "identity politics" for being "bourgeois-liberal", because this very attitude here precisely derives from bourgeois liberal naivety rather than realistic proletarian militancy.

You might as well say "I don't see class or anything, can't we all just be human lol"...


And 150 years of "your tactics" have got the left exactly where?

[#FF0000]

And 150 years of "your tactics" have got the left exactly where?

"Identity politics" only became a thing in like the 60's. What the fuck are you even talking about?

[Queercommie Girl]

And 150 years of "your tactics" have got the left exactly where?

Well, for one thing, racism, sexism and queerphobia are much less now in many parts of the world than in the past...:rolleyes:

Maybe this isn't important to you, but it's important to me.

If there wasn't anti-racist activism, black people would still be lynched in the US south today. If there wasn't feminist activism, women would still not even have the right to vote. If there wasn't LGBT activism, homosexuality would still be officially labelled as a crime. Sorry, but it wasn't narrow class reductionism or economic determinism that put an end to those things.

[Dean]

just as white pride, tall pride or ginger pride makes no sense.

If homosexuality is something someone is born with (ie: there is no choice), then so is every other feature we have, and it makes no sense to be proud of being tall, of having a predisposition to cancer or any other condition.

If homosexuality is, on the other hand, a choice, why should someone be proud of its sexual choices, and not of something more meaningful? And when i say someone shouldnt be proud of sexual choices, it goes for both ways. It also makes no sense for some heterosexual man or woman to be proud of how many people he or she has managed to 'penetrate'... (theoretically, one could be proud of the skills involved of convincing someone to have sex with you, but that might be a little off-topic)

Am I the only one who thinks this way? does this line of reasoning also makes sense to any of you?

Also, just because i think gay pride doesn't make sense, it doesn't mean i think homosexuality is wrong, or that gay rights should not exist. of course its not wrong, and of course they should have the same rights as all human beings.

Well, strictly speaking I agree - however, a nuanced understanding of human conditioning will indicate just how little people have control over. There is something to be said for humility in general, at least from an academic sense.

However, as with any oppression, an opposing force needs to come up to combat anti-gay violence. It takes the obvious form, too: pride in the face of a social order which would like you to feel shamed for your sexuality. It's not hard to understand why gay pride is necessary, even if you understand that eventually, all forms of "pride" should ideally wither away, so long as they are not necessary...

[Queercommie Girl]

I really don't see why the OP and a few others are so concerned with this one single word. It's almost like they are trying to divert people's attentions to the real deal - namely fighting against the oppression of LGBT people. Who cares what word is used to describe it?

[#FF0000]

I really don't see why the OP and a few others are so concerned with this one single word. It's almost like they are trying to divert people's attentions to the real deal - namely fighting against the oppression of LGBT people. Who cares what word is used to describe it?


I really don't see why the OP and a few others are so concerned with this one single word. It's almost like they are trying to divert people's attentions to the real deal - namely fighting against the oppression of LGBT people. Who cares what word is used to describe it?



I really don't see why the OP and a few others are so concerned with this one single word. It's almost like they are trying to divert people's attentions to the real deal - namely fighting against the oppression of LGBT people. Who cares what word is used to describe it?



I really don't see why the OP and a few others are so concerned with this one single word. It's almost like they are trying to divert people's attentions to the real deal - namely fighting against the oppression of LGBT people. Who cares what word is used to describe it?



I really don't see why the OP and a few others are so concerned with this one single word. It's almost like they are trying to divert people's attentions to the real deal - namely fighting against the oppression of LGBT people. Who cares what word is used to describe it?



I really don't see why the OP and a few others are so concerned with this one single word. It's almost like they are trying to divert people's attentions to the real deal - namely fighting against the oppression of LGBT people. Who cares what word is used to describe it?



I really don't see why the OP and a few others are so concerned with this one single word. It's almost like they are trying to divert people's attentions to the real deal - namely fighting against the oppression of LGBT people. Who cares what word is used to describe it?



I really don't see why the OP and a few others are so concerned with this one single word. It's almost like they are trying to divert people's attentions to the real deal - namely fighting against the oppression of LGBT people. Who cares what word is used to describe it?



I really don't see why the OP and a few others are so concerned with this one single word. It's almost like they are trying to divert people's attentions to the real deal - namely fighting against the oppression of LGBT people. Who cares what word is used to describe it?

everyone read this and ruminate on it for 24 hours before posting again

[ComradeMan]

"Identity politics" only became a thing in like the 60's. What the fuck are you even talking about?

Oh... I see, so Jean-Jacques-Régis de Cambacérès, who decriminalised homosexuality during the French Revolution must have been way before his time. And have you never read Charles Fourier (1772-1837) or Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs(1825-1895). :laugh:

The term "Identity Politics" arose in the 1970s in the US, it doesn't mean what it described wasn't around long before.

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh... I see, so Jean-Jacques-Régis de Cambacérès, who decriminalised homosexuality during the French Revolution must have been way before his time. And have you never read Charles Fourier (1772-1837) or Karl-Heinrich Ulrichs(1825-1895). :laugh:

The term "Identity Politics" arose in the 1970s in the US, it doesn't mean what it described wasn't around long before.

You sound as if these weren't positive or progressive things.

Regardless of whatever you call them, "identity politics" or whatever, LGBT activism is still intrinsically a positive thing.

Just because capitalism may be overthrown in the economic sense, doesn't mean discrimination against Transgendered people like me will automatically and "magically" disappear.

[ComradeMan]

You sound as if these weren't positive or progressive things..

In exactly what way?

[Queercommie Girl]

In exactly what way?

You were talking about "identity politics" in a negative way earlier and then you remarked that these early instances of LGBT activism are also forms of "identity politics". Since "identity politics" means something negative to you then it implies you consider the early instances of LGBT activism to be negative too.

[ComradeMan]

You were talking about "identity politics" in a negative way earlier and then you remarked that these early instances of LGBT activism are also forms of "identity politics". Since "identity politics" means something negative to you then it implies you consider the early instances of LGBT activism to be negative too.

No, I was talking about "black nationalism" which is racial and LGBT got pulled into the discussion, which is not racial. I think there is a difference.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, I was talking about "black nationalism" which is racial and LGBT got pulled into the discussion, which is not racial. I think there is a difference.

I don't support any kind of racialism. For me Black nationalism in the US is a matter of the rights of national minorities, which Lenin very explicitly supported. It's more like say Tamil rights in Sri Lanka or Kurdish rights in Turkey.

[ComradeMan]

I don't support any kind of racialism. For me Black nationalism in the US is a matter of the rights of national minorities, which Lenin very explicitly supported. It's more like say Tamil rights in Sri Lanka or Kurdish rights in Turkey.

I think we're going off topic and mixing threads- as often can happen here.

Getting back to the OP- to be honest I don't have a personal problem with the Pride marches because of the use of the word pride, however I do think they could perhaps be a little less "scene" and a little less like an extreme fashion show designed to shock. Like I said before, I know some LGBT people who are not big fans really- as one said, "it's not the 70s anymore!". But each to their own. I don't see how you can compare Pride marches with White Pride etc...

[Queercommie Girl]

Getting back to the OP- to be honest I don't have a personal problem with the Pride marches because of the use of the word pride, however I do think they could perhaps be a little less "scene" and a little less like an extreme fashion show designed to shock. Like I said before, I know some LGBT people who are not big fans really- as one said, "it's not the 70s anymore!". But each to their own. I don't see how you can compare Pride marches with White Pride etc...


Actually the 1970s were a better time for LGBT activism than today. LGBT activists were more radical back then, the "scene" was less commercialised and more connected to the general socialist movement. So it doesn't look it those LGBT people you spoke with are socialist activists.

My criticism of contemporary Gay Pride is mainly it's ultra-commercialisation. Another thing is how military men etc are now taking part in Pride marches, with slogans like "support our troops!", which I also oppose, because I oppose the NATO-initiated wars being fought around the world at the moment. But other than that, I don't really have a critique against any particular aesthetic style within the queer movement. Fact is, there isn't and has never been a single "gay style" anyway. Aesthetically speaking it has always been a "multi-cultural" movement, and I like multi-culturalism, because I support cultural democracy.

Frankly, I think spending too much efforts on "aesthetic critique" is a waste of time for serious socialists. This was, IMO, one of the biggest flaws of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution had many positive points in principle, such as introducing mass democracy and fighting against bureaucratism etc, but much of the energy was wasted on ridiculous projects of "aesthetic critique" such as smashing high heel shoes because it is supposedly "bourgeois" :rolleyes: etc. I think serious socialists should always focus much more on socio-economics and politics and less on culture.

I don't see why some people have such a serious issue with some gay people acting really "camp" either. In what way does it threaten them? It's not like anyone is forcing them to dress and act in that way too. Some people just don't like it whenever the oh-so-sacred gender boundary is "violated" :rolleyes:. I think rigid gender roles and styles is reactionary and if I were you I would be more concerned with transphobic middle class conformist gay men who can't tolerate any kind of cross-dressing than exhibitionist cross-dressers who are somewhat "excessive". This is not to say personally I find excessive exhibitionism attractive in an aesthetic sense, but as I said, personal aesthetic tastes are largely irrelevant in socialism, and from a social perspective I'm much more concerned with the transphobic attitudes of conformist middle class gay men (who generally do not have socialist attitudes anyway).

[ComradeMan]

....

I know very few LGBT people who are "leftists" and the average Italian centro sociale is not very "fashionable". :( I think there has been a lot of commercialisation and some of the LGBT people I have spoken to too were just quiet normal people, not activists or anything- I think this is why they may have had a problem with the exhibitionism you are talking about.

[Queercommie Girl]

I know very few LGBT people who are "leftists" and the average Italian centro sociale is not very "fashionable". :( I think there has been a lot of commercialisation and some of the LGBT people I have spoken too- were just quiet normal people, not activists or anything- I think this is why they may have had a problem with the exhibitionism you are talking about.


Ok, well I don't mind people who don't really like exhibitionism in a personal aesthetic sense either, I mean that's just a matter of personal taste, since personally I don't really appreciate it that much myself. I generally don't really like anything which is too extreme.

Also, empirically right now (as opposed to the 70s) exhibitionism is linked in the concrete sense to ultra-consumerism and commercialisation, which could also be a problem.

What I'm saying is that one shouldn't raise aesthetic critique to the level of serious social critique. It's like during the Cultural Revolution, so much energy is wasted on things like smashing old temples and burning traditional paintings etc, instead of on real concrete socio-economic activism against the actual existing bureaucracy. I mean sure many aspects of traditional religions are quite reactionary, but exactly how is that going to go away simply by burning the physical objects...:rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

If you take out the context of discrimination, your right, it does'nt make any sense, but we have that context.

[Hammilton]

It also makes no sense for some heterosexual man or woman to be proud of how many people he or she has managed to 'penetrate'... (theoretically, one could be proud of the skills involved of convincing someone to have sex with you, but that might be a little off-topic)

A little off topic, but given the mechanics of evolution by natural selection, it makes perfect sense for a heterosexual man to be proud of how many women of child-bearing age he has managed to copulate with. Given the same mechanics, it would make no sense for a women to be proud of such a feat, as at least with our species, the greatest evolutionary benefit for the female comes not from having as many children as possible, but by choosing the best mate to have children with. Put overly simplified, but the female has more riding on each pregnancy, having a limited time-span to have healthy, uncomplicated pregnancies and spending much time carrying the child to term, and then caring for it- whereas the male can impregnate a virtually unlimited number of women in a life span and probability weighs in his favor. Even more simply, the female has a fairly limited and small number of rolls of the dice, but the male may role the dice until his arms fall off.

Not suggesting that this is a way for us to behave as a species or anything of the sort, as while it's rational, it may not be moral or good for a society that is evolving as a community far faster than genetically.


To the real point of the OP, however, the issue is really a semantic one, not what is really meant. Pride may not be the right word, but it works well enough.

[Queercommie Girl]

A little off topic, but given the mechanics of evolution by natural selection, it makes perfect sense for a heterosexual man to be proud of how many women of child-bearing age he has managed to copulate with. Given the same mechanics, it would make no sense for a women to be proud of such a feat, as at least with our species, the greatest evolutionary benefit for the female comes not from having as many children as possible, but by choosing the best mate to have children with. Put overly simplified, but the female has more riding on each pregnancy, having a limited time-span to have healthy, uncomplicated pregnancies and spending much time carrying the child to term, and then caring for it- whereas the male can impregnate a virtually unlimited number of women in a life span and probability weighs in his favor. Even more simply, the female has a fairly limited and small number of rolls of the dice, but the male may role the dice until his arms fall off.

Not suggesting that this is a way for us to behave as a species or anything of the sort, as while it's rational, it may not be moral or good for a society that is evolving as a community far faster than genetically.


To the real point of the OP, however,

It may seem "rational" if you adopt a reductionist philosophical framework, but then in this framework capitalism, class society and economic inequality would seem to be very logical too, if not more so.

[Queercommie Girl]

A little off topic, but given the mechanics of evolution by natural selection, it makes perfect sense for a heterosexual man to be proud of how many women of child-bearing age he has managed to copulate with. Given the same mechanics, it would make no sense for a women to be proud of such a feat, as at least with our species, the greatest evolutionary benefit for the female comes not from having as many children as possible, but by choosing the best mate to have children with. Put overly simplified, but the female has more riding on each pregnancy, having a limited time-span to have healthy, uncomplicated pregnancies and spending much time carrying the child to term, and then caring for it- whereas the male can impregnate a virtually unlimited number of women in a life span and probability weighs in his favor. Even more simply, the female has a fairly limited and small number of rolls of the dice, but the male may role the dice until his arms fall off.

Not suggesting that this is a way for us to behave as a species or anything of the sort, as while it's rational, it may not be moral or good for a society that is evolving as a community far faster than genetically.

To the real point of the OP, however, the issue is really a semantic one, not what is really meant. Pride may not be the right word, but it works well enough.


Actually, I would question the simple assumption that rigid gender roles would necessarily be more "rational" and "efficient" as well. This ties in with my general criticism against philosophical reductionism and simplistic abstract dogmatism in politics, science and pretty much everything else in life.

Consider the following thought experiment:

Take away any considerations of ethics, morality, welfare or political ideology. The only consideration is one of logical strategy.

There are 2 nation-states. In nation-state A there are very rigid and fixed gender roles, something more extreme than even what we have in Saudi Arabia at the moment. In nation-state B "gender" does not exist as a social construct. Men and women are treated exactly the same in every single way, as much as it is biologically possible. (Assuming the basic biological division between men and women still exist)

Now suppose nation-states A and B are in direct competition with each other. The competition is "full-spectrum": military, economic, cultural. Also suppose that in every other way: technological level, economic development, even basic culture and language, the two nations are completely identical with each other. The only difference between A and B is in the role "gender" play in their respective societies.

Which nation do you think will gain the upper hand in this competition? It would be stupid, IMO, for anyone to say that nation A will definitely come out ahead. One cannot be absolutely sure that nation B will prevail either, but if I have money I would certainly bet on B rather than A.

What this thought experiment demonstrates is that simplistic logical reductionism does not usually translate to concrete strategic advantages in real-life. Reductionism is not just philosophically problematic and ethically unsound, it is also strategically stupid.

It is not a coincedence that advanced capitalist countries generally tend to have more equal gender roles in society compared with semi-feudal countries like Saudi Arabia. The feudal lords once thought that "God-given natural law" is literally sacred and could never be violated, but their social order was smashed by advances in capitalist industry.

If the only thing humans ever did was to "obey the natural law" instead of thinking about how to transform the world around us, the human species would never have evolved in the first place. The ability to transform the world rather than just bowing down to its laws is the evolutionary specialisation of homo sapiens. It's what has given our species a distinct evolutionary advantage, like the speed of a cheetah, the strength of a bear, or the keen eyesight of an eagle.

P.S.: Going back to the thought experiment, it would be logical to assume that in principle the kind of nation that would have the most competitive advantage in the strategic sense (as far as "gender roles" are concerned) is neither A nor B, but a nation which is somewhere in-between. This would seem to make sense, but I would say such a nation would be significantly closer to B than to A. (Let's call this nation C)

Also, if trans-humanist technologies in the future which could remove the basic biological division between men and women emerge, then it would be unclear whether nation B or C would have the most advantage.

[Viet Minh]

The arguments about being a minority or being opressed, legitimate as they are, are not the best way to determine the right to march. After all White Pride assholes are (thankfully) a minority, and if you read through moronfront they certainly seem to see themselves as opressed. :rolleyes: So how do you determine who has the right to protest and who doesn't? If anything I think if a group explicitly incites hatred against another group then they should be prevented from doing so, but its a slippery slope to just another form of state repression. The left have fought long and hard for the various rights we have now, we shouldn't be condoning any form of censorship because of a few racist morons imo.

The comparison between gay pride and white pride is nonsensical, there is a similarity in terms but it ends there. I sincerely doubt anyone in a pride parade actually hates heterosexuals, although I'd understand somewhat if they did. But organisers do all they can to encourage heterosexual people to join the parade, and friends and families etc, its not an exclusive event.

[Queercommie Girl]

The arguments about being a minority or being opressed, legitimate as they are, are not the best way to determine the right to march. After all White Pride assholes are (thankfully) a minority, and if you read through moronfront they certainly seem to see themselves as opressed. :rolleyes: So how do you determine who has the right to protest and who doesn't?


By the objective situation. Is the group actually oppressed in reality? What people may say about themselves often aren't trustworthy at all. One judges another by what they do, not by what they say.

As a Chinese socialist saying goes: Practice is the only criteria for Truth.



If anything I think if a group explicitly incites hatred against another group then they should be prevented from doing so,


Except when this group is the working class that is inciting hatred against capitalists...



I sincerely doubt anyone in a pride parade actually hates heterosexuals, although I'd understand somewhat if they did.


Very few. You should know that many queer people are actually bisexual and pansexual, so "being straight" is actually a part of their own identities as well, and they would be hating themselves if they hated "straight people" as an entire category.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why does everyone always try to compare other "prides" with White Pride? They're not the same.

Saying Black Pride is not the same as saying White Pride, as the former is an expression of being proud of being something that is usually discriminated against; color of skin. White Pride is usually used in a context that says that the white race needs to dominate others.

Gay pride means that one should be accepting of gay people because they've accepted themselves. It doesn't, "I'm gay, therefore I am better".

[Viet Minh]

By the objective situation. Is the group actually oppressed in reality? What people may say about themselves often aren't trustworthy at all. One judges another by what they do, not by what they say.

As a Chinese socialist saying goes: Practice is the only criteria for Truth.

But again who is the judge? On paper (for example) black people are not opressed, there are laws for equal opportunity, black and white are subject to the same criminal laws etc, but in reality black people are of course discriminated against.

Another old saying is 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'. If Fascist parades are banned whose to say Communist parades won't be next?


Except when this group is the working class that is inciting hatred against capitalists...

Truedat, but for the sake of pr lets just say Capitalism..


Very few. You should know that many queer people are actually bisexual and pansexual, so "being straight" is actually a part of their own identities as well, and they would be hating themselves if they hated "straight people" as an entire category.

Waay off topic, but some of my gay friends seem to have issues with lesbians, and vice versa. Although most of it is good natured when I've been to gay clubs there seems to be a slight tension. Also some gay people are very disrespectuful to transwomen and men which I find sad.


Why does everyone always try to compare other "prides" with White Pride? They're not the same.

Saying Black Pride is not the same as saying White Pride, as the former is an expression of being proud of being something that is usually discriminated against; color of skin. White Pride is usually used in a context that says that the white race needs to dominate others.

Gay pride means that one should be accepting of gay people because they've accepted themselves. It doesn't, "I'm gay, therefore I am better".

In theory if there was an individual or non-exclusive group who were proud to be white, with no political agenda or ideology of racial superiority, rights over others or segregation etc then I have no problem with it, other than my personal opinion of it being an arbitrary and frankly stupid reason to feel proud. Gay pride is a misnomer, but I guess 'Not ashamed to be gay parade' doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Replace "pride" and "nationalism" with "liberation".

That would be a much more fitting word. One that bigoted white pride/nationalist asshats can't use.

[Queercommie Girl]

But again who is the judge?


Empirical social science (those that are genuinely honest) is the judge. One can examine social factors to work out whether or not a particular group is systematically oppressed or not. E.g. female workers always earn significantly less than male workers in every country in the world.



On paper (for example) black people are not oppressed, there are laws for equal opportunity, black and white are subject to the same criminal laws etc, but in reality black people are of course discriminated against.


The whole point here is not to judge anything by what it looks like "on paper".

On paper our world is a democratic capitalist paradise...



Truedat, but for the sake of pr lets just say Capitalism..


Liquidating capitalists as a class has nothing to do with literally killing individual capitalists. Revolution only removes the capitalists' control of the means of production. The October Revolution killed far less people than the bourgeois French Revolution. Lenin only killed one Tsarist family, the Jacobins massacred entire aristocratic clans.



Waay off topic, but some of my gay friends seem to have issues with lesbians, and vice versa.


This is sexism, not "heterophobia".



Also some gay people are very disrespectuful to transwomen and men which I find sad.


It is sad, but again this is transphobia, not "heterophobia".

You were saying some queer people hate straight people, in actual fact this is very rare.



In theory if there was an individual or non-exclusive group who were proud to be white, with no political agenda or ideology of racial superiority, rights over others or segregation etc then I have no problem with it,


In practice for such a group to be relatively progressive it would have to explicitly condemn how the "essence of white culture" has been distorted by Western capitalists and imperialists into ideological weapons to conquer the world. "Proud to be white, therefore hate the distortion of white culture by capitalism and imperialism".

[Hammilton]

Rigid gender roles? Holy crap, I'm speaking about nothing more than biology within an evolutionary framework.

It is rational for a man to [want to] spread his seed as far and wide as he can with the hope that as many children will develop as possible. This gives him the greatest evolutionary advantage.

Such a strategy cannot work for females who have a greatly reduced capacity to produce offspring (you have to figure that it's theoretically possible for one man to impregnate more than 50 women within a month if everything lined up perfectly, yet a woman can carry only one partner's child [unless you live in the south, apparently, where a woman slept with two men within such a close time span that they both managed to sire children in her]). She cannot obtain the greatest evolutionary advantage by taking every possible suitor.

It may be possible for humans to change, but at present, the two different but complementary strategies humans (and probably all mammals, possibly all chordates) have used to evolve us to the point we're at now are still very much in use.

the development of birth control has certainly changed the outward appearance of things, but that just separates copulation from pregnancy. Ultimately most people choose to have children, and women are still working to choose the best mates to have children with (using various and varied strategies for determining quality) while men are still spreading their seed as much as possible (only to have their efforts thwarted by contraception).

These things are just new evolutionary hurdles though. The women who gain less protection from birth control could very well lead to offspring 100+ gens out who are not effected by the drugs. Penis' could evolve barbs to break condoms or smaller sperm who can penetrate through them.

No different than antibiotic resistance, really, we just have much longer life spans than bacteria.

[agnixie]

It is rational for a man to [want to] spread his seed as far and wide as he can with the hope that as many children will develop as possible. This gives him the greatest evolutionary advantage.
Evolution is not something that happens to a person but to a group, and who begets who is absolutely, utterly, completely, unimaginably fucking irrelevant, except maybe to the neckbeards who obsess over it in the dark recesses of evopsych. Also the fact that your only basis for the argument is "it's rational" is basically a post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's not. It's also impossible for a hunter gatherer group to have much more than 1 child to an adult as they all must be taken care of.



Such a strategy cannot work for females who have a greatly reduced capacity to produce offspring (you have to figure that it's theoretically possible for one man to impregnate more than 50 women within a month if everything lined up perfectly, yet a woman can carry only one partner's child [unless you live in the south, apparently, where a woman slept with two men within such a close time span that they both managed to sire children in her]). She cannot obtain the greatest evolutionary advantage by taking every possible suitor.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc says "hi again, you're an idiot". Polyandric societies do exist, and the oldest social organization type known to humanity is not based around kin.


It may be possible for humans to change, but at present, the two different but complementary strategies humans (and probably all mammals, possibly all chordates) have used to evolve us to the point we're at now are still very much in use.

You know nothing about evolution besides pop evopsych. I'm going to bet you read Kanazawa.



These things are just new evolutionary hurdles though. The women who gain less protection from birth control could very well lead to offspring 100+ gens out who are not effected by the drugs. Penis' could evolve barbs to break condoms or smaller sperm who can penetrate through them.


Just stop, if you're going to be posting shitty scifi and pretend it's biology/anthropology. The whole thing about birth control is especially stupid, as for the longest time, women would have been unable to have children about 4-6 months of the year at least due to the mode of living being very active and the food rather lean.

Final point, I didn't feel like double posting even if it's in another post of yours: "transhuman" technologies, as a name, is utter bullshit. Changing the nature of gender in its social understanding, which is wrong to begin with as neither gender nor sex are binaries, does not change the fundamental nature of humanity.

[Viet Minh]

Empirical social science (those that are genuinely honest) is the judge. One can examine social factors to work out whether or not a particular group is systematically oppressed or not. E.g. female workers always earn significantly less than male workers in every country in the world.

This issue came up before, and it was mentioned that Asian Americans on average earn more than white Americans. It doesn't mean that whites are discriminated against, or Asians aren't. Poverty is one thing, but wage differences are totally irrelevant to socialism imo.



The whole point here is not to judge anything by what it looks like "on paper".

On paper our world is a democratic capitalist paradise...


Not the papers I read.. Global war, starvation, modern day slavery..


Liquidating capitalists as a class has nothing to do with literally killing individual capitalists. Revolution only removes the capitalists' control of the means of production. The October Revolution killed far less people than the bourgeois French Revolution. Lenin only killed one Tsarist family, the Jacobins massacred entire aristocratic clans.

I'm not averse to the idea I was just clarifying in case anyone misinterpreted your comment.


This is sexism, not "heterophobia".

It is sad, but again this is transphobia, not "heterophobia".

You were saying some queer people hate straight people, in actual fact this is very rare.

I don't think I've ever met any 'heterophobes' or even heard of any, I was just covering my bases because it would be judgemental to assume there were none.


In practice for such a group to be relatively progressive it would have to explicitly condemn how the "essence of white culture" has been distorted by Western capitalists and imperialists into ideological weapons to conquer the world. "Proud to be white, therefore hate the distortion of white culture by capitalism and imperialism".

Very few white people have any control over the capitalist/ imperialist culture of today, so I think its unfair to bring that issue into the matter. Its like in the topic about black nationalism, when white nationalism came up so did slavery. However historically Hispanic South Americans also used slavery, so do Hispanic groups have to acknowledge that in order to be progressive? I make this point to highlight the folly in racially-driven social grouping more than anything.

[Queercommie Girl]

Rigid gender roles? Holy crap, I'm speaking about nothing more than biology within an evolutionary framework.


A very reductionist evolutionary framework. Strategy formulated at this level of reductionism no longer offer a concrete advantage at the human level.



It is rational for a man to [want to] spread his seed as far and wide as he can with the hope that as many children will develop as possible. This gives him the greatest evolutionary advantage.
This kind of reductionist arguments can easily lead to ideologically reactionary positions on gender issues.



Such a strategy cannot work for females who have a greatly reduced capacity to produce offspring (you have to figure that it's theoretically possible for one man to impregnate more than 50 women within a month if everything lined up perfectly, yet a woman can carry only one partner's child [unless you live in the south, apparently, where a woman slept with two men within such a close time span that they both managed to sire children in her]). She cannot obtain the greatest evolutionary advantage by taking every possible suitor.
Such a strategy cannot in the concrete empirical sense work for any man either in today's world. What is "theoretically possible" is often completely unrealistic. Philosophically I'm an anti-reductionist, I am an utilitarian pragmatist who only deals with likely and realistic scenarios in the real-world.

Are you a man? How about you try to apply this "strategy" in your life right now?



It may be possible for humans to change, but at present, the two different but complementary strategies humans (and probably all mammals, possibly all chordates) have used to evolve us to the point we're at now are still very much in use.
Evolution has a tendency to take-off in "unexpected" directions. In many ways, humans are already a very "unusual" species among all mammals and all vertebrates.



the development of birth control has certainly changed the outward appearance of things, but that just separates copulation from pregnancy. Ultimately most people choose to have children, and women are still working to choose the best mates to have children with (using various and varied strategies for determining quality) while men are still spreading their seed as much as possible (only to have their efforts thwarted by contraception).
In capitalist society this translates in the concrete sense into the fact that it is easier for a richer man to find a wife. Poorer men may find it much easier to get laid nowadays than in the past, as reproduction and copulation are more separated now. But in capitalism childcare is very expensive, so wealth is the primary determinant factor.



These things are just new evolutionary hurdles though. The women who gain less protection from birth control could very well lead to offspring 100+ gens out who are not effected by the drugs. Penis' could evolve barbs to break condoms or smaller sperm who can penetrate through them.

No different than antibiotic resistance, really, we just have much longer life spans than bacteria.
This is a very strange and also illogical way of looking at things. Evolution operates at a much higher and emergent level among humans than among bacteria. Objectively speaking human technological progress is now many orders of magnitudes faster than "natural" biological human evolution. So it is very likely that long before any "natural evolution" would significantly change our species, technologies such as genetic engineering and trans-humanism would have already transformed humanity beyond recognition.

Human natural evolution is far slower than that of bacteria. But thanks to our technological and industrial powers, homo sapiens is the only chordate species that can "evolve" at a pace comparable to prokaryotes.

You are obviously ignorant of the basic Marxist idea that humans are qualitatively different from all other animals because of our ability to fundamentally change the world around us, and indeed ourselves.

Only a handful of animal species can pass the "mirror test" and therefore have a human-like self-awareness. Self-awareness makes it possible for one to have oneself as the target of one's own conscious labour, rather than just blindly subject oneself to the random course of "natural evolution".

[Lucretia]

just as white pride, tall pride or ginger pride makes no sense.

If homosexuality is something someone is born with (ie: there is no choice), then so is every other feature we have, and it makes no sense to be proud of being tall, of having a predisposition to cancer or any other condition.

If homosexuality is, on the other hand, a choice, why should someone be proud of its sexual choices, and not of something more meaningful? And when i say someone shouldnt be proud of sexual choices, it goes for both ways. It also makes no sense for some heterosexual man or woman to be proud of how many people he or she has managed to 'penetrate'... (theoretically, one could be proud of the skills involved of convincing someone to have sex with you, but that might be a little off-topic)

Am I the only one who thinks this way? does this line of reasoning also makes sense to any of you?

Also, just because i think gay pride doesn't make sense, it doesn't mean i think homosexuality is wrong, or that gay rights should not exist. of course its not wrong, and of course they should have the same rights as all human beings.

Leaving aside the ridiculous binary you construct of people either freely choosing their sexual desires, or having them assigned genetically at birth (like there can't be a third option of a broad genetic predisposition intermingling with a person's individual experiences and their social contexts), I have to ask: are you unaware of the fact that gay is not just an abstract sexual category but part of a person's identity? In a world where sexual matters are not legally regulated or made public in any way, your ideas might make some sense. But coming as it does in response to massive social repression that imposed shame, humiliation, and guilt on people for having same-sex desires, gay pride begins to make more sense, if for no other reason than as an example of people (Lenin might not approve of this pun) pushing the stick back in the other direction.

In other words, the framework of your question presupposes a world where sexuality is a neutral aspect of people's identity, when in reality people are conditioned and often coerced into the idea that heterosexuality is natural and good, while homosexuality is deviant and bad.

[Rebel Airwaves]

I agree but everyone should be proud of what they are, white, black or hispanic. Also everyone should have the same rights, but asfare as gay pride parades is a little rediculius. I mean your sexual orintation isnt a race plus you dont see straight people haven straight parade, Honestly it shouldnt be an issue

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree but everyone should be proud of what they are, white, black or hispanic. Also everyone should have the same rights, but asfare as gay pride parades is a little rediculius. I mean your sexual orintation isnt a race plus you dont see straight people haven straight parade, Honestly it shouldnt be an issue

You don't see white people having "white prides" either, unless they are reactionaries.

Sexuality isn't race, but people like be discriminated on the basis of their sexuality (or gender identity) just like people can be discriminated on the basis of their race.

The LGBT movement generally has more common with the feminist movement than with any ethnic/racial minority movement though.

[Lucretia]

I agree but everyone should be proud of what they are, white, black or hispanic. Also everyone should have the same rights, but asfare as gay pride parades is a little rediculius. I mean your sexual orintation isnt a race plus you dont see straight people haven straight parade, Honestly it shouldnt be an issue

It shouldn't be an issue in Utopia, but in the real world it is an issue. On this very day, millions of people who have strong homo-erotic urges will be confronted with questions from friends and parents, images on tv shows, plots in movies, wording in advertisements, that overwhelmingly imply that if you are a normal person, you by definition prefer to have sexual contact with somebody of the opposite sex. In the west, where blatant homophobia is beginning to be looked down upon as declasse, the idea that gay is bad is very rarely stated explicitly. Yet it is still implicit throughout culture and the media. Gay pride is an understandable attempt to offset this massive cultural conditioning with the reminder: despite the overwhelming assumption that heterosexuality is normal (read: good), gay is good, too.

Why aren't there straight pride film festivals? If you want to see one, go to your nearest movie theater and watch a romantic comedy. Why aren't there straight pride marches? Why march to make yourself feel proud about an aspect of your personality that society overwhelmingly still believes is the default, and superior, position to be in?

[Viet Minh]

Gay pride would make a lot of sense if you were a teenager going through puberty, ashamed and confused by your sexual feelings, unable to talk to anyone, surrounded by homophobic or at least hetero-centric attitudes (your peers boasting about their conquests or talking about relationships etc) perhaps even contemplating suicide because of it.

[-marx-]

I agree but everyone should be proud of what they are, white, black or hispanic. Also everyone should have the same rights, but asfare as gay pride parades is a little rediculius. I mean your sexual orintation isnt a race plus you dont see straight people haven straight parade, Honestly it shouldnt be an issue
You don't have millions of people trying to bring you down for being straight either do you?

LGBT parades are in fact very helpful and inspiring to many closeted people, it may just give them that little push to come out and say "Fuck all you bigots, this is who I am and if you don't like it fuck off and die!"

Why would the socially accepted "norm" need parades? It has nothing to prove because everyone is doing it, accepting it.

The reason there are parades is because we are oppressed by society and this is an act of defiance and celebration of who we are, something previously (and to a certain extent, still) denied to us.

We LGBT people do NOT have equal rights, society pretends we do but we don't.

[Sasha]

Its pride as in celebration, not as in better than you