It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proud To Be Gay, Ashamed To Be Straight

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Hey Jake
The QuakerOats man called. He wants his slogan back.




posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
A cartoon ran in the New Yorker some years back, depicting a small child and his mother at the gay pride parade. The kid and mom were in the foreground, a gaudy, disturbing float in the background. The kid is saying to his mother, something along the lines of "I used to think gays were normal people like you and me, but now I know they're sick, demented perverts."
...
I never really understood the need for a gay pride parade, I think gays can be proud without being sexually offensive in the public square.

I've befriended a number of gay men and women over the years, and they've never displayed the sort of wanton perversion and indecency these parades promote. None of my gay friends would be caught dead in a 3 foot feathered headress, nor would they consider riding around town on a motorized phallic float. This stuff is simply not representative of normal gays, it's representative of the fringe.


Is that the kind of thing that really happens there? I've never actually seen a parade (as I said earlier, I find them extremely boring and have no interest) , but I have seen pictures. Quite frankly, I assumed the pictures in the papers and on the news were the extreme or else done to sensationalize the parades. Is this crap the norm at these parades? If it is, as you said Wyrde, it does not fit with the personalities of my own gay friends. They're not raging perverts desperatly trying to show me that they like to have sex with men (or woman in one friend's case), but rather normal people who live day by day as the rest of us. What a horrible defamation to the normal gay community!



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
JJ
I've seen two, and I wouldn't have taken children to either. Those could have been isolated incidents, I think it depends a great deal on the parade organizers, and of course the crowd. I've noticed, living in cities, you tend to come across a lot more naked people in the streets over the course of a year.

Don't know why that is, but it holds true on both coasts and in the middle too. Same goes for Miami and Daytona beach.

I think the logic follows that the parades are most objectionable when they take place in large cities with a large number of gay citizens. It's simple numbers, in the sense that in a larger gay population there will be more 'extreme' folks who like to make a public display.

I worked in boys town in Chicago for a while, and the general aptmosphere was not one of debauchery. Downtown NY on the other hand, had a very different feeling. So bottom line, it depends on the people.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Personally, I wouldn't encourage, promote, or even WANT to have anything to do with a Heterosexual Parade. I would, however, like to know I had the RIGHT to have one without being critcized for it. I think that is the issue here, not the actual parade.

When my brother and I were young children we had betimes of 8 PM. I accepted it and went to bed when I was told (because I was mommy's little angel
), but my brother would bitch and yell that he wanted to stay up until 10 PM. My mother would tell him no and try to force him into our room and it would take untill 10 anyways. Finally, one night she told him he could stay up until 10, and you know what? He was passed out on the couch by 8:30. It wasn't that he really wanted to stay up until 10. He just wanted to know that he COULD if he wanted to. I think the same applies here, at least for me.

Just a couple of side points....

Holidays and parades CELEBRATE particular themes and/or people. On New Years we CELEBRATE the beginning of a new year. On Valentine's Day we CELEBRATE the love we have for that special someone in our lives (if we are fortunate enough). If you are Irish you CELEBRATE Saint Patrick and being Irish on St. Patrick's Day. On Independance Day we CELEBRATE the birth of our nation (if you are American of course). I could go on but I'm sure you get where I'm going with this. You don't wake up on these mornings and say "I'm going to celebrate being straight because its (insert holiday here)." To say straight people have all these days to CELEBRATE being straight is a false statement, and any straight person can attest to that. Sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with these holidays.

The St. Patty's Day parade is largely tied into the Catholic Church, you know, with the whole Saint thing and all. The Cathloc Church is also against homosexuality, so they don't want gays marching. (I'd like to state that I don't agree with the church) However, that doesn't mean that if you are Irish you can't go to the local pub, celebrate your heritage, get wasted, and go home with whomever you want.

If you were to say we need holidays, parades, organizations, TV stations, magazines, and whatever else for minority and special interest groups because whites have an advantage in our society, one side totally agrees with you. These things need to exist untill we can rid our culture of racism and prejudice. However, another side of me says that these events are also causing a bigger rift between our cultures by excluding certain people and "making" these same people accept it. Don't MAKE them accept it, ALLOW them to accept it.

I mean, hell, I love ice cream, but if someone were to force it down my throat, I'd probally choke and resent that person.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I believe oppressed minorities, be they gay, black, white or green, see simultaneous support of oppressive outlooks and their own as contradictory. In the situation of preferring, say, an X-box over a Playstation there is no history of brutality or oppression. They're two console systems. But, for better or worse, humans relationships are not like game console systems. By preferring or even acknowledging another viewpoint you are implicitly supporting whatever injustices which have been carried out in its name. The reason for this, logically, is that a particular viewpoint or way of life could not have existed here and now today without some of the bad that went along with it. For example, so called white culture was supported, in part, by slavery. It is here we see that, in the eyes of others, you can not support only the "good pieces." When you lift an object above your head you lift the whole thing, not just the good parts.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I have an idea.

Why shouldn't we put all this types of parades in to one huge parade and call it

Proud To Be An ATS Member Parade.

Now that would be something.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
I
I mean, same thing with BET! They have a all black entertainment channel, why no WET? Sure we have USA, Spike, Fox News, Animal Planet(how many blacks are on that channel? Ever notice there are none?) Lifetime(for the white females) ABC Family(again, no blacks) but still, we need a WET since blacks have BET.

Or Black History Month, sure we have the other 11 months of White History, hell, several holidays are for whitey, like Presidents day, which is for two whiteys, and Christmas is for a whitey, and Easter is for a whitey, not to mention the holidays in England/Australia that are called Queens Day or whatever, all for whiteys.


Yes, we have BET, and it is exclusively black entertainment. What you fail to say is that other network and cable stations will show black films made by black directors/actors. BET markets towards the black population, but the other networks market towards the black/white/latino/asian populations.

And, I didn't know easter and Christmas were exclusively 'white". With this mentality, Christianity in itself is a white religion, geared for and made by whites.

The fact that Presidents Day (a day for all Americans) is based on two of the most prominent presidents in American history (who happen to be.....omg....white!) is just honoring those individuals who have made an impact on our society as a whole.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
I mean, same thing with BET! They have a all black entertainment channel, why no WET? Sure we have USA, Spike, Fox News, Animal Planet(how many blacks are on that channel? Ever notice there are none?) Lifetime(for the white females) ABC Family(again, no blacks) but still, we need a WET since blacks have BET.


I've seen black Americans on all of those channels. Besides, Animal Planet is about... animals. I don't think humans are even a focus on that channel.


What sort of proportion of blacks do you prefer on TV? Or in society in general? If you want to be statistically fair, then black Americans should show up on TV 13% of the time, since 13% of the U.S. population is black. Also, 13% of all doctors would be black, 13% of all carpenters would be black, 13% of all professional athletes should be black, etc. Where do you want to draw the line?


Originally posted by James the Lesser
Or Black History Month, sure we have the other 11 months of White History, hell, several holidays are for whitey, like Presidents day, which is for two whiteys, and Christmas is for a whitey, and Easter is for a whitey, not to mention the holidays in England/Australia that are called Queens Day or whatever, all for whiteys.


As nathraq said, these comments don't even make sense. Christianity is a religion -- it has members of every race and culture around the world. Also, Jesus Christ himself was not white -- he was Middle Eastern, and likely had olive skin. Finally, President's Day and Queen's Day are political holidays.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Well, Martin luther king jr day has taken the place of Robert E. Lee day. I was not even aware of this fact until a year or so ago. I mean yeah, lets have mlk day. But lets also have Robert E. Lee day, He was in the civil war, spanish-american war and other notable things. I have a feeling mlk day falls on the same day as mlk day because people are erasing history to fit their agenda, History is neither pretty or fair.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Gays and there rights lol what a joke they make me sick they are a ""disformed"" group them and there "rights" i laugh, what a joke they are, and there rights.... i say gays shouldn't be allowed marriage rights and if they try and protest shoot'em!


[edit on 11-6-2005 by Jamie6661986]



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   
They can shoot back too ya know.

In fact, I have several SKS's I need to dispose of, I am going to make sure every gay person I know is sufficiently well-armed, knowing that people like you are out there.

I consider it a public service.

(Yes, I am being sarcastic, but if it really came to that I would, and do some shooting back myself...)

[edit on 6/11/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   
lol well u arm them and i'll kill'em i love to see a gay person handle a weapon lolol that would be a sight



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Wow. What a sad, misinformed post. There are no celebrations of being white, male, and/or straight because these things are the status quo. The point of celebrating gayness, blackness, or any other minority trait is to celebrate diversity. To bring awareness to the majority that there are other groups out there, and to spend a day where you feel proud to be the minority you are.

The problem with celebrating the status quo is that it is reactionary, and society is not improved by reactionary activity. Straight male WASPs would not be celebrating their straight male WASPness if there were no other groups around they were reacting to. The same would hold for gays if gays were the status quo, but of course, they aren't. On the other hand, minority celebrations are not reactionary, they are essentially acts of rebellion, which make the state stronger if the state can incorporate and handle the rebellion.

Once the status quo feels threatened enough to reinforce its own perceived superiority, society enters bad times.

-koji K.

[edit on 11-6-2005 by koji_K]



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K

Once the status quo feels threatened enough to reinforce its own perceived superiority, society enters bad times.

-koji K.



Koji, I have always respected your post, but I have to dissagree. Celibrating ones self for what one is is not status quo. It is simply the celibration of ones self. To attach any other label to it would be misinforming. Im straight, white and a male. Why cant I celibrate that without everyone saying I am a racist homophobe? Those people who say I am those things because I wish to celibrate my own person are ignorant and blinded by political correctness. The fact is, I cant celibrate who I am because I get those labels for doing so.

If we cant celibrate individuality, then why do we celibrate diversity? We are only showing our hypocritic values by not allowing a celibration of ones self.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamie6661986
Gays and there rights lol what a joke they make me sick they are a ""disformed"" group them and there "rights" i laugh, what a joke they are, and there rights.... i say gays shouldn't be allowed marriage rights and if they try and protest shoot'em!


[edit on 11-6-2005 by Jamie6661986]


Luckily, most civilized people don't share the same view about ignorant bigoted statements - or the owners of such. Otherwise you might find yourself needing a pretty thick bulletproof coat there, Jamie.

Now. Can somebody please explain to me exactly why gays should not have the same rights as non-gays? Please, use logic in your answer - religious ideals are possibly irrelevant, as it's obvious not everyone follows the same religion, and religion should not be a factor in the legal aspect of this discussion.

(fwiw, Mas keeps saying that God said this, that, the other....but fails to see that Christ also implied, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" [yeah, I'm paraphrasing] And what happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged"? )

I'd also love to hear why gays in the community represent a danger to the public, or children, or any other living being.

In case we've forgotten (and before someone tries to shout "AIDS!"), the highest subgroup of new AIDS cases in this country is hetero females. Not gays. So....with that in mind - exactly who is being harmed by gays?



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Koji, I have always respected your post, but I have to dissagree. Celibrating ones self for what one is is not status quo. It is simply the celibration of ones self. To attach any other label to it would be misinforming. Im straight, white and a male. Why cant I celibrate that without everyone saying I am a racist homophobe? Those people who say I am those things because I wish to celibrate my own person are ignorant and blinded by political correctness. The fact is, I cant celibrate who I am because I get those labels for doing so.

If we cant celibrate individuality, then why do we celibrate diversity? We are only showing our hypocritic values by not allowing a celibration of ones self.


I agree to a point. Certainly there is nothing wrong with being proud of who one is. I just feel that this pride is best displayed through confidence and toleration, at an individual level. Once people band together to celebrate their membership in a majority, it seems to me to be somewhat pointless, if not a reaction from feeling threatened. I am straight, white, and male also, but I would never take part in a "straight white male" parade because I don't feel like I have anything to prove- in terms of my demographic, I'm pretty much on top of the world.

I accept though that there is nothing wrong (in itself) with celebrating ones self, whoever one is. And I would never go so far as to say that we should not allow displays of such celebration, such as parades and commemorative days, etc. I just don't feel the need, and worry that at such events some people might not have the most "beneficial" motives for attending. But, as I said, while I don't agree with such displays, I fully support people's right to have them.

-koji K.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

(fwiw, Mas keeps saying that God said this, that, the other....but fails to see that Christ also implied, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" [yeah, I'm paraphrasing] And what happened to "Judge not lest ye be judged"? )


The bible also preaches that you may kill people who work on the sabbath, own slaves, kill adulterers and much more. You are choosing and picking from this reference just as him.

I agree that gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals, but PC has gone too far. Although it irks me that gays cannot get married or are frowned upon, it also irks me that if one says "gay" as some deregotary word in a sentence that DOES NOT relate to homosexuals we are codemned racist or bigots. So only gays can use the word "gay" in a harsh way?

Mind you there are many words that are used in derogatory slang that use reference to the male and female gentalia. I suppose only males can use those words, and vice versa with females. People tend to forget that when used in a way we have NO intent to degrade homosexuals.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
(yes, I'm more than aware that's what I did - that's actually part of the point. Picking and choosing which parts of a religion you want to follow, when it suits your purpose.
)

I've never been fond of the premise that you can only use certain words in a certain context, otherwise you're offending Tom, Dick and Harriet. It just seems so ...silly. Sillier still, when we consider the original meaning of "gay".

Just as it seems odd that only blacks may use that particular n-word; though the word seems derogatory to me in any context, it seems like a double-standard if it's ok for a racial group to use it, but not ok for a different racial group to use it.

What gives?



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   


lol well u arm them and i'll kill'em i love to see a gay person handle a weapon lolol that would be a sight


You don't actually know any gays do you?
In my experience the "gay = wimp" stereotype doesn't hold up too well in the real world.

Go back in time, find Alexander the Great, and test your theory...



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I just don't see why Gays need a big sex prade!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join