Why go on... and on about it...

Well, two of the usages were quotes from others.

Quotes from the Ally Project and the Queer Nation Manifesto. And my usage-

Referring to queer theory. Sooooooo why dont you explain to us what the implied meaning you have imagined actually is? So maybe we can understand why you are soooooo offended by the term.

I think you are just and Andrew Sullivan, "Virtually Normal" kind of gay who cant stand the "queers" within the gay population.

 

In any case, things would be better for all if gays weren't persecuted and vilified by views such as your own.

 

there is sound reasoning behind all of these.

banning happy meal toys is a response to the current obesity crisis, which has significant health and other costs to the entire community. happy meal toys are a marketing ploy.

drug laws (ours are not like yours, and to be honest I think in the US the drug laws are based on knee jerk reactionary views of the 1980's) can protect society from the down side of drug abuse ... or at least limit the impacts.

gun laws ... living in a country with strict firearm controls I think these are valid - impacting on both murder rates and suicide rates.

banning people from being who they are is cruel and can not be justified in a modern society.

 

You are vilified by your own sexuality. Self loathing. Understandable.

 

No, you are incorrect or lying.

The meaning of your words (that is, your irrational animus communicated by your own will...) promotes negativity about homosexual people and homosexuality, that this world needs none of.

Say what you want... I intend to show anyone reading here, that I certainly disagree with you about this.

 

please elaborate on that. I do however ask that you take into account the symbolism of glitter bombing, walking naked and having public sex at folsom st, dressing in high heels and thongs during gay pride marches etc

 

I have never done any of these things, nor have any of my friends - you wouldn't be stereotyping an entire group of people because of the few stupid ones would you?



Or is it just an issue with the nasty queers do it?

 

the people at Fantasy Fest do not label it as a "gay rights" march or "gay pride" rally

those images, along with glitter bombs are negative publicity. For you not to understand that is beyond my comprehension.

 

I do understand, maybe you do not understand my point.
People do some weird/nasty/f'ed up stuff, to say a group of people throwing glitter or having sex in the streets represent the other 15 million gay people living in this country is foolish at best.

Heterosexuals do just as disgusting things... And they have a few "parades" as well

Most people are average though, they live their lives without making a big fuss, this includes homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, and asexuals.

 

I'd wager that 99% of gay people have never tried any of those things. Generalising much?

 

nope

when you have a "gay pride" march or parade it is what draws attention to it

fantasy fest and mardi gras are not a "gay only" or "hetero only" event and you see lots of drunken shenanigans

"gay pride" parades are for what??????????????? why to call attention to gay people and having cross dressers, buff men in t backs and less isn't a good way to move a group forward in public opinion.

But, spin it all that you want. Denial isn't a river in Africa

 

You don't think you're generalising then?... You know sometimes I find you rational and other times just plain silly.

You can't look at gay pride parades as representing EVERY gay person in the world, not even close. The majority of LGBT people in America have probably never even been to a pride event. And those that have weren't all prancing around naked or in thongs, that's a relatively small number of people who stand out for, well.. obvious reasons as the pictures above show. I've been to a couple myself and it's nowhere near as bad as people tend to imagine - it's all in good spirits. If you don't like it, don't go.. Chances are if you hate/dislike gay people, you're going to hate/dislike them with or without Pride, so it can be taken as somewhat of a big (*)(*)(*)(*) you to those people.

 

you continue to want to miss the point because it serves your spin.

GAY PRIDE marches

no kidding all gays aren't there. With 3% claiming to be LGBT that would be a lot of people!!! But, those are the marches in the name of homosexuality. So, like it or not, they are your spokespeople.

Now, do I think every single gay person is like that, heck no nor have I even suggested that. I merely state that those events do nothing for projecting a positive image.

Is Nancy Pelosie like every single Democrat??? absolutely not

 

I'm not following your logic... What makes them - the visible minority who dress provocatively at pride - the spokespeople of the gay community anymore than an anti-gay Christian rally makes them the spokespeople of Christians? It's just the way you're perceiving it.

There are MANY other visible gay groups in America - the Stonewall Democrats, Logcabin Republicans, ect.. Who hold events and meetings all over the country. Gay pride is essentially just Mardi Gras but with more gays. Used to be political - part of the "resistance effort" - but now it's just an excuse to get hammered. To characterise the colourful minority who attend as being the "spokespeople" of the gays is ABSURD.

 

I think it is actually two different people, dissociative identity disorder maybe?

Some people go to pride to just be around people that do not judge them, some go to embarrass the gay community, and most do not go at all.

Are you saying that KKK marches (White Power for White people) should be talked about when talking about the rights of white people. How about the AFA or how about Westboro Baptist Church representing anything to do with religion?

 

which groups catch the nat'l media???

soooooooo, with that said, if they don't tone it down it is how it's portrayed to many. Most Americans don't go out of their way trying to find out about gay rights groups. They get what is thrust upon them in sound bites

glitter bombs
buff men in t backs
cross dressing

like it or not, your movement shoots itself in the proverbial foot all of the time with those actions

let me net it out for you


97% of Americans do not claim to be LGBT. That is a lot of people. There is a great chance that if groups like the New Black Panthers are shown on tv that most will know that not all black people are like that. It is because of their life experiences.

with such a small segment being gay, your influenced more by media vs life experience

so, the questions is

what are YOU and other gay people going to do about that representation that many see from the t-back wearing, cross dressing marchers?

 

???Thats exactly what the courts have done. Taking the motives of those most vocally opposed to gay marriage, and attributing that motive to marriages limitation to heterosexual.

 

Many legal cases are pending. It is good old laws are being challenged.

 

....

*sigh*(*)Another poster assuming I'm gay with absolutely no reason to think that... And you say you don't generalise? Lol

I'm well aware who "catches the media's attention", but I don't see what's newsworthy about gay pride. Normally if it's on the news as far as I've seen it's a protest or rally for 'marriage equality' (as with NY before they passed SSM), not gay men in thongs dancing around on floats.

Yes we've all seen the outrageous pictures, but who cares? Really if you've half a brain cell you won't use that as the deciding factor for opposing or supporting same-sex marriage. Obviously the "negative publicity" can't be that bad if 53% of Americans supporting same-sex marriage aren't bothered by it.

I do somewhat understand why you would think it's counterproductive to SSM efforts, but the initial claim that you responded to implied that you do not agree that most gay people want to assimilate and have the same rights as heterosexuals due to what you now admit is the actions of a minority.

 

you have not even discussed assimilation thus why i intially asked to exoend upon that

about "gay marriage"

I do not support adding any more govt rules with respect to personal things.

It has nothing to do with you, or whether or not I think how you have sex is icky. i could care less.

I do not support any more segregating by the govt. It's time the root issue gets addressed that they have ZERO business being in our bedrooms.

We should all be treated as single people, no "married filing jointly" BS etc. The only difference I support is exemptions for kids because they are our future and it's a small price to pay to give parents a little break

So, if you are looking to hurl insults at someone because they are a "homophobe" then you're barking up the wrong tree.

I do not view you any different than me just because we have sex differently. A single heterosexual has sex the same as me and we should also be viewed the same by the govt.

You don't try to extinguish a fire by tossing gasoline onto it. Asking govt to create even more segments within society does exactly that.

and one other thing, in the USA we don't speak that Olde English stuff; we generaliZe. We don't generalise. And it's a harbor, not a harbour.

anyway, you, me, them, we............we all generalize and that is based from experiences. i'm not sure if you think that's an insult, or a negative thing but an example for you; you see a petrol station with its lights on, you assume that they are open and you can get gas

so, perhaps the word you might have wanted to use is that my correlation was incorrect. Actually it wasn't. What I have not seen is any "gay leader" speak out against the Fremont St parade, gay pride marches, glitter bombing etc.

But we digress. i am not against you but I don't think the govt has any business being involved in marriage

 

I agree with everything you wrote, everyone should file taxes separately, loopholes should be eliminated, most deductions should be eliminated - the only thing that should really be allowed to effect your tax rate should be if you have a dependent that you care for. This would remove the discrimination from the equation completely.

However, the government is not going to allow this (I have asked you this before with no response...) Knowing that the government will not step out of marriage how do you propose same sex couples proceed? Allow the blatant discrimination or fight to have the same "benefits" as opposite sex couples?

 

Well, marriage is by design, blatant discrimination between the married and unmarried. I just dont have a problem with blatant discrimination to benefit the wellbeing of women and the children she gives birth to. The greater good of society. I do have a real problem with government using blatant discrimination to help gays feel better about being gay.

 

And I have a real problem with your irrational animus and homophobia; even so, the U.S. Constitution affords you certain "rights"; that should be no different for homosexual people (especially where it pertains to them being allowed to marry a person most compatible with them).

The "design" doesn't have to fit YOUR paradigm, or any other idea that came before this very post. In reality, things DO change.

 

Its biology.

As a gay man, the biology of procreation only seems "irrational" to you. Could be an effect of your heterophobia.

 

The question was not directed to you, I was looking for a logical answer from a mostly unbiased person - unfortunately you provide neither of those.

Everyone knows you are against gay marriage (even though its actually same sex marriage - two different things) for reasons such as you cannot marry your brother and gay people cannot have children, even though procreation is not a requirement or something that is even pushed for marriage...

But thank you for repeating the same thing you have repeated 100 times now