Gay Pride Parades

[Seikend]

Because if there's one thing we like talking about, it's those queers.

I think the topic at hand is clear, and doesn't require much in the way of introduction.


How do you feel about gay pride parades? Should they be allowed? Are they a good thing?

---​

I will be personally be addressing the first and third points now, and maybe the second one later. My gut instinct tells me that yes, they obviously should be allowed. However, I'd much rather put some serious thought to it before I come to any conclusion.

I feel that gay pride parades are not in the best interests of the LGBT community, and if anything, is detrimental to the community and it's image.


What is the purpose of gay pride parades?

The obvious initial answer would be to show pride in homosexuality. But what is there to be proud of? Pride should come from achievements, it should be earned. There is no reason that anyone should respect your pride, because your homosexuality has done nothing of worth to anyone, even yourself. You have not achieved anything by being gay, and it not noble or praiseworthy. And even if you do hold this shallow pride, why must you parade it? If you are proud, you don't need anyone else's approval, you already feel personal worth.


Another answer I hear is that gay pride parades aim to gain understanding and respect for homosexuality.


This is the image that the gay pride parade portrays:

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Note: These are all on the first page search on Google Images for "gay pride parade"

Apparently this is meant to gain understanding of diversity.





All I see the most horrifying display of every gay stereotype.


Diversity is not what we should be celebrating or parading. This does nothing to advance gay rights or understanding. All it does is create the image that gays are special, and unique, and different to straights.

As soon as you have parades for gay people, and mark them out as special you create a divide between straight and gay people. The way to actually advance gay rights would be to show that gay people are no different from straight people except for who they sleep with. And who you sleep with is an insignificant detail, it's your private business.

So throw away your rainbows, get rid of the parades and show that you're a normal human being. You are not exceptional, you should not be proud, being gay should not be a major part of your life. You are just like everyone else, bar who you sleep with. As soon as the LGBT community stops overplaying what a big deal being gay is, maybe everyone else out there will too.



You know, I'm gay myself. I don't join parades or don rainbows or love Madonna and Lady GaGa. I go to university, I go on forums and I lead a similar life to any straight person. I certainly don't have gay pride. If anything I'm ashamed of the gay community.



/rage.


I apologise if this seems a little less structured than usual, and I realise that it's not really very open, but directed towards the LGBT community itself. But I hope that anyone can at least extract the points I make and understand my viewpoint. This is one of very few issues that I feel strongly about, and I felt it was about time I created a thread on the topic.

If anyone feels it's a bit too ragey or I'm ranting, I'll edit it to make it a bit more neutral in mood.

Please do not feel dissuaded to post your opinions, particularly if they clash with mine. I will keep my feelings in check when I respond.

Thank you.

 

[ballin4life]

Protests have been shown to be effective in the past - e.g. civil rights movement.

The primary purpose of these events is to raise political awareness.

 

[Seikend]

Protests have been shown to be effective in the past - e.g. civil rights movement.

The primary purpose of these events is to raise political awareness.

I certainly agree that protests can be effective. My issue isn't with gay pride parades as a whole, but with how the pride parades are being carried out. Apologies, I could have been clearer on that point.

I'm sure it does raise political awareness, but it doesn't encourage anyone to be pro-gay. People might come to understand the political issue, but how can anyone side with a community that encourages diversity and actively seperates themselves from the very people that they are trying to teach?

The gay pride parades may very well raise awareness, but it certainly doesn't encourage anyone to their cause. If anything, it currently ostracises them.

 

[Savon]

I think that gay pride parades DO have a tendency to be very stereotypical, but nonetheless they reserve every right to have them, and ultimately awareness is what matters in the end. Gays are not going to hurt anybody or break down the morals of our nation. Some feel that pride parades make it clear that gays are a part of our society and nothing can be done about it, so you might as well accept it. It is all dependent on interpretation.

 

[Dre89]

What do you mean by not break down the nation's morals? The whole point of the parades is to change the nation's morals to suit them.

I understand your frustration Seikend, because on the other side of the coin, so many anti gays damage the image of anti homosexuality. The same also happens with religion. Then what happens is that you get immediately stereotyped.

 

[Savon]

I am talking about the ignorant people who DO think that gays are breaking down the nations morals. It is an argument many anti-gay people I know have brought up, although they never could really explain what it meant. I personally do not believe such an idea exists.

I agree with you Seikend. I feel the same way about the black community at times as a black male. You hate when people try to overemphasize something which only makes them stand out unnecessarily from society.

Be proud of who you are. Being gay/black/etc IS a big part of your life, but it is obnoxious and counterproductive most of the time to be what I like to call a "broadcaster"

 

[Dre89]

No one's proud of heterosexuality because it's considered normal. So being proud of homosexuality is emphasising it's abnormality.

Again, the whole point of homosexuality is to change the nation's morals. The nation was against homosexuality, and they're also trying to break the tradition of marriage and allow gay marriage. I don't see how they're not changing it.

 

[El Nino]

Because I am too lazy to even cut and paste:
http://psychox.livejournal.com/101529.html#cutid1

tl;dr - Does Mardi Gras make New Orleans look like a town of hedonistic drunks? Does Carnivale make people stereotype Brazilians? Does the Chinese New Year parade in Chinatown perpetuate ethnic stereotypes about Chinese people?

Sometimes a celebration is just that: a celebration. And it wouldn't be a celebration if people just showed up in their street clothes.

Just as you have the right to be a conservative person, someone else has the right to be completely over the top and flamboyant. We are not liberated until we can engage each other as individuals representing ourselves rather than entire communities of diverse individuals who didn't ask us to represent them.

Furthermore, "pride" is almost always a reaction to overbearing oppression. I've heard black feminists in the U.S. talk about the difficulty in living in a society that holds standards of beauty defined largely by racial features, standards which may hold black female traits as "ugly". To combat these feelings, some black feminists respond by actively re-enforcing their own sense of self-worth and physical attractiveness. If you read some of their poetry without knowing the society they come from, you might think they were full of themselves. But really, they do it to fight against feelings of worthlessness that come about when they internalize society's definition of beauty.

Essentially, pride comes about when your default position is low, rather than baseline. You look up because your starting point is down in a hole. "Pride" is almost never something that comes from privilege. It is almost always a counter balance. Gay pride is no different. If LGBT-ness were accepted, pride would not be necessary.

And not every LGBT person is as conservative as you are. Some enjoy being flamboyant. If you want to be respected for who you are, it would be difficult to do that without allowing someone else that same respect.

 

[Seikend]

Because I am too lazy to even cut and paste:
http://psychox.livejournal.com/101529.html#cutid1

tl;dr - Does Mardi Gras make New Orleans look like a town of hedonistic drunks? Does Carnivale make people stereotype Brazilians? Does the Chinese New Year parade in Chinatown perpetuate ethnic stereotypes about Chinese people?

Sometimes a celebration is just that: a celebration. And it wouldn't be a celebration if people just showed up in their street clothes.

Just as you have the right to be a conservative person, someone else has the right to be completely over the top and flamboyant. We are not liberated until we can engage each other as individuals representing ourselves rather than entire communities of diverse individuals who didn't ask us to represent them.

Furthermore, "pride" is almost always a reaction to overbearing oppression. I've heard black feminists in the U.S. talk about the difficulty in living in a society that holds standards of beauty defined largely by racial features, standards which may hold black female traits as "ugly". To combat these feelings, some black feminists respond by actively re-enforcing their own sense of self-worth and physical attractiveness. If you read some of their poetry without knowing the society they come from, you might think they were full of themselves. But really, they do it to fight against feelings of worthlessness that come about when they internalize society's definition of beauty.

Essentially, pride comes about when your default position is low, rather than baseline. You look up because your starting point is down in a hole. "Pride" is almost never something that comes from privilege. It is almost always a counter balance. Gay pride is no different. If LGBT-ness were accepted, pride would not be necessary.

And not every LGBT person is as conservative as you are. Some enjoy being flamboyant. If you want to be respected for who you are, it would be difficult to do that without allowing someone else that same respect.

Thank you for the post El Nino.

The view that it's simply a celebration is an entirely new one to me.

If someone told me they attended gay pride parades to raise awareness, or understanding, I'd still hold my position. But under this purpose, the whole thing really does get flipped around for me. I can understand why you'd have a gay pride parade under that cause. It's not something I'd ever want to take part in myself, nor do I necessarily agree with doing it, but it's something I can respect at least.

Thanks again, I think this is something that I'll need to reflect on for a while.

 

[ballin4life]

No one's proud of heterosexuality because it's considered normal. So being proud of homosexuality is emphasising it's abnormality.

Again, the whole point of homosexuality is to change the nation's morals. The nation was against homosexuality, and they're also trying to break the tradition of marriage and allow gay marriage. I don't see how they're not changing it.

Yeah, and the nation was against black people and women for a long time too.

Also, it's very disingenuous to say the nation like every single person in the nation agrees.

The whole marriage thing is stupid anyway. The government shouldn't recognize any kind of marriage - only civil unions at most for legal reasons like inheritance or hospital visit rights, etc. Marriage itself is a religious matter, and so individual churches can decide whether they want to allow gay marriage or not.

 

[_Keno_]

How do you feel about gay pride parades? Should they be allowed? Are they a good thing?

I actually hate gay pride parades, but I do think they should be allowed. They are definitely a bad thing for the community though. Usually, the only gay people you see at these parades are the extremely flamboyant type, which pretty much pushes those who already dislike homosexuals/their cause even further away. It makes them easier to hate if you can't even remotely relate to them, especially if you find what they're doing to be somewhat disturbing.

I mean, I support WHY they are doing it, but I just find these parades to very annoying and just plain detrimental to the cause. It doesnt really raise awareness on anything other than "gay people exist," which everyone knows already.

The government shouldn't recognize any kind of marriage - only civil unions at most for legal reasons like inheritance or hospital visit rights, etc. Marriage itself is a religious matter, and so individual churches can decide whether they want to allow gay marriage or not.

I completely agree.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah, and the nation was against black people and women for a long time too.

Exactly, they changed the nation's morals.

 

[El Nino]

Thanks again, I think this is something that I'll need to reflect on for a while.

You're welcome. I used to not get it either. Some of that stuff can sound downright scary, but in person most of it is just in the nature of fun. A lot of people are actually laughing at themselves when they dress up.

Exactly, they changed the nation's morals.

Considering that they themselves were and are a part of the nation, to what extent could you say they changed their own morals? Or did their morals not count, for some reason? Or maybe the social institutions of the country just weren't up to speed with the morals of the people, so they brought it up to speed.

 

[Dre89]

By nation, I meant laws, social institution etc.

 

[July]

I definitely think that gay pride parades should be allowed, and I understand how you feel about the gay pride parades being over the top in some cases; I live in Philly during the school year, those photos are what I would expect from a gay pride event here, and I agree that it doesn't do much to further understanding, it's more of a display.

However, in my hometown, which is in the middle of PA and is part of the "Bible Belt", there is a lot of intolerance and a lot of people who are proud not to be homosexuals, but to have come out and dealt with the harsh treatment particularly in our schools. The closest pride parade was in the state capitol and it was mostly stands with information on getting help if you are bullied, political candidates and their stances on gay rights, health organizations giving away condoms and encouraging getting tested, and some vendors. There were drag queens there performing, which was the first time I ever saw a drag show, but I thought it was all done very tactfully. There were protesters, but no one acknowledged them; the parade itself was enough of statement against their hate, no one had to make it personal.

What I'm saying is that it is unfortunate that gay pride events have a bad reputation for being showy based on the ones that are held in big cities and areas where gay rights isn't an issue. For areas such as my hometown, acceptance still is an issue, and there is no safe place for gay youths to meet each other and find support; these events are a step in the right direction for our area. It's a way for people to say that they shouldn't have to stay in the closet to be accepted, and that persecution will not change them or stop them from coming out.

This is just from personal experience, its not objective but it's the reason why I personally think gay pride parades are a good thing.

 

[Cemetery]

Bump.

This is a good discussion. I actually had a conversation with a friend over gay pride parades, and we both had extremely different stances.

Now, while we agreed humans have the right to express themselves if it's not detrimental to others, then fine. The disagreements came into place because she thought they were progressive, while I thought they became regressive, and instead of effectively speaking a political message, these parades only exacerbated negative stereotypes within the gay community.

I've seen many homosexual users on this site alone that claim they can understand the stigma that arises out of how the community acts during the participation of these festivals.

Sure, freedom of speech and being are understandable ideologies, but society hasn't necessarily evolved to the point where minorities can express themselves, and albeit in a distasteful manner according to the norm, and escape unscathed.

Martin Luther King had mass speeches promoting peace, tolerance, and the diligence of his fellow people. Men dress up as fairies, ride pink tanks, and act in flamboyant manners during these parades, thus giving the entire community themselves a negative and distasteful image.

Just my two cents. While people definitely have the right to express themselves and not be scared or repressed, this is unfortunately a utopia-esque concept when society hasn't developed enough, and still believe in hogwash, primitive religious texts brainwashing them.

 

[Xianglian]

I have felt this way internally for years.

I'm not going to repeat what everyone said regarding why pride parades are essentially detrimental to the LGBT community. I agree wholeheartedly with everyone who feels this way.

I will give a personal recollection to the difference between regular pride parades, and gay pride parades:
In Buffalo, we have a ton of very prideful parades that I always attend. When I first returned to Buffalo, I went to the Puerto Rican Day parade. I had an awesome time. I didn't feel out of place because I wasn't Puerto Rican. I didn't see people throwing rice and beans or pastelillos onto the sidewalks where people were standing just so people could understand that they were proud to fulfill a stereotype. You got that the people who were in the parade were prideful simply because of the flags they were waving.

The saw the same thing for the Italian Day parade & the Italian Festival, the Irish Day parade, the Martin Luther King parade and so forth. This was a display of pride that in some cases, clarified some stereotypes and raised awareness to some of the challenges that some communities faced. This was by no means belittling any other race, minority or affiliation. It overall outcome was a positive one.

I've been to my local Gay Pride parade once. I'll never attend again. What goes on at a pride parade is almost completely, if not entirely, opposite to what I see at the other parades. It was like, instead of showing people that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, transexuals, and others who associate with that community are just normal people, who just happen to have a difference with the status quo in acceptable sexuality, they decided to live up to every single stereotype. Not even with a satirical notion either. I felt out of place, and I am apart of the LGBT community.

I don't care what parade i'm attending, dressing or acting in a scandalous, or down right inappropriate manner is not something that should be recognized as pride, or is something that I would want to bring my little relatives to either. I'd be teaching my little cousins that gay people aren't like everyone else. I'd be teaching them that they are not apart of normal society and should definitely alienate yourself from society in order to be a prideful homosexual.

Gay pride parades look more like Mardi Gras instead of pride parades, and that is the opposite of what it should be.

 

[ballin4life]

I can understand not wanting to associate with those people, but saying that they flat out shouldn't be doing that seems wrong to me. If that's how they want to express themselves then that's fine.

 

[El Nino]

I agree that pride parades are silly, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that, or with being like Mardi Gras. Anime cons are ridiculous, and even if I don't go to them, I'm not going to rally against those that do, even though I like some anime and the kind of bad cosplay you tend to see at a con might make all anime fans look bad. But it's their lives, and they don't owe me anything.

I've already said way too much on this topic, but just some information to consider for this discussion:

During the 50's and 60's, there was a movement in the U.S. to try to promote homosexual rights. It was lead by people who went to great lengths to show gays and lesbians as "normal" people. They were mostly white, dressed conservatively, and held quiet, non-obstructive demonstrations outside of government buildings.

They were ignored.

Then, one night, in 1969, the police burst into a gay and lesbian nightclub in NYC and began arresting people. This was standard procedure at the time. And then, an angry butch d*ke, being lead away in handcuffs, shouted at the crowd, asking them if they were just going to stand there and watch, or were they going to do something? That call was answered by a mob of violent drag queens, who began throwing bottles at the police officers.

It was the Stonewall Riots that put the LGBT movement on the political map in the U.S. Though, at the time, drag queens/kings were on the outer fringes of the gay and lesbian community; they were not accepted, even among other homosexuals. Others who were outcasts included transgendered persons, as well as those who practiced other forms of sexuality considered deviant, such as BDSM. So the term "LGBT" didn't even exist. But it was this segment of the community that ignited the movement, that provided the necessary catalyst for change.

In almost any movement in the world, it is usually the radicals, the extremists, the unorthodox and the ostracized who are most capable of revolution.

And when their battles are won, the conformists, the mainstream elements, start to filter in and reap the rewards.

If the pride parades seem outlandish and extreme, it is because it is a tribute to that moment in history and to those who fought those battles. And they were the angry men who wore dresses and makeup and the women who wore suits and ties and biker jackets.

There's a saying about how well-behaved women rarely make history. That principle applies to people in general.

 

[eschemat]

Gay pride parades are terrible. Whenever you have a parade like that, you always have to consider the fact that you are also sending a political message.

We're not just arbitrarily saying that gay pride parades provide a terrible influence. We know that because of many parades in the past, these parades always have a political connotation. Always. What gay pride parades usually do, due to their highly flamboyant nature, is ostracize and patronize the homosexual community. That small minority provides an image for the rest of that majority to have to deal with, one that is highly controversial and may cause more discrimination. Furthermore, allowing the homosexual community do this is a sign of tokenism by the government; largely, people don't have a straight pride parade because it's highly offensive to some people.

TL;DR people will be offended

 

[MK26]

In 2009, Toronto's municipal workers went on strike starting in late June
A crapton of municipal events got canceled, including the freaking Canada Day celebrations on July 1
But city staff helped out with the Gay Pride parade, which happened like 3 days earlier
Needless to say, many raged

That sorta left a bad taste in my mouth (no puns allowed) in regards to pride parades
y'know, beyond the part where they do all sorts of stupid **** because they can
like a gay guy fellating a chick wearing a dildo (i read about that one, the guy was the president of some gay rights organization too)
i mean, seriously, im all for tolerance, but thats going way too far

 

[Dre89]

I'm confused as to what exactly they're protesting for now.

Is it just to let homosexuality be accepted, or is it to let sexual activity be acceptable in public and to lower censoring?

 

[Ocean]

it's not a protest, it's a parade. they aren't necessarily trying to change anything.

 

[global-wolf]

(mainly @ El Nino): It may be the extremists that bring attention to a cause, but they will not convince the majority of people to accept them. The LGBT movement now has national attention. People are aware that the issue exists, and when they see people in gay pride parades being flamboyant and promiscuous, they associate gays with sexual deviancy and people in a wrong state of mind.

Gay pride parades are a medium for individuals to express themselves in ways they might have never dared to otherwise. As they are now though, the parades themselves are doing little to help the LGBT peoples's image.

 

[Dre89]

I understand the push for acceptance of their sexuality but don't see why gays should be allowed otherwise publicly offensive and unproffessional displays, when other groups would not be allowed that.

 

[Ocean]

I understand the push for acceptance of their sexuality but don't see why gays should be allowed otherwise publicly offensive and unproffessional displays, when other groups would not be allowed that.

I will agree that it's unprofessional, but how is it offensive?

other groups are allowed to. see the marijuana marches (not saying I don't agree with their cause, they go about it in the wrong way), the westboro baptist church, or even the KKK. they all have the right to do so, even if isn't in their best interest. it is their constitutional right (assuming it takes place in america).

fighting for the rights of those you disagree with should be no different then fighting for the rights of those you agree with.

 

[El Nino]

As they are now though, the parades themselves are doing little to help the LGBT peoples's image.

What I know (which may not be much) is that the LGBT movement has been expanding to be inclusive of all sexual minorities, and that means it makes efforts to include those who practice certain forms of sexuality that mainstream society does not accept. Hence the presence of the leather community at LGBT events. Cutting off the more extreme elements like those whom society consider to be "sexual deviants" is just another form of oppression of this particular subset of the community.

Considering the wider picture here, heterosexuals get Mardi Gras, and they get Carnivale in Brazil. They get women in bikinis and high heels dancing in parades while drunk guys yell and catcall. You can walk down the strip in Las Vegas on any given day and get pornographic prints of naked women practically thrown at you. Even if you don't accept one, they litter the ground anyway, and you're forced to look at it.

Straight people get wild at any street festival, especially when there is alcohol involved. It can be New Years, or it can be St. Patrick's Day, or it can be Cinco de Mayo, or Spring Break in Cancun.

The majority of R&B and mainstream rap songs on my local hip hop station are nothing but Ciara singing about how she likes to ride it, and Luda chiming in to say that she rides it like a thoroughbred. This is on public airwaves. I get in my car, that's what I hear. I want to go watch a movie, the previews are going to involve, sooner or later, a half naked female flashing her assets at me and making out with a guy.

The queers just want one day to be as obnoxious about their sexuality as straight people are every day.

In truth, there's nothing too deeply offensive about any of it. It's all just really ridiculous and silly, whether you're Luda singing about how you want to get women in their birthday suits, or some random leatherdaddy leading his boy on a leash. It's all ridiculous. Sex is ridiculous, whether it's straight or gay or trans or whatever else. There is nothing dignified about it. It's all offensive, tasteless, silly, and mostly harmless (apart from abuse and cultural misogyny, which are a part of a deeper debate topic).

I understand the push for acceptance of their sexuality but don't see why gays should be allowed otherwise publicly offensive and unproffessional displays, when other groups would not be allowed that.

Adding to what Ocean said, there are the open displays of heterosexuality we see at Mardi Gras and Carnivale. Heterosexuals are allowed to be publicly "offensive" and "unprofessional" at their festivals. Also, any political protest that you could think of is probably offensive to someone.

 

[Dre89]

El Nino- Most people against homosexuality would be against the heterosexual displays you spoke of.

Most anti homosexuals have an issue with the liberation of sexuality in general, which is where their anti homosexuality comes from.

 

[1048576]

Citation ****ing needed

 

[Ocean]

El Nino- Most people against homosexuality would be against the heterosexual displays you spoke of.

Most anti homosexuals have an issue with the liberation of sexuality in general, which is where their anti homosexuality comes from.

what gives you this idea? in my experience, there are two groups that most often consist of homophobes: the younger 'frat-party' crowd, and the older christian crowd. I can see the second crowd stemming their homophobia from anti-sexual mindset, as well as biblical roots, but the first definitely is not against public displays of sexuality.

most people are homophobic because of religious roots.

 

[Dre89]

Your last sentence seems to undermine your first argument about the frat party crowd.

 

[Ocean]

a lot of young, partying college students are christian, and/or grew up christian. they may not actively practice, but they get their moral standards from their families, and their families get it from religion.

this isn't always true, but from what I've seen, it's true in a large amount of cases.

 

[El Nino]

El Nino- Most people against homosexuality would be against the heterosexual displays you spoke of.

But would they also be against heterosexuality practiced in privacy between consenting adults?

If they are against heterosexual displays, but in favor of heterosexuality practiced in privacy, would they allow the same consideration towards homosexuality? Or other sexual minorities?

Most anti homosexuals have an issue with the liberation of sexuality in general, which is where their anti homosexuality comes from.

Then their position is based on a misconception. Homosexuality did not arise out of sexual liberation. Sexual liberation may have made it more noticeable, but it did not create homosexuality.

 

[Dre89]

But the idea that sexuality should be liberated is the substance behind the pro gay argument. Many antis are against this liberation in general.

If someone advocates heterosexual liberation, but not homosexual, then yeah I agree that's just stupid.

 

[ballin4life]

No one argues that "sexuality should be liberated". There are only people who argue that it should be restricted.

 

[El Nino]

But the idea that sexuality should be liberated is the substance behind the pro gay argument. Many antis are against this liberation in general.

Maybe it's different in Australia, or maybe you're coming at this solely from a discussion and discourse angle, but in the U.S. the LGBT rights movement has been, and remains, a civil rights movement. The purpose is to promote tolerance and to combat hate crimes and acts of violence against sexual minorities, the same way other civil rights movements have fought against racism or ethnic violence. In a democratic society, to secure legal rights, you sometimes have to work the social or cultural angle to gain interest or sympathy to a situation in order to get a proposition on the ballot. It's less about sexual liberation than it is about personal protection, human rights, and equal protection under the law. That is the substance of the LGBT movement.

If someone advocates heterosexual liberation, but not homosexual, then yeah I agree that's just stupid.

And if someone is against heterosexual liberation and instead advocates that heterosexuality should be practiced only in private, would you also say that this should be applied to homosexuality? That it should not be liberated but should be practiced only in private?

 

[Dre89]

Well if the person is saying anything hetero, no matter how deviant, can be done privately, they'd have to concede that gay stuff can be done privately too.

Gays though are also pushing for marriage and adoption rights. That's not about protection, that's about sexual liberation, redefining the traditional concepts of marriage and parenthood to suit their needs. So it's not just a matter of them protecting themselves.

 

[El Nino]

Well if the person is saying anything hetero, no matter how deviant, can be done privately, they'd have to concede that gay stuff can be done privately too.

But you still maintain that certain forms of heterosexuality are not deviant and can be practiced privately. Only the deviant forms of heterosexuality are on equal level to homosexual depravity. Am I understanding that correctly?

Gays though are also pushing for marriage and adoption rights. That's not about protection, that's about sexual liberation, redefining the traditional concepts of marriage and parenthood to suit their needs. So it's not just a matter of them protecting themselves.

When straight people get married or adopt kids, is that sexual liberation?

 

[Dre89]

Something like sex with contraception would be on the same level with homosexual sex, that is, having sex purely for pleasure.

And as for the second point, no it isn't, because liberation requires redefining the role and usage of sex, which is what the acceptance of homosexuality and sexual deviance entails. It's a liberation in that we're opening the door to more uses of sex to become accepted.

 

[ballin4life]

Everything is done purely for pleasure dawg