Are gay folks getting too much attention?

[Angilion]

Well that is a bit different, if someone is claiming to be better than others that is a separate argument to someone expressing pride in themselves when they're looked at as less than others in an attempt to be seen as equal.

No, it isn't. Being proud of being in what they see as being the right biological group is the same as being proud of what they see as being the right biological group. A person can only be proud of something they see as being better, either inherently better by birth or as an achievement. It doesn't matter what excuse a person might use to rationalise it to themself or if they're really deluded enough to believe that biological group identity and pride is equality. I've no doubt there are white pride advocates who really believe they're fighting for equality too, for example. There are certainly some who claim to be.

It also requires the belief that a person is their sexuality. You say it yourself right here, when you refer to people expressing pride in being not heterosexual as them expressing pride in themselves - you're saying that not being heterosexual is themselves.

that doesn't seem to be the case, it seems to be mostly motivated by wanting to take a stance against discrimination etc..

There may be some people silly enough to believe that, but it can't be true no matter how fashionable an excuse it is. You don't oppose discrimination on the basis of a biological characteristic by vigorously promoting the idea that that characteristic wholly defines a person and having the "right" version of it should be a source of pride. That's obviously nonsense.

 

[StriderX]

That would be relevant if I had put pre-Christian Rome on any sort of pedestal, but I didn't. I just cited it as one example of a situation in which homosexuality was not demonised by the dominant religion and was not regarded as a person's identity.

...

The problem is that Pre-Christian Rome was polytheist, there wasn't a big singular entity by which to spew filth from. Deities for Fertility tended to be worshiped by... rather naughty people.

I disagree with the idea that it is essential to regard a person's sexuality as their identity, as the whole of what they are, as the thing that defines them.

It's not essential, i abhor people who think it should be their only defining characteristic, much like how people will steadfastly defend one political idea at the detriment to all or that it defines every conversation.

I disagree with the idea that the only reason why anyone wouldn't do that openly is because they do it in secret because the dominant religion requires them to do so.

Do explain why if preceding monotheism (popular ones - Christianity and Islam, Judaism is not entirely relevant and others are far too small) people were sexually liberal (to a point, it wasn't like you could be wed to another of your own sex or that it was socially acceptable), then comes along big daddy Roman Catholicism and takes ownership of the idea that the only acceptable form of relationship was between a man and a woman... why wouldn't you hide from that?

 

[Angilion]

[..] Do explain why if preceding monotheism (popular ones - Christianity and Islam, Judaism is not entirely relevant and others are far too small) people were sexually liberal (to a point, it wasn't like you could be wed to another of your own sex or that it was socially acceptable), then comes along big daddy Roman Catholicism and takes ownership of the idea that the only acceptable form of relationship was between a man and a woman... why wouldn't you hide from that?

Why should I explain something that you're arguing both sides of? How could I do that? It's your argument, not mine. It has no connection to me and I can't read your mind to explain your arguments to you.

 

[mjt]

I suppose they'll stop going on about it once they stop being persecuted and treated differently.

It's not hard really. WGAF where you're from, who you fancy or what magic person lives in the heavens? There are more important things in life!

 

[flea-rider]

remember next month is straight month .. get your cocks and **** out .. and do your woman in the street ...

 

[Em3bbs]

remember next month is straight month .. get your cocks and **** out .. and do your woman in the street ...

Doesn't that happen all year round in Blackpool anyway?

 

[dowie]

No, it isn't. Being proud of being in what they see as being the right biological group is the same as being proud of what they see as being the right biological group. A person can only be proud of something they see as being better, either inherently better by birth or as an achievement. It doesn't matter what excuse a person might use to rationalise it to themself or if they're really deluded enough to believe that biological group identity and pride is equality. I've no doubt there are white pride advocates who really believe they're fighting for equality too, for example. There are certainly some who claim to be.

It also requires the belief that a person is their sexuality. You say it yourself right here, when you refer to people expressing pride in being not heterosexual as them expressing pride in themselves - you're saying that not being heterosexual is themselves.



There may be some people silly enough to believe that, but it can't be true no matter how fashionable an excuse it is. You don't oppose discrimination on the basis of a biological characteristic by vigorously promoting the idea that that characteristic wholly defines a person and having the "right" version of it should be a source of pride. That's obviously nonsense.

I think you're basing this on a flawed premise by equating being proud of who you are to feeling superior to others. It also doesn't require you to base your whole identity on it either but can simply be a part of it, I really don't see the harm in this in itself. If the argument was instead someone claiming to be superior then I'd see your point but (IMHO) it isn't therefore I can't really support your argument. (edit - I don't really want to go back and forth on this, perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement on the premise here re: 'pride' inferring superiority in which case we might not simply see eye to eye on this issue and I think perhaps agree to disagree)

 

[Angilion]

I think you're basing this on a flawed premise by equating being proud of who you are to feeling superior to others. It also doesn't require you to base your whole identity on it either but can simply be a part of it, I really don't see the harm in this in itself. If the argument was instead someone claiming to be superior then I'd see your point but (IMHO) it isn't therefore I can't really support your argument. (edit - I don't really want to go back and forth on this, perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement on the premise here re: 'pride' inferring superiority in which case we might not simply see eye to eye on this issue and I think perhaps agree to disagree)

We do have a fundamental disagreement on that premise, yes. Could you explain why you think people can be proud of something without thinking/feeling that it's better than an alternative? If it's not better than the alternative, why be proud of it?

You also have a fundamental disagreement with yourself - you're arguing that a person's sexuality is who they are and then immediately afterwards arguing that it's not their whole identity. That's contradicting itself unless you're referring to an entity with different aspects/manifestations, maybe. In that context, each different aspect/manifestation could be who they are and also not the whole identity of the combined entity. But even then each aspect/manifestation would be the whole identity of itself, so it would still be a contradiction to say that it is and isn't.

 

[JonnyT]

My point in my previous post, and my opinion (one that seemingly a few fellow posters share) is that your race, colour, creed, gender or sexual preference should not define you. What I take umbridge with - and no more than that - is those within the homosexual community that make it their very raison d'etre, and then talk about it incessantly to the detriment of any other aspect of their personality. I don't care who you like to share intimate time with, I just get tired very quickly of the 'promosexuals' talking about it and having nothing else interesting to say

 

[Pudney]

We do have a fundamental disagreement on that premise, yes. Could you explain why you think people can be proud of something without thinking/feeling that it's better than an alternative? If it's not better than the alternative, why be proud of it?

Pride can come from superiority, or it can come from a sense of achievement or satisfaction. For example, being "proud to be gay" could potentially be derived from a feeling of superiority. but it could equally be derived from a sense of pleasure or satisfaction that you are being true to your own feelings and are unashamed to be publicly seen to be gay.

As a more obvious example, if a parent says they're proud of their child for achieving a particular skill level playing a musical instrument, the most likely reason for pride is the sense of happiness and pleasure that their child has achieved something difficult. I wouldn't suggest that the pride comes from the parent's sense of superiority that their parenting has made their child better than another child.

Edit: the short story is that pride can be both a negative and a positive emotion. Whether it is positive or negative depends on the facts and the individual concerned.

 

[~>Dg<~]

from op is it the channel 4 show thats advertised every one minute

channel 4 is one of the worst for ooh look at us we edgy. lets do progs on disabled people , gays and whatever just for extra views.its almost as bad as when soap dramas started adding actors with limbs missing during the paralympics

 

[dowie]

We do have a fundamental disagreement on that premise, yes. Could you explain why you think people can be proud of something without thinking/feeling that it's better than an alternative? If it's not better than the alternative, why be proud of it?

Well as a response to people that think they are 'less than' the alternative... to show that rather than being ashamed of who you are because of an aspect of yourself (sexuality) you can instead express pride in that aspect and in turn in yourself - Thus the backronym: 'Good As You'.

The fundamental disagreement relating to the interpretation of 'pride' seems to be that you're seemingly interpreting it in relation to say an achievement or putting something above something else (from which your argument then logically follows that how can someone be proud in that sense of something they simply are naturally and how does that 'pride' then not equate to them feeling superior). I'm not disagreeing with your argument or logic there given that interpretation but I'm interpreting 'pride' in relation to simply self worth, dignity etc.. so the same argument doesn't necessarily follow.

edit - essentially I think your argument is based on interpretation 1 whereas mine is based on interpretation 3 below:

You also have a fundamental disagreement with yourself - you're arguing that a person's sexuality is who they are and then immediately afterwards arguing that it's not their whole identity. That's contradicting itself unless you're referring to an entity with different aspects/manifestations, maybe. In that context, each different aspect/manifestation could be who they are and also not the whole identity of the combined entity. But even then each aspect/manifestation would be the whole identity of itself, so it would still be a contradiction to say that it is and isn't.

I've not claimed it is their sole identity (nor did I mean that to be implied in a strict sense from my earlier post), but it can certainly be a significant part of who they are - I don't therefore see a contradiction there. It is an aspect of them that has been seen as 'wrong' by parts of society rather unfairly and as a result they themselves have been seen as 'wrong' - expressing pride in themselves (I'm speaking in relation to that aspect) is simply a counter to this IMHO.

 

[Caged]

from op is it the channel 4 show thats advertised every one minute

channel 4 is one of the worst for ooh look at us we edgy. lets do progs on disabled people , gays and whatever just for extra views.its almost as bad as when soap dramas started adding actors with limbs missing during the paralympics

It's 50 years since homosexuality was decriminalised, hence the increase in programmes.

 

[Tefal]

If that was the case, it would be renamed. We also wouldn't have it very specifically being promoted as an BE PROUD YOU'RE NOT HETEROSEXUAL! event and part of BE PROUD YOU'RE NOT HETEROSEXUAL! month (or two months or three months or whatever), but we do. More so each year, rather than less. Some of the people who attend do so as a fun street festival, but it it's not that yet and probably won't ever be because it's not meant to be.

I'm not proud of not being heterosexual for the same reason I'm not proud of not being "black" or not having reddish hair or not being short or whatever - I don't regard those things as being inferior.

It's not about being proud to not be heterosexual, it's about not being ashamed to be gay like so many have been told they should be.

Even many who's friends and family are accepting of them still have to not hold thier partners hand, kiss them in public.

How many of your friends have been beaten up, glassed or hospitalised this year for thier sexuality?

Having a place you can go and not have to worry is nice.

Even if it is behind walls and police escort.

Our of curiosity Angilion have you ever been to a pride event?

As what your describing I have never seen

 

[Angilion]

Pride can come from superiority, or it can come from a sense of achievement or satisfaction. For example, being "proud to be gay" could potentially be derived from a feeling of superiority. but it could equally be derived from a sense of pleasure or satisfaction that you are being true to your own feelings and are unashamed to be publicly seen to be gay.

Which isn't being proud of being gay. It's being proud of being true to your own feelings...because that's better than not being true to your own feelings.

As a more obvious example, if a parent says they're proud of their child for achieving a particular skill level playing a musical instrument, the most likely reason for pride is the sense of happiness and pleasure that their child has achieved something difficult. I wouldn't suggest that the pride comes from the parent's sense of superiority that their parenting has made their child better than another child.

Not necessarily, but it does stem from their child having done something better than the alternative. Either that success in achieving that skill level is better than failure to do so or that trying to do so is better than not trying to do so, or both.

Edit: the short story is that pride can be both a negative and a positive emotion. Whether it is positive or negative depends on the facts and the individual concerned.

I agree with that, but I think that being proud of being in the "right" biological group is always negative. Positive pride stems from achievement. Whether that achievement is tying your own shoelaces, not stealing when you could or want to, passing a driving test, putting some time and effort into learning something, doing a decent job of painting a room, being honest, defending your thesis, taking 1/10th of a second off your best lap time, discovering previously unknown knowledge...all manner of things, but all something you did that's better than an alternative. An achievement.

 

[Angilion]

It's not about being proud to not be heterosexual, it's about not being ashamed to be gay like so many have been told they should be.

It simply isn't true that the only two possibilities are pride or shame. That is an obviously false dichotomy.

 

[~>Dg<~]

It's 50 years since homosexuality was decriminalised, hence the increase in programmes.

but is it for that awareness , celebration ? or is it for views. im fine with people celebrating anything they believe in or are involved in but media is so " we are behind it " in such a false way it can be sickening.

 

[krooton]

I agree with that, but I think that being proud of being in the "right" biological group is always negative. Positive pride stems from achievement. Whether that achievement is tying your own shoelaces, not stealing when you could or want to, passing a driving test, putting some time and effort into learning something, doing a decent job of painting a room, being honest, defending your thesis, taking 1/10th of a second off your best lap time, discovering previously unknown knowledge...all manner of things, but all something you did that's better than an alternative. An achievement.

Mate, I think you are projecting or something. I have a heap of gay friends, and none of them think their sexuality is better than someone elses, especially given the tolerance of all sexualities (homo and hetero aren't the only ones remember).

Yes, there are spiteful sorts that hate on 'breeders', but there are infinitely more violent homophobes out there.

It's almost like you want 'pride' to mean something else so you can bang your weird conspiracy drum.

 

[sp@rkles]

When it comes to pride I can see both sides of it.

There are some who see it as unnecessary in this day and age and others who feel that it is due to on going homophobia. I don't think you could ever fully wipe out homophobia some people just have a problem with things that they see as different and use it as an excuse to start trouble which is unfortunate.

I have been to a couple with my now ex boyfriend and it was one of the few places we felt we could hold hands and be ourselves While being sure no-one would have an issue with it.

Some people may see it as a big fuss over nothing but going to experience an event such as pride and feeling fine with being open about who you are after hiding it for some time is indescribable.

 

[Tefal]

nvm