Gay Pride Marches

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, peter_hmfc said:

 

No offence, it's just a ****ing fantastic song.

 

Indeed. Let's have a musical break then.

 

 

[peter_hmfc]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Indeed. Let's have a musical break then.

 

 

 

[John Findlay]

6 hours ago, Eldar Hadzimehmedovic said:

 

Maybe this is one of the reasons why they feel they still might have a long way to go. 

Depends on how long the March is. I would suggest.

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Indeed. Let's have a musical break then.

 

 

The lad's good. John and Paul should've let him do more.

[John Findlay]

6 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Hi sailor.

Hi.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

There are some right cavemen left in the world

[peter_hmfc]

2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

There are some right cavemen left in the world

 

We're talking about Hearts season tickets and George Harrison now, please stay on topic.

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

11 minutes ago, Smithee said:

So anyway, gay pride marches, why the hell not? There's more nudity at the beach and anyway, you don't have to go if you're not up for it. 

 

 

up for what? It’s not a massive bumming session where blokes have to wear leather pants

[John Findlay]

6 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

You've got to love when someone outs themselves as a small minded arsehole.

 

I know. Great innit? I've probably met and worked with more homosexual men and lesbian women than 99% of the people posting on this thread. I use one word that a lot of homosexual men use to describe themselves and I'm the devil incarnate according the world wide web police force. Ah well like a lot of homosexual men and lesbian women I will survive.

[redjambo]

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

 

up for what? It’s not a massive bumming session where blokes have to wear leather pants

 

Isn't it? Damn. I'm sending my ticket back then.

 

Smithee obviously meant "if you're not up for attending a gay rights parade", in the same way that you may not be up for attending any event. If it's not your thing, you know. I don't think he meant anything more than that.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

I know. Great innit? I've probably met and worked with more homosexual men and lesbian women than 99% of the people posting on this thread. I use one word that a lot of homosexual men use to describe themselves and I'm the devil incarnate according the world wide web police force. Ah well like a lot of homosexual men and lesbian women I will survive.

 

Are you angling for a second musical interlude, John?

[Phil Dunphy]

4 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I know. Great innit? I've probably met and worked with more homosexual men and lesbian women than 99% of the people posting on this thread. I use one word that a lot of homosexual men use to describe themselves and I'm the devil incarnate according the world wide web police force. Ah well like a lot of homosexual men and lesbian women I will survive.

 

“I’m not a racist, I have a colour tv.”

 

No worries John.

[redjambo]

Ok, just for you. Get your groove on!

 

 

[John Findlay]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Are you angling for a second musical interlude, John?

No. My son is the musically talented one in the family. My eldest son that is.

[The Real Maroonblood]

7 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I know. Great innit? I've probably met and worked with more homosexual men and lesbian women than 99% of the people posting on this thread. I use one word that a lot of homosexual men use to describe themselves and I'm the devil incarnate according the world wide web police force. Ah well like a lot of homosexual men and lesbian women I will survive.

Is that when you were organising the Gay Pride March?

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

Is that when you were organising the Gay Pride March?

Aye the one in magic kingdom Disneyworld was the most taxing. I nearly hardest to organise but that may have been taken the wrong way.

[maroonexile]

The word tolerance has lost all meaning.

 

Some people should look at what respecting other people actually entails.

 

The absolute vitriol directed at anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with these marches is far more aggressive than any homophobia I’ve ever witnessed, and I have several gay friends.

[Unknown user]

33 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

 

up for what? It’s not a massive bumming session where blokes have to wear leather pants

 

29 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Isn't it? Damn. I'm sending my ticket back then.

 

Smithee obviously meant "if you're not up for attending a gay rights parade", in the same way that you may not be up for attending any event. If it's not your thing, you know. I don't think he meant anything more than that.

Indeed, I'm amazed anyone would think otherwise!

 

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, maroonexile said:

The word tolerance has lost all meaning.

 

Some people should look at what respecting other people actually entails.

 

The absolute vitriol directed at anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with these marches is far more aggressive than any homophobia I’ve ever witnessed, and I have several gay friends.

 

Your definition of "absolute vitriol" differs markedly from mine. But probably not much from that of the Daily Mail. Just sayin'.

[maroonexile]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Your definition of "absolute vitriol" differs markedly from mine. But probably not much from that of the Daily Mail. Just sayin'.

I’ve never bought, or read the Daily Mail. 

 

This is the type of stereotyping that proves my point better than anything I could have said, thanks.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, maroonexile said:

I’ve never bought, or read the Daily Mail. 

 

This is the type of stereotyping that proves my point better than anything I could have said, thanks.

 

It probably isn't, and I didn't claim you had. You are saying that there has been "absolute vitriol" in this thread. I completely disagree - I know absolute vitriol when I see it. There have been many disagreements on this thread, not a little mocking, a few outright criticisms, some of them reasonably forceful,  but "absolute vitriol"?- you are having a laugh. The most relevant and well-known source I know of in the UK that exaggerates in this way in order to add spice to its claims is the Daily Mail. I am relating your exaggeration on the subject to the type of exaggeration employed by the Daily Mail to get its readers angry.

 

However, if you believe that interpreting my comment to make it look as if I was stereotyping you as a Daily Mail reader makes you happier, then knock yourself out.  

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, maroonexile said:

I’ve never bought, or read the Daily Mail. 

 

This is the type of stereotyping that proves my point better than anything I could have said, thanks.

Nope, zero "utter vitriol", zero points proven. 

[i8hibsh]

1 hour ago, peter_hmfc said:

 

Can't help but at that tbf.

 

No offence intended but I simply can't pass up an opportunity to use one of the greatest gifs ever created.

 

 

 

 

I don't get that GIF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[maroonexile]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

It probably isn't, and I didn't claim you had. You are saying that there has been "absolute vitriol" in this thread. I completely disagree - I know absolute vitriol when I see it. There have been many disagreements on this thread, not a little mocking, a few outright criticisms, some of them reasonably forceful,  but "absolute vitriol"?- you are having a laugh. The most relevant and well-known source I know of in the UK that exaggerates in this way in order to add spice to its claims is the Daily Mail. I am relating your exaggeration on the subject to the type of exaggeration employed by the Daily Mail to get its readers angry.

 

However, if you believe that interpreting my comment to make it look as if I was stereotyping you as a Daily Mail reader makes you happier, then knock yourself out.  

I honestly wasn’t referring to this this thread specifically, which generally has been debated reasonably.

[maroonexile]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Nope, zero "utter vitriol", zero points proven. 

It was a comment on society, as opposed to this thread.

[SpruceBringsteen]

Just now, maroonexile said:

It was a comment on society, as opposed to this thread.

 

I'm pretty sure the "absolute vitriol" from society towards those who don't like the marches is on a wee bitty of a lesser scale than gay guys and girls getting leathered, stabbed and murdered tbh.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, maroonexile said:

It was a comment on society, as opposed to this thread.

Then how exactly does his reply prove your aggressive utter vitriol point?

[maroonexile]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Then how exactly does his reply prove your aggressive utter vitriol point?

I’m referring to the first two statements in my post, as opposed to the final one.

 

I don’t toe the line, and I’m automatically a Daily Mail reader. No doubt I’ll be a fascist or Nazi in two minutes.

[Unknown user]

Just now, maroonexile said:

I’m referring to the first two statements in my post, as opposed to the final one.

 

I don’t toe the line, and I’m automatically a Daily Mail reader. No doubt I’ll be a fascist or Nazi in two minutes.

He didn't say you read the Daily Mail though did he? He did point out that yours is a similar tack to that taken by the mail and it's right wing readership, a reasonable observation which you're free to debate. 

[i8hibsh]

3 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

Is I8hibsh seriously suggesting a parade organised and attended by hundreds of thousands of LGBT people doesn't actually represent the people the people of the LGBT community

 

Then who the hell does it represent?  

 

And why do these marches show the Community in a bad light? By whose standards and how would they know what the LGBT community thinks about it?

 

Enough of them seem to attend so they can't be that bothered by it. 

 

 

To me, it is more representing of gay stereotypes than a typical gay individual in the community. Seeing men in stockings, leather, sex toys, glitter etc is simply not representative of gay people in society. Or Dykes on Bikes - the only way you will see a Dyke on a bike in our community is at Pride. Gay people look like you, me and every Tom, Dick and Harry on here. To me, Gay Pride is about standing out and not equality. 

[maroonexile]

3 minutes ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

 

I'm pretty sure the "absolute vitriol" from society towards those who don't like the marches is on a wee bitty of a lesser scale than gay guys and girls getting leathered, stabbed and murdered tbh.

When was the last homophobic murder in Scotland? Or stabbing? 

 

I happen to know rather more about the subject than I would like, so please let me know how well educated you are in this area.

[maroonexile]

Just now, Smithee said:

He didn't say you read the Daily Mail though did he? He did point out that yours is a similar tack to that taken by the mail and it's right wing readership, a reasonable observation which you're free to debate. 

Ok, in the same way that if I said that your responses were of an intolerant and ignorant ilk, I wouldn’t be calling you ignorant or intolerant? 

 

Come on mate, you know the implication as well as I.

[Unknown user]

Anyway, back on topic.

 

Gay pride marches - why on earth not?

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, maroonexile said:

I honestly wasn’t referring to this this thread specifically, which generally has been debated reasonably.

 

Ah, sorry, I thought you were. Looking back, I can see that you were speaking more generally.

 

I haven't experienced the vitriol you're talking about in the general sense of gay pride marches, so don't feel well-placed enough to comment on that, except to say that I haven't seen it. However, my reaction to those who may not like gay pride marches would be a simple "if you don't like it, then you don't need to come along". End of story.

[Unknown user]

Just now, maroonexile said:

Ok, in the same way that if I said that your responses were of an intolerant and ignorant ilk, I wouldn’t be calling you ignorant or intolerant? 

 

Come on mate, you know the implication as well as I.

Yes, that it was a typically right wing response, as is taking offence at something that wasn't actually said - "oh I'm a daily mail reader am I?"

 

But anyway, why would anyone have a problem with gay pride?

[maroonexile]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Ah, sorry, I thought you were. Looking back, I can see that you were speaking more generally.

 

I haven't experienced the vitriol you're talking about in the general sense of gay pride marches, so don't feel well-placed enough to comment on that, except to say that I haven't seen it. However, my reaction to those who may not like gay pride marches would be a simple "if you don't like it, then you don't need to come along". End of story.

I respect anyone’s right to express themselves. If people use gay pride marches to do so then I respect that. I just don’t see the purpose, as gay people have frankly the same rights as those of other sexualities, which is the way it should always have been.

 

However, as a non-religious person, I respect those in the faith community who disagree, and don’t label them or abuse them as per the new societal norm. 

 

Tolerance means everyone. No exceptions.

[SpruceBringsteen]

5 minutes ago, maroonexile said:

When was the last homophobic murder in Scotland? Or stabbing? 

 

I happen to know rather more about the subject than I would like, so please let me know how well educated you are in this area.

 

Dunno man. In the last month probably - do you want me to Google it? I'm about to eat my tea, but could have a look after.

 

When was the last murder/stabbing/leathering of someone who doesn't like gay marches? I can answer that one without Google, if you'd like.

[maroonexile]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

Yes, that it was a typically right wing response, as is taking offence at something that wasn't actually said - "oh I'm a daily mail reader am I?"

 

But anyway, why would anyone have a problem with gay pride?

I’m not sure, but if they do, that’s their right and prerogative. The same way as it is for those who organise and attend gay pride on the other side.

 

I personally don’t see the purpose in today’s society, but I don’t have a problem with it, per se.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, maroonexile said:

I respect anyone’s right to express themselves. If people use gay pride marches to do so then I respect that. I just don’t see the purpose, as gay people have frankly the same rights as those of other sexualities, which is the way it should always have been.

 

However, as a non-religious person, I respect those in the faith community who disagree, and don’t label them or abuse them as per the new societal norm. 

 

Tolerance means everyone. No exceptions.

The thing is, you don't need to see the purpose. It's a celebration of a section of society which you're free to join in with or not.

 

The organisers and participants see the purpose, you don't need to, so why not?

 

[redjambo]

5 minutes ago, maroonexile said:

I’m referring to the first two statements in my post, as opposed to the final one.

 

I don’t toe the line, and I’m automatically a Daily Mail reader. No doubt I’ll be a fascist or Nazi in two minutes.

 

I've already explained how I wasn't accusing you of being a Daily Mail reader. If I were, then I would have called you a "Daily Mail reader". What I was saying that you were employing a similar level of sensationalist exaggeration to that regularly used by that darling tome.

 

If you want to be a fascist or a Nazi, that's up to you, but it's probably best that you wait until someone actually calls you that rather than interpret it. Either way, your Godwin award is in the post.

 

Interestingly, the only time the word "fascism" was used previously in this thread was when i8 reacted to a Stonewall document which is attempting to reduce the level of homophobia in the education system by saying "I don't like fascism". Over the top? Just a tadge.

[maroonexile]

2 minutes ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

 

Dunno man. In the last month probably - do you want me to Google it? I'm about to eat my tea, but could have a look after.

 

When was the last murder/stabbing/leathering of someone who doesn't like gay marches? I can answer that one without Google, if you'd like.

Not particularly. One in history is too many frankly. It’s a fairly infrequent occurrence though, as I’m sure you’re well aware.

 

What about stigmatisation? Discrimination? Intolerance? Are they ok because no one was stabbed? 

 

Why is universal respect such such an issue?

[Ulysses]

Just now, Smithee said:

The thing is, you don't need to see the purpose. It's a celebration of a section of society which you're free to join in with or not.

 

The organisers and participants see the purpose, you don't need to, so why not?

 

 

I went to watch an Apprentice Boys Parade once.  It was good, though I'm told it was not as good a spectacle as others.  Haven't been since, but I wouldn't be having a go at the people who organise them.

[maroonexile]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

The thing is, you don't need to see the purpose. It's a celebration of a section of society which you're free to join in with or not.

 

The organisers and participants see the purpose, you don't need to, so why not?

 

Why would you feel the need to question those who disagree with it then? 

 

Its hardly your business under this argument. Quite the opposite.

 

Surely one opinion is as valued as another?

[shaun.lawson]

38 minutes ago, maroonexile said:

The absolute vitriol directed at anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with these marches

 

Where? From whom?

 

Was there absolute vitriol aimed at the Church when it tried to stop same sex marriage from coming into force? Yes, and damn right. Is there absolute vitriol aimed at those who seek to re-enforce prejudice of whatever sort? Yes, and damn right. But where is this "absolute vitriol" with regard to these marches? 

 

Elsewhere, i8hibsh continues to moan about the "attention seeking" of these marches when:

 

1. He's the biggest attention seeker the internet has ever known

 

2. He had the exact opposite position when it came to the right of Nazis and fascists to march a few weeks back

 

3. The people he always cites as his political heroes are more or less all vacuous attention seekers

 

i8hibsh's position is laughable. The endless moaning of the poor, oppressed majority is also laughable. Until we reach a point whereby gay men can walk down any street hand in hand - and  more than that, kiss each other openly in public just as heterosexual couples do - without fear of being attacked, we're nowhere near equality yet. 

[maroonexile]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

I went to watch an Apprentice Boys Parade once.  It was good, though I'm told it was not as good a spectacle as others.  Haven't been since, but I wouldn't be having a go at the people who organise them.

And who is Ulysses, out of interest?

[Governor Tarkin]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

 

up for what? It’s not a massive bumming session where blokes have to wear leather pants

 

It's not? That's mine and Geoff the Mince's holidays ruined then.

[maroonexile]

4 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I've already explained how I wasn't accusing you of being a Daily Mail reader. If I were, then I would have called you a "Daily Mail reader". What I was saying that you were employing a similar level of sensationalist exaggeration to that regularly used by that darling tome.

 

If you want to be a fascist or a Nazi, that's up to you, but it's probably best that you wait until someone actually calls you that rather than interpret it. Either way, your Godwin award is in the post.

 

Interestingly, the only time the word "fascism" was used previously in this thread was when i8 reacted to a Stonewall document which is attempting to reduce the level of homophobia in the education system by saying "I don't like fascism". Over the top? Just a tadge.

Fair enough.

 

Sensationalist? So if someone disagreed publicly with a gay pride parade what would happen, do you think? For example, a Muslim in religious grounds? 

 

I’d rather not be either. Interestingly the numbers of homosexuals per capita among the upper echelons of the Nazi Party was exceptionally high.

[Ulysses]

I don't 100% agree with marches, even the ones I've been to.  So absolute vitriol to all who march, to all who support marches, and to all who oppose marches.  But when I say absolute I don't really mean 100%, because I'm not a 100% kinda guy.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, maroonexile said:

Why would you feel the need to question those who disagree with it then? 

 

Its hardly your business under this argument. Quite the opposite.

 

Surely one opinion is as valued as another?

It's a forum, a place for debate, and a thread on gay pride specifically. 

 

[redjambo]

11 minutes ago, maroonexile said:

I respect anyone’s right to express themselves. If people use gay pride marches to do so then I respect that. I just don’t see the purpose, as gay people have frankly the same rights as those of other sexualities, which is the way it should always have been.

 

However, as a non-religious person, I respect those in the faith community who disagree, and don’t label them or abuse them as per the new societal norm. 

 

Tolerance means everyone. No exceptions.

 

This is where we disagree. If someone, for example, employs hate speech then there should be no tolerance of that. Hate speech very often leads to hate action.

 

What we as a society need to do is decide what we will and won't allow. We largely do that already, it's just that the line changes over time. It's also sometimes uncomfortable to decide where that line is since there should generally be a right to free speech as well. It's not black and white, but in my opinion we should not have an absolute tolerance of everything and everyone.