Is it time for gay pride parades to take it down a notch in general?

[Gipper]

Wearing clothes can't possibly make you gay.

I never said it did. You're gay either way. Wearing that makes you an attention whore.

You can be gay and still be a good corporate citizen instead of some emotionally disturbed idiot who needs all eyes on him.

 

[chromium]

I never said it did. You're gay either way. Wearing that makes you an attention whore.

You can be gay and still be a good corporate citizen instead of some emotionally disturbed idiot who needs all eyes on him.

But you don't know his reasons. He could just be having a good time and not "emotionally disturbed." He could be going to work as a "good corporate citizen" the day after. It just seems little diff from mardi gras or a halloween. Are they attention whores too?

 

[OscarB63]

Wearing clothes can't possibly make you gay.

 

[sangha]

Based on some of your past responses to me, "Duh" coming most clearly to mind, the possibility of sophisticated forms of humor must have eluded me.

Also, it's a point that could have been well made about 35 posts ago and since.
It kind of renders your other excuses unnecessary.

IOW, you can't refute me, so now you're going to whine about how long I took :lamo

That's pretty ironic coming from a poster who took nearly a week to respond to my post

And to make it even more delicious, the poster I was satirizing for declaring all sorts of things "gay" is now confusing transvestism with homosexuality....that's very gay

 

[CLAX1911]

I never said it did. You're gay either way. Wearing that makes you an attention whore.

You can be gay and still be a good corporate citizen instead of some emotionally disturbed idiot who needs all eyes on him.

Yes you did.
I said this, " Oh no, gay people are driving cars and having festivals? Now does that mean that having festivals and driving cars means your gay?"
Than you said this. " Wearing that does."

 

[CLAX1911]

View attachment 67155429View attachment 67155430View attachment 67155431View attachment 67155432View attachment 67155433

Are you saying that putting on a dress or a silly costume would make you gay? Perhaps you aren't straight.

 

[roguenuke]

I'm relieved and impressed that you got the point.

I don't agree there is a difference, using something as an insult reveals something about your feelings whether the entity in question is a person or a concept.
But to a larger point, "gay" is a type of person, not a concept.
Is black a concept?

That's a good point but there is a difference.
There is no controversy as to how people feel about little girls that I know of.
The accusation missyphobic is not even in our lexicon (I know this because it is underlined in red!).
No one complains that Hollywood is full of lasses.

So the accusation of "little girl" wouldn't carry even the possibility of malevolence toward the young ladies since that sort of antipathy, for all intents and purposes, seems not to exist.

The only reason there is a "controversy" about how some people feel about gays is because people have made it a controversy, made it an issue. They are people. There should be no problem, reasonably, with people being in relationships with other adults of the same sex. It is an ignorant position that considers this a problem, and that is what causes the "controversy".

But in reality, you are simply changing the bar. Your contention was that people use certain words to insult people because the insulter must have some negative feelings toward that word/people of that word. Nothing in that had any caveat about the word had to be controversial.

 

[roguenuke]

I addressed that above when it comes to "little girl" so you can read that.
But another point I was making was that gay-as-insult also perpetuates gayness as a negative thing.
In the case of babies and little girls, since they are not being seen as negative things by anybody, there is no negative image to perpetuate.

They are titles/words being used to insult people thereby, according to your own contention, this usage would perpetuate acting like little girls and/or babies as negative things.

 

[Gipper]

But you don't know his reasons. He could just be having a good time and not "emotionally disturbed." He could be going to work as a "good corporate citizen" the day after. It just seems little diff from mardi gras or a halloween. Are they attention whores too?

Women who flash their titties for beads? Yeah, they're attention whores.

And God bless them.

 

[Brooks]

IOW, you can't refute me, so now you're going to whine about how long I took :lamo

Not by how long you took per se, but how many responses you posted before you mentioned this new piece of information.
Claiming it was satire renders your prior defenses/excuses/explanations unnecessary. So I was surprised that you waited so long.

That's pretty ironic coming from a poster who took nearly a week to respond to my post

I don't always respond punctually because I spend large chunks of time away from the computer and DP doing real life things.
But I always appreciate you getting back to me so quickly.

And to make it even more delicious, the poster I was satirizing for declaring all sorts of things "gay" is now confusing transvestism with homosexuality....that's very gay

Yeah, that's pretty bad.
Some common ground.

 

[Brooks]

The only reason there is a "controversy" about how some people feel about gays is because people have made it a controversy, made it an issue.

The way some people feel about gays is hatred. That's a clear controversy. Acknowledging that, or making it an issue, is not the controversy.

They are people. There should be no problem, reasonably, with people being in relationships with other adults of the same sex. It is an ignorant position that considers this a problem, and that is what causes the "controversy".

I have a feeling we're not disagreeing but are talking about different things.
Nothing I posted was anti-gay.
In fact, my first post on this thread I blamed gays' over the top displays on the anti-gay crowd and also said that they have toned it down in recent years.

But in reality, you are simply changing the bar. Your contention was that people use certain words to insult people because the insulter must have some negative feelings toward that word/people of that word. Nothing in that had any caveat about the word had to be controversial.

"Controversy - disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated."
I brought "controversy" into it to explain the difference between using little girl as an insult and using gay as an insult.

There is no "controversy" or disagreement about little girls like there is about gays.

 

[Brooks]

They are titles/words being used to insult people thereby, according to your own contention, this usage would perpetuate acting like little girls and/or babies as negative things.

Yes, it's negative to act like a baby because we know how babies are. They are whiny, demanding, unreasonable and needy but we understand why and accept this behavior.
This negative image I just perpetuated is acceptable for babies but not for adults.
In other words, if you call an adult whiny, demanding, unreasonable and needy you are insulting him. But if you "accuse" a baby of being those things it's just common sense.

So it begs the question, when someone calls someone else gay, what do they mean by that?
Almost any answer would be insulting to a gay person.

 

[roguenuke]

Yes, it's negative to act like a baby because we know how babies are. They are whiny, demanding, unreasonable and needy but we understand why and accept this behavior.
This negative image I just perpetuated is acceptable for babies but not for adults.
In other words, if you call an adult whiny, demanding, unreasonable and needy you are insulting him. But if you "accuse" a baby of being those things it's just common sense.

So it begs the question, when someone calls someone else gay, what do they mean by that?
Almost any answer would be insulting to a gay person.

Babies cry. That is usually why people call others "babies", because they are crying. However, it is not negative for a baby to cry. It doesn't make someone hate babies or have negative feelings toward babies (unless you are just a prick who actually doesn't understand that babies have to cry in order for them to express their needs).

If someone is "suggesting" that someone else is gay, especially how it was being discussed when this came up, it means that some people need to examine whether perhaps their "hatred"/"loathing" of gays is really a loathing of themselves for being that way when that person (who is expressing hatred of gays) believes being gay is wrong, for whatever reason, so they hate their personal attractions to those of the same sex.

 

[Brooks]

Babies cry. That is usually why people call others "babies", because they are crying. However, it is not negative for a baby to cry. It doesn't make someone hate babies or have negative feelings toward babies (unless you are just a prick who actually doesn't understand that babies have to cry in order for them to express their needs).

If someone is "suggesting" that someone else is gay, especially how it was being discussed when this came up, it means that some people need to examine whether perhaps their "hatred"/"loathing" of gays is really a loathing of themselves for being that way when that person (who is expressing hatred of gays) believes being gay is wrong, for whatever reason, so they hate their personal attractions to those of the same sex.

I think there's truth in that, especially when it's a deep hatred or loathing.

"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us."
~Hermann Hesse