Pride Week in My Little Town, and Why I Won't be Going

Killing Hitler could be considered violence, depending on how you did it. The rest, probably not.
 
it's not a major human rights advancement, so it wouldn't apply. it's great, sure, a positive development that I supported, but it's so obviously a concession. Ideally religion (marriage is an extension of religion after all) shouldn't play any role on taxation whatsoever and people shouldn't fall into different tax brackets, or be allowed to adopt, or literally anything else, because of some dumb bible wahzoo. it's positively insane. no right should be based directly on christian doctrine, because it gives the church the power to negotiate fundamental human rights, which is clearly ****ed up. I don't want pope francis deciding whether I can legally be together with my partner.
It's interesting how marriage has been transformed from a pact between families into an expression of romantic pairbonding-love and finally into an expression of temporary commitment between two consenting adults. While marriage has had a religious component, I'd say the more important one was to distribute males and females (in a heteronormative society) so that all males had a pair to copulate with, and ensure the female had a protector (who at times was the wolf in sheep's clothing himself) in a time without adequate contraceptives and appropriate child care. Humans are weird animals in that they try to force their nature into weird combinations with culture (such as marriage), because they themselves put themselves through culture into situations and environments thet are beyond their natural habitats and social settings, in which other parts of our nature cause undesirable effects. Our physiology suggests that we are not a monogamous species, yet most agrarian societies enact monogamous marriage (except for the very peak of males, think Gene Simmons or sultan Moylay Ismail of Morocco). It's a curse on humanity that we comprehend the situation surrounding us better than any other species on the planet, yet we have lost the innate knowledge of ourselves that dogs, say, have when they just are being dogs. Anyway, my point is that the religious component in marriage is incidental, because the institution itself was born in a setting where religion permeated everything, or indeed, there was even no seperate category of religion, it was just the way things were.

Marriage is meaningless today (no connection to LGBT issues). It's just a temporary contract people enter into. A Facebook status change that can be receded when ever. It turns people into commodities, just like dating apps. The gravitas and sancity surrounding it have been stripped away, something that many people seem(ed) to think was an important factor in it previously. The only reason I married my wife was that we got nice travelling tax deductibles, because we got jobs from different towns. If that didn't exist, there would be no reason to marry. Just like god, marriage is dead also.
 
Marriage is meaningless today (no connection to LGBT issues). It's just a temporary contract people enter into. A Facebook status change that can be receded when ever. It turns people into commodities, just like dating apps. The gravitas and sancity surrounding it have been stripped away, something that many people seem(ed) to think was an important factor in it previously. The only reason I married my wife was that we got nice travelling tax deductibles, because we got jobs from different towns. If that didn't exist, there would be no reason to marry. Just like god, marriage is dead also.

Only because you think so.
 
Second of all, not allowing Sharia law is in no way equal to making gay people feel unsafe and, in many instances, justifying that sense of vulnerability. People wanting to institute a violent and oppressive doctrine is not comparable to people wanting to have the same rights as everyone else. Obviously.
You are missing the point, I didn't say the two things are equal or comparable.
Sharia law was given as example of violent bending society in the direction which we consider as clearly wrong, as opposed to LGBT rights protection.

You seem to advocate violence in order to change the society in "right direction". Problem is that right direction is subjective and you don't have supreme authority to decide what's right or wrong.
If we consider violence acceptable, we should be ready that other people will also use force and adjust society in direction which they consider as good.
It's the jungle law.

That's the general point. As for LGBT rights specifically, I don't understand how active violence can help them. What activists suppose to do, go out on the streets and beat up reactionaries?
 
I agree that marriage is meaningless. It's meaningless symbolically as a "union between a man and a woman made in heaven."

It's meaningless simply because it is devoid of meaning. But it's also useful economically, socially, and legally.
 
You are missing the point, I didn't say the two things are equal or comparable.
Sharia law was given as example of violent bending society in the direction which we consider as clearly wrong, as opposed to LGBT rights protection.

You seem to advocate violence in order to change the society in "right direction". Problem is that right direction is subjective and you don't have supreme authority to decide what's right or wrong.
If we consider violence acceptable, we should be ready that other people will also use force and adjust society in direction which they consider as good.
It's the jungle law.

It's a very stupid example, then. Be better.
 
Only because you think so.

I think so, too, and for good reason imho :)

I agree that marriage is meaningless. It's meaningless symbolically as a "union between a man and a woman made in heaven."

It's meaningless simply because it is devoid of meaning. But it's also useful economically, socially, and legally.

I agree with this to some extent, and agree wholly with your notion that the two ideas - marriage being meaningless and marriage being useful - are not in any way contradictory
 
I think that as a member of the LGBT community, you should be embarrassed by your rather pedestrian understanding of where your own rights came from, especially in this day and age when the entire history of pride and gay rights is two mouse clicks away.
Thank you for the gay-splaining but I have an adequate understanding of history, thank you. Are you going to lecture me on what it's like to be a lesbian next? Are there any special tricks I must know? Do share. I'm anxious to hear them.

Oh wait, never mind. I'm so embarrassed I've gone straight. Somebody get me a man. Pride nonsense indeed!
 
I have an adequate understanding of history
But you don't. Several people have pointed out your utterly incorrect understanding of where pride came from, but instead of admitting to your mistake, you are just using identity politics to change the topic of the conversation. But this isn't about identity—it's about facts.

Similarly, I have never heard of "straight bashing", despite knowing many very radical queers. I don't even think I have "straight bashing" it on Tumblr, and out of all places on the web it would be definitely be there.

I am not here to police your identity, but why are you spreading such blatant misinformation?
 
Last edited:
My rights were established by revolution against England, so im going to celebrate the 4th of july by punching some bloke in the nose
 
I am not here to police your identity, but why are you spreading such blatant misinformation?

She literally said she heard it floating around from friends, and admitted it was anecdotal. Are you claiming that was a lie?
 
I mean, sucks to be you two, then. Marriage is what you make of it. It's your choice to make it crap.
A "useful, if temporary contract" does not equate to "crap" imho.
Moreover, while it is true that marriage is, to a degree, something that the married make it to be, those married are still affected by how general society views it. And this societal perception is out of their control.

EDIT: Damn, I just realized the last point could be used to argue against gay marriage. Not my intention ... I guess counter-argument would have to distinguish between positive and negative, as well as material and immaterial effects.
 
Last edited:
Which is why the ability to marry for gays has been and is so important.

For some eldery people if a couple hasn't married, they are still on a prolonged dating phase. Doesn't matter if the country doesn't allow lesbians/gays to marry, in eyes of some people it isn't "serious" unless you are married.
 
The real question is what actually constitutes "violence". Is smashing a couple of windows "violence"? Would killing Hitler be considered "violence"? Is denying healthcare to millions of people "violence"? Is keeping people in concentration camps "violence"? Would someone posting on the Internet "haha straight people suck" considered "violence"? Is public discussion of moderator action also "violence"?
You tell me.
violence /ˈvʌɪəl(ə)ns/

noun
behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

You're welcome.
EDIT:
Killing Hitler could be considered violence, depending on how you did it. The rest, probably not.
Well, windows and concentration camps would also qualify.
 
Last edited:
Which is why the ability to marry for gays has been and is so important.

For some eldery people if a couple hasn't married, they are still on a prolonged dating phase. Doesn't matter if the country doesn't allow lesbians/gays to marry, in eyes of some people it isn't "serious" unless you are married.

I can add that in some countries you are not taken serious when you have no children.
Including bosses who do not want to promote these without children employees to higher levels where you are responsible for more employees.
 
I'm sorry to hear you won't be going.
It seems to me that it must be on some level failing if some of the LGBT community aren't going to be there.
We didn't go this year, and, in fact, I've never gone. (Parades and parties aren't really my thing.) I don't think this means it is failing. It is just an activity I'm not interested in participating in.

(The kids make a good excuse now, because we always have kid activities going on, but we shouldn't really need an excuse. One of the older (70-ish) politically active lesbians at church said something about us having "Mom things" to do, and we did, but that isn't why we didn't go.)
 
Similarly, I have never heard of "straight bashing", despite knowing many very radical queers. I don't even think I have "straight bashing" it on Tumblr, and out of all places on the web it would be definitely be there.

I think that as a member of the straight community, you should be embarrassed by your rather pedestrian understanding of straight bashing.
 
Yes, there is an obvious logical leap between "I've never heard of <x>" and "people who say <x> is true, spread blatant misinformation"
 
Top Bottom