Federal Funding of Gay Pride Parade

[M.Dancer]

I guess my question to you still stands, is an event based on sexuality more or less idiotic than one based on one's ability to stay on the back of a bucking bronco the longest? Should it be eligible for public funding?

If you combine the two....the hog tying event would draw quite a crowd.

[Smallc]

[benny]

If you combine the two....the hog tying event would draw quite a crowd.

Money falling from the sky can draw the biggest crowd.

[enviralment]

Seems reasonable that they should be. It brings in millions in tourist dollars and promotes Canda as a nation that is ensrined in human rights legislation. The pitaful thing is the PMOs office hanging a minister out to dry.

[Werecar]

They don't offend me at all and if you knew me you would know that I am no homophobe. I have that on good authority from more than one gay person with whom I have consumed too many beers on occasion. I have attended a parade and it was a hoot but I stand on my opinion that parades based on sexual orientation, no matter what that may be, receiving government funding is BS. Sorry if that offends you.

What about things like the Santa Claus parade or Easter parades? They are arguably based on exclusionary religious beliefs even if they have become a lot more commercialized.

[benny]

What about things like the Santa Claus parade or Easter parades? They are arguably based on exclusionary religious beliefs even if they have become a lot more commercialized.

I think that nothing can be more exclusionary than a purchasing power and nothing can be more inclusive than Jesus' message.

[Wilber]

I'm not offended in the least just wondering where you draw the line. I happen to feel an event based on "cowboy" skills is utterly idiotic, that's simply my opinion. I guess my question to you still stands, is an event based on sexuality more or less idiotic than one based on one's ability to stay on the back of a bucking bronco the longest? Should it be eligible for public funding?

To me the issue is not whether or not Pride gets Fed Funds; it's if other arguably "niche" events get Federal funding to the exclusion of pride. If we accept that they are both, from an objective perspective of course, cultural events why should one be funded and not the other? The only reliable criterion, which is currently in place, is return on investment and bang for the buck. Obviously the biggest events will win out, as it should be as they are the ones that are going to have the greatest tourist draw.

What federal funding does the Stampede get because depending on what it is, I might agree with you. We all have our opinions on what should or should not receive federal funding. Because I may not agree with you on some of them doesn't lead me to make assumptions about your character or apply labels to you.

[Wilber]

What about things like the Santa Claus parade or Easter parades? They are arguably based on exclusionary religious beliefs even if they have become a lot more commercialized.

Quite the contrary. I am not a religious person but it is most obvious that we have done our best to take religion out of these holidays, making them about little more than fat men with beards and bunnies bearing gifts. Do these parades receive federal funding because I think most of them have commercial backing.

[benny]

What federal funding does the Stampede get because depending on what it is, I might agree with you. We all have our opinions on what should or should not receive federal funding. Because I may not agree with you on some of them doesn't lead me to make assumptions about your character or apply labels to you.

Personal attacks should be reported.

[Wilber]

Personal attacks should be reported.

It wasn't a personal attack and I didn't take it as one, just some assumptions made about me that weren't justified IMO.

[benny]

It wasn't a personal attack and I didn't take it as one, just some assumptions made about me that weren't justified IMO.

What about applying labels!?

[Wilber]

What about applying labels!?

WASP was the label and in my case it is technically correct, although a very small p would be more accurate if it applies at all. What I objected to was the assumptions it made about the way I think, not the label itself. That's all.

[M.Dancer]

Why do Bees where yamulkas?

Don't want to be mistaken for wasps....

[Wilber]

Why do Bees where yamulkas?

Don't want to be mistaken for wasps....

[ToadBrother]

They don't offend me at all and if you knew me you would know that I am no homophobe. I have that on good authority from more than one gay person with whom I have consumed too many beers on occasion. I have attended a parade and it was a hoot but I stand on my opinion that parades based on sexual orientation, no matter what that may be, receiving government funding is BS. Sorry if that offends you.

What you're advocating is known as back-door prejudice. An awfully good example was the policy of Separate But Equal in the US that was the rule of thumb for race relations. Since there are no heterosexual pride parades, while you may think you're sounding very fair, you are in fact discriminating. What's worse is you try to insist that it isn't bigotry because you've quaffed beers with homosexuals, so how can you possibly be advocating a discriminatory policy? It's the classic "I've got black friends, so when I say nasty things about blacks, it's okay."

[Werecar]

Quite the contrary. I am not a religious person but it is most obvious that we have done our best to take religion out of these holidays, making them about little more than fat men with beards and bunnies bearing gifts. Do these parades receive federal funding because I think most of them have commercial backing.

The commercialization wasn't an intentional one, more like one that creeped in over a long period of time. They actually can apply for and receive funding from all 3 levels of government depending on where they are and how big they are. Pride parades are legitimate receivers of such funding and they themselves also get commercial backing. They also are a large tourist draw and bring business into the country/city. Like the creeping commercialism theyare also evolving from a strictly homosexual affair to an all inclusive festival and celebration.

[Werecar]

I think that nothing can be more exclusionary than a purchasing power and nothing can be more inclusive than Jesus' message.

Funny. I can think of nothing more accepting then commerce and nothing more narrow-minded then religion.

[benny]

Funny. I can think of nothing more accepting then commerce and nothing more narrow-minded then religion.

The rule in commerce is "no money no candy". Santa Claus is too happy to break this rule.

[Werecar]

The rule in commerce is "no money no candy". Santa Claus is too happy to break this rule.

The rule in commerce is we accept anyone with money. Thats their business. What somebody believes or what their values are, are immaterial.

Religion, especially Xtianity is a "believe what I do or I'll hurt you". Comes from believing in a faith that says "believe exactly what I say or I'll torture you for eternity".

Santa Claus while a commercial construct still has his "naughty and nice" rule. Good kids get toy soldiers and bad kids get coal. I bet life was different in the days when coal was an important commodity.

[benny]

The rule in commerce is we accept anyone with money. Thats their business. What somebody believes or what their values are, are immaterial.

Religion, especially Xtianity is a "believe what I do or I'll hurt you". Comes from believing in a faith that says "believe exactly what I say or I'll torture you for eternity".

All to the contrary, being enslaved in fetishism (money) is what commerce is all about and being freed from any fetishism is what Christianity allows.

[Werecar]

All to the contrary, being enslaved in fetishism (money) is what commerce is all about and being freed from any fetishism is what Christianity allows.

Nope. Xtianity and its various flavours espouse rigid dogma designed to install fear and that fear is if you don't follow along blindly you were suffer for all eternity.

Commerce isn't about enslavement to money although certainly some do. Its simply a way for society to exchange goods and services for compensation.

Religion doesn't seem to care that much when they demand tithes.

[lily]

Not every church demands strict tithes, but they do need offerings to pay expenses.

The rule in commerce is we accept anyone with money. Thats their business. What somebody believes or what their values are, are immaterial.

Religion, especially Xtianity is a "believe what I do or I'll hurt you". Comes from believing in a faith that says "believe exactly what I say or I'll torture you for eternity".

Santa Claus while a commercial construct still has his "naughty and nice" rule. Good kids get toy soldiers and bad kids get coal. I bet life was different in the days when coal was an important commodity.

Believe what I do or I'll hurt you"? I don't think I've ever even hinted at that sort of attitude.

[benny]

Nope. Xtianity and its various flavours espouse rigid dogma designed to install fear and that fear is if you don't follow along blindly you were suffer for all eternity.

Commerce isn't about enslavement to money although certainly some do. Its simply a way for society to exchange goods and services for compensation.

Religion doesn't seem to care that much when they demand tithes.

All to the contrary, Jesus showed no fear to die for our salvation and commerce is about selling your labor to avoid starvation.

[Wilber]

What you're advocating is known as back-door prejudice. An awfully good example was the policy of Separate But Equal in the US that was the rule of thumb for race relations. Since there are no heterosexual pride parades, while you may think you're sounding very fair, you are in fact discriminating. What's worse is you try to insist that it isn't bigotry because you've quaffed beers with homosexuals, so how can you possibly be advocating a discriminatory policy? It's the classic "I've got black friends, so when I say nasty things about blacks, it's okay."

I would be even more against heterosexual parades. At least homosexuals have a history of intolerance and persecution being directed against them. I understand that. Humans are a sexual species, that is why we are procreating ourselves out of a planet. 6 billion and climbing with over 2/3 living in poverty is nothing to be proud of. I'm certainly not a believer in separate but equal. The concept is pure hypocrisy, there can be no such thing. I don't say nasty things about homosexuals or blacks. Why should I want to? Surely as a society we should be able to get past celebrations and everything else based on skin colour or who we like to sleep with.

[benny]

I would be even more against heterosexual parades. At least homosexuals have a history of intolerance and persecution being directed against them. I understand that. Humans are a sexual species, that is why we are procreating ourselves out of a planet. 6 billion and climbing with over 2/3 living in poverty is nothing to be proud of. I'm certainly not a believer in separate but equal. The concept is pure hypocrisy, there can be no such thing. I don't say nasty things about homosexuals or blacks. Why should I want to? Surely as a society we should be able to get past celebrations and everything else based on skin colour or who we like to sleep with.

Downtown Montreal, I see heterosexual parades every Friday and Saturday nights. Likewise, as a society, we should try not so much to get past any celebrations but simply get them on a more normal basis.